Texas
School choice, vouchers and the future of Texas education
Get the data and visuals that accompany this story →
School vouchers, often referred to as “school choice” programs, use public funds to help families pay for their children’s private education. Supporters say families should receive state support to send their child to a different school if public schools aren’t adequately serving them. Opponents worry a voucher program would strip vital funds away from already cash-strapped public schools.
Texas lawmakers and Gov. Greg Abbott failed to agree on the details of a voucher proposal during the 2023 legislative session, but passing such a bill will once again be a top priority for voucher supporters this year. Abbott, the state’s leading voucher advocate, successfully campaigned last year to replace many voucher critics in the Texas House with new members who have voiced support for them.
This guide brings together more than two years of reporting, research and analysis by The Texas Tribune’s education, politics and data teams. It is meant to help Texans — whether you’re a parent, teacher or policymaker — build a foundational understanding of how school vouchers work, the key players, the arguments for and against them, their history, the politics and what to follow for this year.
Get the data and visuals that accompany this story →
How do vouchers work?
The term “vouchers” can refer to multiple types of programs that let parents use taxpayer dollars to subsidize their children’s private schooling. Texas Republicans also typically refer to these programs as “school choice.” Read more
Why do people support voucher programs?
Many conservatives say parents should not have to keep their children in public schools they believe are unsafe or underperforming academically. They also argue vouchers would push public schools to compete for students and perform better. Read more
Why do people oppose voucher programs?
If Texas creates a voucher program, public schools would receive less money for every child who leaves. Some voucher opponents have accused supporters of wanting to undermine public education and establish an educational system that reflects conservative Christian values. Read more
How do vouchers work in other states?
While several voucher programs are meant to help low-income students, many of the children who benefit from the more expansive initiatives today come from wealthier families already sending their kids to private school. Read more
How do Texans feel about vouchers?
Even polling doesn’t provide a completely clear picture of whether most Texans support or oppose vouchers. Claims about support or opposition can differ based on how polling questions are framed. Read more
The history of vouchers in Texas and the U.S.
The roots of today’s school voucher movement can be traced back to the desegregation of American schools in the 1950s. Read more
What happened in the last two years of fighting over vouchers?
In 2023, Democrats and nearly two dozen Republicans representing rural districts blocked voucher legislation in the Texas House. In 2024, Gov. Greg Abbott helped oust many of those lawmakers who opposed the program. Read more
How will the voucher debate differ in 2025?
Abbott says the Legislature now has the votes to create a voucher program in Texas. Opponents hope supporters will stumble over the details. Read more
How would vouchers work in Texas?
Texas lawmakers haven’t yet filed voucher legislation for the 2025 session. But bills from 2023 offer ideas on what a voucher program could look like here. Read more
Get the data and visuals that accompany this story →
How do vouchers work?
What are vouchers?
School vouchers are broadly defined as programs that allow families to use taxpayer dollars to help them pay for the costs of their children’s private or home-schooling education.
What is “school choice”?
“School choice” is a term used by proponents of school voucher programs who believe that parents should have more options for where to send their kids beyond their local public school. It can encompass programs that Texas already has like charter schools and magnet schools. But supporters in Texas have been pushing to expand it by calling for a voucher-like system. They argue families should have the ability to use state money to pay for any alternative forms of schooling they might prefer for their children.
What types of vouchers exist?
In other states, the most basic school voucher programs allow parents to use taxpayer dollars to cover some of the costs of sending their kids to a private school, which includes schools with a religious affiliation.
Meanwhile, education savings accounts are essentially state-managed bank accounts for parents who remove their children from the public education system. These accounts allow parents to utilize taxpayer money to cover private school tuition and a wide range of approved educational expenses, like private tutoring, school supplies and home-schooling costs. Texas officials have sought to implement this type of program in recent years.
Some other states also have tax credit scholarships, which offer tax credits to businesses or individuals who donate to a scholarship-granting organization. Money is then given to eligible students to use toward tuition expenses at a private school.
Read more:
Support
What are the arguments for vouchers, and who supports them in Texas?
Top Texas Republican officials like Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, as well as conservative organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, have advocated for education savings accounts in recent years. Religious organizations and some home-schooling coalitions have also voiced their support.
Many conservative politicians and organizations say parents should not have to keep their children in public schools they believe are unsafe or underperforming academically, an argument that has ramped up as schools throughout the country have struggled to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic. Voucher supporters argue such programs would push public schools to compete for students and perform better academically.
Billionaires from in and out of Texas have invested millions of dollars to help sway the outcome of local elections in favor of pro-voucher candidates. For example, Abbott received millions from Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass, a vocal critic of public schools, in the governor’s bid to unseat Texas House lawmakers who helped block voucher proposals in the 2023 legislative session.
Religious groups have argued that a voucher program would make it easier for families to choose and pay for a private religious school, regardless of their income level. Some home-schooling organizations say they would also welcome the financial assistance, noting that some parents spend thousands of dollars per year to educate their kids.
Read more:
Opposition
What are the arguments against vouchers, and who opposes them in Texas?
Democrats, teacher groups and some public education advocacy organizations have raised concerns that a voucher program would make things worse for already struggling public schools.
Texas is constitutionally obligated to fund public schools, and that funding is primarily based on attendance. If a voucher program caused students to leave the public school system, schools would receive less money. Opponents worry that impact would pile onto other challenges exacerbated by a yearslong lack of meaningful state funding increases. Those problems include budget deficits, campus closures, declining enrollment, expired pandemic relief funds, inflation and teacher shortages.
Some voucher opponents have accused supporters of wanting to undermine public education and establish an educational system that reflects conservative Christian values. Christopher Rufo, an influential conservative activist whom organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation have cited in articles and hosted on panels, publicly stated during a 2022 speech that “to get to universal school choice, you really need to operate from a premise of universal public school distrust.”
“Because in order for people to take significant action, they have to feel like they have something at stake,” Rufo added.
Rural Republicans have historically opposed the voucher movement. Their opposition largely stems from the fact that their communities often revolve around their public schools, which serve as major employers. They see vouchers as a threat to the survival of their schools, which serve high percentages of low-income students and are already struggling financially.
Meanwhile, some home-schooling families are opposed to vouchers because they worry that receiving public funds could bring more oversight from the state and take away the autonomy they have to educate their children.
Get the data and visuals that accompany this story →
Vouchers in other states
How have vouchers worked elsewhere?
There are 75 voucher-like programs across 33 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, according to EdChoice, an organization founded by Milton Friedman that supports such initiatives. According to the organization, education savings accounts have become the school choice program with the most students. EdChoice estimates that almost half a million students in the U.S. benefit from education savings accounts, a significant boost from a little over 19,000 children roughly five years ago.
While the country’s first voucher programs launched in the late 20th century with the goal of helping low-income students, many of the children who benefit from the more expansive programs today come from wealthier families already sending their kids to private school. Meanwhile, families from poor communities are using vouchers less than wealthier ones.
As for academic outcomes, studies in multiple states have shown that vouchers do not consistently lead to improved standardized test scores for low-income students, a measuring stick Texas Republican officials often rely on to make decisions about public education. In some cases, vouchers have resulted in steep declines. In 2017, three academics wrote in the Journal of Economic Literature that their review of research suggested that there’s some evidence that as competition from voucher programs increases, test scores in public schools slightly improve. But, they said, more research was needed to fully understand the full impact of vouchers.
Voucher advocates often note that the benefits of the programs are best measured through parental satisfaction. Families have lauded education savings accounts in states like Arizona and Florida for giving them access to opportunities outside of public schooling.
The programs have also attracted criticism for their loose financial oversight and for not requiring private schools to report student test scores or meet the same academic standards as public schools. In Florida, some families purchased flat screen TVs, paddleboards and theme park tickets, which the state approved as educational expenses. Arizona parents have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on questionable purchases, including buying chicken coops, trampolines and tickets to SeaWorld. Also in Arizona, the state has had to make deep cuts to a wide swath of critical programs and projects because of the voucher program’s costs.
Read more:
Public opinion
How do Texans feel about vouchers?
Public polling in recent years in Texas has consistently shown support for voucher-like programs in the state. An August poll by the University of Texas Politics Project found that 52% of voters support creating a voucher, education savings account or other school choice program in Texas. A different poll by the University of Houston and Texas Southern University showed that 65% of Texas adults support the creation of such programs, even if they agree with arguments against school vouchers.
But opinion on vouchers has differed based on how information is presented to people and how questions are framed. Historically, organizations and individuals on both sides of the voucher debate have funded their own research on the effectiveness of such programs and how the public feels about them. Their findings tend to reaffirm their respective viewpoints on the topic.
The pollsters at the University of Texas at Austin examined just how much the framing of questions in polling affects how people respond to vouchers. They found that 27% of the people they polled opposed establishing school vouchers. But when the researchers more specifically asked participants about their opinion on redirecting tax revenue to help parents pay for some of the cost of sending their children to private or parochial schools, opposition increased to 42%. Forty-five percent of people supported the idea.
Gov. Greg Abbott has described the success of pro-voucher candidates in the 2024 Texas Republican primaries as an “unmistakable message” that voters support such programs. Only 2% of registered Republican voters listing vouchers as a key issue that affected their support of House candidates in the GOP primary. In rural communities with few private schools, some Republican voters have said they wanted a school voucher program. Others said they voted for pro-voucher candidates because they spoke to their other concerns, like immigration and their current representatives’ perceived shortcomings.
The most reliable measure of public opinion on vouchers has come at the ballot box — where voters, even in Republican and conservative-leaning states, have overwhelmingly opposed the implementation of such programs. During the 2024 general election, for example, a majority of voters in each of Kentucky’s 120 counties voted against a proposal that sought to change the state Constitution to allow the use of tax dollars to pay for private, religious and charter schools. Voucher proposals also failed in Nebraska and Colorado.
Texas has not brought the question of vouchers to the ballot. It would require legislative action for the state to do so.
Read more:
History
A brief history of vouchers in Texas and the U.S.
The roots of today’s school voucher movement date back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine and ruled that race-based school segregation was unconstitutional. After the decision, southern states like Texas began proposing legislation aimed at fighting integration.
A 1955 essay by the economist Milton Friedman has received praise by some school voucher supporters who view Friedman as a pioneer of their movement. In the essay, titled “The Role of Government in Education,” Friedman advocated for the flow of public money toward private schools, which he said would give parents greater control over where their children receive an education. In a footnote addressing the Brown decision, Friedman said he disapproved of segregation and racial prejudice — while also criticizing forced integration.
“It is not an appropriate function of the state to try to force individuals to act in accordance with my — or anyone else’s — views, whether about racial prejudice or the party to vote for, so long as the action of any one individual affects mostly himself,” Friedman wrote.
Around that time, Texas established a committee to study segregation in public schools. Gov. Allan Shivers, who opposed the Brown decision, requested that the committee examine and propose ways around to the Supreme Court ruling. The group recommended that the Texas Legislature give serious consideration to a plan “whereby a parent who does not wish to place his child in an integrated school may receive State funds to have the child educated in a segregated, non-sectarian private school.” Legislation that aligned with that goal followed, though it ultimately failed.
The nation’s first modern school voucher programs launched in the late 20th century with a focus on serving low-income families, following unsuccessful attempts at public school integration and frustration over poor academic outcomes, particularly for Black students. But outside of when Texas authorized its charter school system in 1995, the Legislature has long rejected programs that would support alternatives to traditional public schools, despite decades of work by Christian conservative activists to rally Republicans around the issue.
The latest chapter
The 2023-24 fight for vouchers
The arrival of COVID-19 helped reignite the school voucher movement. Influential conservative organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation promoted vouchers in response to some families’ anger over pandemic restrictions and political battles over how gender, sexuality and America’s history of racism are taught in schools. Gov. Greg Abbott provided more clout to the movement when he made passage of an education savings accounts program his top legislative priority for the 2023 legislative session.
During the session, Abbott vowed not to sign a bill that boosted funding for public schools unless lawmakers passed a voucher proposal. He also promised to campaign against any Republican lawmaker who voted against the measure. The Texas Senate complied with the governor’s wishes, but Democrats and nearly two dozen Republicans representing rural districts opposed voucher bills in the House. During the fourth and final special legislative session called in 2023, the coalition voted to strip an education savings account program out of a wide-ranging education bill, putting an end to voucher supporters’ hopes that year.
Abbott followed up on his promise. During the 2024 primary election cycle, he campaigned against the Republicans who helped block his plan. He successfully did so with the financial support of people like Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass, who have sought to use their money and influence against school voucher opponents across the country. Since then, many voucher opponents in the Texas House have been defeated, and Abbott has expressed confidence that the chamber now has enough votes to pass school voucher legislation in 2025.
Read more:
What now?
During a Texas Tribune symposium at the University of Texas at Austin in December, panelists Laura Colangelo, Brian Guenther, Bob Popinski and Michelle Rinehart discussed the unique funding asks that both public and private school leaders will be making during the 2025 legislative session. Having trouble viewing? Watch this video on texastribune.org.
How will the voucher debate differ in 2025?
After years of hitting a brick wall, school voucher advocates in Texas are entering this year’s legislative session with better odds than ever of passing a measure that would let parents use public money to pay for their kids’ private schooling.
But first, lawmakers will have to agree on what the program looks like.
With diminished power to quash vouchers this time, some opponents are holding out hope that pro-voucher legislators will stumble over disputes on the many moving parts still up in the air.
[A school voucher program in Texas is more likely than ever. Can lawmakers craft a bill they agree on?]
Vouchers in Texas
How would vouchers work in Texas?
In their initial budget proposals for the next two years, both the Texas House and Senate set aside money for the creation of an education savings account program in the state.
It is still unclear what kind of voucher proposal lawmakers will advance in 2025. But legislation filed in 2023 offers an idea of what it could look like.
For example, one bill that would have created education savings accounts sought to offer families access to $8,000 of taxpayer money a year for each participating student to cover their private school tuition and other educational expenses. The bill sought to allocate $500 million from Texas’ general revenue fund to pay for the program for two years. That means the program would have initially allowed up to 62,500 students to enroll. Public education advocates have said that expanded eligibility and rising costs for the program in future years could place an undue financial burden on the state, just as it has in Arizona.
The Texas proposal would have required the comptroller’s office, which oversees the state’s finances, to establish and administer the savings accounts. The comptroller was also tasked with preventing fraud and misuse of funds — a major area of concern for many lawmakers — as well as finding an organization to help process applications, approve vendors and accept participating private schools.
Almost any student who was enrolled in a public school in the previous year would have been eligible to apply to the program, as well as any student ready to enroll in Pre-K or kindergarten. The bill was further amended to include home schoolers and to bar any state officeholder from being eligible. At one point, lawmakers approved a provision that would have given school districts with fewer than 5,000 students $10,000 for every child they lost to the education savings account program for three years.
The bill also included a prioritization system if applications exceeded the funding. To prioritize entry to underprivileged groups, the bill proposed that the state reserve no more than 40% of spots for students from families whose income level is at or below 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; no more than 30% for families who earn between 185% and 500% of the federal poverty line; no more than 20% for students with disabilities; and 10% for all other applicants who attended public, private or home-school in the previous school year.
The legislation did not require private school students to take a state-administered academic achievement exam. It also included a provision that would have required private schools to alert parents that they are not subject to federal and state laws regarding services to children with disabilities.
Read more:
Learn more
[Texas Legislature will approve school vouchers and boost public education funds next year, Abbott says]
[How a school voucher supporter won in a Texas House district with almost no private schools]
[Here’s how school vouchers, Paxton impeachment affected the Texas GOP primaries]
[How Gov. Greg Abbott lost a yearlong fight to create school vouchers]
[These home-schooling moms want to create a “microschool” for Black kids. They need vouchers to make it happen.]
[Private schools are ready to expand into smaller communities if Texas adopts voucher program]
[Voucher proposal spurs mix of excitement, wariness in Texas home schooling community]
[Texas’ main voucher bill seeks to avoid other states’ mistakes but keeps ideas that attracted criticism]
[No teacher raises. A failed school voucher push. Armed guards. Here’s what changed for public education this legislative session.]
Disclosure: EdChoice, Seaworld, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Southern University – Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Get the data and visuals that accompany this story →
Texas
Prescribed burns play regenerative role in Texas ecosystems. Here’s why
COVINGTON, TX – Clouds of grey and brown smoke rolled through the field as yards of fire roared across dead grass. About 30 acres of Austin and Kelli Rollins’ property burned on the March morning, leaving blackened remnants just a couple dozen yards from the house.
But what looked like a natural disaster was the result of careful planning.
Prescribed burns, like the one onthe Rollinses property, can benefit wildlife populations, encourage the growth of native prairie grasses and limit damage from wildfires. Throughout Texas’ history, fires occurred naturally every three to seven years. Most native species are fire-adapted, Texas A&M’s Prescribed Burn Coordinator David Brooke said, but human fire suppression tactics have substantially decreased fire frequency and changed the landscape.
“From the Edwards Plateau, Hill Country up towards Dallas [and the] Panhandle, our habitat was a lot more open. It’s supposed to be rolling plains, prairies … with intermittent tree cover. What we’re seeing now is woody encroachment,” Brooke said.
At the Rollinses, the prescribed burn began with an introductory meeting to discuss strategy and a test fire on a corner of the lot. The team, largely consisting of members of the North Texas Prescribed Burn Association, edged the field with a water line, creating a moisture barrier to prevent flames from spreading in the wrong direction. Just a few yards behind the lengthening water line, volunteers used drip torches to create a “black line,” a thin burned strip meant to contain the larger plumes of fire that would come later.
The tip of a drip torch is used to set fire to Austin and Kelli Rollins property outside of Covington, Texas, March 18, 2026. They used a controlled burn to regenerate the pasture surrounding their home. Tom Fox / Staff Photographer
The crew collaborated with the wind, starting the test fire at the most downwind corner and expanding the black lines perpendicularly. Winds whipped, around 20 miles per hour, approaching the regulatory safety limit. By working backwards from the fire’s natural destination, the team limited the chance of flames escaping their control.
“Essentially what we’re doing is building a catcher’s mitt so when we light everything up, [the black line] will be there to stop it,” Brandon Martin said, who serves on the board of the prescribed burn association.
North Texas Prescribed Burn Association members perform a controlled burn at a Covington, Texas ranch

Martin, dressed in a hard hat and flame retardant clothing, assisted with this prescribed burn as a volunteer, but he also knows fire professionally through his role in emergency management at the Tarrant Regional Water District. As well as providing advice, he actively spread flames with a drip torch. Torch canisters are filled with fuel that, when turned down, trickles past a burning wick and ignites as it falls to the ground.
This fire is part of an effort to return the field to native prairie, a landscape Martin said depends on fire to thrive. Regular burning limits the growth of saplings and bushes, keeping the environment clear of exotic species that can outcompete native grasses.

North Texas Prescribed Burn Association member Don Nelson radios wind speed and direction to the rest of the crew during a controlled burn on the property of Austin and Kelli Rollins outside of Covington, Texas, March 18, 2026.
Tom Fox / Staff Photographer
Brooke said fire isn’t only a natural land management process, it’s also cost-effective. Invasive species can be removed mechanically with chainsaws and digging, or with chemical application. But in either instance, the labor and equipment costs are usually significantly higher than burning, especially with bigger plots.
“From an economics standpoint, it’s a heck of a lot cheaper to use fire,” Brooke said.
The resulting ash is high in nitrogen and phosphorus, which fertilizes the soil. With a little rain, Brooke said fields are often covered in green shoots within a matter of weeks, with a reinvigorated landscape emerging in the following months.
However, Brooke noted “one burn isn’t a silver bullet,” since invasive species could also be fed by these fresh nutrients. But if landowners can commit to following the three- to seven-year historic fire frequency, “it gives your native species the edge.”

Austin Rollins grabs a pressure sprayer to extinguish a spot fire during a controlled burn on his property near Covington, Texas, March 18, 2026.
Tom Fox / Staff Photographer
New growth also attracts a variety of wildlife, as it is highly palatable and an ideal habitat to spot predators. Brooke said he’s seen a number of landowners undertake prescribed burns to improve the hunting prospects.
Prescribed burns are best known for their power to stopthe spread of wildfire. The lack of fuel for a wildfire after an intentional burn can lower the fire’s intensity and help save structures. Brooke pointed to the town of Borger, which has a history of proactive wildfire management.
In the fall of 2023, they burned a 7-mile-long, 250-foot wide strip along the edge of town, creating a “black line” that proved crucial months later. When one of the 2024 Panhandle wildfires approached the town, it stopped just outside of several neighborhoods at the fire break. Firefighters credited the work with saving homes and possibly lives.
For landowners considering undertaking controlled burns themselves, Brooke said Texas is a “right-to-burn” state – guaranteeing landowners the right to burn on their own property – but there are still regulations to follow. County burn bans must be observed, local authorities notified and some state agencies regulate weather conditions to manage the smoke.

The North Texas Prescribed Burn Association used a backing fire to control a burn on the property of Austin and Kelli Rollins outside of Covington, Texas, March 18, 2026. They burned approximately 30 acres.
Tom Fox / Staff Photographer
Wind speeds are required to be between six and 23 miles per hour during a burn. If the breeze is too low, smoke won’t clear properly and it could settle on nearby roads, potentially causing an accident. If gusts are too high, fire behavior becomes more unpredictable.
Some counties also require a copy of the burn plan to be submitted in advance, which accounts for things like weather, the crew, suppression tactics (such as water, specialized rakes and leaf blowers) and smoke modeling.
Ultimately, given the high winds, the team on the Rollinses land decided to burn back to the black line in smaller strips instead of one roaring blaze. But even those sections could generate significant heat as the orange glow jumped from stem to stem. The gusts cleared most smoke quickly, but each time a new strip ignited, the plumes towered into the distance.
When just a few smoldering spots remained, the group gathered to debrief and share H-E-B sandwich trays. Pairs inquired about other teams’ strategies, but mostly, the crew was pleased with the safety and their progress – finishing the project in about three hours.
“Man, it’s beautiful,” Kelli Rollins said as she took a picture of the charred field against the blue sky. “I know that’s a weird thing to say, but it is.”
Texas
Texas city named as 1 of 3 finalists for Elon Musk’s ‘Boring Company’ projects
A modified Tesla Model X drives into the tunnel entrance before an unveiling event for the Boring Company Hawthorne test tunnel in Hawthorne, south of Los Angeles, California on December 18, 2018. – On Tuesday night December 18, 2018, Boring Co. will
DALLAS – After a months-long competition to convince tech mogul Elon Musk’s Boring Company to choose a U.S. city for a transit tunnel project, one Texas city has made the cut for the final three in consideration.
‘Tunnel Vision Challenge’ finalists
What we know:
The “Thrilling Three” in the running for the Tunnel Vision Challenge, announced in January, are Dallas, New Orleans, LA, and Baltimore, MD.
Dallas is in consideration for a “University Hills Loop.” When the challenge first launched on Jan. 18, the options of “a Loop tunnel, a freight tunnel, a pedestrian tunnel, a utility tunnel, a water tunnel, or any other use case where a tunnel would be useful” were pitched. All three finalists are Loop tunnels, which the company tags as “Teslas in Tunnels!”
Wednesday’s announcement says the projects will be up to one mile long and 12 feet in diameter.
What’s next:
The Boring Company said in their Wednesday announcement that, if possible, it “would be awesome” to build all three Loops.
The company plans to, along with the project stakeholders, enter into a rigorous diligence process which includes “meetings with elected officials, regulators, community leaders, and business leaders; geotechnical borings; and utility and subsurface infra investigation.”
They say they plan to build any and all final projects that are found to be feasible.
Possible second Texas project
The company said there were other projects that caught their attention as interesting projects, which they plan to attempt in the near future.
These include the “Morgan’s Wonderland Tunnel” in San Antonio, as well as the “Hendersonville Utility Tunnel” in Tennessee.
The Source: Information in this article comes from The Boring Company.
Texas
Texas will require proof of legal immigration status for professional licenses
People seeking a host of professional licenses in Texas, from electricians to dog breeders, will soon have to prove they are in the country legally after the state’s Commission of Licensing and Regulation on Tuesday adopted a new rule that could affect thousands of workers.
Commissioners unanimously approved the change after hearing from a parade of speakers who largely asked them to do the opposite because of worries that it will hamper the state’s economy and burden immigrants trying to make an honest living. The speakers also argued the move will push people to work without a license, and erode state oversight of crucial industries.
The commission oversees the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, which plans to implement the rule May 1.
“TDLR has long been evaluating verification of license eligibility in line with federal law. With the transfer of the Texas Lottery to TDLR, the recent launch of our licensing system modernization project, and increased focus on combatting human trafficking, the department is moving forward with lawful presence verification,” Caroline M. Espinosa, a TDLR spokesperson, said Tuesday. “This ensures consistent, secure practices across all programs and strengthens our ability to identify and deter fraud, labor exploitation, and human trafficking.”
Despite the agency’s stated intent to follow federal statute and the concerns raised by workers across the state, TDLR lawyer Derek Burkhalter told commissioners that some noncitizens will still be able to get licenses — so long they meet one of the qualifications under a three-decade-old federal law underpinning the rule change and provide required documentation.
People can qualify for benefits under the federal law if they were granted asylum, admitted as a refugee or are recognized as a victim of human trafficking, for example.
“The proposed rules do not impose a citizenship requirement,” Burkhalter said. “Individuals who are not U.S. citizens may still be eligible for licensure if they meet the eligibility criteria.”
TDLR argues that the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 prohibits people in the country unlawfully from receiving certain benefits, including professional licenses administered by the state, unless they qualify for certain exceptions. The lists of documents that can be used to apply for a license will be posted on TDLR’s website, officials said Tuesday.
TDLR joins at least three other state agencies that have cracked down on immigration through administrative and regulatory procedures since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year. The Texas Department of Public Safety has stopped issuing commercial driver’s licenses to many noncitizens, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles imposed new strict photo ID requirements for vehicle registrations, and the Texas Secretary of State’s Office has been on the hunt for noncitizens registered to vote, at times erroneously flagging Americans as potential noncitizens.
The changes mirror a presidential executive order from February 2025, when Trump ordered federal agencies to crack down on the same 1996 law to “defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”
It remains unclear how many undocumented workers will be affected in Texas by the new licensing requirement. The state is home to an estimated 1.7 million people without authorization who work in numerous key industries such as construction, hospitality and an assortment of others under the purview of TDLR.
Steve Bruno, the agency’s deputy executive director for licensing and regulatory services, told commissioners that fewer than 2% of the licenses issued by the agency did not have a Social Security number attached to them.
But TDLR could not assume those individuals were running afoul of federal law, agency officials said, because there are a number of ways for noncitizens to live and work in the country through federal programs.
The agency issued more than 1 million individual and business licenses during the 2025 fiscal year.
TDLR’s website currently contains guidance to apply for occupational licenses for those who do not have a Social Security number. The page links to a form, last updated by the commission in January, that instructs applicants to attach supporting documentation, such as a green card, immigrant visa or refugee travel document.
To offer commissioners context, Bruno said the agency had issued roughly 19,000 new licenses and renewed another 39,000 in February alone.
The information did little to assuage concerns from a variety of industries.
Agency officials received 450 comments about the proposed rule; of those, all but 28 were against it.
Among those who testified in person Tuesday morning was Rocio Gomez, a 35-year-old Austin resident who holds an eyelash extension specialist’s license and instructs at a beauty school in the capital city. Some of her students without legal status have been in great distress since the agency proposed the rule in January, at times crying to her about the uncertainty of their future, she said in an interview after testifying.
“Seeing how this has affected the students affects us too, emotionally. It appears that everything is at the whim of them,” Gomez said in an interview in Spanish, gesturing at the dais where the commissioners sat.
Other speakers — salon owners, educators and beyond — reminded commissioners about the strict requirements already in place to earn some licenses. Industries that will be affected range from dyslexia therapists to used car parts recyclers to dog breeders, according to TDLR’s proposal filed with the state.
Some of the licenses require many hours of practice and safety education. For instance, earning a cosmetology operator license in Texas can take more than a year as applicants learn about chemicals and hygiene as well as hair technique.
In barring undocumented people from getting licensed, the state will force them into the black market and lead to a proliferation of people providing services without oversight or proper permitting, speakers told commissioners.
The issue has already captured the attention of elected officials and immigration hardliners, who welcomed the new rule.
“For too long, benefits to illegal aliens have served as a magnet to entice migrants to enter the United States illegally,” Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Gov. Greg Abbott, said in a statement after the vote. “Texas will not reward illegal immigration by issuing professional licenses to those here unlawfully. These changes protect the integrity of our licensing system, uphold federal law, and ensure jobs go to hardworking Texans.”
State agencies must run proposed rule changes by the governor’s office before they are made available for public comment.
Democratic state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt of Austin, who is running for comptroller of public accounts, submitted a comment to TDLR in opposition to the change. Using published estimates by a variety of groups, the senator calculated that the rule change could result in a reduction of the state’s skilled workforce by 8 to 10%.
“Texas cannot afford to lose qualified and skilled licensees in these high-demand jobs,” Eckhardt wrote, urging the commission to study the potential effect. “The impact of TDLR’s proposed rule is likely more far-reaching than what was initially assessed by the agency.”
In their formal rule proposal filed with the state, agency officials wrote that there would be no anticipated economic impacts or effects on small and microbusinesses. In response to questions about this on Tuesday, they told commissioners that it was difficult to assess potential impact because they did not want to assume a licensee was afoul of federal law simply because they did not provide a Social Security number.
Commission Chair Rick Figueroa asked for frequent updates to the commission as the rule is implemented, acknowledging the agency was entering uncharted territory perhaps only in the company of the Department of Motor Vehicles, which made its change months ago.
“This is a front-burner issue in regards to information back to the commission,” Figueroa said. “I’m sure we’re building a plane and flying it a little bit.”
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Science1 week agoHow a Melting Glacier in Antarctica Could Affect Tens of Millions Around the Globe
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Science1 week agoI had to man up and get a mammogram
-
Sports6 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico4 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Texas7 days agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets
-
Tennessee3 days agoTennessee Police Investigating Alleged Assault Involving ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson