Texas – Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s long-running border security disaster declaration has continued to draw criticism and political debate, as state leaders, federal officials, and immigration analysts dispute whether emergency conditions still justify the expanded use of state powers.
Abbott first issued the disaster proclamation in May 2021, citing what he described as an “unsustainable” rise in illegal border crossings. Since then, the declaration has been renewed repeatedly and now extends to nearly 70 counties across Texas, including several located far from the U.S.–Mexico border. The order has served as the legal foundation for Operation Lone Star, a multibillion-dollar state initiative that has deployed thousands of Texas National Guard members and Department of Public Safety officers to assist in border enforcement operations.
According to reporting from outlets such as the Texas Tribune and the Express-News, the program has cost Texas taxpayers an estimated $11 billion since its inception, making it one of the largest state-led border security efforts in U.S. history.
Declining crossings and shifting federal data
A central point of contention in recent political debate is whether border conditions still meet the legal threshold for a disaster declaration. Federal data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as cited in multiple national and Texas-based reports, has shown a significant decline in border apprehensions compared to peak migration periods earlier in the decade.
Some analysts argue that enforcement changes at the federal level, along with policy shifts under both the Biden and Trump administrations, contributed to fluctuating migration patterns. By late 2025 and into 2026, CBP reports indicated a steep reduction in encounters along certain sectors of the Southwest border compared to prior years.
Critics of Abbott’s policy argue that these declines undermine the justification for continuing an emergency declaration at the same scale. They contend that state-level emergency powers are intended to be temporary responses to acute crises, not long-term governance tools.
Political divide over Operation Lone Star
Supporters of Abbott’s approach, primarily within Texas Republican leadership, argue that the border remains an active security concern and that federal enforcement alone is insufficient. They maintain that Operation Lone Star has helped deter illegal crossings, disrupted smuggling networks, and supported federal agencies that remain stretched in certain regions.
Abbott himself has consistently defended the program, framing it as a necessary response to what he describes as federal inaction. His office has pointed to continued arrests of individuals accused of drug trafficking and human smuggling as evidence that the operation remains necessary.
However, critics—including some legal scholars and policy analysts cited in national coverage from publications such as the Washington Post—argue that the continued expansion of the disaster declaration has blurred the line between emergency response and political positioning. They question whether the criteria under Texas disaster law, which typically requires the presence of ongoing emergency conditions, are still being met.
Trump-era influence and national politics
Former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies continue to play a major role in shaping Texas border politics. Trump-era enforcement strategies, including expanded border wall construction and stricter asylum policies, remain a reference point for Republican leaders in Texas.
Recent political reporting has highlighted how Abbott’s approach aligns closely with Trump’s broader immigration messaging, particularly regarding deterrence and enforcement-heavy strategies. Trump’s ongoing political influence has also affected Republican dynamics in Texas, especially in congressional and Senate races where candidates compete for support from his voter base.
At the same time, Trump has remained publicly active on border security issues, with renewed emphasis on enforcement and deportation policy in national speeches and campaign messaging. Texas, as a border state, has frequently been cited in these discussions as a central example of immigration challenges.
Legal and constitutional questions
Legal analysts have also raised questions about whether the repeated renewal of disaster declarations aligns with the intent of Texas emergency management statutes. The law allows governors to declare disasters in response to emergencies but also implies that such declarations should end when conditions stabilize.
Opponents argue that continued renewal without a clear end point risks setting a precedent for indefinite emergency governance. Supporters counter that migration patterns remain dynamic and that enforcement pressures justify sustained action.
Ongoing debate in Texas politics
The issue remains deeply divided along political lines. Republican leaders largely continue to support Abbott’s policies as part of a broader security strategy, while Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates argue that the approach is excessive, costly, and increasingly disconnected from current border conditions.
As Texas moves deeper into a politically charged election cycle, border security is expected to remain one of the most prominent and contentious issues. With federal data showing fluctuating migration trends and national political figures like Donald Trump continuing to shape the debate, the future of Operation Lone Star and Abbott’s disaster declaration is likely to remain a central point of political conflict in the state.
