Connect with us

Texas

‘It’s massive destruction’: outcry in Texas over waivers to allow border wall in Big Bend national park

Published

on

‘It’s massive destruction’: outcry in Texas over waivers to allow border wall in Big Bend national park


The Trump administration has waived a slew of environmental and historical preservation laws that would allow it to build a towering border wall that cuts through Big Bend national park, a vast protected wilderness in south Texas.

Congress poured a whopping $46.5bn for border wall construction into the “Big, Beautiful” bill last year, supercharging Donald Trump’s ambition to wall off the southern border with Mexico. The longest unwalled stretches lie along a roughly 500-mile (800km) section of west Texas that Customs and Border Protection calls the “Big Bend sector”.

That corridor includes some of the largest chunks of protected land in a state that is 95% privately owned, including Big Bend national park, Big Bend Ranch state park and Black Gap wildlife management area.

The prospect of marring those landscapes in the name of border security at a time of plummeting unauthorized immigrant crossings has drawn fierce backlash from a bipartisan group of local leaders and protest from public land users. The notion of walling off Big Bend national park has sparked the most fury. The 800,000-acre (325,000-hectare) expanse of Chihuahuan desert punctuated by the Chisos mountain range draws half-a-million visitors annually to hike, camp, stargaze and float the Rio Grande.

Advertisement

For months, CBP has sent mixed signals about its intentions for Big Bend national park, while limiting its comments about its plans to vague and infrequent statements. CBP updated an interactive map on its website in February to indicate that the agency planned to erect a steel bollard wall along the park’s river frontage, sparking an outcry from public land advocates, local business owners and elected officials.

A spring thunderstorm on the Rio Grande, which cuts through Santa Elena canyon, on 11 April 2026 in Big Bend national park. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

CBP later changed the map to show that it only intended to use detection technology along the length of the park’s border. The current iteration shows that the agency plans to build new roads along the length of the park’s southern border, along with four separate 4-6ft-tall barriers intended to stop incoming vehicles. CBP officials have rarely discussed their plans for the wall publicly.

The park’s advocates worry that an opaque agency with a massive war chest could still wreak severe damage on the most beloved park in Texas. The waiver that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published on Tuesday in the Federal Register empowers CBP to build seemingly whatever security infrastructure it wants in the park – from 30ft steel bollard fencing to unpaved roads.

The waiver casts aside protections outlined in major laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and many others. The Big Bend area is home to several endangered species, a struggling population of bighorn sheep and a large concentration of Native rock art and petroglyphs.

The US representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, criticised the move as ludicrous in a region where illegal border crossings are already rare. “Billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on this unnecessary project, as Big Bend’s rugged mountains make illegal crossings nearly impossible, with crossings in the area accounting for under half a percentage point of all illegal border crossings nationwide last year,” Doggett said in a statement.

Advertisement

Vehicle barriers and surveillance

The only infrastructure project formally proposed within the park itself so far is a 17-mile, non-contiguous “vehicle barrier system” in four separate locations, composed of steel rails and posts measuring 4-6ft tall, along with 205 miles of roads up to 24ft wide equipped with detection technology. The project also envisions the erection of utility poles, lighting and surveillance cameras. Two of the proposed vehicle barriers are located in the middle of the park’s river frontage, along with one on each end.

The vehicle barriers are enough to dramatically alter an otherwise wild landscape, according to Bob Krumenaker, former Big Bend national park superintendent.

“It’s massive impact, massive destruction,” said Krumenaker, who now heads a nonpartisan advocacy group called Keep Big Bend Wild. “You’re looking at some of the most remote parts of a remote national park.”

DHS has signed off on border wall-related waivers for other federally protected lands in the past, including Organ Pipe Cactus national monument, Buenos Aires national wildlife refuge and Coronado national memorial, all in Arizona. But Tuesday’s waivers marks the first time the agency has used that authority to install border security infrastructure in a national park, Krumenaker said.

Big Bend national park, 2015. Photograph: Inge Johnsson/Alamy

Like many other public land advocates, Krumenaker is concerned that CBP’s infrastructure development won’t stop with the vehicle barriers. Though he viewed a 30ft steel bollard wall as an unlikely “worst-case scenario”, the waiver’s broad authority makes it possible for the agency to add virtually any security infrastructure it wants in an area prized for its scenic beauty and wildness.

Advertisement

“Waiving the law undermines all credibility and makes them completely unaccountable to anyone,” Krumenaker said. “They don’t care about the impact on the environment. If they have, say, a fuel spill, they’re not subject to any laws – they’ve just waived the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.”

“Their words, whether intended to be truthful or not, mean nothing,” he added.

In a statement, a CBP spokesperson said its border security infrastructure plans in “the areas adjacent to the Big Bend National Park and State Park are still in the planning stages, while CBP focuses on other higher priority locations”.

“CBP continues to coordinate with the National Park Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and other federal and state agencies, throughout the planning of border barrier and technology deployments, in order to achieve Border Patrol’s operational priorities,” the statement said.

Border crossings remain low

The Big Bend sector of west Texas contains some of the longest stretch of terrain on the US-Mexico border that remain untouched by significant border wall and fencing. It is also one of the most remote, with steep cliffs and vast stretches of Chihuahuan desert on both sides of the border that make it unattractive as a crossing point.

Advertisement

DHS justified the waiver as an emergency measure necessary to contain illegal crossings in the area. But the area was always among the least-trafficked corridors of the southern border, and unauthorized immigrant crossings have plummeted since Trump re-took office in 2025. His administration has largely dismantled humanitarian protections that allowed some immigrants to gain entrance to the United States, while the Republican-backed Congress has heaped tens of billions of new dollars into border security and mass deportation.

Within Big Bend national park itself, border patrol made only 100 arrests in 2023, and 125 in 2024, according to data obtained by Krumenaker and shared with Public Domain. Those numbers likely continued to drop last year, after Trump took office and unauthorized crossings plummeted.

Local residents stage a weekly protest against proposed border wall construction, on 11 April in Terlingua, Texas. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

CBP commissioner Rodney Scott told the Washington Examiner last month that it would be “kind of silly to put like a 30-foot border wall on top of a 90-foot granite cliff”.

Big Bend national park’s scenic Santa Elena canyon cliffs, which are composed of limestone, in fact reach heights of 1,500ft.

Democrats in Congress have attempted to block DHS from using its funds from the “Big, Beautiful” bill to build barriers through Big Bend national park. But the measure, proposed by the representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, failed in an appropriations committee vote on Tuesday in the face of Republican opposition, according to the Texas Tribune.

Advertisement

The waiver has already prompted a legal challenge. The Friends of the Ruidosa Church, river guide Billy Miller and the Center for Biological Diversity updated an existing lawsuit on Thursday that challenges DHS border wall-related waivers of environmental laws in the Big Bend sector, arguing that they violate due process and other constitutional rights

“This is an attack on the integrity of the National Park Service itself,” said Laiken Jordahl, a national public lands advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “They have never waived these laws on a national park itself. If they’re willing to do this in a national park, where virtually no one is crossing the border, where won’t they?”

  • The story is co-published with Public Domain, an investigative newsroom co-founded by Roque Planas that covers public lands, wildlife and government



Source link

Texas

Supreme Court won’t block Texas from enforcing a law requiring age verification for app downloads

Published

on

Supreme Court won’t block Texas from enforcing a law requiring age verification for app downloads


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block Texas from enforcing a state law that requires apps stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors seeking to download apps or make in-app purchases on mobile phones.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users’ constitutional rights to free speech.

Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law can take effect. The panel suspended a district court’s ruling last December that the law is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs suing to block the law include the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a defendant in both cases.

Advertisement

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the law impermissibly seeks to limit access to content protected by the First Amendment, including news and educational material.

“Equity and the public interest support relief because protecting First Amendment rights — and parents’ rights to supervise their children as they see fit, not as the government tells them they should — is always in the public interest,” wrote attorneys for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas.

Attorneys from Paxton’s office argued that the law protects children from “dangerous modern products.”

“A child with access to an app store and a mobile device (such as a tablet or smartphone) can potentially download any number of software applications, potentially agreeing to invasions of the child’s privacy and sale of the child’s data and be exposed to any conceivable content without parental consent or even parental knowledge,” they wrote.

Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

Texas Rescuers Save Woman From Sewage-Filled Ravine

Published

on

Texas Rescuers Save Woman From Sewage-Filled Ravine



A passerby’s curiosity may have saved a life behind a Dallas high school. Police say that around 5:25pm on June 28, a young man followed faint cries coming from a wooded area and discovered a young woman stuck in a steep ravine, mired in mud and sewage after being trapped for days, Fox News reports. Dallas police and fire crews mounted a joint rescue in 104-degree heat, trekking about a quarter-mile over rough ground to reach her. They hauled her out and rushed her to a hospital, where she was treated for severe dehydration, extended sun exposure, and other injuries.


Police did not release the woman’s identity or say how she ended up in the ravine, WFAA reports. In a Facebook post Monday, the Dallas Police Department credited the “collaborative effort” of officers, firefighters, and paramedics whose quick work “saved a young woman who was in desperate need of help.” “The well-being of the Dallas community is not something that’s handled by a single agency,” the department said.”It takes a collaborative effort from multiple teams and organizations working side-by-side to ensure every person’s safety.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

Texas abortion stories fail to sway Congress post-Dobbs

Published

on

Texas abortion stories fail to sway Congress post-Dobbs

Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback.

WASHINGTON — On the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion, Samantha Casiano carried a picture of her daughter, Halo, with her to meetings on Capitol Hill.

The photo showed Halo without a fully formed skull and brain, leading to her death four hours after she was born. Casiano’s OB-GYN had told her 20 weeks into her pregnancy that the defect was “incompatible with life,” but while Casiano said she could see her doctor wanted to help her end the pregnancy, she also saw the physician’s hands were tied by the life imprisonment Texas doctors can face for providing abortions under the state’s laws.

“She had to choose between her life and mine,” Casiano said.

Casiano was one of several women who traveled to Washington last month with Free & Just, a national nonprofit formed after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that upended abortion access across the country, to speak with federal lawmakers as part of their “Abortion Stories on the Hill” campaign. It was the second June in a row in which women, like Casiano, trekked with Free & Just to the Capitol to relive some of their worst moments in an effort to explain to lawmakers how abortion restrictions delayed their medical care or forced them to carry a nonviable baby to term — an experience Casiano described as watching her daughter “suffocate.”

Advertisement

“I was more prepared this time,” Casiano said, comparing her first visit to Washington, in 2025, to a practice run. “I made sure to look the staffers in their eyes and let them know who I was.”

But not everyone was receptive to the message. After Casiano shared Halo’s story and photo with a staffer for her congressman, U.S. Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Magnolia, she was told the office is “pro-life” and escorted out minutes after.

“It was a slap in the face,” she said. “I really wish that [the staffer] would have taken a deep breath with me.”

From left: Dr. Damla Karsan, a Houston-based OB-GYN, Amanda Zurawski, Samantha Casiano, Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Ashley Brandt, address the press following the first day of testimony for Zurawski v. State of Texas outside the Travis County Civil and Family Courts Facility in Austin on July 19, 2023. Joe Timmerman/The Texas Tribune

Despite their annual visits to the Hill and efforts to share their stories with lawmakers, abortion advocates have struggled to break through in a Congress that, since Dobbs, has lacked the numbers to roll back state bans or otherwise loosen restrictions.

Rather, some GOP lawmakers say they want to further clamp down on abortion by targeting pills like mifepristone, which now account for nearly two‑thirds of abortions nationwide. In Texas, telehealth makes up virtually all abortion care that still happens within state law, according to recent estimates.

Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, said advocates’ warnings about the effects of abortion bans were overblown and intended to “scare the shit out of people.” And she criticized federal rules that allow abortion medication to be prescribed virtually and mailed to patients.

“What you saw with Dobbs was the same scare tactics we always hear from Democrats about what Republicans are going to do, and history has proven them wrong once again,” Van Duyne said, adding that she still sees work to be done in scrapping federal policies allowing drugs like mifepristone “that actually kill a baby.”

Abortion and the campaign trail

Advocates like Casiano are also confronting the reality that, at least in Texas, abortion access is not top of mind for voters. In a recent Texas Politics Project poll, just 2% of voters named abortion as the most important problem facing the state, with inflation and the economy and a host of other issues ranking higher.

That disconnect is something Kaitlyn Kash, an Austin mom who joined a 2023 lawsuit challenging Texas’ narrow medical exceptions to its abortion bans, says she thinks about when she talks to Texans about her own experience.

Kash, who has spent the last three Dobbs anniversaries on the Hill, said she tries to be careful when speaking about abortion and reframes it as a broader fight over access to reproductive healthcare — and as an issue that’s interwoven with the economy, people’s families and their freedoms.

Advertisement

“You can have more than one issue. I don’t think people understand that you’re not voting about abortion, you’re voting for reproductive healthcare because they’re all interrelated,” Kash said. “It’s a continuum of care, and doctors need the ability to be able to give you that care.”

Kaitlyn Kash poses for a portrait in the Texas Capitol on April 7, 2025.
Kaitlyn Kash poses for a portrait in the Texas Capitol on April 7, 2025. Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune

Raven E. Freeborn, a former abortion doula and president of Avow, a Texas-based abortion-rights organization, said she doesn’t see abortion as separate from voters’ pocketbook worries.

“Abortion rights and access are vital to affordability,” she said. “Not being able to access abortion when you need it, that’s an economic justice issue. You’ll likely miss work, so you’re going to lose wages. Economic justice, affordability, reproductive justice, and abortion access are all living inside the same constellation.”

While Casiano, Kash and others have failed to move the needle on Capitol Hill, their stories, along with the deaths of Texas women due to delayed treatment, have helped generate changes at the state level. Last year, Texas lawmakers passed Senate Bill 31, dubbed the Life of the Mother Act, a measure that directs doctors to use “reasonable medical judgment” in medical emergencies involving a patient’s life or serious harm. The law says a medical crisis need not be “imminent” before healthcare providers can act, and that a doctor can only be charged if the state can prove “no reasonable doctor” would have made the same call.

But some advocates say that has not helped when it matters. Texas Equal Access Fund, an abortion access advocacy group, has called SB 31 a “fake fix,” arguing it adds legal red tape for physicians without resolving the gray area around the ban’s exceptions, still leaving pregnant patients in medical limbo.

Additionally, two Austin-area emergency rooms were the subject of a recent federal complaint from a woman alleging she was denied miscarriage care, even with the new clarifying language on the books.

Advertisement

John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that helped craft Texas’ abortion bans and SB 31, said he sees the remaining problems not as flaws in the statutes but as failures in how hospitals and attorneys are applying them. That was the impetus, he explained, behind the new law’s requirement for the Texas Medical Board to create training for doctors who perform obstetrics care.

“We passed Senate Bill 31 last session to require education of physicians on this topic, because we want the message to be very clear that whenever there’s a serious situation like an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage, there is no hesitation, that doctors are supposed to serve those women and help them immediately,” he said. “[If] the attorney at the hospital misrepresented the law, that’s just malpractice.”

John Seago listens while on a panel during the Texas Youth Summit in The Woodlands on Sept. 20, 2025.
John Seago listens while on a panel during the Texas Youth Summit in The Woodlands on Sept. 20, 2025. Mark Felix for The Texas Tribune

Freeborn pushed back, describing abortion as more than an emergency moment, but also as “healthcare, a political bargaining chip and a moral clause.”

“These doctors are wrestling with everything that’s in the room with them about a healthcare procedure — stigma, shame, disinformation — and that is not true of other medical care,” Freeborn said. “Birthing people are navigating their reproductive realities, and their ability to have bodily autonomy and govern over themselves is often in question by way of their relationship to something else.”

Some research has found that Texas’ abortion restrictions are linked to worsening mental health among reproductive‑age women. A study of more than 15,000 Texas women found that reports of “frequent mental distress” rose significantly after the state in 2021 banned most abortions after about six weeks.

Cracking down on abortion pills

Meanwhile, Seago’s group and other anti-abortion advocates have been moving to restrict the flow of abortion drugs to states like Texas where the procedure is banned. The Texas GOP, for example, listed “protect life” as one of its eight legislative priorities at last month’s convention, a plank that includes a call for “strong criminal penalties and new enforcement tools to fight abortion and abortion pill trafficking.”

Advertisement

In a letter signed last week by more than 80 anti-abortion groups, advocates urged Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to settle a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s Biden-era policy allowing mail delivery of mifepristone.

“Pro-life states cannot enforce their laws while an FDA regulation gives cover to mail-order abortionists and DOJ defends the profits of abortion drug manufacturers,” the letter said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed two civil suits since 2024 against out‑of‑state providers he says illegally mailed abortion pills to Texans.

In a statement marking the four-year anniversary of Dobbs, Jonathan Saenz, president of the conservative advocacy group Texas Values, celebrated that Texas “has been a beacon of life” since the decision, while calling for action on drugs like mifepristone.

“As the state where Roe v. Wade originated, Texans have a deep and personal stake in never going back to that deadly time period,” said Saenz, one of the signatories on the letter to Blanche. “Sadly, illegal mail order abortion pills are still being sent into Texas and we must continue working hard to protect moms and babies from this type of exploitation.”

Advertisement

Abortion advocates like Kate Cox say lawmakers should focus instead on Texas’ post-Dobbs medical landscape. The Dallas mother, who traveled to New Mexico to terminate her pregnancy in 2023 after her fetus was diagnosed with a genetic condition that’s almost always fatal, said she is concerned that the state’s severe abortion penalties, even with SB 31, will push OB‑GYNs to practice in other states and make Texas a less attractive place for top medical talent.

Kate Cox, who sued the state while pregnant and unable to get an abortion with a lethal fetal anomaly, speaks with plaintiffs in the Zurawski v. Texas case standing behind her at the kick-off event for the “Women for Allred” coalition addressing the state of women’s health and abortion rights in Dallas, TX on August 24, 2024.
Kate Cox speaks at the kick-off event for the “Women for Allred” coalition addressing the state of women’s health and abortion rights, in Dallas on Aug. 24, 2024. Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

“I think new OB-GYNs coming out of school look at the situation, and they don’t want to come practice in Texas, where they would have to navigate what would be a very different situation in other states,” said Cox, the first adult woman to seek a court’s permission to have an abortion post-Dobbs. “I was in the emergency room four times, and I asked my doctor, ‘If I choose not to continue the pregnancy, can I make that decision?’ And she said, ‘Not in Texas.’ I think that puts them in a very difficult spot.”

That’s why Cox wants lawmakers to focus less on prescribing what doctors can do and more on recognizing the volatile realities of pregnancy.

“Every pregnancy is different. Some bring joy, some bring heartbreak, and some bring medical emergencies,” Cox said. “The Legislature can write a law that covers every possibility with compassion. And the more we learn about pregnancy, the more we realize how unpredictable it can be. Instead of trying to legislate every scenario, we should trust families and the physicians that are caring for them.”



Source link
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending