Congresswoman Escobar, 17 Other Democrats Urge DHS to Rescind Environmental, Historic Preservation Waivers at Big Bend

Today, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) joined Rep. Lloyd Doggett, every other member of the Texas Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives, and five other Representatives in urging the Department of Homeland Security to rescind the environmental and historic preservation waivers granted at Big Bend. These waivers were granted by the Trump administration to bypass federal environmental laws in order to speed up work on border barriers in the area.

This letter comes after Congresswoman Escobar spoke in support of an amendment last week during the House Appropriations Committee mark up of the Fiscal Year 2027 Homeland Security Bill. The amendment was to prohibit the construction of a barrier or wall at Big Bend. It was rejected by Republicans.

The full text of the letter can be found below or here:

Dear Secretary Mullin:

We write in strong opposition to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent waivers of numerous federal environmental and historic preservation laws inside Big Bend National Park. These waivers endanger the intrinsic nature of the park, local economies, biodiversity, and the safety of communities along the Rio Grande River. We urge you to rescind these waivers and instead offer proposals subject to public review and input. There is no border security emergency here that warrants giving CBP unfettered authority to unnecessarily destroy some of the wildest parts of Big Bend or to disregard the overwhelmingly bipartisan will of the people, the actual data showing minimal numbers of border crossings inside the park, and the values that Texans and all Americans hold dear as represented by the National Parks.

The administration has failed to demonstrate that Big Bend National Park is an area of high illegal entry-a requirement under Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1196, as amended (IIRIRA). Your notice of the waivers does not contextualize the number of illegal entry incidents. In Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25), Big Bend Sector recorded 0.45% of all illegal border crossings nationwide. Big Bend Sector represents the lowest level of illegal activity along the entire border, with the National Park itself comprising even fewer instances, disqualifying the region from your claims of high activity. The rough terrain of Big Bend itself and Mexican lands to the south form a natural wall deterring illegal activity with its rugged terrain, as CBP has acknowledged.

With U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) having responding to our March 27 letter by noting the "intrinsic importance" of the landscape and history of the Big Bend area, you must act-as Commissioner Scott committed in his response-to preserve the park and its surrounding areas and to "minimize harm to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with applicable law." Waiving 28 environmental and historic preservation laws-including the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Antiquities Act- totally contradicts Commissioner Scott's words. As noted in our prior letter, expedited construction of new technology and roads will disrupt the flow of the Rio Grande River, increasing flash flood risk in the park and in Laredo and other communities along the border, deplete West Texans' access to natural resources, including safe drinking water, and choke wildlife corridors, endangering many unique species.

Current CBP presence in Big Bend National Park is effective. Sheriffs from the region have written to you that this proposed construction is unnecessary, especially given the successes of ongoing practices. Issuing these waivers bypasses all opportunity for stakeholder comment and ignores state and federal land managers, local law enforcement, and local residents who know the area best. We urge you to reverse these dangerous waivers and meaningfully engage with, and transparently respond to the input provided by, the National Park Service, local government, and the public.