Smuggling

The Arizona Sheriffs' Association (ASA) sent an Oct. 9 open letter expressing "deep concern" over allegations that Santa Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway directed deputies not to respond to calls tied to protests at border wall construction sites, except in cases involving violence. The ASA cited reports from federal and state law enforcement officials describing unanswered requests for assistance involving threats, violence, property damage, and masked out-of-state participants, calling for documentation and investigation.

The dispute centers on CBP's $309.46 million contract, awarded in June 2025, to build 27 miles of border wall in Santa Cruz County, part of the Trump administration's border security push, which has drawn repeated protests and arrests. Hathaway, in response, dismissed the ASA as a politically biased private group with no governmental authority, saying his small office is vastly outnumbered by federal personnel and accusing CBP of mischaracterizing threats to avoid its own security responsibilities. He described protesters as nonviolent and said federal officers, not protesters, used force. The ASA said it stands ready to assist state investigators if asked.

Opposition from private landowners in Texas' Big Bend region continues to slow the Trump administration's $46 billion border wall project, part of a plan to build barriers from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. The administration aims to spend $7.5 billion fortifying roughly 500 miles through Big Bend despite historically low illegal crossings there and natural barriers like cliffs and desert terrain. CBP says it has built over 260 miles of new barrier nationwide since Trump returned to office, but a federal judge recently paused Big Bend construction after landowners sued, arguing Homeland Security exceeded its authority by waiving environmental and other protections; the government has asked the judge to lift the order while it appeals.

Many landowners are refusing to let surveyors onto their property, protesting at county meetings, pressuring local officials not to assist contractors, and preparing for eminent domain fights; the Justice Department says about 70 disputes have been referred for legal action nationwide, with 50 resolved and none going to trial, while CBP says it has reached agreements with dozens of other Big Bend landowners. Opposition spans party lines, with Republican ranchers, a county sheriff and Trump voters questioning the project's necessity. Critics frame the dispute as a broader test of federal power over private property, while CBP maintains the infrastructure is needed to prevent a shift in illegal crossings to the area.

Six landowners and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend, representing roughly 230 additional landowners across five counties, have sued the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott in Washington, D.C. federal court to block border wall construction in the Big Bend region of Texas. The suit is part of a broader $46 billion effort to build 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance infrastructure along the southern border, and seeks an injunction covering the entire region, including barriers inside Big Bend National Park.

Plaintiffs argue DHS unlawfully issued waivers designating Big Bend an area of "high illegal entry," despite the sector accounting for under 1.5% of southwest border apprehensions over five years, and claim landowners' Fifth Amendment due process rights are being violated. Opposition has grown since February, when eminent domain letters went out, drawing bipartisan pushback from sheriffs, officials, tour operators and ranchers who warn the wall would cut off Rio Grande water access, harm tourism, wildlife and sacred sites. Over $7 billion has already been awarded for Big Bend Sector wall contracts.

Landowners, ranchers, and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend have filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the Trump administration's plans to build border wall and related infrastructure through the Big Bend region of Texas. The suit, backed by dozens of area residents, challenges a $46 billion federal effort to fortify roughly 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border with steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, and surveillance technology.

Plaintiffs argue the Department of Homeland Security is misusing its waiver authority, which is meant for areas of "high illegal entry." They cite CBP data showing Big Bend's roughly 500 miles of border account for only about 1% of arrests, and note illegal crossings have dropped further under Trump. The case follows outcry over construction activity spotted near Big Bend National Park in August, which prompted a temporary pause by CBP. Native American groups warn of damage to religious sites, environmentalists cite flooding and wildlife migration concerns, and landowners fear losing access to the Rio Grande for irrigation and livestock. The lawsuit adds to a growing list of legal and political challenges facing the administration's border wall program in Texas.