Yuyun Lusiyani
Last month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott reiterated a familiar assertion, maintaining for the fifth consecutive year that illegal crossings at the Texas-Mexico border constitute "an ongoing and imminent threat" to the state. This declaration served as the basis for renewing a border security disaster proclamation that has dramatically expanded his executive authority, bypassing the traditional legislative process. This prolonged state of emergency stands in stark contrast to data reported by the Trump administration, which has highlighted an unprecedented reduction in migrant flows, claiming "historic lows" since taking office in January 2025.
A Five-Year Proclamation: Unprecedented Executive Reach
Governor Abbott’s initial border emergency declaration came in May 2021, just four months into President Joe Biden’s term, a period when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was reporting over 180,000 apprehensions along the southwest border in a single month. Abbott’s office contended at the time that the federal government’s "open-border policies" were enabling cartel violence, human trafficking, and a severe influx of illegal drugs, creating a humanitarian crisis across Texas communities. Since that initial declaration, Abbott, a Republican seeking his fourth term next month, has renewed or amended the proclamation an astonishing 69 times. Notably, 21 of these renewals have occurred during the Trump administration, a period characterized by a significant downturn in border apprehensions, which have reportedly averaged around 8,000 a month this year.
The enduring nature of this declaration has allowed Governor Abbott to wield executive powers on a scale unprecedented for a Texas governor. The state’s constitution was intentionally designed to create a "weak governor" system, limiting executive actions without legislative approval. However, disaster declarations provide a powerful loophole, enabling the governor to unilaterally shift funds between agencies, suspend certain state regulations, and award lucrative no-bid contracts in times of perceived emergency. This consolidation of power, as reported by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, builds upon previous efforts by governors to strengthen the executive office but pushes the boundaries further than any predecessor.
The Shifting Sands of Border Data and Political Narratives
The continuous renewal of the border emergency proclamation raises critical questions about its necessity, particularly given the Trump administration’s own assertions of success in curbing illegal crossings. While the Biden administration faced criticism for high apprehension numbers, the current data paints a different picture, with the Trump administration boasting 16 consecutive months of "zero releases" and historically low migrant flows. This discrepancy fuels debate, with critics questioning the justification for maintaining an emergency status when the metrics used by the federal government indicate a resolution to the very crisis the proclamation was intended to address.
Madeline Waschak, Deputy Press Secretary for Governor Abbott, defended the administration’s stance, stating that border security remains an "ongoing priority." In a written statement, she argued, "The damage caused by four years of failed border policies under Democrat rule did not disappear overnight, and the progress we have made will not sustain itself without continued vigilance." Waschak emphasized the need for "constant, deliberate action to combat illegal crossings, cartel smuggling, fentanyl trafficking, and other criminal activity that threatens public safety in Texas." She affirmed that Governor Abbott "will ensure the tools remain in place to safeguard our state as we work alongside the Trump Administration to deter, arrest, detain, and deport illegal immigrants." This response, however, sidestepped direct questions regarding the necessity of the emergency declaration in light of current border statistics or the specifics of the noncompetitive contracts awarded.
Operation Lone Star: A Multi-Billion Dollar Endeavor
At the heart of Texas’s border security efforts under the emergency declaration is Operation Lone Star, an ambitious and costly initiative launched by Governor Abbott in March 2021. The operation’s stated goals are to deter and apprehend individuals engaged in the smuggling of drugs and people into the country through Texas. The emergency declaration has been crucial to Operation Lone Star’s implementation, allowing state law enforcement to charge migrants with criminal trespassing for crossing private property along the border, a strategy that has drawn legal challenges and controversy. Furthermore, it has facilitated the rapid deployment of the Texas National Guard, enabled the construction of border barriers, and allowed the state to solicit assistance from other states.
The financial commitment to Operation Lone Star has been staggering. During the Biden administration, Texas budgeted over $11 billion for border security efforts. Following Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, an additional $3 billion was allotted last year, bringing the state’s total spending to unprecedented levels. Much of this funding is channeled through the Texas Military Department and the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the two primary agencies spearheading enforcement efforts. Beyond these departmental allocations, the governor’s office itself has seen a significant increase in border spending, with nearly $230 million allotted last year to distribute through grants, primarily to local prosecutors and government agencies supporting Operation Lone Star activities. This centralized control over funding, largely exempt from typical legislative oversight due to the emergency status, has been a major point of contention.
Concerns Over Transparency and Accountability: The No-Bid Contracts
One of the most significant implications of the ongoing emergency declaration is the ability of state agencies to award noncompetitive contracts. This mechanism, typically reserved for urgent situations where competitive bidding is impractical or impossible, has been extensively utilized by DPS and the Texas Military Department. Since January 2025, these two agencies have awarded more than $5 million in noncompetitive contracts, citing the emergency status, for a range of items including a Ford F-150, rifles, and apartments.
Specific examples include a contract exceeding $2 million awarded to Texas-based CTC Gunworks LLC for rifles and pistols intended for active-duty personnel. Attempts to reach CTC Gunworks officials for comment were unsuccessful. Officials with the Texas Military Department directed inquiries about their procurement process to the governor’s office, further highlighting the centralized nature of decision-making under the emergency. A DPS spokesperson, while acknowledging that the disaster declaration permits expedited purchases, stated in a written statement that the department "still follows best practices and aims to select vendors offering the best value, determined by cost, quality, and ability to meet the specific disaster response requirements." The spokesperson added that the specific contracts in question were purchases tied to existing state contracts, an explanation that still leaves questions about the rationale for bypassing competitive bids for routine equipment like vehicles or housing, particularly five years into a declared emergency.
Scrutiny and Challenges to Operation Lone Star’s Effectiveness
Despite the substantial funding and expansive powers granted, Operation Lone Star has faced considerable scrutiny and documented problems. A 2022 investigation by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and The Marshall Project revealed that the state’s reported successes often included arrests unrelated to border security or immigration, and counted drug seizures made by troopers not directly assigned to the operation. These findings raised serious questions about the transparency and accuracy of the program’s metrics.
Beyond statistical discrepancies, the human cost of the operation has also come under fire. The Texas Tribune and Army Times reported on poor working conditions, persistent pay delays, and a disturbing wave of suicides among National Guard members deployed as part of Operation Lone Star. These issues paint a picture of an operation struggling with internal management and personnel welfare, even as it continues to receive vast sums of state funding.
Legislative Pushback and the Future of Executive Power
The prolonged state of emergency and the executive’s expanded authority have not gone unnoticed by state lawmakers. For several legislative sessions, bipartisan efforts have been made to curb the governor’s powers under the state’s disaster act. Last year, legislators from both parties filed multiple measures that would have mandated legislative approval for extending disaster declarations beyond a certain period. However, none of these efforts succeeded, underscoring the formidable power the executive office currently wields.
During a recent Tribune-hosted event, Democratic state Representative Mary González of El Paso, who serves as vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, voiced concerns shared by many of her colleagues. She indicated that state legislators have already begun to scale back border funding and expressed bipartisan interest in continuing to do so in the upcoming legislative session. Rep. González highlighted the problematic nature of the situation: "I think that the problem is that some of that border security money still lies in the governor’s office which has no checks and balances and because we are still under an emergency — which is not an emergency anymore — an emergency border security statement which he can just use that money, you have seen some questionable appropriations under the veil of border security." Her comments underscore a growing sentiment among lawmakers that the current framework lacks sufficient accountability and oversight.
Despite the criticisms and the reported drop in border crossings, Governor Abbott remains steadfast in his conviction that Texas’s work in securing the border is far from over. At a press conference in early October, where he discussed a $7.5 billion reimbursement from the federal government for border security expenses incurred by the state, Abbott declared, "We must secure the border not just for the next two years of the Trump administration, but we gotta do it forever." This statement reinforces his long-term vision for state-led border enforcement, irrespective of federal policy shifts or changing on-the-ground realities.
Implications for Governance and Precedent
Political science professors have weighed in on the unprecedented nature of Governor Abbott’s actions. Cal Jillson, a professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, described the situation as "unprecedented," noting, "I don’t think that there is a similar example, certainly not as to the length of the emergency, and certainly not after the emergency has seemed to pass." This sentiment echoes concerns about the erosion of traditional checks and balances within Texas governance.
Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, characterized this phenomenon as "the quiet power of the governor," suggesting that such executive maneuvers are often not publicly celebrated precisely because drawing attention to them could invite "contestation." Rottinghaus emphasized that while Texas will always grapple with border crossings and drug trafficking, the mere existence of these perennial problems does not inherently justify an indefinite emergency declaration. He raised a crucial point about the precedent being set: "Even someone who strongly supports the governor’s board of policies might ask whether they want a future governor of the opposite party using the same interpretation of emergency authority for years." This warning highlights the long-term implications for the balance of power in Texas, where, as Rottinghaus concluded, "governors, once they get a power, are hesitant to give it back." The ongoing saga of Texas’s border emergency thus transcends immediate policy debates, delving into fundamental questions about executive authority, legislative oversight, and the constitutional design of state governance in the face of perceived perpetual threats.
Joko Widodo
Eva Lovia
Jia Lissa
Pevita Pearce
admin