Controversy surrounds border construction in area of Big Bend National Park

Construction began on national park land in south Texas after rumors circulated for months about whether or not a border wall was being built on national park land, and whether surrounding wildlife areas would be affected. Concerned residents gathered at Big Bend National Park in protest last week despite the summer heat, as controversy around the topic continued.

What’s being built? U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott released a statement late last week clarifying there were no plans to build a wall. Border officials planned to build one new access road, install detection technology, and place strategic vehicle barriers in limited locations, Scott said. Officials would not build a 30-foot wall or install any stadium-style lighting through any of the parks or wildlife areas, he clarified. The Department of Homeland Security waived 28 laws in February to expedite the construction, including the Archeological Resources Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Natalie Newman, a resident of Terlingua, a town just a few miles from the national park, posted a series of photos and videos on Instagram that she said showed the progress. She raised concerns about the plans and the impact they would have on local wildlife and natural and historical sites throughout the region. Visitors can’t pick a flower or take home a rock from national parks, yet contractors are gouging their way deeper into Big Bend, she said in one post.

Despite being the largest border sector, the Big Bend region sees the least illegal traffic, according to customs officials. Composed of 77 Texas counties and over 510 miles of river, the region saw roughly 3,000 migrant arrests in fiscal year 2025, roughly 1 percent of the more than 254,000 total U.S. Border Patrol encounters for that year.

The harshness of the terrain makes crossing in those areas nearly impossible, south Texas rancher Shawn Creamer explained to WORLD. Creamer admitted she carried a sidearm every time she left her house during the Biden administration, because the family sheep ranch sat near the border and east of the Big Bend region, in an area where Creamer said the wall makes sense. Yet out in the Big Bend area, the minimal crossing numbers, remoteness, and harsh terrain make the wall extremely unnecessary, she said, adding that even the proposed vehicle barriers will have a huge and lasting impact on the area. The solution to illegal immigration is a fully funded Border Patrol and implementation of all the laws that are already on the books, with swift deportation for those that break the law, she concluded.

Local ranchers also raised concerns about the possibility of being blocked from the Rio Grande. The river is one of the largest water sources in the state, and could become more difficult to access. Roughly 400 ranchers and landowners in the Big Bend region received letters requesting right of passage or surveying rights, according to the Texas Tribune. Denying the letters’ requests could lead to the loss of their lands, and potentially their homes, under eminent domain.

However, according to a Newsweek fact check, bisecting the land would make acreage access and water rights more difficult for owners but would not change the title or the international boundary. Though several hundred thousand American acres may wind up on the other side of the proposed barrier, the fixed boundary line between the United States and Mexico is the Rio Grande channel and the land would still belong to the American ranchers and farmers who own it, Newsweek said.

Is anything being done? A bipartisan group of over 40 Texas House of Representatives members sent a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott expressing their opposition to the construction. They called the mountains, cliffsides, and harsh climate of the region a God-given barrier, adding that physical barriers have long been recognized as unnecessary. The costly and disruptive measures moving forward despite overwhelming bipartisan opposition was particularly concerning, the letter said. Rep. Eddie Morales Jr., D-Tex, posted the letter alongside a statement that said there was no need to spend over $7 billion on a sector that saw less than one percent of crossings. Texas does not and should not bend the knee to the will of the federal government, he added.