Controversy Over Border Infrastructure Plans in Big Bend Region

The Trump administration’s initiative to establish new border infrastructure in West Texas’s Big Bend region faces significant opposition. Landowners, environmental advocates, and some local officials are expressing concern that the project might obstruct access to remote areas along the Rio Grande.

The Rio Grande, serving as an international boundary and a dynamic river system, influences border infrastructure planning in the region. Rather than constructing directly alongside the riverbank, projects are often situated inland.

Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comments on the issue.

Isaac Saul’s Claims on Territorial Impact

On The Bulwark podcast with Tim Miller, Isaac Saul, the founder of the political newsletter Tangle, asserted that the federal border wall construction could lead to the U.S. losing extensive land areas to Mexico. An influential clip of the interview shared on X received over 375,000 views.

“According to DHS maps, the upcoming wall placements appear to place Americans outside of 280,000 acres of Texas land,”
Saul mentioned. “This implies distanced access to essential land and water sources in West Texas.”

Miller summarized the claims, questioning if territorial concessions were occurring under the Trump administration.

Saul emphasized, “Yeah, territorial concessions to Mexico,” and described how his family’s historical ranch in West Texas received an eminent domain notice, leading to restricted physical access to the Rio Grande.

Clarifications and Legal Boundaries

In a statement to Newsweek, Saul clarified that Tim Miller introduced “territorial concession” and The Bulwark’s framing further highlighted the term in the interview clip.

Saul explained the 280,000-acre figure stemmed from analyzing wall route maps from the Department of Homeland Security using AI.

“I effectively utilized AI to estimate land impacted based on the proposed routes,” Saul noted.

Despite layout implications that might facilitate easier river access for Mexican agricultural workers compared to American landowners, building barriers north of the Rio Grande doesn’t alter the international boundary or confer legal ownership to Mexico.

Under the 1970 Boundary Treaty between the United States and Mexico, the established line remains along the river’s normal channel. Construction ensures no interference with the river’s flood control and flow, following guidelines by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). Positioning barriers north of the river doesn’t constitute territorial concessions or sovereignty transfers to Mexico.

Land Acquisition and Ownership

The federal acquisition of private property for border infrastructure occurs through negotiated purchases or eminent domain, requiring Fifth Amendment compensation as per the U.S. Department of Justice. Although access challenges arise for owners, land title and territorial control remain unchanged.

Federal officials retain access rights on acquired property through easements or land titles, with access details varying by parcel.

Conclusion on Claims

The claim that land is being given to Mexico is false. While the construction indeed poses access issues for Texas property owners and spatially places American acres between the fence and river, all land north of the river channel remains U.S. territory, without legal rights transferred to Mexico.

The international border upholds its definition by treaty at the Rio Grande, ensuring continued U.S. sovereignty over the area.

For inquiries on this story, contact Newsweek editors John Fitzpatrick and Cristina Diciu.