Post from Truth Social

One of a run of Texas endorsements on election eve

This is one of at least five Texas House endorsements posted on 2 November, the day before the midterm vote. The others that day were for Pete Sessions (TX-17), Tom Sell (TX-19), Mark Teixeira (TX-21) and Trever Nehls (TX-22). Each one follows the same skeleton:

• an opening line about "the wonderful people of Texas' [Nth] Congressional District"
• a short résumé
• a list of policy commitments in title case
• "Complete and Total Endorsement"
• a sign-off reading "President DONALD J. TRUMP"

The Sessions and Sell posts use "Cut Taxes and Regulations" and "Champion... Farmers" word for word. What sets this post apart is the paragraph about the opponent. TX-15 is one of the few competitive seats in the batch. Bobby Pulido, a Tejano singer, won the Democratic primary in March, and a Texas Southern University poll had him ahead 50 to 45.

Who wrote it

The post went up at 23:08 UTC. Daylight saving time ended on 1 November, so that was 6:08 pm Eastern, whether he was at the White House or at Mar-a-Lago, where he ran tele-rallies over the final weekend. The text points to staff drafting from a template:

• Whole phrases recur from post to post across the batch.
• The details read like a brief: the district is given by number, she is a "Small Businesswoman", and the policy list comes in a fixed order.
• It closes with a third-person signature.

Some of his own vocabulary is present. "Dumocrat" is his coinage, and "Reckless, Radical, and Dangerous" and "SHE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!" are in his cadence. But those phrases moved into the staff template long ago, so they show his brand more than his hand. The two errors are template artifacts too:

• "Transgender Mutilization" is a non-word blend of "mutilation" and "utilization" that has run through his endorsement boilerplate since the 2024 cycle.
• "Grow our Economy Cut Taxes" drops a comma that the Sessions and Sell versions keep.

Because the misspelling repeats in text that is copied and pasted, it says nothing about how he produces language in the moment. It is logged below as a mild neologism, with that caveat.

How the opponent is built

Nearly all of the psychological content sits in the Pulido paragraph. It is a set of contrasts: Monica "is fighting tirelessly" and "will never let you down", while Pulido is "Radical Left", wants "Open Borders, Men playing in Women's Sports, and Transgender Mutilization of your Children", and is "Reckless, Radical, and Dangerous". The attack does not engage with anything Pulido has said. A search found no record of him opposing the tip, overtime or Social Security provisions. His published campaign message is about cost of living and tariffs ("Los aranceles han hecho que todo sea más caro"). So the policy positions are attributed to him by party label. That is splitting at the level of campaign rhetoric: the candidate inherits a standard caricature of the opposing party.

The future-conditional threat, "if he and the Dumocrats ever got in, all of these things will be terminated", works as an appeal to loss. The tax provisions the administration counts as wins become something voters could lose. "of your Children" moves the gender-care claim from policy to a threat against the reader's own family. That is the strongest emotional appeal in the post, and it is a fixed slot in the template, not a reaction to this race.

What the post shows about him, and what it doesn't

The grandiosity here is about his endorsement, not about himself. He writes in the first person once, "my Complete and Total Endorsement", and the endorsement is presented as a valuable thing he hands out. That fits the agency and status motives that run through the whole election-eve sequence: in the final 24 hours he is acting as kingmaker, sorting Republican candidates into "WINNER" and "Champion" and their opponents into "Radical". The narrative is plainly in order-restorer mode. Borders, tax cuts and the "always under siege Second Amendment" are put forward as an order under threat, and the opposing party is the threat.

Nothing in the post looks like an injury or a slight. It is maintenance: routine mobilization of supporters on the day before an election. The hostile words are aimed at a candidate in a competitive race, they use standard partisan labels, and they include no call to act beyond "GET OUT AND VOTE". The danger score rests on that point. "Dangerous" is a label for the opponent, not a call to do anything to him.

The same day's Sullivan post ("FRAUD that has been committed against him") shows that his election-integrity grievance was active that day. None of it reaches this post, which stays inside the template.

Claims

The record on the factual claims is weakest on Pulido's positions, which are asserted without any statement from him to support them. The Social Security claim overstates what was enacted: the 2025 law added a temporary senior deduction and did not remove the tax on benefits. The description of De La Cruz as a small businesswoman is accurate.

Fact Verification

The kernel is that Pulido opposes the law those provisions came in. That law is H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He has run at least four ads attacking De La Cruz for voting for it. His complaint is the Medicaid, ACA and SNAP cuts, not the tax deductions. The Texas Tribune (Aug. 28, 2026) quotes him dismissing her pitch: "She's saying that she voted for no tax on tips and that this big beautiful bill was awesome, and the people are not stupid." The Tribune also paraphrases him as saying she promotes other parts of the megabill to distract from the healthcare cuts. That is criticism of the bill as a whole, not a stated position against the tips deduction.

His own July 8, 2026 Substack post on the law's first anniversary attacks the SNAP cuts and the "largest Medicaid cuts in history." It doesn't mention tips, overtime, Social Security or repeal, and it pledges only to "fight to protect Medicaid."

The framing has other problems:

• There is no "no tax on Social Security." H.R. 1 added a temporary deduction of up to $6,000 for taxpayers 65 and older, with income limits. Benefits are still federally taxable, as Texas Public Radio noted.
• The tips and overtime deductions are capped and run only from 2025 through 2028. The prediction that they "will be terminated" therefore describes what the Republican law already does on its own schedule. It is not a consequence of Democrats winning.
• No tax on tips had bipartisan support. Sen. Cruz's standalone bill passed the Senate.

None of the race coverage I reviewed reported any statement from Pulido taking this position. That includes Texas Public Radio, the Texas Tribune, KRGV, The Texan, Roll Call and El Imparcial. The only place I found the claim was Trump's own post. Because the opposition is inferred from his opposition to the larger bill rather than taken from anything he said, mostly false fits better than unverifiable. | | "There is NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY (as an enacted policy De La Cruz and Republicans delivered)" | Mostly False | The 2025 reconciliation law added a temporary additional deduction of up to $6,000 for taxpayers 65 and older, through 2028. Social Security benefits remain taxable under existing thresholds, so many seniors pay less but the tax was not eliminated. The tip and overtime provisions are likewise capped, temporary deductions. | | "Monica De La Cruz is a very successful small businesswoman" | Mostly True | Before Congress, De La Cruz ran an insurance agency and worked in real estate in the Rio Grande Valley. 'Very successful' is an opinion. | | "Pulido wants massive tax increases, open borders, men in women's sports and transgender mutilization of children" | Mostly False | There are four parts to this claim, and I checked each against Pulido's own statements and independent coverage.

Tax increases (a partial kernel): The Texas Tribune (Oct. 16, 2026) reports that Pulido wants to cut the federal deficit partly by "increasing taxes on corporations and the highest earners." He also said "I don't attack the rich." So he supports some tax increases, aimed at corporations and top earners. Nothing supports "massive" increases or increases on ordinary families, and his issues page proposes no tax increases. On small business it pledges to cut "red tape."

Open borders (contradicted):

• His issues page calls for a secure border that doesn't change with each administration and for removing violent criminals who are in the country illegally.
• The Texas Tribune says he breaks from his party on border security.
• Texas Public Radio reports he backs tougher border enforcement.
• News 4 San Antonio reports he wants a secure border and deportation of violent criminals.
• He has criticized Biden's border policies.

He does support a path to legalization, more vetting hubs in Central America, and an end to aggressive ICE tactics. He told The Texan "I believe we can secure the border without destroying families" and wants a system that's "tough but fair." The NRCC's "open-borders" label rests on his endorsement of James Talarico, not on a policy he has stated.

Men in women's sports and transgender issues (no evidence): I found no statement by Pulido on transgender athletes, gender-affirming care or minors. That covers his campaign site, issues page and Substack, plus coverage from the Texas Tribune, TPR, Roll Call, The Texan, KRGV and the Daily Signal. Even the NRCC's attack releases don't make this charge. The closest they come is mocking Talarico's description of God as "nonbinary." The Texas Tribune says Pulido avoids social issues so he won't be cast as a coastal liberal. TPR reports he calls himself conservative on social issues. He told The Texan "I have conservative values, I'm Catholic" and "I like my guns." He has also said he personally opposes abortion, though he calls Texas's ban "draconian."

Overall: one part has a partial basis (tax increases on corporations and top earners, but not "massive" ones). The "open borders" charge contradicts his stated platform. The two transgender charges have no supporting record. |

Overall Veracity: 35%