Big Bend National Park in West Texas is known for its picturesque desert landscapes, beautiful mountains and Rio Grande River canyons. It is a popular destination for hiking, hot springs, untouched scenery and unique culture. The park and surrounding cities sit right on the U.S.-Mexican border, where Texan and northern Mexican culture have blended for centuries. Cross-river communities that are deeply tied to the land shape the cultural identity of the region.

However, its location along the Rio Grande places it in the center of ongoing national debates about border security and illegal immigration. Under the Trump administration, a main focus has been to tighten the southern border, with policies and actions centered on preventing unauthorized entry into the country. This focus has brought more attention to the Big Bend area, previously untouched by infrastructure-heavy enforcement due to its national parklands and unique ecosystems.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Big Bend Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol is considered an area of “high illegal entry where illegal aliens regularly attempt to enter the U.S. and smuggle illicit drugs.” The DHS released a notice on Feb. 17 stating that they will construct “additional barriers and roads in a segment of the border in the Big Bend Sector.” 

Using funds from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” under the Trump administration, the DHS plans to expand the “Smart Wall” that runs across the U.S.-Mexican Border into Big Bend State Park territory. The overall wall has been in construction since Jan. 20, 2025, but only recently received a formal waiver to build in the Big Bend area.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act grants the DHS the power to install barriers and roads in areas of “high illegal entry,” allowing them to waive any law that gets in the way — federal, state and environmental. This gives the DHS the ability to waive 28 environmental protection laws to expand the project into Big Bend National Park. Trump ordered this to take place, urging the DHS and Customs and Border Protection to take immediate action without environmental review, state approval or local consultation, which naturally poses many issues.

The wall isn’t in the structure of a traditional wall due to rugged terrain, but consists of technology systems — cameras, sensors, lighting and detection equipment — to help with surveillance, more patrol roads for Border Patrol vehicles, waterborne barriers in rivers or lakes and steel fencing. This is to secure the border more tightly, even where a physical barrier cannot be built. This development aligns with the goals of the Trump administration, but with more modern technology and a standardized way to achieve their goals.

Aside from the politics in this, I think the DHS and CBP should not be allowed to construct this wall in a national park. It defeats the purpose of a national park, which is to preserve wildlife ecosystems, geological formations, archaeological and Indigenous cultural sites. Not only is the government not actively aiding preservation, but they are actively withdrawing conservation efforts by destroying local nature and cultural sites to meet a different goal.

I believe that if these laws were already in place, the DHS and Trump administration should not have waived them, or at least thought more carefully about it. They waived the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and 23 more related to environmental and historic preservation. This throws out all environmental protection in a national park, allowing construction to bulldoze and intrude on fragile desert ecosystems. The project focuses completely on building a system to keep people out, but does not pay any attention to local tribes, archaeological sites and artifacts or the natural ecosystem.

According to the Marfa Public Radio, Democratic state Sen. César Blanco, whose district includes much of Big Bend, is against the construction, due to the destruction of nature sites and communities.

“Big Bend is one of the most ecologically unique and fragile regions in our country,” Blanco said in a statement. “Waiving longstanding environmental protections threatens wildlife migration, damages sensitive desert habitats, and puts our land and water resources at risk.”

By continuing this project, CBP will disrupt the long-term ecosystem in the national and state park area. This development will cause the fragmentation of desert ecosystems, harm migratory birds, threaten endangered and sensitive species and reduce genetic diversity. It will also change the river dynamics, making the region more susceptible to floods and heavy sediment buildups in the river.

In addition to environmental concerns, the region will lose its remote qualities with the presence of heavy machinery, patrol roads, surveillance infrastructure and heavy lighting that will cause the area to lose its reputation as one of the darkest skies in the U.S.

Furthermore, a stricter border will sever traditional crossing points that harms long-standing relationships between the people that have been connecting there for centuries. Turning this into a militarized zone will change how people, especially local and Indigenous communities, will relate to the land and are able to interact with it. The Big Bend region also contains many Indigenous sites that are at risk for being destroyed, especially since there was no local or Indigenous consultation in this project.

This massive wall, unattractive technology and additional government presence will also divert tourism, which will harm local industries and activity in the park. I think that those putting this plan in motion should have considered these impacts more carefully before waiving laws and building additional walls and security in a national park region with a rich cultural heritage. I think it is irresponsible that they did not consult people living there or any other affected parties before moving ahead with this project — the affected communities are losing a lot because of it.

As someone who has been to Big Bend, I am aware of how deeply connected to the land the communities and people are, so I am saddened for those directly impacted by this. I understand border protection up to a certain limit, but there are other ways to do it other than intruding on nationally protected land with natural and cultural significance. They could have approached this issue in a more peaceful way that does not cause harm to a thriving community with rich cultural and spiritual ties to the land, as well as the massive tourist industry relying on the national park.