Texas Landowners Mount Resistance to Trump Administration's Border Wall Project

The Trump administration's expansive $46 billion border wall project, intended to stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, is encountering significant opposition from landowners in Texas' Big Bend region. These landowners are refusing to cede their property for the wall, viewing it as an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds. This resistance is creating hurdles for President Donald Trump's signature infrastructure initiative and is testing the administration's resolve in fortifying the southern border.

The federal government possesses broad authority to advance the wall project, including the ability to waive environmental and other regulations. However, construction in the Big Bend area has been temporarily halted by a federal judge, providing a crucial advantage to landowners. These landowners have been obstructing the project by declining cooperation with government surveyors, protesting at local meetings, and preparing for legal confrontations.

"Landowner resistance has slowed this project to a crawl," said David Keller, a landowner involved in legal action against the Big Bend border plans. He added that the administration "was woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up."

Building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border has been a central promise of Trump's platform. The administration has allocated billions of dollars for this purpose, including $46 billion approved by Republicans as part of a comprehensive immigration enforcement package. Despite a significant decrease in illegal border crossings under the current administration, officials maintain that walls, barriers, surveillance technology, and patrol roads are essential for maintaining low crossing rates. Customs and Border Protection reports constructing an average of 12 miles of barrier per week, reaching a milestone of over 200 miles of new wall construction during Trump's second term.

In the Big Bend region, where construction commenced in September, the administration plans to invest $7.5 billion to fortify over 500 miles of the border. This region, which constitutes approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S.-Mexico border, saw 161 border arrests in August, a stark contrast to the 8,870 arrests made along the entire southern border in the same month. "The American people have already seen the consequences of an unprotected border," stated CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott. "We cannot allow any region — including Big Bend — to be exploited again."

Land Rights and Eminent Domain

Unlike many other border areas, a substantial portion of land in Texas is privately or state-owned. This requires the government to secure authorization from landowners for surveying and construction. If landowners refuse, the government can pursue legal action through eminent domain, a process by which private property is taken for public use with compensation. Courts typically defer to the government in such cases.

Despite this, landowners like Dianna and Dan Burbach are actively resisting. They received notices in July requesting permission to survey their property for the wall's path, with a warning of potential court action within 90 days. The Burbachs, who have lived on their property along the Rio Grande for 25 years, fear the construction will exacerbate flooding and leave a portion of their land isolated behind the wall. "We’re going to let them take us to court, do eminent domain. We’ll fight it that way," Dianna Burbach said.

A Justice Department official indicated that while CBP has secured voluntary agreements with numerous Big Bend landowners, eminent domain attorneys have been retained in anticipation of disputes. Across the southern border, approximately 70 such cases have been referred to the department during Trump's tenure, with 50 resolved without requiring a trial.

The No Big Big Bend Wall Coalition, representing over 200 landowners, has filed a lawsuit challenging the project. Plaintiffs argue that the Department of Homeland Security is overstepping its authority, particularly in a region with minimal illegal cross-border activity. While legal challenges to border wall projects have historically met with limited success, the federal judge's temporary injunction against construction in Big Bend represents a significant victory for opponents. The plaintiffs' argument centered on the administration exceeding its congressional authority by issuing broad waivers to bypass environmental and other regulations.

David Keller described the judge's ruling as "unqualified good news," but acknowledged that ongoing uncertainty necessitates continued landowner efforts. The government has requested the judge to set aside her order while they pursue an appeal, arguing that unfinished border sections could lead to an increase in illegal immigration or smuggling into the Big Bend region.

Local Opposition and Political Divisions

Beyond legal action, opponents are engaging local governments, urging them not to cooperate with contractors. Charlie Angell, a tourism operator, and his partner Bibiana Gutierrez have attended county meetings, staged protests, and encouraged businesses to deny services to contractors. Efforts to block contractors from using local resources, such as an airport in Terrell County or a county road in Jeff Davis County, have met with mixed success.

Some local officials acknowledge having limited leverage against federal plans, with financial incentives sometimes swaying decisions. Terrell County Judge Dale Lynn Carruthers stated, "We’re not in control of the border wall. We’re not. We’re just a little old Terrell County."

Despite such sentiments, Angell and Gutierrez believe local opposition holds considerable power, asserting, "If we had rolled over, the wall would be up."

CBP maintains its pursuit of voluntary access agreements while finalizing project designs, referring disputes to the Justice Department as needed. The agency assures that landowners will receive compensation regardless of how access is obtained.

While border security and immigration were key motivators for Republican support of Trump, the recent decline in illegal crossings has led some, including Republican Senator John Cornyn, to question the necessity of the extensive wall project in Big Bend. Laura Allen, a Republican rancher who previously voted for Trump, stated, "I didn’t vote for a wall. I wanted our border secured. He accomplished that."

Terrell County Sheriff Thad Cleveland, a Republican with 26 years in the Border Patrol, also opposes the project, advocating for drones and surveillance towers as more effective in the rugged terrain. He noted, "We have the advantage of time and distance out here."

The challenging natural landscape of the Big Bend region, characterized by steep cliffs, inhospitable desert terrain, and remote accessibility, further fuels arguments against a physical wall. Gary Grabowske described his property as inaccessible by vehicle, stating, "There’s no vehicle in the world that could cross any of this."

Opponents frame the fight as a broader test of federal government authority over private property rights. "We’re a pretty tough bunch," said Allen. "But if we’re going to be run over and have our land taken by our own government, what makes anybody else in this United States think that they’re exempt?"

For multi-generational ranching families like the Zuberbueler brothers, Bill and Patrick, the potential impact on their livestock and land, integral to their livelihood, is a primary concern. They are resisting surveys and construction, feeling a responsibility to honor their family's legacy by asserting their right to fight.

"Regardless of what happens, we have to say we tried," said Patrick Zuberbueler.

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report from Washington.