NEWS FEED
The Art of the Deal
September 15, 2025 | Media Inquiries: jon@bouchefortexas.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TX - Recently, several people have contacted me about mailers from my opponent claiming he is endorsed by President Trump. These questions usually come down to two simple points:
Is it true that President Trump endorsed your opponent?
Why would President Trump endorse someone who betrayed his constituents, joined the Democrats, and undermined the Republican majority in the Texas House?
First, on the question of endorsement:
The so-called “endorsement” was not a formal statement from President Trump. During a phone call with the Texas House regarding a single piece of legislation — the School Choice Bill — President Trump said he would endorse anyone who supported that bill. But there was no official announcement from his office, no social media post, and no formal letter of endorsement as is customary.
What happened next is that a PAC took that phone call, transcribed it, and attached an autopen signature of President Trump to it. That is what my opponent and his allies have been mailing out as if it were an official endorsement. In reality, it is a misleading piece of campaign propaganda.
Second, on the question of “why”:
To understand, you need to think like a negotiator. In President Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, he explains that you must know the competition, use your leverage, and — above all — deliver results.
That principle applies here. Despite conservative media, the Republican Party of Texas, the Texas Attorney General, and even his own son calling out Dustin Burrows, President Trump still hinted at support. Why? Because he saw that under the Texas Constitution, he couldn’t simply remove the Burrowcrats. They were entrenched. The only path forward was to negotiate.
There’s an old story that captures this point. A man asks a woman if she would spend the night with him for a million dollars. She says yes. He then asks if she would do the same for twenty dollars. She angrily replies, “What kind of woman do you think I am?” The man answers, “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just negotiating the price.”
President Trump knew he was dealing with people who would sell out for power and position. That meant there was always a deal to be made. I believe the real prize he sought was passage of the redistricting map in Texas, giving Republicans stronger footing in the midterms and advancing his national agenda. When Trump dangled the possibility of an endorsement, Burrows and his allies folded instantly.
American Taxpayers Under Siege
June 14, 2025 | Media Inquiries: jon@bouchefortexas.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TX - Federal authority over immigration has long been contentious, but the crisis has reached a boiling point today as American cities face growing unrest.
How Did We Get To This Point?
For the last four years, the Biden Administration asserted federal control—largely to avoid enforcing border security—leading to what many have called an open-border policy. This triggered a massive influx of illegal immigrants, leaving Border States like Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to bear disproportionate costs for law enforcement, healthcare, education, and housing.
In contrast, the Trump Administration has now taken a more aggressive approach to border security and deportation, sparking political and legal battles. Essentially, many of those now here and receiving taxpayer-funded benefits show no intention of leaving—even as they wave the flags of the countries they fled while destroying property, looting stores, and attacking the very people—the American taxpayers—who have been funding the support they’ve received.
Some Historical Context: Clinton Administration's Lawsuit Against Governor Pete Wilson
Given the strain, why can’t Border States simply pass laws to stop all taxpayer funding for illegal immigrants?
In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration filed a lawsuit against California Governor Pete Wilson over the state's Proposition 187, which sought to deny public services, including education and healthcare, to illegal aliens. The federal government argued that the state law conflicted with federal immigration policy and violated constitutional protections. Although Proposition 187 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional and never implemented, the case highlighted the tension between state and federal authority over immigration issues.
The Script Had Flipped
The current legal challenges to the Trump Administration's policies echo past conflicts, but the script has flipped—figures like California Governor Gavin Newsom, who spent the last four years arguing that the Biden Administration had the authority to enforce (or not enforce) immigration laws, are now claiming the Trump Administration lacks that same authority.
The Cost of Inconsistent Immigration Law Enforcement
The protests against ICE raids—happening today across Texas in cities like Conroe, The Woodlands, Austin, Houston, and Dallas—highlight the growing tension between federal immigration policy and local governance. These demonstrations underscore the broader consequences of inconsistent, selective, or politicized law enforcement in the U.S.
Who Is Funding the “No Kings” Protests, i.e., Riots?
People keep asking who's funding the violence at the 'No Kings' riots, but the truth is disturbingly simple: IT'S BEING PAID FOR BY YOU—the American taxpayer—through the very systems, services, policies, and elected officials that continue to enable the chaos. Case in point, Representative Gene Wu of House District 137 out of Houston sponsored the No Kings event at the Texas Capitol today.
How Do We Fix This?
First, always remember: at every level of government, the quality of our leadership reflects the choices we make at the ballot box. That’s why it’s essential to elect individuals who will serve with humility, lead with courage, and represent you with honesty. Demand that your leaders respect the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, and act as faithful stewards of the public trust. Without that moral compass, even the best policies and laws can be misused, twisted, or ignored.
Texas GOP To Sue State Over Open Primaries Citing Legislative Inaction
June 13, 2025 | Media Inquiries: jon@bouchefortexas.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TX - According to a confidential source within the leadership of the Republican Party of Texas, the Texas GOP will be filing a lawsuit against the state over its failure during the 89th Legislative Session to transition to a closed primary system. The lawsuit will argue that the current open primary structure — which allows voters unaffiliated with the Republican Party to participate in its candidate selection process — violates the party’s constitutional right of freedom of association.
At the heart of the issue is a critique of the 89th Texas Legislative Session, during which Republican leaders saw that the efforts to close the primary system were systematically derailed in the Texas House as every bill introduced that would have shifted Texas to a closed primary model was either blocked in the House Calendars Committee or denied a hearing altogether. Despite bills being filed in the House to close the primary such as House Bill 934 and House Bill 951, not a single piece of legislation on the matter from the House or Senate reached the floor for debate.
“It is not simply legislative neglect, it’s blatant obstructionism by Speaker Burrows and his crew in Austin,” said Jon Bouché, Vice Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party and a candidate for Texas House District 16. “The grassroots of our party have made it overwhelmingly clear that they want a closed primary system. When lawmakers ignore that mandate and refuse to even allow a public discussion, it leaves the party with no choice but to turn to the courts.”
Texas remains one of the few states with a semi-open primary, where voters do not have to register with a party to vote in its primary election. GOP members argue that this system allows Democrats and unaffiliated voters to influence Republican candidate selection, diluting the will of conservative voters and contributing to an ideological drift within the party.
A lawsuit will frame this issue as a constitutional one, citing Supreme Court rulings that political parties have the right to determine how they associate and select their nominees. By failing to implement a closed primary, the Texas GOP will be arguing, the state is interfering with those rights.
GOP members and political analysts across Texas note the irony of despite having overwhelming Republican House and Senate majorities in Austin — and leadership who claim to be aligned with conservative values — they failed miserably in delivering on what has become a central demand of the party’s grassroots base for years.
This lawsuit is as much a shot across the bow of Texas Republican legislators as it is a legal action against the state. By filing this lawsuit, the party is sending a clear message: get serious about party control, or we’ll take matters into our own hands.
In May of 2024 at their convention in San Antonio, the Texas GOP changed the party rules to close the primary and was anticipating that Republican legislators, who hold an overwhelming majority in the Texas House and Senate, would pass legislation supporting their actions but that did not happen.
When the case is filed, it is likely to stir debate not only over the legality of the open primary system but also over internal rifts within the Texas GOP itself — between establishment figures and a growing faction determined to reshape the party’s electoral mechanics. Republican voters should pay very close attention to the so called “republicans” who fight to keep the primary open so that Democrats can cross over and vote against Conservatives in Texas.
Whether the courts will ultimately side with the GOP remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the battle over who gets to choose Republican nominees in Texas is far from over.