Last year, tractors broke ground in Big Bend National Park as a result of public outcry against illegal immigration from the United States.
Last fall, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem issued an order waiving all regulatory restrictions in order to drive through the development of border restrictions in the Big Bend Sector.
Rodney Scott, the CBP’s director, told the Washington Examiner in April that the CBP had certainly construct a border wall in Big Bend because Texans were upset about the reaction the public had received.
Scott remarked of the choice,” It would be kind of foolish to put a 30-foot border walls on top of a 90-foot granite cliff.
In May, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin issued a notice in the Federal Register waiving 35 national laws to “install more restrictions and roads in the Big Bend Sector”, which he labeled” an area of high illegal passage”.
Critics also contend that the robust and secluded landscape serves as a barrier to unlawful entry in the Big Bend area in order to maintain the resort’s public land and wildlife habitats.
Former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson told The Texan,” We’re building this barrier wall in places where, if you look at the other side of the Rio Grande in Mexico, it’s a lateral cliff.” ” So, we’re putting a roadblock wall where there is no automotive cross-river visitors, and automotive cross-river visitors is strange to begin with”.
Patterson referred to the task as” the greatest folly I have personally known about or heard of.”
With 517 miles of frontage, the Big Bend sector, which is the largest of the nine, accounts for only 1.3 percent of total illegal encounters, according to Patterson, who cited the 1,950-mile border span as evidence of the illegal crossings.
Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland opposed the plan in his July 17 post on X, writing that the U. S. Department of Homeland Security ( DHS) is building 156 miles of vehicle barriers for$ 2.6 billion “where vehicles can’t drive across the Rio Grande”.
Cleveland wrote,” I support border security to the fullest, but this isn’t border safety.” It’s a boondoggle, indeed.
GLO Answer
Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham stated in her July 31 press release that the Texas General Land Office ( GLO ) forbids “any land modifications, excavations, or construction” without approval by the GLO, a step Buckingham claimed was bypassed as construction began. She also criticized the project by publishing a cease-and-desist letter at the end of last month.
Additionally, Buckingham noted that Trans Pecos Ice LLC, the property’s tenant, was informed that it had violated its agreement with the GLO by “allowing illicit access.” The GLO leases the house, a house, to the company.
According to Marfa Public Radio, Trans Pecos Ice LLC is reportedly partly owned by Ryan Seiders, a co-founder of the world outside items business YETI. The Big Bend house is spread over more than 10,000 acres across three regions, according to the GLO’s cease and desist text.
The GLO’s email information that the design company in charge of the project, Barnard Construction, “used heavy construction equipment to tip the ground and remove all vegetation in its path”. The companies are in violation of the deal with the GLO, according to the letter, but that the GLO is also “investigating the level of the connections between Trans Pecos and Barnard.”
According to the cease-and-desist text, “hunting, recreation, and eating” are the only permitted activities on the house.
Buckingham asserted that the CBP” trespassed across and considerably altered the geography of GLO land” on the property.
She said,” Texas independence will not be violated by breaking established protocol.”
Relevant Claims
Conservation groups and various companies already involved in lawsuits against the DHS over construction of the wall through the Big Bend region also opposed the build.
In June, a group of local residents, Friends of the Ruidosa Church, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the DHS filed their first amended complaint against the administration on the grounds of “unconstitutional reform of rock economic and historical protections” in the government’s decision to build the border wall in the Big Bend place.
The plaintiffs assert that the project will “fragment critical riparian]riverside ] and desert habitats,” “disrupt natural river dynamics,” “disrupt natural river dynamics,” and permanently and irreparably harm “fragile soils and vegetation.”
The original lawsuit, filed in April 2026 by the same plaintiffs, argued that Mullin’s waiver — the DHS ‘ invocation of statutory authority under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ) — is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit claimed that the DHS “won dozens of federal laws” by using the IIRIRA to speed up the construction of the border wall.
A federal judge recently rejected the plaintiff’s request to block construction in an additional lawsuit brought by the Presidio Municipal Development District ( PMDD).
The PMDD sued the DHS in June, claiming that the administration was in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1999 by altering the Presidio Flood Control Project ( PFCP ) levee in order to complete border wall construction.
The group claimed that the PFCP and” thousands of residents of the broader Presidio County in Big Bend” rely on it for flood protection but that the DHS failed to obtain proper approval of the project, which would affect the risk of levee alterations.
Two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, Mullin issued a separate waiver of the Rivers and Harbors Act, a decision that ultimately resulted in the judge rejecting the plaintiffs ‘ request to stop construction.
U. S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton concluded that the July 2 waiver defeated “any claim” that the DHS violated part of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
According to Walton,” Congress did not intend to limit the Secretary of DHS’s waiver authority,” according to his conclusions.
Bipartisan Reaction
The Texas House Democrats called for an “immediate halt” to the project, warning the administration of President Donald Trump was “moving forward with irreversible damage to one of Texas ‘ most treasured public lands without the transparency or accountability Texans deserve”.
In a post on X, Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate and state representative James Talarico (D-Austin ) called the Big Bend border wall a “monument to corruption,” adding that it “enriches wealthy contractors without making Texans one bit safer.”
Congressman Greg Casar (D-TX-35 ) claimed in a post on X that building a border wall would” just destroy the nature and wildlife of Big Bend” and that it would not make anyone safer or more free. He also described the project as “disgraceful.”
” Democrats and Republicans agree: Trump needs to leave Big Bend alone”, he wrote.
State representative Eddie Morales Jr. (D-Eagle Pass ), whose Texas House district encompasses the entire park, has spoken out against the border wall’s construction there. Morales also wrote a letter to governor along with 46 other House members. Greg Abbott in March, urging him to “request that the Trump Administration cease any plans or construction of a border wall in the Big Bend region”.
Morales reiterated in a second letter that the” communities are in the dark by the federal government and have received no clarity from state leadership.”
Brandon Herrera, the GOP nominee for Congressional District 23, has been vocal about his opposition to the project. He met with DHS and White House leaders in March, saying that he “advocated for an alternative solution that could rely on advanced technologies and an interdiction strategy that would not have a negative impact on the environment, wildlife, or the thriving tourism that creates so many jobs” in the area.
State Representative Wes Virdell (R-Brady ), whose Texas House district is located just north of Big Bend, addressed The Texan about the value of “using ] the technology we have rather than destroying something that has been around for a long, long time.
Virdell said he is not sure why his colleagues have kept quiet on the subject, but that he thinks it is lawmakers ‘ “duty to do the right thing”
” It is disappointing to watch so many people know that it’s a bad idea, and they’re not saying anything”, he stated. ” I do worry that people are worried that they won’t have a seat at the table with leadership if they question it,” he said.
Republicans are alleged to be afraid of losing endorsements from what he described as a” Trump-driven Republican Party,” according to Patterson, who called them “gutless.” He added that many of the Republicans are concerned that if they oppose the project, they will appear to support open borders.
He continued,” Hell no, we’re not for open borders.” In actuality, every Republican or Democrat local elected official wants a wall, but they also want it to be a virtual wall, according to the sheriffs.
