Feed aggregator

The Trump administration has begun erecting 30-foot border wall panels across a section of the remote Big Bend region of West Texas, moving ahead with a major expansion of the U.S.-Mexico border barrier despite opposition from local landowners, elected officials and environmental groups.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Friday that crews have begun installing the massive steel panels in Hudspeth County, part of a 47-mile stretch designated by the government as Big Bend 1. Construction began earlier in the week, with CBP posting an image showing a crane hoisting one of the wall sections into position.

The work marks the first major wall construction to get underway in the Big Bend area under the administration’s current plans. The broader initiative calls for five separate projects across a region that encompasses hundreds of miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Big Bend takes its name from the sweeping curve made by the Rio Grande as it winds through the rugged West Texas landscape. The region is known for its mountains, desert terrain and dramatic river canyons and includes Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park and other protected areas.

CBP has emphasized that the construction now underway is not taking place inside the most prominent protected lands in the region.

The agency said it currently has no plans to erect a wall in “Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park, or the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area.”

However, other types of border-security infrastructure have been proposed in portions of the broader Big Bend area, including areas involving the national park, and those plans have generated lawsuits and substantial local opposition.

Work on two other projects, known as Big Bend 2 and Big Bend 4, is currently paused through September 30. CBP agreed to halt ground-disturbing activity on those projects to “allow for additional public engagement.”

Big Bend 4 includes portions of Big Bend National Park and continues east toward the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River and Lower Canyons area, while Big Bend 2 runs from the Ruidosa area toward Madera Canyon in Big Bend Ranch State Park.

The temporary pause followed legal challenges and weeks of pressure from residents and elected officials who have questioned the need for extensive barriers in the sparsely populated region and expressed concern about the effects on private property, wildlife, tourism and historically significant areas.

Opponents have argued that the Big Bend region is fundamentally different from more heavily trafficked sections of the southern border. Historically, it has recorded the fewest illegal crossings of any region along the southwest border, according to a recent Texas Tribune review.

The administration, however, has maintained that physical barriers and other security infrastructure are necessary to deter illegal crossings and strengthen control of stretches of the border that currently have little or no physical barrier.

The Big Bend construction is part of a much larger border-security effort backed by tens of billions of dollars in federal funding. The administration’s broader plans combine physical walls and barriers with access roads, surveillance equipment and other technology.

Local opposition has remained intense even as construction begins.

Clara Benson, founder of the No Big Bend Wall Coalition, told The Associated Press that her organization had received reports in recent days of construction equipment and supplies being transported into the region. She said opponents intend to continue challenging the project regardless of how much construction takes place.

“We will continue fighting to the end,” Benson said, per the AP. “You talk to people in west Texas and they say even if they put it up, we’ll fight for them to take it down. So this fight is not over.”

Opponents have also raised concerns about the potential consequences for ranching and other local businesses.

Yolanda Alvarado, a cattle rancher and regional director of No Big Bend Wall, previously warned that the effects could extend well beyond the individual properties on which barriers are erected.

“Our livelihoods are threatened at this point. Not just landowners, but business owners, and not just Big Bend National Park …. it’s everyone in this region.”

Landowners have also taken their objections to court. A coalition representing 230 landowners filed a federal lawsuit on September 14 challenging the administration’s plans to construct border barriers across portions of the Big Bend region.

One farmer involved in the litigation said the proposed construction could interfere with his family’s ability to access water needed for agricultural operations, illustrating one of the property-rights disputes surrounding the project.

Resistance has not been confined to environmental organizations or traditionally Democratic officials.

In March, sheriffs representing five West Texas counties sent a bipartisan letter to federal and state officials opposing construction of a wall in the Big Bend region.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, has also pressed federal officials to consult local stakeholders about the projects and the possible consequences for the region. The concerns raised have included potential effects on wildlife migration, Native American cultural sites, tourism and the regional economy.

Big Bend National Park is itself an important economic engine for the surrounding communities. More than 568,000 recreational visitors came to the park in 2025, generating nearly $64 million in economic activity, according to figures cited amid the ongoing dispute.

Federal officials have held discussions with local leaders, although those meetings have not resolved the disagreement.

Earlier this month, county judges from the region were scheduled to meet with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin about the border projects. Mullin did not attend the meeting, leaving department staff members to speak with the officials instead.

Brewster County Judge Greg Henington said afterward that the discussion produced little new information, although he indicated that CBP officials appeared to be considering some of the concerns raised by local leaders.

“It was the same old same old,” Henington said.

Henington said local officials continued to urge Washington to clearly explain its plans, make use of existing infrastructure where possible and repair damage resulting from construction.

“I just reiterated to him that our message back to Washington is the same as it was two weeks ago,” Henington said. “Our three points were: Number one, get your message straight and stick to it. Do what you say and say what you do. Two, use existing infrastructure. And three, try to find a way to not just build a road and abandon it, and repair what you tore up.”

Despite those objections, the Big Bend 1 project in Hudspeth County is now moving forward.

CBP says it has accelerated construction elsewhere along the southern border as well, with crews currently completing approximately 12 miles of barriers per week. The agency says about 200 miles of new construction have been completed since President Trump returned to office.

For now, the legal and political battle is proceeding alongside the physical construction. Crews are installing the 30-foot panels along the Big Bend 1 corridor, while activity on Big Bend 2 and Big Bend 4 remains paused through September 30 as federal officials conduct additional discussions with local stakeholders.

The result is an unusual split across the sprawling West Texas region: construction of President Trump’s border wall has now begun in one section of Big Bend, even as lawsuits, temporary pauses and opposition from landowners and officials leave the future of several other sections unresolved.

The White House yesterday began enforcing President Donald Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico, denying journalists from all three news organizations entry to the White House complex and confiscating or disabling press credentials, one day after the President announced that the outlets would no longer be permitted on the grounds.

The three organizations quickly condemned the move, saying it interfered with constitutionally protected press freedoms and indicating that they were prepared to challenge the restrictions. The White House Correspondents’ Association also objected and called for the journalists’ access to be restored.

MS NOW was among the first outlets to report Saturday morning that its journalists had been stopped from entering.

“Earlier this morning MS NOW journalists were denied access to the White House grounds. The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW wrote in a statement. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

CBS News independently reported seeing MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner and a cameraman turned away from the White House at approximately 8 a.m. Saturday. Their press passes had been revoked.

CNN confirmed roughly two hours later that its own journalists had also been prevented from entering the White House grounds. Senior White House reporter Betsy Klein said her credential had been deactivated and subsequently confiscated.

CNN characterized the restriction as an “illegal assault” on press freedom and said it would continue covering the administration regardless of whether its journalists were permitted inside the White House.

“CNN’s mission to report on the U.S. government will continue regardless of any attempts to restrict physical access to the White House and other government buildings, or any other attempts to impede our journalism,” CNN said in its statement. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government.”

Politico subsequently disclosed that White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett had also attempted to enter the complex and was turned away.

Politico Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Greenberger said Haslett’s credential was taken after she attempted to report for work.

“A few minutes ago, our colleague Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House to do her job as a POLITICO reporter. Secret Service denied her entry to the complex and confiscated the pass that allows her access to the White House,” Greenberger said in a statement, which was first distributed internally to Politico’s newsroom.

The restrictions followed Trump’s announcement Friday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from the White House “effective immediately.” The President accused the organizations of publishing false coverage of him, his administration and the country and warned that other news organizations could eventually face similar restrictions.

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” Trump wrote.

The President said Friday that his decision was based on what he described as a broader pattern of coverage rather than a single article or broadcast. Asked at a news conference whether he was attempting to intimidate journalists, Trump rejected that characterization and criticized media coverage he considers dishonest.

For Gardner, the effect of the new policy became apparent when she arrived at the White House Saturday morning and attempted to use her credential.

She said she successfully passed the initial security checkpoints but encountered a problem when she scanned the badge that normally allows her to enter the complex.

“It did not work. There was a red beeping light,” Gardner said.

According to Gardner, an officer then informed her that the credential had been disabled and took it from her. When she asked for an explanation, she said the officer told her the matter was “above him.”

The restrictions did not appear to be applied uniformly to every employee of the affected organizations Saturday morning. Gardner said an MS NOW producer accompanying her was still able to enter the White House, even though her own credential and that of a photographer had been disabled.

CNN’s Klein reported a similar encounter. She said a security officer informed her that her pass had been deactivated and confiscated it, directing her to the White House press office if she wanted additional information.

The restrictions immediately drew criticism from press-freedom organizations and journalists, including some media figures whose organizations were not affected by the ban. The critics argued that excluding journalists because of the content of their reporting raises First Amendment concerns.

CNN had already signaled that it was prepared to challenge the restriction after Trump announced it Friday.

“Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right,” a CNN spokesperson said in a statement.

Trump has had a contentious relationship with CNN for years and has repeatedly criticized both the network and individual correspondents. During an Oval Office appearance in June, Trump described CNN as “crooked as hell” and “a very corrupt organization.” He also criticized CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins, calling her a “corrupt reporter” with “hatred in her eyes.”

Politico similarly indicated that it intended to contest the restrictions.

“We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights,” Greenberger said following Haslett’s removal.

Trump has separately accused Politico of receiving $8 million in government subsidies connected to subscriptions to Politico Pro, the publication’s premium information service. Politico has disputed the characterization that government purchases of its subscription products amounted to subsidies.

“The claims that POLITICO received government subsidies are false and have been thoroughly debunked,” Politico said in a statement.

The White House Correspondents’ Association also weighed in following Saturday’s incidents. WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich said the decision raised concerns extending beyond the three organizations immediately affected.

The action “violates the First Amendment,” Heinrich said, adding that the WHCA “calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.”

“The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future,” Heinrich wrote. “The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably. That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting.”

Previous disputes over White House press credentials have resulted in federal court rulings against administrations that withdrew individual reporters’ access without adequate process. Courts ordered the restoration of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s credential in 2018 and Playboy correspondent Brian Karem’s credential in 2019, although the precise legal questions surrounding the latest restrictions could be litigated separately.

The latest action represents a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and news organizations whose coverage the President has repeatedly criticized. Trump has also suggested that CNN, MS NOW and Politico may not be the last organizations affected by the new approach.

For now, all three outlets say they intend to continue covering President Trump and his administration despite being denied physical access to the White House, while their statements Saturday indicated that a legal challenge to the restrictions could follow.

WATCH: