Justin Early

I started my career as an army paratrooper and became a cybersecurity architect, and both jobs taught me the same lesson: you don’t wait for the breach to build your defenses. Screwworm is a biosecurity breach, and Washington was too slow to see it coming. We let inspection and surveillance capacity atrophy at the exact moment this pest was moving north through Mexico, and now Texas ranchers are paying for that neglect.

I’d support full, sustained funding for USDA-APHIS surveillance and the sterile insect release program that eradicated screwworm the first time — including rebuilding fly production capacity, which took decades to develop and can’t be recreated overnight. I’d back emergency support for veterinarians and ranchers in affected counties, faster indemnification when herds are lost, and stronger coordination with Mexico, since this pest doesn’t respect a border line. And I’d resist any federal budget that cuts USDA animal health inspection staff, because APHIS itself has shown a full-scale outbreak could cost this region billions.

TX-31 isn’t in the current outbreak zone, but our Hill Country ranchers depend on a healthy statewide cattle market, and pests move. This is exactly the kind of problem where the evidence, outbreak data, economic modeling, animal health science, should drive the response, not politics. I’ll always ask the APHIS scientists and Texas veterinarians what they need before I ask what it costs, because the alternative costs far more.

Standout takeaways: Screwworm is a biosecurity breach; you defend against it before it happens, not after. Fully fund USDA-APHIS surveillance and sterile fly production capacity. Faster indemnification and support for affected ranchers and vets. Border coordination with Mexico is essential; the pest doesn’t stop at a map line. Let animal health science and economic data drive the response, not politics.

Keywords: biosecurity, USDA-APHIS, sterile insect technique, ranchers, evidence-based response

Central Texas is ground zero for this fight. Data centers are landing in Temple, Taylor, and Round Rock faster than local water and power systems can absorb them, and too often the deal gets cut before neighbors even know it’s happening. I don’t oppose the jobs and investment data centers can bring. I oppose doing it recklessly and sticking families with the bill.

I’d require large data centers to pay their fair share of the grid upgrades and generation capacity their demand forces onto the system, instead of spreading those costs across residential ratepayers who never asked for a 24/7 industrial scale power draw next door. On water, I’d push for mandatory disclosure of water use, require closed-loop or reclaimed-water cooling systems as a condition of interconnection or tax incentives, and end the practice of handing out state and local tax breaks to projects that haven’t demonstrated they won’t drain the aquifers our farms and towns depend on. Incentives should come with enforceable water and grid-impact standards attached, reviewed with real local input, not decided in a closed room.

The evidence is straightforward: ERCOT’s own demand forecasts have more than doubled in a year, and Texas communities are already seeing rate pressure and water stress tied to this build-out. That’s not a reason to stop growth, it’s a reason to plan it responsibly, with the people who live here at the table.

Standout takeaways: Make data centers pay their fair share of grid and infrastructure costs. Require water disclosure and closed-loop cooling as a condition of doing business here. Tie tax incentives to enforceable water and grid standards, not blank checks. Local communities deserve a seat at the table before projects break ground.

Keywords: fair share, water disclosure, grid costs, local control, tax incentive accountability

Texas is flooding and running dry at the same time, and hundreds of our waterways are too polluted to safely use. That’s not a contradiction, it’s a sign our water infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with our population or our climate. I’d support full, sustained funding for the state water plan, including aquifer storage and recovery, aging pipe and treatment plant replacement, and regional flood infrastructure identified in TWDB planning, paired with real TCEQ enforcement against the industrial and municipal polluters driving those impairment listings.

Agriculture uses the most groundwater in this state, but our farmers and ranchers are also the ones with the most to lose from depletion, and I don’t see them as the problem. I see them as partners. I’d back cost-share programs that help producers adopt efficient irrigation, soil health practices, and water reuse, the same way we’d invest in any infrastructure upgrade, because it pays for itself in water saved. I’d also support voluntary, compensated conservation easements and groundwater conservation district funding, so local farmers and ranchers, who know their land best, have real tools instead of top-down mandates.

This has to be evidence-driven: hydrology data, TCEQ water quality assessments, and TWDB planning models should set priorities, not which region has the most political juice. Rural and urban Texas both lose if we get this wrong.

Standout takeaways: Fully fund the state water plan: aquifer recovery, aging infrastructure, flood planning. Enforce TCEQ water quality standards against real polluters. Treat agriculture as a conservation partner, not a target — fund efficiency upgrades. Let hydrology and water quality data set priorities, not politics.

Keywords: state water plan, agricultural partnership, aquifer conservation, TCEQ enforcement, infrastructure investment

Winter Storm Uri should have ended this debate. We know what fixes reliability: mandatory, verified weatherization of generation and gas supply with real penalties for noncompliance, not the honor system we have now. I’d back a hard weatherization mandate with independent inspection, continued build-out of transmission and battery storage to firm up wind and solar, and diversified generation so no single fuel source or single point of failure can take the whole system down in extreme heat or cold.

Large new loads, data centers chief among them, need to be brought into this picture honestly. I’d require big users to help fund the grid capacity they demand and to participate in demand-response programs during peak strain, instead of quietly consuming headroom that was supposed to serve homes and small businesses. I’d also push for stronger interconnection with neighboring grids as an emergency backstop, without surrendering ERCOT’s ability to move fast on Texas-specific fixes.

ERCOT’s own load forecasts show the strain coming. That’s the evidence base I’d use: real demand data, post-Uri engineering reviews, and independent grid reliability audits, not talking points from whichever industry showed up first. Reliability is a kitchen-table issue for every family in TX-31 who’s paid a spiked summer power bill or worried about a winter outage, and I’ll treat it that way.

Standout takeaways: Mandatory, inspected weatherization with real penalties, not an honor system. Diversify generation and expand transmission and battery storage. Make large loads like data centers help pay for and manage peak demand. Explore stronger emergency interconnection with neighboring grids.

Keywords: grid reliability, weatherization mandate, demand response, transmission and storage, ERCOT accountability

Texas universities and hospitals are running world-class research on $1.9 billion a year in NIH funding, and that money doesn’t just fund lab equipment, it funds the people, the facilities, and the compliance infrastructure that keep patients safe and discoveries moving. A flat 15% indirect cost cap ignores the rates institutions actually negotiated based on real, audited costs, and it would blow a $300 million hole in Texas research overnight. That’s not fiscal discipline, it’s a funding cut dressed up as an efficiency measure, and it would land hardest on cancer centers, teaching hospitals, and public universities that don’t have deep endowments to absorb the gap.

I’d oppose the proposed cap and support legislation protecting negotiated indirect cost rates, along with stable, multiyear NIH appropriations so research institutions can plan for the long term instead of lurching from budget fight to budget fight. At the state level, I’d support Texas stepping up with bridge funding and university system investment to protect jobs and ongoing trials if federal funding gets disrupted, because tens of thousands of Texas jobs and patients mid-treatment shouldn’t be collateral damage in a budget dispute.

This is personal to me as a cybersecurity professional: I’ve seen what happens when institutions get told to do the same mission with a fraction of the infrastructure funding. Research doesn’t get more efficient. It gets less safe, less rigorous, and less reliable.

Standout takeaways: Oppose the 15% NIH indirect cost cap, it’s a cut disguised as reform. Protect negotiated indirect cost rates and push for stable, multi-year NIH funding. Support state-level bridge funding to protect research jobs and ongoing trials. Underfunded infrastructure makes research less rigorous, not more efficient.

Keywords: protect NIH funding, oppose indirect cost cap, research infrastructure, Texas research jobs

I lead with listening, not lecturing. Most parents who hesitate on vaccines aren’t anti-science. They have real questions, and too often the only people talking to them are either dismissive or peddling misinformation. I’d rather have that conversation directly, through trusted local voices, pediatricians, faith leaders, school nurses, than have it happen for me on social media.

But listening doesn’t mean I’ll pretend the evidence is unclear when it isn’t. Texas just had its largest measles outbreak since 1992, two children died, and the kindergarten vaccination rate has been sliding for years. That’s not an abstract statistic. It’s a preventable tragedy. I’d support fully funding Texas DSHS immunization outreach and school-based vaccination access, protecting the school immunization requirements that got us to elimination status in the first place, and making sure exemption processes are transparent rather than a loophole that erodes herd immunity by default. I’d also support restoring public health communication funding so accurate, plain-language information reaches parents before rumors do.

As a father of seven, this isn’t theoretical for me. I made these decisions for my own kids based on what my pediatrician told me, not what I saw online. I’ll treat vaccine-hesitant parents with respect, not contempt, but I won’t blur the line between a good-faith question and a policy that puts other people’s kids at risk of a disease we already knew how to stop.

Standout takeaways: Listen first — most vaccine-hesitant parents have questions, not ideology. Fund trusted local messengers: pediatricians, school nurses, faith leaders. Protect school immunization requirements and close exemption loopholes. Respect for parents’ concerns doesn’t mean abandoning the evidence.

Keywords: vaccine confidence, school immunization requirements, public health funding, listen first, evidence-based

I built my career asking “what happens when this fails” before it does, that’s what cybersecurity work is. I bring the same discipline to policy: get the data, ask the people who actually study the problem, and build in the chance that I’m wrong before it costs someone else.

Concretely, that means I don’t write policy without first talking to the scientists, engineers, and career agency staff closest to the evidence, APHIS veterinarians on screwworm, ERCOT engineers on grid reliability, TCEQ scientists on water quality, NIH-funded researchers on public health. When claims conflict, I weigh them by methodology, replication, and independence from whoever’s funding the study, not by which side shouts louder. We already trust this model in daily life: we regulate aviation because we trust the engineering, we regulate food because we trust the inspections. Policy on energy, water, agriculture, and public health deserves the same rigor.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, my job isn’t to pick the popular answer, it’s to be honest about what the evidence shows and explain my reasoning clearly enough that people can see how I got there, even if they still disagree. That’s different from ignoring public concern; real, lived experience often points to problems the data hasn’t caught up to yet, and I take that seriously too. But I won’t abandon evidence-based decisions because they’re politically inconvenient. That’s how you get outbreaks, blackouts, and billion-dollar mistakes.

Standout takeaways: Ask “what happens when this fails” before it does, that’s how I approach policy. Consult the scientists and career experts closest to the evidence, every time. Weigh competing claims by methodology and independence, not volume. When consensus and public opinion diverge, be honest about the evidence and explain the reasoning, don’t just pick the popular answer.

Keywords: evidence-based policymaking, expert consultation, scientific consensus, transparency, accountability