Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas is making accusations of blackmail in the aftermath of an alleged affair he had with a staffer who later committed suicide by lighting herself on fire.

Gonzales’ former staffer Regina Santos-Aviles reportedly sent a text to her co-worker in April 2025 claiming to have had an “affair” with their “boss.” Just months later, in September, Santos-Aviles took her own life.

Gonzales, who is married with children, is now accusing a lawyer representing Santos-Aviles’ husband, Adrian Aviles, of blackmail.

‘You are guilty and should resign.’

“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED,” the Trump-endorsed congressman said in a post on X Thursday. “Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death.”

“The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report,” Gonzales added. “I will keep fighting for #TX23.”

RELATED: Texas Republican’s staffer fatally set herself on fire last year — text now seems to confirm their alleged affair

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Gonzales also posted an apparent screenshot of a message from Aviles’ lawyer, Robert J. Barrera, offering a settlement and nondisclosure agreement. Barrera confirmed to Blaze News that the communication was from his firm on behalf of Aviles as part of a “confidential settlement negotiation” that was sent to Gonzales’ lawyers on February 10.

“What Tony printed is not the entire email, clearly,” Barrera told Blaze News. “… He cut out the significant reason of why we were attempting to settle and the evidence we had.”

Barrera noted that the discreet nature of the communication goes against the claim that he intended to blackmail the congressman as Gonzales had claimed.

“What I guess Tony, in his anger and rage, doesn’t read is that letter clearly states we had no intention of wrecking his political career,” Barrera told Blaze News. “Had we intended that, we would have not engaged in settlement communications. We would have just filed and gotten all the publicity we could in suing him for sexual assault and retaliation and office harassment, which is all covered under the Congressional Accountability Act.”

“In his desperate rage, Tony Gonzales went public with our attempts to settle the case under a confidentiality agreement, which is beyond common in these situations.”

Gonzales’ office did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

RELATED: ‘Loser mentality!’ Sparks fly as Texas Republicans spar to succeed Ken Paxton in debate moderated by Allie Beth Stuckey

Photo by Scott Stephen Ball for the Washington Post via Getty Images

Notably, Aviles replied to Gonzales’ post, denying the blackmail accusation and issuing a scathing rebuke of the congressman for what he called a “consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect [his] image.”

“You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face,” Aviles said in the post. “We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”

“Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper,” Aviles added. “Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent—people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”

Gonzales’ primary opponent Brandon Herrera, a gun YouTuber who nearly unseated the Texas Republican in 2024, also sounded off on social media in a post on X.

“You are guilty and should resign.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Tony gonzales, Brandon herrera, Donald trump, Regina santos-aviles, 2026 primary, Texas primary, Republican primary, Uvalde police, Blackmail, Politics 

Texas Democrats Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico have found themselves running against each other in the race for the Texas Senate seat — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be more entertained.

“There is a cage match a brewin’ between, I’ve got to say, two of the most libtarded people that may have ever existed,” Gonzales jokes.

“In the blue corner, you have Jasmine Crockett, the fake ghetto hood rat herself. And then in the other blue … corner, you have Texas state Representative James Talarico,” she continues, pointing out that Talarico has become the center of recent controversy after Stephen Colbert claimed an interview with the Texas politician wasn’t allowed to air on CBS.

“That’s actually not true, because CBS has already said that they did not pull Stephen Colbert’s James Talarico interview.”

“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Representative James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled,” a statement from CBS read.

“It was ‘The Late Show’ itself that decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options,” the statement concluded.

“There was a lie. It’s just been, actually I think, a ploy to try and prop up this lame soy-boy candidate because the Democrats know that if their candidate is Jasmine Crockett, they’re f**ked,” Gonzales comments.

“Now, I would also argue they’re screwed either way because James Talarico is not winning U.S. Senate in the state of Texas. Like, that’s not happening. But he is less of a train wreck and he is, I guess, less embarrassing,” she continues, before showing clips of Crockett calling out Talarico for his claims.

“I think she should just accuse Stephen Colbert of being racist,” Gonzales jokes.

“’He didn’t want to have a black woman on to talk about her Senate race,’” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Video, Camera phone, Video phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Democrats, Jasmine crockett, James talarico, Texas senate race, Stephen colbert, Fcc rules, President trump, The trump administration 

President Donald Trump has made abundantly clear that he is willing to attack Iran. Recent polling suggests, however, that Americans are not particularly keen on getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern conflict.

The tightrope

Trump has long been critical of his predecessors’ costly foreign entanglements, indicating both that he would end “the era of endless wars” and that it was not the job of American forces to “solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have not even heard of.”

‘Bad things will happen.’

The “peace president,” who has in recent years brokered numerous peaceful resolutions between warring parties, has been walking a tightrope with regard to Iran.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy noted, “We want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the ‘forever wars’ that bogged us down in that region at great cost.”

Despite skepticism from friends and foe alike, the administration pulled off its clinical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22 without wavering on the tightrope.

That successful balancing act is, however, now threatened by the apparent lack of progress in America’s indirect negotiations with Iran regarding the Shia nation’s nuclear program.

The situation

Trump stated at his Board of Peace’s first meeting on Thursday that Iran “cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region.”

The president said that “bad things will happen” if Tehran doesn’t make a deal to limit its nuclear program — something Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s foreign minister, suggested was possible ahead of the so-far unsuccessful indirect talks this week.

RELATED: Iran strike looms as Trump hosts Board of Peace

The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group entering the Arabian Sea on Feb. 6. Photo: U.S. Central Command

“We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we are going to make a deal. You are going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days,” added Trump.

Although a decision to attack has not yet been made, Trump has clearly taken steps to ensure that it’s a viable option, assembling the greatest U.S. military air presence in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that this air power would enable America to wage a weeks-long air war against Iran.

Trump has reportedly received several briefings on military options, including decapitation strikes on Iran’s political and military leaders with the goal of regime change and/or strikes on nuclear and ballistic-missile facilities.

In the meantime, Iran has reportedly been fortifying its nuclear facilities, repairing missile production sites damaged by Israel’s June surprise attack, and participating in military exercises, including naval drills with Russian forces.

The polls

A Gallup poll found two weeks ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that 59% of Americans favored and 37% opposed the proposed military intervention.

After the media dutifully banged the drums of war and Bush played up the threat of weapons of mass destruction, support for war climbed to 71% by March 19, 2003, according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News.

There is presently nowhere near that level of support for another military attack against Iran.

An SSRS/University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this month posed the question, “Do you favor or oppose the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances?”

Altogether, 21% of respondents said they favored an attack, 49% signaled opposition, and 30% said they didn’t know.

When broken down by party affiliation, 40% of Republicans, 6% of Democrats, and 21% of independents said they favored an attack. Twenty-five percent of Republicans, 74% of Democrats, and 51% of independents said they opposed an attack.

In a follow-up, pollsters asked, “Whose interests do you think would be most advanced by a war between the U.S. and Iran?”

Only 34% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 29% of independents said American interests would be most advanced.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2 similarly found that a military adventure in Iran was an unpopular prospect.

The poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran. Respondents who voted for Trump in 2024 were, however, majoritively (57%) supportive of an attack, with only 26% signaling opposition.

When asked about the U.S. using military force to overthrow the Iranian regime, 33% of respondents signaled support and 42% of respondents signaled opposition. Trump supporters were split 58% to 24% on the matter.

A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of American voters revealed last month that the “Israeli-Hamas-Iran conflict” was a top concern for only 1% of respondents. Though it was apparently not regarded as a priority, 59% of respondents still said they think that the U.S. should support regime change in Iran.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​War, Peace, Donald trump, George w. bush, Iran, Tehran, Nuclear, Military, Intervention, Foreign entanglement, Israel, Ayatollah, Nuclear deal, Regime change, Politics