Texas Freedom to Read Project (TXFTRP) has been caught in a Texas-sized lie.
But first, a bit of background.
If you’ve never heard of TXFTRP, it’s the main ALA astroturf group operating out of Texas. EveryLibrary, a de facto subgroup of ALA, is heavily involved in TXFTRP and has been from the beginning. Both organizations openly acknowledge their close ties.
"The support of EveryLibrary has been instrumental in the launch and the ongoing work of the Texas Freedom to Read Project. As attempts at censorship and book banning have skyrocketed across the state of Texas, the need to protect our First Amendment rights is more important than ever. We are incredibly grateful for and look forward to a continued partnership with EveryLibrary. We are optimistic about the future of Texas as we FightForTheFirst [sic]." - Laney Hawes, Texas Freedom to Read Project. (emphasis added)
|
| Statement from TXFTRP founder thanking EveryLibrary |
EveryLibrary works to support communities who are fighting against book bans and censorship by providing a wide range of pro-bono tools, data, funding and training. We previously provided the Florida Freedom To Read Project with a sophisticated website built on the NationBuilder platform. Now, we are excited to provide the same tools to a group of advocates in Texas who are fighting against censorship in school and public libraries across the state. This group is called the Texas Freedom to Read Project and you can visit their website at txftrp.org and sign their petition to get involved. We are also providing them with many of the tools and resources that they need to win! See their press release below for more information. (emphasis added)
|
| Statement from EveryLibrary on TXFTRP launch |
Note the mention of “Fight for the First” in TXFTRP’s blurb. Fight For The First is—in the words of EveryLibrary founder and Executive Director John Chrastka—“basically change.org for libraries.” It’s a plug-and-play platform developed by EveryLibrary to get ALA astroturf groups up and running in minutes (source).
 |
| Fight for the First “About” page citing EveryLibrary’s role |
As an EveryLibrary clone with a Texas twang, TXFTRP is scarcely different from the many other ALA-inspired, ALA-funded, ALA-trained organizations around the country. (For a refresher, here are the ALA/EveryLibrary agenda and playbook.)
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with an advocacy group seeking outside help with its operations or funding. But just know that TXFTRP is no more organic or independent than any other ALA astroturf group.
Which brings us to the present day.
On March 11, TXFTRP published an article saying that, as of February 2026, New Braunfels Independent School District (NBISD) had “banned” 600+ books and aged up 800+ books (i.e., moved them from middle school to high school libraries).
|
| TXFTRP article with scary headline and even scarier subhead |
|
| TXFTRP allegation that NBISD has removed or aged up nearly 1500 books |
NBISD’s supposed actions were in response to SB 13, a bill passed in the 89th Texas Legislature that was signed into law June 2025 and took effect September 2025.
That bill strengthened protections for public school children by prohibiting library materials that are harmful, obscene, pervasively vulgar, educationally unsuitable, or contain indecent or profane content. Naturally, TXFTRP fought it tooth and nail.
NBISD, along with other school districts around the state, undertook a review of its library collection to ensure it was in compliance with SB 13. TXFTRP, sensing a scoop, requested records from the district pertaining to this review.
After analyzing the data provided to it by NBISD, TXFTRP thought it had a bombshell on its hands. Instead, it had a nothingburger.
Here’s why: At the time the article was published, TXFTRP didn’t know the real number of books NBISD had supposedly removed, since they were going off spreadsheets instead of querying the catalog directly. And in fact it had no way of knowing, since NBISD’s review wouldn’t be completed for another 3 months.
TXFTRP admitted as much, albeit in the final paragraph:
A note on our data and information provided.
We acknowledge there are discrepancies between the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets and NBISD Library Catalogs which still show some of the "weeded: SB 13," aged up, and restricted titles listed as "available." New Braunfels ISD provided the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets in response to a request for records of books "removed" or "deleted" since June 1, 2025, so that is what our conclusions and statements are based on. Unless we are otherwise informed, we anticipate the books listed as "weeded: SB 13" in the spreadsheets provided by NBISD have already been, or will imminently, be removed. (emphasis added)
|
| Disclaimer at bottom of TXFTRP article on NBISD “book bans” |
While the disclaimer attempted to clarify what was and wasn’t known, the article itself showed no such restraint. Here’s a sampling:
[Headline] New Braunfels ISD bans 600+ books, ages up 800+ titles using AI & overly-restrictive selection criteria.
[Subhead] Lonesome Dove, The Tattooist of Auschwitz, Guinness World Records & The Three Musketeers among hundreds of books removed from school library collections. ...
The school libraries may be open- but according to public documents obtained by a volunteer for Texas Freedom to Read Project- books are being removed and restricted at an alarming rate. ...
As of February 2026, New Braunfels ISD has removed more than 600 books from its high schools in response to new laws. Additionally, over 800 books have been removed from district middle schools and aged up to the high schools and approximately 60 titles have been removed from New Braunfels ISD elementary school libraries.
While over 450 books are publicly listed as “under review” on the district website, others have been quietly removed behind the scenes. In total, 678 titles are listed on internal tracking logs, obtained through public information requests, as “weeded: SB13.” (emphasis added)
TXFTRP made hay of the titles in the NBISD spreadsheets, stoking alarm across its platforms that beloved classics like Charlotte’s Web and The Three Musketeers were being removed from school libraries in an unprecedented act of censorship.
The sensationalistic narrative was amplified by friendly media outlets like KSAT (ABC affiliate in San Antonio) and the San Antonio Current. Even ALA fellow traveler PEN America got in on the action. They all repeated TXFTRP’s claims uncritically.
When confronted with their methodological errors and NBISD-sourced data showing far lower numbers than those in the article, TXFTRP doubled down.
Finally, on May 1, NBISD published the results of its review: 72 books were preemptively removed before the review commenced; 161 books were deemed non-compliant; 28 were aged up; and 218 were deemed compliant.
Those numbers were rather different from those cited by TXFTRP, to put it mildly. Here are both sets of numbers for comparison:
| TXFTRP Number | NBISD Number | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemptively Removed | ? | 72 | ? |
| Non-Compliant | 660+ | 161 | 500+ |
| Aged Up | 800+ | 28 | ~800 |
| Compliant | ? | 218 | ? |
It turns out TXFTRP over-reported the number of books removed by more than five hundred and the number of books aged up by around eight hundred.
TXFTRP will argue that they based their conclusions on data provided by the district—which, technically, is true.
However, they failed to ask some (pretty important!) questions:
- Does the presence of a book on a spreadsheet mean it has been or will be permanently removed from the library’s collection?
- What exactly does the “Weeded: SB13” label mean?
The answer to the first question is “Probably not,” or if one wishes to be charitable, “Not necessarily.” In fact, the answer was no, but TXFTRP never checked. Instead, it presented its assumptions as faits accomplis.
The answer to the second question would have been readily provided by the district, had TXFTRP bothered to ask. That job fell to a reporter for the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, who dropped this nugget in a story published after the NBISD review was complete:
The district stated that books labeled “weeded: SB13” were not necessarily removed for noncompliance, but because SB 13 prompted librarians to conduct a deeper review of their collections. One major factor in removal was age appropriateness, which could include considerations such as reading level, interest level or catalog “adult” designations.The district also notes that publisher’s reviews evolve over time, so librarians make judgments based on the most up to date information and move books as appropriate. (emphasis added)
It’s now clear that TXFTRP (willfully?) misinterpreted the internal labels the district assigned to books during its review. They thought—or rather, assumed, because it fit the narrative—that “Weeded: SB13” meant the book had been or would be removed. This turned out to be false. Nevertheless, it formed the basis for the article’s most sensational claims.
But the article was not just inaccurate; it was pure fear-mongering. TXFTRP’s objective was to generate outrage over a law designed to protect children in order to secure its repeal. And they were willing to spread falsehoods to achieve it.
That ain’t right, y’all.
URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/texas-freedom-to-lie-project.html
Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs
Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse
Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA
Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs
Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse
Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA
Join World Library Association:
WorldLibraryAssociation.org
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
Sorry Dan, but your points in this piece are not true. We went through multiple layers of verification for this and stand behind what we wrote.
ReplyDeleteFirst, as you acknowledge, the district reported to us that over 600 titles were “weeded” from high schools with the justification “SB13” and 800 were aged up from the middle schools. The district told the Herald-Zeitung that those books were removed “because SB 13 prompted librarians to conduct a deeper review of their collections. One major factor in removal was age appropriateness, which could include considerations such as reading level, interest level or catalog “adult” designations.” That’s the district’s spin on what we reported and documented: librarians were told to remove books with “adult” designations, which means anything not explicitly reviewed for children.
Second, we did check—in multiple ways—the status of the books in the district. On top of that, the district confirmed to the Herald-Zeitung (in the piece you posted) that the “weeded” books were removed. We noticed a few discrepancies—weeding happens at the campus (not district) level, and some books on the HS list were removed from one high school but not both. So we included the note for transparency that you quote in this post. Only 5 of the more than 600 books on the HS “weeded” list are still found in both library catalogs, and there are a number of reasons why that may be the case.
We’ll have more coming out from both NBISD and other Texas districts, so follow us to learn more how SB13 is affecting our state’s school libraries.
1/2
Delete--------------------
… the district reported to us that over 600 titles were “weeded” from high schools with the justification “SB13” and 800 were aged up from the middle schools.
--------------------
The district didn’t “report” those numbers to you.
The district gave you spreadsheets containing book titles, some of which were labeled “Weeded: SB 13” or “Re-Placement.”
You assumed “Weeded: SB 13” meant a book had been or would be permanently removed, and “Re-Placement” meant a book had been or would be aged up.
You were wrong on both counts. Yet those faulty assumptions formed the basis of your article and resulted in claims that turned out to be wildly inaccurate.
--------------------
The district told the Herald-Zeitung that those books were removed “because SB 13 prompted librarians to conduct a deeper review of their collections. One major factor in removal was age appropriateness, which could include considerations such as reading level, interest level or catalog ‘adult’ designations.”
--------------------
Both this comment and your original article engage in a sleight of hand meant to insinuate that the district is lying about book removals, so it needs to be addressed.
The mechanism behind the deception is straightforward: the district uses “remove” in a temporary sense; you use it in a permanent one, without informing your readers that the word is being used in two entirely different senses.
You clearly understand the district’s intended meaning, because your own article includes this acknowledgment: “Books pulled for this internal review process remain off the shelves and unavailable to students, unless the review committee decides to return them to circulation.”
Yet you consistently treat the district as though it were referring to permanent removals—the exact opposite of what it is actually saying.
Returning to your comment, you omitted the key part of NBISD’s statement: “The district stated that books labeled ‘weeded: SB13’ were not necessarily removed for noncompliance …”.
With that context restored, the entire premise of your article falls apart. This alone calls for a retraction and an apology to NBISD, which you accused of “gaslighting the community” for not affirming your made-up claims.[1] We’re not holding our breath.
--------------------
That’s the district’s spin on what we reported and documented: librarians were told to remove books with “adult” designations, which means anything not explicitly reviewed for children.
--------------------
So now the district is guilty of “spin?” After you deliberately left out the part of NBISD’s statement that contradicts your narrative? Interesting.
Anyway, what you “reported and documented” was nothing new. In its October 9 statement—five months before you published your article—the district laid out its goal for the review and how it planned to achieve that goal:
“As a district, NBISD is reviewing book titles currently owned by the district to identify possible SB 13 violations. If a potential violation is found, the book will be removed from the library pending a further review. The goal of this review is to ensure there are no titles in our current collection in violation of SB 13.”[2]
This is in line with what the district told the H-Z nearly seven months later. So how is their statement “spin?”
Again, it must be pointed out that you’re using “remove” in the permanent sense here, knowing full well that’s not what the district means.
2/2
Delete--------------------
Second, we did check—in multiple ways—the status of the books in the district.
--------------------
If you checked the status of the books in the district, why were your conclusions so spectacularly wrong?
--------------------
On top of that, the district confirmed to the Herald-Zeitung (in the piece you posted) that the “weeded” books were removed.
--------------------
There’s that sleight of hand again. Were the books permanently or temporarily removed?
--------------------
We noticed a few discrepancies—weeding happens at the campus (not district) level, and some books on the HS list were removed from one high school but not both. So we included the note for transparency that you quote in this post.
--------------------
If that’s why you included the “note for transparency,” why does the note itself say nothing about weeding procedures or differences in availability among schools?
We don’t have to infer intent, because the note spells it out: “New Braunfels ISD provided the ‘Books Pulled by Who and Why’ spreadsheets in response to a request for records of books ‘removed’ or ‘deleted’ since June 1, 2025, so that is what our conclusions and statements are based on.”
In other words, the discrepancies resulted from TXFTRP’s numbers being based on spreadsheets provided by NBISD instead of the actual catalog. So the “note for transparency” is actually an exercise in CYA—or, ahem, an attempt to preserve plausible deniability—should anyone challenge your claims.
This allowed you to project confidence that the discrepancies would disappear and your assumptions would be proven correct: “Unless we are otherwise informed, we anticipate the books listed as ‘weeded: SB 13’ in the spreadsheets provided by NBISD have already been, or will imminently, be removed.”
It’s really a PR stunt from beginning to end: 1) avoid asking questions that would undermine your narrative; 2) make outrageous claims based on flawed premises and duplicitous framing; 3) pretend you were misled when your story falls apart.
By then, the damage has been done—your followers have been led to believe that “freedom to read” is under attack in Texas schools, SB 13 is a dangerous bill, and legislative efforts to protect kids from age-inappropriate material in libraries are nothing more than Christian nationalism and white supremacy.[3]
Did we miss anything?
--------------------
Only 5 of the more than 600 books on the HS “weeded” list are still found in both library catalogs, and there are a number of reasons why that may be the case.
--------------------
“There are a number of reasons why that may be the case” would have been a good starting point for your article. Just sayin’.
--------------------
We’ll have more coming out from both NBISD and other Texas districts, so follow us to learn more how SB13 is affecting our state’s school libraries.
--------------------
We look forward to it.
P.S. Dan didn’t write this piece.
[1] https://franklinstrong.substack.com/p/new-braunfels-isd-is-gaslighting
[2] https://nbisd.org/news/legislative-changes-to-library-materials/
[3] https://www.txftrp.org/petition
What Protect Salado Kids said. Besides that, thank you Frank for commenting here.
Delete