Under President Trump’s guidance, illegal border crossings have dropped significantly, restoring a sense of law and order to communities nationwide. This shift marks a welcome change from the chaos seen under the Biden administration, but it would be unwise for Congress to assume the issue has been entirely resolved.
The repercussions of a federal government that neglects its primary duty—to ensure the safety of its citizens—are real. History suggests that a future Democratic administration could revert to previous policies, which is concerning.
Throughout Biden’s four years in office, millions of undocumented migrants surged across the border, and both drug and human trafficking rates spiked, overwhelming local areas. When Texas attempted to safeguard its residents, the federal government not only failed to assist but actively hindered these efforts. The state faced lawsuits for deploying buoy barriers, federal workers cut installed razor wire, and the Justice Department challenged Texas laws aimed at enforcing immigration policies. Essentially, President Biden used every means available to keep borders open and leave states vulnerable.
This raises an important question: despite Trump’s current success, can states truly secure their borders and protect their citizens if the federal government falls short?
Fortunately, the Constitution provides clarity on this issue. Article IV, Section 4 obligates the federal government to protect citizens. However, the Founders acknowledged that this duty might not always be fulfilled, which is why Article I, Section 10 grants states the power to act in self-defense during times of “actual invasion” or “imminent danger.”
This state’s right to safeguard its citizens isn’t a novel notion; it is explicitly outlined in the Constitution. That’s why I introduced H.Res. 50, a resolution that has garnered support from every Republican in the Texas Legislature, along with a diverse coalition of policy experts, legal scholars, and law enforcement leaders nationwide. It reaffirms states’ constitutional authority to protect themselves and clarifies when that authority is applicable.
This resolution doesn’t expand state power or diminish federal authority. Instead, it enhances constitutional balance and provides much-needed clarity during critical times.
The legal disputes between Texas and the federal government during Biden’s administration highlighted how ambiguity can prevent states from responding even when faced with clear and immediate threats. If similar questions arise in the future—and they probably will—the Supreme Court will turn to Congress for interpretation on what counts as “invasion” or “imminent danger.”
H.Res. 50 offers that needed guidance by establishing Congressional intent and ensuring that states aren’t left defenseless if the federal government neglects its responsibilities.
This conversation isn’t just hypothetical; it deals with the real possibility of future failures in Washington. It’s hard to imagine that a future Democratic administration will uphold the same commitment to border security that we currently see under Trump.
We have a responsibility to act decisively now. Americans have granted Republicans unified control in Washington, and Congress has the chance to prevent states like Texas from being passive victims of ineffective federal governance. We must respond with the urgency that this moment requires.
