Texas Governor Threatens Funding Cuts Over Controversial Ceasefire Resolution

A Texas city faces potential state funding cuts due to a resolution advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo against Israel. Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, expressed his discontent in a letter directed to San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson, criticizing the City Council’s move to formalize this resolution by voting on it on May 6.

In his correspondence, Abbott emphasized the lack of condemnation toward Hamas by the city council, despite their consideration of a resolution for a “permanent ceasefire in occupied Palestine.” This apparent discrepancy raised concerns for the governor about the implications of the resolution.

Abbott, highlighting the importance of Texas’ alliance with Israel, stated, “Israel is a stalwart ally of the United States and a friend to Texas. I have repeatedly made clear that Texas will not tolerate antisemitism. Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies.” His strong words set the stage for a significant political confrontation regarding this resolution.

The governor underscored his pride in signing a law that prohibits Texas government entities from supporting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at Israel. The BDS movement advocates for ceasing financial support to Israel based on its actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

In his letter, Abbott reiterated the stipulation of Texas law that mandates government entities cannot enter contracts exceeding $100,000 without a declaration that they do not support boycotts against Israel. Under the statute, the phrase “boycott Israel” refers to any actions intended to penalize or economically harm Israel.

The potential ramifications extend beyond legalese; Abbott revealed that his administration is actively reassessing current grants to San Marcos. He emphasized that the city could be in violation of these regulations should they effectively certify compliance with Texas law while advocating for an anti-Israel resolution. He further warned that if the city proceeds with this resolution, no future grant agreements would be made, and existing grants could be terminated.

The agenda for the City Council’s April 15 discussion articulated the intent behind the resolution. It aims for both an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the implementation of an arms embargo against Israel, recognition for Palestinian sovereignty, and the safeguarding of constitutional rights for all individuals under national and international law.

Alyssa Garza, a member of the San Marcos City Council who supported placing the resolution on the agenda, framed it as a resistance to oppressive government actions. She argued that it is essential to connect the dots between federal military aid and the domestic socio-economic struggles in Texas. Garza remarked, “It’s clear to me that when they fund bombs but cut aid for housing and education, that’s connected. When they silence protests here and crush dissent abroad, that’s connected.”

Amanda Rodriguez, another council member, insinuated that the resolution serves as a “moral litmus test” rather than a strictly political position. Rodriguez expressed her view of the conflict in Gaza as a “genocide” and implored members of the Jewish community who might feel uncomfortable with the resolution to reconsider, stating, “You cannot tell me that Judaism as a religion supports this.” This remark illustrates the layered complexities of supporting or opposing such resolutions, often invoking deep-seated emotional and historical connections.

The impending vote by the San Marcos City Council on the resolution in just five days brings with it the weight of potential funding losses from the state. Abbott’s office stands ready to evaluate the implications of such a decision.

Hughson, Garza, and Rodriguez have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the controversy stirred by their proposed resolution. This silence further fuels public speculation as the vote approaches.

For now, the situation remains contentious, with both state and local repercussions looming should the council decide to advance the resolution. As discussions continue around the highly charged issue of U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, local governments find themselves at the crossroads of national policies and community sentiments.