Texas Land Commissioner Treads Carefully as Trump Border Wall Advances on State Property

The planned wall puts Dawn Buckingham between two competing responsibilities. She has built a reputation as a hardline border-security champion, but many Big Bend residents and politicians oppose a physical barrier. She is also seeking reelection, making the issue politically sensitive.

Her agency manages land directly in the wall’s proposed path. Buckingham supports a virtual wall in West Texas and sent cease-and-desist letters after contractors cleared state-managed land without authorization. Yet the GLO has communicated with Customs and Border Protection about border infrastructure on state land. That creates tension between resisting unauthorized work and cooperating with federal security plans.

The legal conflict remains active. A federal judge temporarily blocked wall construction in the Big Bend sector, while the Justice Department seeks to suspend that order and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Buckingham must decide how firmly to oppose the physical wall while defending state land and maintaining her border-security position.

The Texas General Land Office, or GLO, is the state agency managing Texas-owned land. Its holdings cover 13 million acres across Texas. Much of that property lies in far West Texas, including parcels beside the Rio Grande that form part of the international boundary.

Texas retained its state lands when it was annexed into the United States in 1845. The state later created the Permanent School Fund, which receives proceeds from leasing or selling those lands. Because the property remains state-owned, the GLO manages uses such as ranching, oil and gas drilling, and rare-earth elements mining.

This ownership matters because federal border plans cross GLO parcels. In Big Bend, ranchers often lease Permanent School Fund land and depend on Rio Grande access for cattle water. Federal construction therefore requires access across property managed by a state agency, creating the dispute involving Buckingham, Customs and Border Protection, and the Justice Department.

The scale is unusually large. The Texas General Land Office manages 13 million acres across the state, with many holdings in far West Texas. Some state parcels form part of the Rio Grande boundary and sit directly in the proposed construction route.

Those lands also have major financial importance. The Permanent School Fund, created soon after Texas entered the United States, is now valued at over $60 billion. Leasing or selling state land produces proceeds for the fund, which has supported public schools since its creation.

The land’s value is practical as well as financial. GLO property is leased for oil and gas drilling, cattle ranching, and rare-earth elements mining. In the border counties, ranchers may rely on leased land and Rio Grande access to water cattle. A wall could therefore affect public-school funding assets, commercial leases, and everyday ranch operations.

A physical wall would do more than mark the international boundary. In Big Bend, it could divide the United States from Mexico and also divide ranchers from the Rio Grande. Many ranchers lease Permanent School Fund land and depend on the river to water cattle, so blocked access could disrupt daily operations.

The proposed route also raised concerns because maps showed a wall through Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park. A documentary screened in the region depicts damage a border wall would cause in Texas. The GLO has described the Big Bend landscape as unique and worth preserving.

The article does not provide specific wildlife effects. It does show that park access, ranching, and the landscape are central concerns. CBP later changed its national-park plan, choosing vehicle barriers and detection technology instead of a wall there. Large rural stretches still remain part of the dispute.

On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued a temporary injunction blocking border wall construction in the Big Bend sector. The article does not explain the judge’s specific reasoning. The order stopped construction for the time being, but it did not end the federal government’s broader border-security effort.

Federal officials can continue work to secure right of way and access for the planned construction. That matters because GLO-managed land lies in the proposed route. Contractors cleared some state-managed land without authorization, prompting Buckingham’s office to send cease-and-desist letters. At the same time, the GLO communicated with Customs and Border Protection about infrastructure on state land.

The Justice Department has asked Judge Cardone to suspend the injunction. It also plans to take the case to the Supreme Court. CBP says it is working with the Justice Department on next steps, so access preparation and litigation can continue even while physical construction is blocked.

Texas retained its state lands when it was annexed into the United States in 1845. Those lands later became the foundation for the Permanent School Fund. The arrangement preserved state ownership across large areas, including border parcels near the Rio Grande.

The fund receives proceeds from leasing or selling state land. The GLO leases property for oil and gas drilling, cattle ranching, and rare-earth elements mining. This creates revenue from land that also supports working ranches and other economic activity. The fund’s value has grown to over $60 billion.

The school connection explains why the border dispute involves more than construction. Decisions about state land can affect assets whose proceeds benefit public schools. They can also affect existing leases and access arrangements. In Big Bend, the same land may serve as a financial asset, a ranching resource, and part of the proposed federal border-security route.

The article presents two governments with different roles. The federal government, through Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department, is pursuing border infrastructure. Texas, through the General Land Office, owns and manages many parcels in the proposed route. State ownership gives the GLO a direct interest in how those parcels are entered and used.

The conflict is visible in the contractors’ actions. The GLO sent cease-and-desist letters after federal contractors cleared state-managed land without authorization. Meanwhile, the GLO communicated with CBP about building border infrastructure on state land. Federal officials can still seek right of way and access, while Texas can challenge unauthorized work and defend its property interests.

The article does not settle which side will ultimately prevail. A federal judge temporarily blocked construction, and the Justice Department is seeking to suspend that order and appeal to the Supreme Court. The dispute therefore moves through both agency negotiations and the courts.