Bulldozers broke ground in Big Bend National Park last week, pushing forward a controversial federal border barrier project even as opposition grows among Texas officials, conservation groups and local leaders.
The construction comes after months of conflicting signals from federal officials about the future of barriers in the Big Bend region, where the Rio Grande winds through some of the most rugged and remote terrain along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Last fall, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem issued an order waiving regulatory restrictions to allow construction of border barriers in the Big Bend Sector.
But in April, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott told the Washington Examiner that CBP would not build a border wall in Big Bend, citing backlash from Texans and the region’s geography.
“It would be kind of silly to put a 30-foot border wall on top of a 90-foot granite cliff,” Scott said.
That position appeared to shift again in May, when Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin published a notice in the Federal Register waiving 35 federal laws to allow the government to “install additional barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector,” which he described as “an area of high illegal entry.”
Critics say Big Bend presents circumstances dramatically different from other stretches of the southern border. They argue its mountains, cliffs, desert and river terrain already create substantial natural barriers, while construction could permanently damage wildlife habitat and public lands.
Former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has become one of the project’s most outspoken Republican critics.
“We're building this barrier wall in areas where, if you look at the other side of the Rio Grande in Mexico, it's a vertical cliff,” Patterson said. “So, we're putting a barrier wall where there is no vehicular cross-river traffic, and vehicular cross-river traffic is unusual to start with.”
Patterson called the project “the greatest folly I have been personally knowledgeable about or heard of.”
The Big Bend Sector covers 517 miles of the roughly 1,950-mile U.S.-Mexico border, making it the largest of nine Border Patrol sectors by frontage. Patterson said illegal crossings in the sector account for only about 1.3 percent of encounters along the border.
Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland raised similar concerns in a July 17 post on X. He said the Department of Homeland Security was spending $2.6 billion to construct 156 miles of vehicle barriers “where vehicles can’t drive across the Rio Grande.”
“I support border security 100 percent,” Cleveland wrote, “but this isn’t border security. [It’s] a boondoggle.”
Texas GLO orders work stopped on state land
The controversy widened at the end of July when Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham announced that the Texas General Land Office had issued a cease-and-desist letter after discovering that a federal contractor had allegedly cleared more than a mile of state-owned land without authorization.
In a July 31 release, Buckingham said the GLO prohibits “any land modifications, excavations, or construction” on the property without its approval and said that process had been bypassed.
The agency also notified Trans Pecos Ice LLC, which leases the ranch from the state, that it was in breach of its agreement for allowing unauthorized access.
According to Marfa Public Radio, Trans Pecos Ice is partially owned by Ryan Seiders, a co-founder of outdoor gear company YETI. The GLO's cease-and-desist letter says the ranch encompasses more than 10,000 acres across three Big Bend-area counties.
The letter alleges Barnard Construction “used heavy construction equipment to blade the terrain and remove all vegetation in its path.”
The GLO said it was still investigating communications between Trans Pecos and Barnard. Under the lease, “hunting, recreation, and grazing” are the only permitted activities on the property.
Buckingham accused CBP of trespassing on and substantially altering GLO land.
“Texas sovereignty will not be infringed upon by failure to follow established protocol,” she said.
Legal challenges target environmental waivers
The construction is also facing challenges in federal court.
Friends of the Ruidosa Church, the Center for Biological Diversity and a local resident filed an amended complaint against DHS in June, alleging the administration had carried out an “unconstitutional repeal of bedrock environmental and historic protections” by using federal waiver authority to advance border construction.
The plaintiffs argue the project would fragment river and desert habitats, impede endangered wildlife, disrupt the Rio Grande's natural dynamics and cause permanent damage to fragile vegetation and soils.
Their original lawsuit, filed in April, challenged DHS' use of authority under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, or IIRIRA, to waive dozens of federal laws.
A separate lawsuit brought by the Presidio Municipal Development District has so far failed to stop construction.
The district sued DHS in June, arguing that changes to the Presidio Flood Control Project levee violated the Rivers and Harbors Act and could affect flood protection relied upon by Presidio and surrounding communities.
Two weeks later, Mullin issued another waiver, this time covering the Rivers and Harbors Act. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton subsequently rejected the district's request to block construction, concluding that the July 2 waiver defeated “any claim” that DHS had violated the relevant portion of the law.
“When reviewing the legislative history of the IIRIRA, it is clear that Congress did not intend to limit the Secretary of DHS’s waiver authority,” Walton wrote.
Opposition crosses party lines
While border security remains one of the country’s most partisan political issues, opposition to construction in Big Bend has brought together an unusual collection of Democrats and Republicans.
Texas House Democrats have called for an “immediate halt,” accusing the Trump administration of “moving forward with irreversible damage to one of Texas' most treasured public lands without the transparency or accountability Texans deserve.”
State Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, called the project a “monument to corruption” and said it would enrich contractors without making Texans safer.
U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, wrote on X that a wall would “just destroy the nature and wildlife of Big Bend — it won't make anyone more safe or more free.”
“Democrats and Republicans agree: Trump needs to leave Big Bend alone,” Casar wrote.
State Rep. Eddie Morales Jr., D-Eagle Pass, whose district includes Big Bend National Park, has also pushed for construction to stop. Morales and 46 other Texas House members sent Gov. Greg Abbott a letter in March asking him to request that the Trump administration abandon plans for a Big Bend wall.
Opposition is not limited to Democrats.
Brandon Herrera, the Republican nominee for Congressional District 23, which includes the park, met with DHS and White House officials in March. Herrera said he advocated for an alternative using advanced technology and interdiction strategies that would avoid harming wildlife, the environment and the tourism economy.
State Rep. Wes Virdell, R-Brady, has similarly argued for “utiliz[ing] the technology we have instead of destroying something that's been there for a long, long time.”
Virdell also questioned why more Republican lawmakers had not publicly challenged the project.
“It is disappointing to watch so many people know that it's a bad idea, and they're not saying anything,” Virdell said. “I do have concern that people are worried that they won't have a seat at the table with leadership if they question it.”
Patterson was harsher, calling Republicans who remain silent “gutless” and arguing that some fear losing political support or being portrayed as favoring open borders.
“Hell no, we're not for open borders,” Patterson said. “Matter of fact, all of the sheriffs out there, every local elected official, Republican, Democrat, they want a wall, but they want it to be a virtual wall.”
With bulldozers now on the ground, the dispute has moved beyond a debate over what might be built in Big Bend. Construction, legal challenges and political pressure are now unfolding simultaneously, leaving the future of one of Texas’ most distinctive stretches of the border at the center of a widening fight over how — and where — border security infrastructure should be built.
