Maureen Galindo, a 38-year-old Democrat running for Texas' newly drawn 35th Congressional District, is fielding questions about a professional history that includes operating a venture called Cosmic Kinks Tarot and working as a therapist who advertises treatment for "pleasure and orgasm disorders." The scrutiny arrives alongside a separate controversy: remarks about "billionaire Zionists" that prompted a condemnation from the Consulate General of Israel to the Southwest.
Galindo, a self-described single mom and licensed marriage and family therapist, is positioning herself as a progressive champion in a district carved out of Bexar County after Texas Republicans passed a new congressional map in August 2025. But a closer look at her résumé, and her own public statements, raises questions about whether Democratic leaders vetted the candidate they are sending into a race that could help decide control of the House.
The New York Post reported that Galindo operated Cosmic Kinks Tarot in Bexar County in 2022. The business, which offered "kinky birthchart readings" and "live tarot therapy," aimed to "empower individuals through the exploration of their sexuality, spirituality, and the stars," blending what the venture described as "popular astrology methods combined with sex education."
Galindo currently works with Exulted Sex Therapy, whose website states she addresses issues ranging from "pleasure and orgasm disorders" to celibate life. In a statement to an outlet, she said her work "supported people in developing healthy and safe sexuality."
None of that is illegal, of course. Voters can decide for themselves how much weight to give a candidate's professional background. But the combination of astrology-infused sex coaching and a congressional campaign invites a straightforward question: Is this the strongest candidate Democrats could find for a seat they need to hold?
The stakes are real. As many as five Democratic seats could flip in the midterm elections, and two Republicans are already facing off for the same 35th District seat in a late-May primary. Democrats cannot afford to lose winnable races, yet here they are, defending a nominee whose public profile is generating headlines for all the wrong reasons, not unlike other recent embarrassments involving Democratic figures.
Galindo told an outlet she holds "a Masters in Community Psychology." The Daily Mail reported that Concordia University, the institution that offered a Master of Arts in Community Psychology, shut down the program in 2020. The outlet also noted that it had seen records regarding Texas psychology licenses.
Texas has three licenses that permit the practice of psychology. Galindo's current credential is as a licensed marriage and family therapist, a distinct professional category. The gap between holding a marriage-and-family-therapy license and claiming expertise rooted in a "Masters in Community Psychology" from a now-defunct program may be a fine distinction, but in a field where licensing matters, voters deserve clarity.
Galindo has not, based on available reporting, addressed the discrepancy in detail. That silence is itself a choice, one that reporters and opponents will likely revisit as the race heats up.
The sex-therapy revelations might have remained a curiosity if not for a separate, more incendiary controversy. Galindo accused Johnny Garcia, described as the reigning Democrats' preferred candidate for the 35th District, of seeking to influence Bexar County's human trafficking networks, with backing from what she called "billionaire Zionists" who control it.
In an interview with The Current, Galindo said:
"[Zionists] are also infiltrating our local governments, the Israeli billionaire Zionists. So, I think it's important to expose that and call it out."
She went further, claiming that "billionaire Zionists and their puppets" had pushed the New York Times to publish what she called "dual 'hit pieces'" on her. The language drew on tropes that critics have long identified as antisemitic, the notion of shadowy Jewish financiers pulling strings behind governments and media.
The Consulate General of Israel to the Southwest weighed in the following day, condemning "hateful rhetoric" spouted by "individuals seeking public office." The consulate did not name Galindo directly, but the timing left little doubt about the target. When a foreign government's diplomatic office feels compelled to respond to a local congressional candidate's remarks, the candidate has a problem, and so does the party that elevated her.
Democrats have spent years accusing Republicans of tolerating extremism in their ranks. Yet when one of their own candidates invokes conspiracy theories about Zionist puppet masters, the party apparatus has been notably quiet. That double standard is familiar to anyone who has watched Democrats shield controversial members from accountability rather than confront the problem head-on.
Galindo's troubles land at an awkward moment for a party already managing internal fractures across the country. From Democratic infighting in California's governor's race to scandals involving party donors and officeholders, the pattern is consistent: candidates and allies who generate more controversy than votes.
In Texas, the 35th District was supposed to be a straightforward hold. The new map, drawn by Republicans, reshaped the boundaries, but Bexar County's Democratic lean gave the party reason for confidence. Galindo's candidacy complicates that calculus. A nominee dogged by questions about astrology-based sex education, credential gaps, and antisemitic rhetoric is not a candidate who inspires swing-voter confidence.
Johnny Garcia, the establishment-backed Democrat, has not responded publicly to Galindo's accusation that he is entangled with human trafficking networks and Zionist financiers. The accusation itself, made without apparent evidence cited in any reporting, is extraordinary. In most political environments, a candidate who levels that kind of charge against a primary rival would face immediate pressure to substantiate it or retract it.
Galindo has done neither. And the party has not demanded she do so. That tells you something about the incentive structure inside today's Democratic Party: controversy is tolerated as long as the base stays engaged.
The open questions around Galindo's candidacy are not trivial. What specific records exist regarding her licensing status in Texas? Did she complete the Concordia program before it shut down, or is the credential incomplete? What evidence, if any, supports her claim that Garcia is connected to human trafficking networks? And why has the Democratic establishment not publicly addressed her remarks about "billionaire Zionists"?
These are the kinds of questions that competent party leadership answers early, before opposition researchers and reporters do the work for them. The fact that the questions remain open suggests either that Democratic leaders in Texas have not done their homework, or that they have and decided the answers do not matter. Neither option reflects well on the party. It is the same pattern visible when Democratic-aligned figures face serious misconduct allegations and the institutional response is silence.
Galindo is, by her own account, a therapist who helps people with their sex lives and a political activist who believes Israeli billionaires are infiltrating local government. She is free to hold those views and pursue that career. Voters, in turn, are free to decide whether that is the résumé they want representing them in Congress.
Meanwhile, two Republicans are preparing for their own late-May primary in the 35th District. Whoever emerges will face a Democratic nominee whose campaign is already defined less by policy than by the kind of partisan spectacle that alienates the very voters both parties claim to want.
Elections are supposed to be about who can best serve a district's residents, the families, workers, and taxpayers of Bexar County who need competent representation on issues like border security, the cost of living, and public safety. Instead, the Democratic primary in Texas' 35th has become a case study in what happens when a party fails to vet its candidates and lacks the will to enforce basic standards of conduct.
Galindo's "kinky birthchart readings" are a footnote. Her claims about Zionist conspiracies are not. The first is eccentric. The second is reckless, and the silence from her own party tells voters everything they need to know about who is minding the store.
