LOCAL ENVIRONMENTALIST FINDS ISSUES WITH TRUMP'S NEW NATIONAL DEFENSE ZONE ALONG THE RIO GRANDE RIVER

Compiled from reports by the Texas Tribune,  Associated Press   and the Border Report

Scott Nicol, local environmentalist

In the summer of 2025, a notable example of inadvertent civilian encroachment into an emerging national defense zone occurred in southern Texas, along the Rio Grande River, underscoring the increasingly complex relationship between environmental stewardship and militarized border security. The episode took place on a levee near the U.S./Mexico border, an area being transformed by the Trump administratin into a federally administered military zone.

An amateur birdwatcher unintentionally entered the area, due to the absence of clear signage, as the levee in question had recently come under federal designation as a strategic infrastructure asset within a proposed 250 mile National Defense Area overseen in part by the U.S. Air Force.

Accompanying the birdwatcher was Scott Nicol, a local environmentalist affiliated with the organization Friends of the Wildlife Corridor. Nicol expressed concerns about the potential for inadvertent civilian detainment and the disruption of habitat continuity for endangered species such as the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). He was also concerned about the lack of warning signage, as well as the broader implications for public access to the river.

The designated defense perimeter, which has  been extended to include internal levees situated miles from the actual riverbank, presents administrative challenges to local government. Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez, for example, indicated that regional officials were not briefed on the expansion, only learning of it instead through news reports. 

Legal ambiguities further complicate the issue as the military, while claiming the right to detain individuals within the designated zones, lacks jurisdiction under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of federal military personnel in domestic law enforcement. This legal framework has prompted confusion regarding the scope and nature of permissible military engagement with civilians encountered in these areas.

Concerns have been raised about the treatment of legitimate recreational and conservation activities along the borderlands. Hikers, birdwatchers, and hunters, traditionally having access to the area adjacent to the Rio Grande River, now face the prospect of surveillance, temporary detainment, and restricted access. 

This new military wrinkle represents a change from a conservation based view of the river to military control in an area where ecological protection, civil liberties, and national security seem to intersect. .

---