Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) is battling allegations that he had an affair with a staffer who later died after setting herself on fire, a scandal that has engulfed his already competitive primary race just as early voting began this week.
Text messages reported by the San Antonio Express-News on Wednesday show Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, who worked in Gonzales's Uvalde office, texting another staffer in April 2025 with a blunt admission:
"I had an affair with our boss and I'm fine."
Santos-Aviles died last year. Her widower, Adrian Aviles, gave his first on-the-record interview to the Express-News, accusing the congressman of abusing his power by becoming romantically involved with his wife. He is seeking financial damages.
Gonzales has not directly addressed whether the affair occurred. He called the allegations "personal smears" and pointed the finger at his primary opponent, Brandon Herrera, a firearms YouTuber who narrowly lost to Gonzales in a 2024 runoff and has called on him to resign.
On Thursday, The Hill reported, Gonzales went on offense. He posted a screenshot on X of a partial email from Robert J. Barrera, the attorney representing Adrian Aviles, which referenced a potential filing under the Congressional Accountability Act. In the email, Barrera noted that such a filing would create a public record that could "potentially damage" Gonzales's career, adding "that is clearly not my goal or we would have filed this already." The email also referenced $300,000 as the maximum recoverable under the act.
Gonzales framed this as extortion:
"I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report."
It's a familiar play: release a piece of a private communication, strip it of context, and let the outrage do the work. Whether it succeeds depends on what the rest of that email says.
Barrera told The Hill that Gonzales "conveniently left off" the portion of the email referencing evidence downloaded from Santos-Aviles's phone that he says "clearly supports the relationship." He dismissed the congressman's post as "the last act of desperation of a politician who will not acknowledge the truth."
Adrian Aviles responded on X as well:
"We have never blackmailed anyone. What we've seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image."
He also pushed back on Gonzales's demand that the Uvalde police report be released, saying that the decision was made to protect their 8-year-old son, not to conceal anything.
This would be a serious problem for any incumbent. For Gonzales, it lands on a campaign that was already in trouble.
A December Political Intelligence poll reported by the Daily Caller showed Herrera leading Gonzales 33 percent to 29 percent among likely voters. That's before the text messages became public. Before the widower went on the record. Before the San Antonio Express-News pulled its endorsement of Gonzales over the allegations.
Gonzales did secure a Trump endorsement in December, which remains his strongest card. But endorsements can only do so much when a candidate is fielding questions about a dead staffer and a potential ethics violation. Under the House's code of conduct, members are prohibited from having sexual relationships with employees in their office. If the allegations are substantiated, this isn't just a personal scandal. It's a conduct violation with institutional consequences.
The Cook Political Report rates the seat as a toss-up in the general election. A wounded nominee coming out of a brutal primary serves no one on the right.
The most conspicuous feature of Gonzales's response is what it lacks: a denial. His statement to The Texas Tribune called the allegations "shameful" and accused Herrera of weaponizing a tragedy. He invoked his work with President Trump on border security. He said he would "not engage in these personal smears."
What he did not say, in any public statement included in reporting on this story, is that the affair didn't happen.
That's not proof of anything. But voters notice when a politician answers a question no one asked while ignoring the one everyone did. "I won't engage" is a strategy, not an answer. It works when allegations are vague and sourced to anonymous operatives. It works less well when the deceased woman's own text messages are in print, and her husband is on the record.
Gonzales wants voters to focus on the timing of the revelations, noting they dropped the day early voting began. He's not wrong that the timing is politically convenient for his opponents. Opposition research has a way of arriving on schedule.
But timing doesn't change the substance. The text message is either real or it isn't. The affair either happened or it didn't. Gonzales can complain about when the story broke, but that complaint has a shelf life measured in days, not weeks. By March 3, voters in southern Texas will be deciding based on what they believe happened, not when they learned about it.
Buried beneath the campaign warfare is something worse than a scandal. A woman is dead. She left behind an 8-year-old child. Whatever the truth of these allegations, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles was a real person whose final months appear to have been marked by turmoil, and whose death has now become ammunition in a primary fight.
Adrian Aviles says he wants accountability. Gonzales says he wants to protect her memory. Herrera wants Gonzales to resign. Everyone has a motive, and everyone is claiming the moral high ground.
The voters of Texas's 23rd district deserve clarity before March 3. They're not going to get it from campaign statements. The Uvalde police report, the body camera footage, and the evidence from Santos-Aviles's phone all exist somewhere. If Gonzales truly wants transparency, he should welcome their release, not just demand it as a rhetorical device while his office declines to comment.
Southern Texas deserves a representative who can win the general election and govern without a cloud overhead. Right now, neither candidate has made that case cleanly. The primary is in two weeks. The clock is running.
