Back in 2009, we started using a phrase that seemed perfectly natural to us—Texas First. By 2011, it was emblazoned across our banners at events across the state. “Texas First. Texas Forever.” Simple. Direct. Unapologetically Texan.
We weren’t trying to be clever. We were making an argument that the political establishment considered radical: Texas has distinct interests that deserve priority over federal diktat, and anyone claiming to represent Texas needs to act accordingly. When you’re elected to represent Texas, Texas comes first. Not D.C. politics. Not party bosses. Not federal overreach. Texas.
The political class called us fringe extremists for saying it out loud. Now, in 2025, they’re all saying it themselves.
In March, Congressman Wesley Hunt’s supporters ran ads across the state describing him as a “fearless America-first Republican who stands with President Trump to put Texas first.” The ads encouraged voters to “thank him for putting Texas first.” By the time Hunt officially jumped into the Senate race in October, his campaign and allied groups had pumped over $6 million into ads introducing him to voters across Texas—with “Texas First” rhetoric woven throughout.
Hunt’s not alone. Take a look at stump speeches from Republican candidates across the state over the past few election cycles. Listen to the language. “Texas First” has become the default positioning for anyone serious about winning a primary. It’s in campaign literature, on yard signs, in debate talking points.
Watch what’s happening here. Candidates are adopting our language because they’ve figured out it works with Texas voters. They’ve recognized—even if they won’t admit it—that the fundamental premise we’ve been arguing for 20 years now resonates across the political spectrum. Texas interests matter more than federal interests to the people who vote in Texas elections.
That’s not an accident. That’s the result of two decades of relentless organizing, education, and political pressure.
The Texas First Pledge
The phrase didn’t emerge from a focus group or a consultant’s PowerPoint. It came from the Texas Nationalist Movement and our work building a grassroots campaign for independence. We formalized it into the Texas First Pledge through our Take Texas Back campaign, asking candidates to commit to something straightforward: put Texas first, support independence legislation, and honor any referendum on Texas leaving the Union.
When we launched the pledge, the political establishment treated it like political suicide. Signing it would make you “unelectable,” they said. No serious candidate would touch it. The major donors would flee. The party leadership would crush you.
They were wrong.
In the 2024 elections, 10 Texas First Pledge signers won seats in the Texas House of Representatives. Let me be clear—that’s 10 more than we had in the previous session. Zero to 10. David Lowe in HD 91. Shelley Luther in HD 62. Keresa Richardson in HD 61. Brent Money in HD 2. AJ Louderback in HD 30. Wesley Virdell in HD 53. Janis Holt in HD 18. Andy Hopper in HD 64. Steve Toth in HD 15. Mitch Little in HD 65.
All Republicans. All elected. All committed to advancing the independence of Texas.
By November 2024, we had 190 total Texas First Pledge signers—including current officeholders at every level from the Legislature down to county commissioners and constables. The “unelectable” label didn’t just fail; it shattered.
Beyond the Pledge
Here’s what matters about the widespread adoption of “Texas First” language—it’s not really about us getting credit for coining a phrase. It’s about what happens when the fundamental premise of your movement becomes the accepted framework for political discourse.
For 20 years, we’ve been making an argument that the political class dismissed as fringe lunacy: that Texas has distinct interests fundamentally at odds with the direction of the Federal Government, that federal interference in state affairs has become intolerable, and that Texans should have the right to chart our own course through independence.
Every time a candidate positions themselves as putting “Texas First”—even when they’re not talking about independence, even when they’re actively opposing it—they’re operating on terrain we created. They’re accepting the premise that Texas interests are distinct and deserve priority. They’re acknowledging that federal interests and Texas interests are not automatically aligned.
That’s the Overton window shifting in real time.
Twenty years ago, suggesting that Texas interests might conflict with federal interests marked you as a radical. Today, you can’t win a Republican primary without at least pretending that Texas interests come first. The question is no longer whether Texas has distinct interests—it’s what we do about it.
We’ve spent two decades building capacity for this movement—organizing county by county, educating voters, making the case relentlessly, building infrastructure, training activists. Part of that capacity building is changing what’s considered acceptable political discourse. When mainstream politicians adopt your framing, when the premise underlying your argument becomes conventional wisdom, you’ve achieved something most movements never reach.
The political establishment now argues about Texas independence on our terms, using our language, operating within a framework where “Texas First” is not just acceptable but expected.
The Journey from Fringe to Mainstream
Twenty years ago, when we founded the TNM, the idea of Texas independence was treated as a punchline. We were dismissed, ridiculed, and written off as cranks living in a fantasy world. Political reporters would cover us with barely concealed smirks. Opponents would trot out the usual slurs—we were old, white, rural, uneducated extremists with no real support.
Then something happened. We kept showing up. We kept organizing. We kept making the case. County by county, conversation by conversation, we built a movement that couldn’t be ignored.
The polls started showing what we already knew—Texans were ready for this conversation. Support for independence consistently polled above 60%, outperforming independence movements in Scotland, Catalonia, and Quebec. The GOP added an independence referendum to their 2024 Legislative Priorities and Platform. Elected officials started attending our events—not to protest, but to listen.
And now? “Texas First” is mainstream political branding.
What This Means
When mainstream politicians adopt the language of a movement they once dismissed, it tells you where the real power lies. Political consultants don’t spend six million dollars on ads built around phrasing that doesn’t test well with voters. Candidates don’t restructure their entire pitch around language that alienates their base.
They’re using “Texas First” because it works. And it works because we’ve spent 20 years building the capacity to make it work—educating voters, organizing communities, making the case in every corner of this state until the idea that Texas interests deserve priority became conventional wisdom among the people who decide elections.
The political class spent years telling us that talking about Texas independence was political poison. That any candidate who signed our pledge would be unelectable. That prioritizing Texas over federal interests was radical extremism.
Then we got 10 pledge signers elected to the Legislature in a single cycle. Zero to 10. David Lowe, Shelley Luther, Keresa Richardson, Brent Money, AJ Louderback, Wesley Virdell, Janis Holt, Andy Hopper, Steve Toth, Mitch Little. All Republicans. All elected. All committed to advancing Texas independence and putting Texas and Texans first.
Now, those same political consultants are telling their clients to position themselves as putting Texas first. They’re just hoping nobody asks them to follow through on what that actually means.
Some of these candidates mean it. They’ve signed the pledge and they’re committed to delivering a referendum on independence. They understand that if Texas interests truly come first, then Texans need the power to govern themselves without federal interference.
Others are just using the language because they recognize it resonates with Texas voters. They’ll say “Texas First” in their ads and then vote for federal programs, federal overreach, and federal interference in Texas affairs. They want the political benefit of our framing without the substance of our position.
Either way, we’ve set the terms. The distance we’ve traveled in 20 years is remarkable—from dismissed fringe movement to setting the framework for mainstream political discourse in the dominant party in Texas. That’s not luck. That’s strategic capacity building paying off.
Looking Forward
Let’s be crystal clear about what we’ve achieved and what we haven’t.
We’ve successfully shifted the Overton window. The premise that Texas interests deserve priority over federal interests is now mainstream political positioning. That’s a real victory and it matters—it’s part of building the capacity needed to win a referendum on independence.
But adopting our language isn’t the same as delivering independence. Using “Texas First” in campaign ads isn’t the same as filing and passing the Texas Independence Referendum Act. Polling that shows 60%+ support for independence doesn’t mean anything until we get that referendum on the ballot and win it decisively.
We’ve got pledge signers in the Legislature and candidates running to take the place of those who won’t sign. Now they need to follow through—file the legislation, fight for it in committee, get it to the floor, pass it. We’ve got candidates across the state positioning themselves with language we pioneered. Now we need to hold them accountable for what that language actually means.
The work of building capacity never stops. We’re organizing county by county. Training activists. Educating voters. Building the infrastructure needed to win a statewide referendum and then transition Texas to full independence. Every county that reaches Active status, every new supporter who makes an unshakeable commitment to this cause, every conversation that shifts someone from “interesting idea” to “I’m in”—that’s capacity building.
The widespread adoption of “Texas First” language is evidence that our capacity-building efforts are working. It’s proof that we’ve moved the political conversation in Texas. It shows that the premise underlying our argument—that Texas has distinct interests deserving priority—has become accepted wisdom among the voters who matter.
But it’s a milestone on a longer journey, not the destination. We’re not here to win a branding war. We’re here to win Texas independence.
Twenty years ago, we put “Texas First. Texas Forever.” on a banner and started making our case. Today, congressmen spend millions on ads built around our phrasing. That shows progress. It shows that two decades of relentless organizing, education, and political pressure have fundamentally changed what’s possible in Texas politics.
But the goal remains the same: a the total, complete, and unencumbered independence of Texas delivered decisively by a referendum on Texas independence. “Texas First” becoming mainstream political branding is useful—it makes our job easier when the underlying premise is already accepted. Now we push for what comes next.
To those candidates who’ve discovered that “Texas First” resonates with voters: you’re welcome. We spent 20 years building the capacity to make that phrase politically powerful. Now deliver the referendum you’re implicitly promising every time you use it.
To everyone else using our language while opposing our cause: voters see the contradiction. You can’t campaign on “Texas First” and then vote to prioritize federal interests. You can’t run ads about putting Texas first and then oppose giving Texans a vote on independence. That’s not political positioning. That’s sleazeball politics that the people of Texas despise.
The Texas Nationalist Movement will be here in 2029 for our 25th anniversary. We’ll either be steadfastly guarding our newly won independence or still pushing for that referendum, still organizing county by county, still building the capacity needed to win independence. We’ll be here because this is not a short-term political project. It’s a long-term strategic effort to restore self-government to the people of Texas.
By then, maybe “Texas First” won’t just be campaign rhetoric. Perhaps it’ll be policy reality. Maybe those pledge signers will deliver the referendum. Maybe Texas voters will have made their choice.
Or maybe we’ll still be building capacity, still organizing, still pushing forward—because that’s what serious movements do. They don’t quit when progress is slow. They don’t declare victory prematurely. They keep working until the job is done.
We’ve changed the political conversation in Texas. We’ve made “Texas First” the default positioning for anyone serious about winning elections. We’ve gotten 10 pledge signers elected to the Legislature. We’ve built an organization with the declared support of over 630,000 Texans.
That’s real progress. But it’s progress toward a goal, not the goal itself. The goal is Texas independence—a referendum on the ballot, a decisive victory, a successful transition to full self-government.
Everything else is a means to that end. Including watching politicians across Texas use language we pioneered to win elections they might not have won otherwise.
Texas First. Texas Forever.
That’s not just a slogan. It’s a statement of principle. And eventually, it’ll be reality.
