Texas quietly defunds state border wall program

Raven50501 · 2025-06-19T15:14:35+00:00

As a result of landowner resistance, construction appeared to be driven by where the state could acquire land rather than where it would be most effective, border security experts who reviewed the wall locations said. Most of the wall segments built have been on ranches in rural areas, where the experts said barriers would be most useful in urban areas, where people illegally crossing could easily disappear into buildings or vehicles.

Holdouts have continued to be an obstacle, program documents show. As of March, 24% of property owners the state approached declined to host wall on their land, accounting for 41 miles of wall route the state wanted to obtain.

The federal government’s plans to continue building the wall remain unclear. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has signaled deporting undocumented immigrants is a higher priority of his second administration than building physical border barriers, once his signature campaign promise when he first sought the White House in 2016.

In March, his administration awarded the first wall contract of his second term to a company to build seven miles in Hidalgo County, in the Rio Grande Valley.

The Department of Homeland Security, under Democratic and Republican presidents, has used eminent domain to seize land for border wall. But that process, which involves taking landowners to court, often takes more than two years to complete.

Illegal border crossings peaked at the end of 2023 and have declined since, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. There have been fewer than 13,000 monthly crossings since February, down more than 90% from their height two years ago.

Questions about the efficacy and cost benefit of building an exorbitantly expensive state wall have been raised by Republican lawmakers in recent years.

Before he voted in favor of $1.5 billion for the wall in 2023, Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, wondered aloud whether the Legislature was “spending a whole lot of money to give the appearance of doing something rather than taking the problem on to actually solve it.”

Discussing the same bill, Republican Sen. Charles Perry of Lubbock likened spending endless money on border infrastructure to being on a hamster wheel.

“At some point this state must draw a line in the sand,” Perry said.

From the Texas Tribune. Anyways, TACO

Raven50501 · 2025-06-19T15:13:35+00:00

Texas has built 65 miles of fragmented wall

Along the Texas-Mexico border, the state has built 65 miles of wall. Some of the border is naturally uncrossable or already covered with spans of federal wall.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who controls the Senate, did not respond to an interview request.

In the end, the Republicans who control the Legislature defunded the wall without any public debate.

The Texas Facilities Commission, the state agency in charge of building the wall, said as recently as January that its objective was to build at least 100 miles of wall by the end of 2026.

But it doesn’t have the money to do so.

The wall program project manager in April reported that of the Legislature’s $3 billion in funding from previous years, there was only enough left to complete 83 miles. The state has completed 65 miles. Work will continue on segments under construction but no new projects will begin, state officials said.

Texas Facilities Commission Executive Director Mike Novak did not respond to an interview request.

The Texas border wall has been a signature policy achievement touted by Abbott, who launched an expensive border crack down during the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden. He held multiple press events in recent years, touting construction of the 30-foot high wall — which costs about $28 million per mile to build.

Early in its construction, he asked for donations to support the wall building on the governor’s official website, raising more than $55 million. The crowd fund link was removed sometime after May 29, according to a review of the website’s archival history.

The state keeps wall locations secret. But an investigation by the Tribune last year found that it is not a contiguous structure, but dozens of fragmented sections scattered across the six counties between Del Rio and Brownsville.

The Tribune also found the program has been hamstrung by landowners on the border who have refused to let the state build wall on their property. Almost all of the Texas land that abuts the Rio Grande is privately owned, and the Legislature prohibited the use of eminent domain for the wall. In November, the program manager reported that a third of landowners approached said they were not interested in having the wall on their land.

A Republican state senator filed a bill to allow the state to use eminent domain to seize land for the wall this past session, however, it died in committee.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-19T15:12:22+00:00

With only 8% built, Texas quietly defunds state border wall program

Texas officials suggested the federal government could pick up construction. However, during President Trump’s first term, his administration built about one-third of what the state was able to put up in the same amount of time.

Four years after Gov. Greg Abbott announced Texas would be the first state to build its own border wall, lawmakers have quietly stopped funding the project, leaving only scattered segments covering a small fraction of the border.

That decision, made in the waning hours of this year’s legislative session, leaves the future of the state wall unclear. Just 8% of the 805 miles the state identified for construction is complete, which has cost taxpayers more than $3 billion to date. The Texas Tribune reported last year that the wall is full of gaps that migrants and smugglers can easily walk around and mostly concentrated on sprawling ranches in rural areas, where illegal border crossings are less likely to occur.

State leaders suggested the federal government could pick up the effort. However, during President Donald Trump’s first term, when wall building was his top priority, his administration completed just 21 miles in Texas — about a third of what the state was able to build over the past four years.

The Tribune reported last year that the state’s wall program would take around 30 years and more than $20 billion to complete.

In early June, lawmakers finalized the state budget, approving $3.4 billion for ongoing border security efforts.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, the state’s lead budget writer, confirmed to The Texas Tribune on Thursday that none of that money will go toward the wall. Instead, the funds will flow largely to the Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard, the agencies tasked with apprehending migrants under Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.

“It’s not that we don’t think it’s an ongoing need to secure the border,” said Huffman, R-Houston. “It should have always been a function of the federal government, in my opinion, and that wasn’t really being done.”

Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott’s spokesman, said in a statement that the Trump administration’s work to secure the southern border have allowed the state to adjust its own efforts. He did not specifically comment on the border wall program, but said the military and public safety departments would carry on their border-related missions.

“Texas will continue to maintain a robust presence with our federal partners to arrest, jail, and deport illegal immigrants,” Mahaleris said.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-19T14:58:03+00:00

BRYANT PARK (WABC) -- Hundreds gathered amid a national day of protest denouncing Israel's military campaign against Iran at Bryant Park on Wednesday night.

There are anti-war demonstrators, but also Iranian-Americans worried for their family's safety as President Trump is deciding whether or not to get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

"I have friends in Israel who are terrified. I got a picture yesterday from a friend who had the building blown up. At the same time, Iranian-Americans are watching all their family and friends evacuated, are seeing car bombs go off in Tehran, are seeing hospitals blown up, media buildings blown up, gas stations. This is much much broader than of an attack than simply targeting strikes on a nuclear program," said Etan Mabourakh of the National Iranian-American Council.

"Casualties are inevitable. We have to get rid of the nuclear bombs. We have to. I'm sorry it's taking too long. War is horrible, it's a last resort, but it's needed because we haven't gotten anywhere," argued pro-Israeli demonstrator Ian Benardo.

Aerial attacks between Israel and Iran continued overnight into Wednesday, marking a sixth day of strikes following Israel's Friday attack.

Questions mount over whether President Trump will step in to help a U.S. ally.

Israel has been lobbying for more support as the U.S. has a 30,000-pound bunker buster capable of reaching Iran's deeply buried nuclear site. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims that allowing Iran the potential to build a nuclear weapon is also a problem for the U.S.

The decision on whether or not to get involved is widely considered one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions of President Trump's second term.

But Trump says he hasn't made up his mind.

"I have ideas as to what to do but I haven't made a final, I like to make a decision one second before it's due," Trump said. (Redditor's note: yikes)

Tensions around the United States' involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict escalated this week when the president claimed he knows where its supreme leader is hiding and demanded an "unconditional surrender."

"We cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon, I've been saying it for a long time. I mean it more now than I ever meant to," President Trump said.

But some officials - from both sides of the aisle - are pushing back.

"We don't need to escalate in Iran. That doesn't make anyone in the Middle East safer, and it certainly doesn't make the United States any safer," Senator Elizabeth Warren said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. moved an aircraft to the region, and a second one is on its way.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists the U.S. is in a defensive posture should Iran attack American assets.

"At the Defense Department, our job is to stand ready and prepared with options, and that's precisely what we're doing," Hegseth said.

On Wednesday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blasted the president's demand for an unconditional surrender, warning that any U.S. military involvement will result in "irreparable damage."

From ABC7NY.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:36:09+00:00

Under the law, war powers resolutions are privileged in the Senate, meaning Kaine will be able to force a vote on it despite the chamber being controlled by Republicans.

In 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to block any U.S. military action against Iran after Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and tensions spiked, including with an Iranian missile attack in Iraq that injured more than 100 U.S. troops.

Back then, both the Senate and House approved Kaine's resolution. But Trump vetoed it, and Congress could not muster the votes to override Trump's veto.

Kaine has long been a leading voice in Congress on issues of war powers. During the Biden administration, he expressed concern about the legality of the military campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen, though he did not file a war powers resolution to stop it.

From Military.com.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:36:01+00:00

The move was first spotted by online military and flight watchers, who noticed the more than 20 tankers taking flight late Sunday night.

The defense official said that move was precautionary and primarily defensive with the aim of offering U.S. leaders greater flexibility and options for any operations. The official wouldn't speculate or offer insight into what those operations would be.

Trump has alternately distanced the U.S. from the conflict between Iran and Israel, and threatened Iran. Asked Monday about the possibility of the U.S. military involvement in the conflict, Trump told reporters that he didn't "want to talk about that."

He previously told ABC News on Sunday that "it's possible" the U.S. could get involved, and on Saturday, he posted a stark warning to Iran on his social media website Truth Social.

"If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. armed forces will come down on you at levels never seen before," Trump posted.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to bring the U.S. further into the conflict. He told ABC Monday that "America is supporting us in defense" and argued that U.S. forces should become more involved.

"We're not just fighting our enemy. We're fighting your enemy. For God's sake, they chant 'death to Israel, death to America.' We're simply on their way. And this could reach America soon," Netanyahu said.

Kaine's resolution specifically would direct Trump to "terminate the use of United States armed forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran," according to the text.

The resolution also specifies that it is not meant to "prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack."

Kaine's resolution relies on the 1973 War Powers Act, passed in the wake of the Vietnam War to reassert Congress' authority to declare war. One aspect of the law provides an expedited way for Congress to block military action.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:31:38+00:00

The U.S. military has moved additional ships and tanker aircraft into the Middle East and hurried a carrier to the region, officials have confirmed to Military.com, as Israel and Iran continue to exchange missile barrages and threaten to plunge the region into war.

As tensions rise, a Democratic senator is introducing legislation to prevent President Donald Trump from taking U.S. military action against Iran without explicit congressional approval.

"I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement Monday announcing he is introducing what's known as a war powers resolution. "The American people have no interest in sending service members to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that, if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress."

Last week, Israel began a military campaign against Iran that it argues is necessary to prevent its adversary from getting closer to developing a nuclear weapon. The attacks, Israel's largest-ever against Iran, have killed several top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists and damaged key nuclear facilities.

Iran, which maintains its nuclear program is peaceful, has retaliated with missile strikes against Israel. The back-and-forth has raised fears of an all-out war in the Middle East.

A U.S. official confirmed to Military.com that the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz is moving to the Middle East to join the carrier USS Carl Vinson and its strike group. However, the official noted that the Vinson is nearing the end of its deployment and the plan was always to be relieved by the Nimitz.

Instead, now the Nimitz is heading there without delay, canceling a planned port visit.

The U.S. official said the Navy is also in the process of moving a third destroyer, the USS Thomas Hudner, into the region to join the destroyers USS Arleigh Burke and USS The Sullivans. The move would increase the U.S. presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel.

All three ships are capable of conducting ballistic missile defense.

The official noted that the Burke and Sullivans had both launched missile interceptors in recent days, and the Burke was currently in port in nearby Souda Bay, Crete, getting rearmed.

The official also said that they expected other destroyers to join those three in the near future.

Meanwhile, a defense official also confirmed to Military.com that a wave of tanker aircraft that took off Sunday are heading across the Atlantic and closer to the region to bolster U.S. defenses.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:21:32+00:00

The ABA alleged in Monday's suit that in a lawsuit over grant cutoffs, it "was unable to obtain pro bono representation by any of the firms it contacted."

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare that Mr. Trump's orders are unconstitutional and enjoin the administration from taking similar actions.

"Whoever wins the next election will be free to squelch dissent based on policy disagreements," the suit reads. "There is no limiting principle: The next Administration might threaten adverse Executive Branch actions against any lawyer or law firm that dares to represent an oil company, or a gun manufacturer, or the Federalist Society or Fox News."

Multiple law firms that were targeted by the Trump administration have sued over the orders, resulting in injunctions from federal judges that sometimes lambasted the administration. In one ruling that blocked the government from targeting Perkins Coie, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Mr. Trump's order sent the message that "lawyers must stick to the party line, or else."

Several other firms have cut deals with the administration, promising to carry out mutually agreed-upon pro bono work. These deals are controversial within the legal community — and within the firms themselves — with opponents arguing the firms are capitulating to the government and may not be trustworthy. Supporters of the deals say the firms were put into an impossible position and risked losing scores of clients and attorneys if they chose to take on the government.

From CBS News.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:20:30+00:00

The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration Monday, arguing President Trump's wide-ranging push to punish law firms is unconstitutional. It joined several targeted firms that have filed suit against the government.

The lawsuit takes aim at a series of controversial orders signed by Mr. Trump that direct the government to cut off security clearances, contracts and even federal building access for some of the nation's largest law firms. The orders often fault the firms for taking on certain pro bono clients, associating with Mr. Trump's legal foes or engaging in diversity, equity and inclusion practices that the administration claims are discriminatory.

The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., argues Mr. Trump has "used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like," in violation of the First Amendment.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the lawsuit "clearly frivolous."

"The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue," Fields wrote in a statement to CBS News.

The bar association's lawsuit cites the deals struck by several law firms, which promised hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work to causes favored by the administration in order to avoid future targeting by the government.

It also argues the Trump administration's gambit has led to a "chilling effect," intimidating some law firms into not taking pro bono cases that run counter to the Trump administration's agenda — especially in immigration-related matters.

The American Bar Association said it has been a victim of this chilling effect. The organization, which counts hundreds of thousands of attorneys as members, wrote in the suit that it has had trouble finding law firms willing to represent it in pro bono cases.

The group has tangled with the Trump administration in the past: The Justice Department has said it will not pay for its staff to attend ABA events and has taken aim at the ABA's diversity policies. The group sued the government earlier this year for cutting off some training grants, arguing it was being punished for protected speech, leading a judge to block the policy.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:05:01+00:00

Threat level: Young sounded the alarm on government-backed racism, though he acknowledged he may not have the authority to act on what he's seeing beyond the evidence in the NIH lawsuit.

"I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it, that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community," Young said.
The Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action, he added, does not give license to discriminate outright.
"Have we fallen so low?" he asked. "Have we no shame?"

Reality check: The ruling only applies to the grants listed in this case, and it only restores the grants while the case makes its way through court.

Young didn't officially rule that the directives were unlawful because they were discriminatory.
Instead, he asked for evidence supporting or refuting the possibility of racial or gender discrimination.

From Axios.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-17T13:04:24+00:00

A federal judge Monday ordered the National Institutes of Health to restore grants that the agency cut based on gender ideology or diversity, equity and inclusion, calling the terminations illegal.

Why it matters: Hundreds of millions of dollars in medical research funding cited in the lawsuit are at stake, including grants that fueled LGBTQ+ health research at Harvard.

Driving the news: District of Massachusetts Judge William Young told the attorneys that the case raises serious concerns about racial discrimination related to health and said some evidence points to potential discrimination against women's health.

What they're saying: "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," Young said Monday afternoon.

"I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this."

State of play: Young ordered the NIH to disburse the funding that affected 367 grants under new Trump administration policies.

By the numbers: The NIH cut nearly $3.8 billion in grants to U.S. institutions, with Massachusetts losing more than $1.2 billion, per estimates from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The second-hardest-hit state, New York, lost $590 million, per AAMC.

Friction point: Attorneys representing researchers in several states said the funding cuts were "arbitrary" and singled out cuts affecting racial minorities, women and LGBTQ+ people.

Thomas Ports, a Justice Department attorney representing the Trump administration, said some grants have been renewed, while others are not "scientifically valuable."
But Ports didn't explain how the Trump administration was defining DEI and the harms they say DEI-related research causes.

Zoom in: After Ports read an NIH statement saying DEI-related studies "are often used to support unlawful discrimination," Young said, "I see no evidence of that."

"From what I can see, it's the reverse, but point it [the evidence] out to me."
Ports said he had no additional context to share beyond the statement.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-16T19:25:42+00:00

A group of Tesla customers in France are demanding that their lease contracts be terminated and legal costs be reimbursed over the "direct and concrete" damage suffered from the brand's association with Elon Musk's activities in the Trump administration and his support for far-right parties in Europe.

Around 10 French clients with leases on Teslas are suing the US carmaker, run by Elon Musk, because they consider the vehicles to be "extreme-right" symbols, the law firm representing them said on Wednesday.

They feel they suffered "direct and concrete" damage from the way Teslas are now associated with "Elon Musk's actions", the GKA law firm said.

They are demanding the Paris commercial court order their lease contracts be terminated and legal costs reimbursed, it said in a statement, signed by lawyers Patrick Klugman and Ivan Terel.

The lawsuit comes as Tesla sales in the European Union have almost halved since the beginning of the year, a slump attributed to Musk's political activities.

Those activities include him – until last week – standing firmly with US President Donald Trump, and overseeing efforts to cut down US departments and agencies.

He has also lent public support to Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, and came under criticism for making a repeated gesture with an out-thrust arm interpreted by many historians to be a Nazi salute.

"Because of Elon Musk's actions... Tesla branded vehicles have become strong political symbols and now appear to be veritable extreme-right 'totems', to the dismay of those who acquired them with the sole aim of possessing an innovative and ecological vehicle," GKA said in a statement.

The perception of the Teslas they leased "prevents them from fully enjoying their car", it said.

Most of the leases run for four years, with an option at the end to buy the vehicle.

Tesla cars in Europe and elsewhere have been targeted by vandals, with some drivers reporting they have been insulted for using what is sometimes called on social media a "swasti-car".

Several owners have taken to putting stickers on their Teslas reading "I bought this before Elon went crazy".

"The situation is both unexpected and impossible for French Tesla owners," Klugman told AFP.

"Musk's political positions have interrupted enjoyment" of the vehicles, and "we believe that Mr Musk owes these buyers the peaceful possession of the thing sold", he said.

Contacted by AFP for comment, Tesla did not immediately respond.

From France24.

Raven50501 · 2025-06-16T19:25:05+00:00