logo
James Talarico Is on the Run

James Talarico Is on the Run

WIRED3 days ago
Aug 13, 2025 8:00 AM WIRED spoke with the Texas state representative, who is hiding out in Illinois along with his colleagues in an attempt to stop Republicans from enacting an unprecedented redistricting plan. Photo-illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images
Somewhere in Illinois, shuttling between undisclosed locations, Texas state representative James Talarico is on a work-cation from hell.
He's trying to keep up with constituent services while running out the clock on a special session in the Texas legislature. He's also running out of clean clothes, and can't say much about his whereabouts or the security threats against him and more than 50 of his colleagues.
Technically, he's on the lam—a 19th century slang term for leaving a location quickly, and a favorite among old-school editors—as he and his party look to thwart Texas Republicans from enacting an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting plan. If successful, Texas Republicans would be able to take as many as five seats away from the Democrats in Congress by gerrymandering their districts well before the 2030 Census. This mid-decade gerrymandering could be met by an equal reaction from California, Illinois and New York, all large blue states with several Republican-held seats.
In response, and in order to block the new map from being implemented, Democratic representatives from Texas fled the state. Their goal is to break quorum in the legislature to prevent a vote on the new map before the end of the special session on August 19.
The situation has continued to escalate: Texas governor Greg Abbott threatened the lawmakers with $500 daily fines, Republicans in the legislature put out civil arrest warrants, and President Donald Trump said the FBI 'may have to' get involved in the search.
The Democrats will reportedly return to the state before a separate, second special session, according to KTRK, a local ABC News affiliate in Texas. It would effectively force the Republicans to start over again which would accomplish the goal of tabling the new map while allowing them to push for other initiatives such as flood relief. The timing of the second special session is currently unknown.
Talarico, who lives alone, left his home last week for a charter flight out of Austin. With only a small bag of clothes, Talarico says he didn't even know where he was heading until he got on the plane.
We spoke with Talarico about where things go from here, how bad it could get, and whether Republicans might be overplaying their hand with this unprecedented maneuver.
This interview has been lightly edited for style and clarity.
WIRED: What was happening when you knew you might have to actually leave the state? What was going through your mind?
James Talarico: When the first reporting came out that they may try this mid-decade redistricting power grab, I knew it was going to be a possibility, but I didn't know that we had the numbers and were ready to go until about 24 hours ahead of time.
And that's how much time I had to get my bags packed and arrangements made and all that. I didn't even know where we were going, but I was told the meetup location, which was a union hall in Austin, not too far from the capitol. And then from there we went to the airport, and it wasn't until I got on the plane that I figured that we were going to Illinois.
Could you walk me through what your average day has been looking like since you and your fellow Democrats left the state?
Well, the days have been nonstop. Early mornings, late evenings—doing a lot of interviews because we're trying to shine a national spotlight on this redistricting power grab in Texas and why it is critical, not just for Democrats, but independents and Republicans too, in order to protect their voices in the democratic process across this country.
But we also have constituent services to attend to just like normal. And so in between these interviews, I'm ensuring that my constituents have what they need. If they've got to get ahold of Medicaid, or they have a problem with a state agency, or there's a pothole in the neighborhood, I've got to still handle those issues.
We're all here together in the same hotels. We're keeping our spirits up. We're eating our meals together in the conference room.
How do you pack for going on the lam indefinitely?
My dad has this big duffel bag, and so I borrowed his, and it has his little tag with his name on it instead of mine. I think I brought seven dress shirts. I brought one jacket, jeans, T-shirts, and shorts, too. I've basically run through all those clothes at this point, so I'm going to need to do laundry today at the hotel. All my clothes that I've got now are officially dirty, and I need to try to spend time at some point today to wash some of these shirts.
In what could be a really historic moment, do you feel any pressure?
I knew that it was a dramatic step. It's one we didn't take lightly because it comes with a lot of personal, financial, legal, and political costs. But I knew it was important and it had consequences to the whole country. If Trump was able to escape accountability in the midterms, I think that would have dire consequences for the future of our representative democracy.
And the threat to have the FBI come and arrest you guys, does that being on the table worry you at all?
All the threats against duly elected law-abiding state legislators have been alarming—it should be alarming to all of us. Quorum breaking is a right that we have as the minority in our state constitution. There's about 150 years of history of us breaking quorum in Texas.
So listen, we're not breaking the law. We're not doing anything wrong or illegal. The fact that Trump would threaten to send in the FBI, Greg Abbott would threaten to remove us from office, Ken Paxton would ask his followers to hunt us down—all for doing our jobs and using a legitimate constitutional legislative tactic to stop a massive power grab—is unsettling, to say the least.
What is your level of concern in terms of where this goes, and if this could escalate to something akin to a cold civil war?
I think we need leadership at this moment more than we've ever needed it before. And the president is very proud of the peace deal he worked out [between Armenia and Azerbaijan], and I hope that he can take that same attitude here and help us work out a peace deal between these red states and these blue states. But instead, he's the one instigating the conflict by trying to steal these five seats in the middle of a decade. And if they are intent on cheating like this, then the other side will respond. And if one side cheats, then all bets are off.
We can't let the bullies win. We have to stand up to 'em, look 'em right in the eye and not flinch.
How much do you blame Trump compared to Republicans in your state?
I mean, I put most of the blame on my colleagues, including Governor Abbott back in Texas. Donald Trump, I'm sure, asks for all kinds of crazy things on a whim, but it's incumbent upon the adults around him to stand up to him and speak truth to power. And those Republicans back in Texas, my colleagues, know that this is bad precedent. They know it's unpopular politically, and so I don't think they wanted to do this. But they don't have the courage to stand up to President Trump.
Do you think there's a chance this could backfire on Republicans by stretching their seats too thin, to the point where Democrats could get some surprising wins?
It's possible. Gerrymandering is when politicians draw their own lines to benefit themselves and their party. Dummymandering is when one party gets too greedy, and they cut their districts a little too thin and end up losing seats.
Politicians shouldn't be choosing their voters. Voters should be choosing their politicians. But we got some polling data that just came out today showing that this is deeply unpopular among Texans, even among Trump voters. No one likes a cheater. We don't like cheaters in our personal lives. We don't like cheaters in sports. We don't like cheaters in politics. If you think your policies are more popular, then campaign on those policies and win the election, beat us on the field. But this attempt to rig the game before it starts, I think is unpopular across the political spectrum. No Sheriff in Town
Sure, there's plenty of money to be made during the second Trump administration for big tech.
Yet with a data report exclusively obtained by WIRED, the scale of the industry's lucky break with a Trump victory is becoming a little more clear. It's not just legislation and executive action helping these companies out. In fact, sometimes, doing nothing is the best thing for an industry under the federal regulatory microscope.
In the first six months of Trump 2.0, the administration has either paused or withdrawn a third of the targeted investigations into tech corporations, according to new findings from Public Citizen, appearing for the first time in this edition of Inner Loop.
Among the key findings: At least 104 companies in the tech sector were facing at least 143 federal investigations when Trump's second term began.
As of the first six months of 2025, 47 enforcement actions have been withdrawn or halted. (These were against 45 individual tech companies; 38 enforcement actions were withdrawn, nine were halted.)
Along with their executives and investors, these companies spent more than $1 billion over the course of the 2024 election cycle. Two-thirds of that political spending—$610 million out of $863 million total—went toward supporting Republicans, including Trump.
Nearly half of the enforcement actions that have been dropped or paused were against cryptocurrency corporations. (20 withdrawn, three halted.)
Financial technology corporations had 11 cases withdrawn or halted, mostly under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Binance, Coinbase, Consensys, Gemini, Kraken, and Polymarket are among the crypto-related companies that had federal investigations or lawsuits filed against them under the Biden administration that have not continued in the second Trump administration. This includes pardons for the parent company of BitMex and four of its executives, in what is arguably the first ever pardon of a corporation.
Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, The Boring Company and Neuralink, all companies in Elon Musk's portfolio, have also had cases contested or potentially dismissed. Others are halted.
Sometimes it pays to have friends in high places. Other times, it pays even more to be an industry proving extremely profitable to the president's family and the cashout option of choice in Trumpworld. For all the favors an industry could ask for in Washington, the new administration doing nothing can sometimes be the most valuable of all.
Matt Giles contributed reporting.
This is an edition of Jake Lahut's Inner Loop newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up
Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up

Business Insider

timea minute ago

  • Business Insider

Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up

Get ready to hear a lot more about banning congressional stock trading. A top Trump administration official says he's going to start pushing for a ban. Two House Republicans are, in different ways, gearing up to force a vote on the issue. And all the while, lawmakers keep failing to report millions of dollars' worth of stock trades on time. "We've got to move," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said on Fox Business earlier this month, saying that while he had given House GOP leadership "grace" as they worked to get the "Big Beautiful Bill" through Congress, that time is now over. "I'm going to demand that we vote on this, this fall." It all comes after an explosive Senate hearing on a stock trading bill last month, where Republicans went after one another over whether President Donald Trump himself should be banned from trading stocks. That led to Trump branding Sen. Josh Hawley as "second-tier," though the Missouri Republican later told BI that he was able to smooth things over with Trump later. "He told me he wants a stock trading ban," Hawley said in July. "He remains committed to getting a stock trading ban, so we'll work with him to do that." Potential House drama over a 'discharge petition' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican known for challenging her own party's leadership, has said she'll start the process of forcing a vote on a stock trading ban when lawmakers return from the August recess. "I won't sit idly by while members of Congress trade stocks, especially those on committees with direct influence over relevant industries," Luna wrote on X last month. "That's corruption at its core, and it needs to stop." Luna has said she'll try to use what's known as a "discharge petition" to bring up a stock trading ban bill authored by Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Under that process, the bill would have to be brought to the House floor for a vote — with or without the support of House leaders — if Luna is able to collect signatures from 218 members, a majority of the 435 seats in the House. Not everyone who supports a stock trading ban is on board with Luna's approach. Roy, the co-sponsor of a different stock trading ban bill that has bipartisan support and has been around for years, told Fox Business that a discharge petition is "not the best way" to get it done. "I want the speaker, and Republicans, to control this," said Roy. "Republicans need to control the floor, do our job, bring this to a vote." Roy has been working with a bipartisan group that includes Democratic Reps. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to put forward a consensus stock trading ban bill. But after months of discussions, they have yet to release legislative text. That's led Luna to largely dismiss their effort. "Allegedly, there were 'talks' happening? With who?" Luna wrote on X on Thursday. "They were never going to bring a VOTE to the floor. I don't care if this upsets people." The Florida congresswoman's effort is worth taking seriously: she has used this legislative tool before to bring up a bill on proxy voting over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson, bringing the House to a halt for a full week in April. Lawmakers keep reporting trades late Johnson has said he's supportive of a stock trading ban — though he has "sympathy" for arguments against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began forcefully supporting it this year in the wake of well-timed tariff trades by some lawmakers. Even Trump has backed it, though some Republicans are wary of applying the bill's restrictions to him. This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent got in on the action, saying he himself would begin pushing for a ban on lawmakers trading individual stocks. "I don't think we have the perfect bill yet," Bessent told Bloomberg this week. "But I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban." Meanwhile, several lawmakers in have been found in violation of the STOCK Act in recent weeks, disclosing millions of dollars worth of trades long after the 30-45 day deadline for doing so. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the fourth-highest ranking House Republican, was late to disclose over 500 trades made by her husband from March 2024 through June 2025, totalling at least $1.5 million. Republican Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania failed to disclose that his wife sold between $750,000 and $1.5 million in NVIDIA stock last year. And Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma was late in disclosing millions of dollars made by him and his wife since 2023. Lawmakers are only required to disclose asset ranges on their reports, so we don't know the exact value of the trades. Those lawmakers and their spokespeople blamed errors made by third-party financial managers and lack of awareness of the trades for the late disclosures. A spokesperson for McClain told BI that the congresswoman "promptly filed the necessary paperwork immediately after being made aware of the transactions made in managed accounts and remains committed to transparency and adherence to all House financial disclosure rules and regulations." "I take compliance with all House rules seriously and expect the same from those managing my accounts," Meuser told BI through a spokesperson. "This was a simple, automatic filing that should have occurred without error. The mistake was made solely by my brokerage and benefited me in no way." Mullin's office did not respond to BI's request for comment, but a spokesperson told NOTUS that the senator doesn't trade himself, but relies on a third-party broker.

How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician

CNN

time31 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician

After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store