A federal border official defended plans for a wall in Texas’s Big Bend despite a court-ordered halt
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott defended plans for a $46 billion wall in Texas’ Big Bend region despite a court-ordered construction pause, calling border fortification “non-negotiable.” A bipartisan coalition of landowners, businesses and environmentalists opposes the project. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift the judge’s order.
More context
Scott said the administration was “ahead of schedule.” He argued that leaving Big Bend without a wall or other border infrastructure as other stretches are fortified would leave the area “completely overrun and destroyed.” A bipartisan group of landowners, local businesses and environmentalists says the project would squander taxpayer money and could harm a region with historically low migrant crossings.
A judge's ruling earlier this month halted construction in Big Bend, citing a potential for serious, irreparable harm to plaintiffs. The order covers Big Bend National Park. After bulldozers were spotted tearing up ground there in August, Scott paused related work in the park while speaking with people in the region. He said the agency is discussing solutions, but declined to detail park plans amid lawsuits; the project will not include tall steel walls.
Was this story useful?
What was the main problem? (optional)
Reporting
- bostonherald.com — Border chief defends wall plans in Big Bend despite court setback
- The Seattle Times — AP Exclusive: Trump’s border chief defends wall plans in Texas’ Big Bend despite a court setback | The Seattle Times
- Killeen Daily Herald — AP Exclusive: Trump’s border chief defends wall plans in Texas’ Big Bend despite a court setback
- The Guardian — Trump’s top border official defends Big Bend border wall plan despite mounting opposition
Verifier’s note
The results report that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott defended the Big Bend wall plans despite a court-ordered pause. The reports are dated October 23, consistent with the proposed event’s timing.