The political climate in Texas has been rattled by a wave of unsolicited communications that pretended to come from the Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT). Recipients received both text messages and printed flyers that offered guidance on gender-affirming care, then vanished as soon as the controversy surfaced. The episode has sparked a multipart legal showdown involving a district judge, a telecommunications platform, a Republican fundraising group, and a Wyoming-registered limited-liability company.
At the heart of the dispute is Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer, who on a recent hearing ordered the messaging firm Infobip to hand over the identity of the customer that used its service to send the deceptive texts. Infobip’s records named John Braun and the Republican Women’s Caucus Fund as the accounts tied to the campaign. The Fund immediately issued a forceful denial, stating, “We did not authorize, fund, direct, coordinate, or participate in these activities in any capacity,” and announced that it would pursue every legal remedy to protect its reputation.
Judge Jan Soifer orders disclosure of client behind fake texts
Judge Soifer’s order marks the first step in a broader attempt by TENT to uncover who is manipulating its name for political gain. The judge specifically instructed Infobip to provide written answers to TENT’s inquiries by the following Thursday and to arrange a deposition of a representative from the Wyoming-based entity that dispatched the printed mailers. A protective order was also signed to keep certain customer details confidential, reflecting the delicate balance between transparency and privacy in the case.
October texts and mailers that mimic trans-advocacy groups
The fraudulent campaign began on October 12, when a series of text messages from multiple numbers appeared on phones across the state. Each message linked to TENT’s website and claimed to offer resources for students navigating gender-affirming care, a hot-button issue after Governor Greg Abbott signed a 2023 law prohibiting such care for minors. Recipients were predominantly Republican voters, suggesting the outreach was timed to influence the upcoming midterm elections. TENT immediately reported an influx of complaints, describing a “onslaught of hate and threats” on its social-media and email channels, and sent cease-and-desist letters to the texting platform.
Just five days later, on October 17, envelopes bearing the logo of the Texas transgender student Union—an LLC formed in Wyoming the previous month—started arriving in mailboxes statewide. The flyers urged youth whose families did not support their gender identity to contact a “safe adult” or an advocacy group, again naming TENT as a resource. The mailer’s address was off by a single digit from TENT’s official P.O. Box, a discrepancy the LLC’s attorney, Chris Hilton, attributed to a simple typo. Hilton, a former attorney in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office and a member of Paxton’s impeachment-defense team, claimed the client behind the mailing would cease future distributions.
Legal push-back and criminal probe
First Amendment defense and deposition fight
TENT filed a Rule 202 petition seeking to compel the Wyoming LLC to sit for a deposition, arguing that the mass mailings amounted to illegal impersonation and electioneering. Hilton countered that forcing disclosure would violate his client’s First Amendment rights, warning that public exposure—often called “doxxing”—could cause irreparable harm. He maintained that the communications were protected political speech, even as he acknowledged that the operation would stop sending materials. The judge, however, ruled that the LLC must answer questions about its formation and mailing practices, setting the stage for a Zoom deposition slated for the upcoming Friday.
Prosecutor’s investigation into possible forgery
Meanwhile, West Texas prosecutor Sarah Stogner opened a criminal investigation into the mailers, treating the case as potential forgery—a state-jail felony. Stogner emphasized that if such deceptive tactics are deemed lawful, they would exemplify “everything that is wrong with our current political climate.” The probe currently focuses solely on the printed pieces; the text messages remain under separate scrutiny. A grand jury could be convened to subpoena parties involved, seeking answers about who financed the mailings, where the recipient list originated, and whether personal data were misused.
Collectively, these developments illustrate how a seemingly technical breach—unauthorized use of a texting platform—has spiraled into a multifaceted legal and political confrontation. With more than three million pamphlets estimated to have been sent, the stakes are high for both the targeted advocacy organization and the Republican entities accused of exploiting its name for electoral advantage.
