Estimated Time to Read: 12 minutes
Border security remained one of the most hotly debated policy issues during the 89th Texas Legislature. Lawmakers proposed a wide array of bills aimed at expanding the state’s role in immigration enforcement, centralizing homeland security coordination, and deploying public funds to physical infrastructure and surveillance initiatives. While some measures gained bipartisan support, others exposed the limits of constitutional authority, strained local law enforcement capacity, and tested the boundaries of limited government.
In Part 5 of our 8-part series, we explore what passed, what failed, and what it all means for the future of Texas border and immigration policy.
Bills That Made It
The 89th Legislature succeeded in advancing several high-profile border security bills. These include mandates for county sheriff participation in federal immigration programs, the creation of a new Homeland Security Division within DPS, and record-setting border security funding within the 2026–27 state budget. Supporters framed these bills as necessary steps to enhance safety and enforce the rule of law amid an escalating crisis at the Texas-Mexico border. However, the scope, cost, and civil liberty implications of these measures drew sharp criticism from both fiscal conservatives and civil rights advocates. Below, we examine each major bill that became law.
State-Mandated 287(g) Agreements with ICE – Senate Bill 8
Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), authored by State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), mandates that all Texas sheriffs operating jails, or contracting with private jail operators, enter into immigration enforcement agreements, also known as 287g agreements, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill also establishes a grant program, administered by the Texas Comptroller, to help cover implementation costs not reimbursed by the federal government, offering between $80,000 and $140,000, depending on county population. Annual compliance reports are required, and the Attorney General may initiate enforcement actions against sheriffs who fail to comply.
The law takes effect on January 1, 2026, with compliance required by December 1, 2026. While the bill is part of a broader Republican strategy to align state and local law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement, its effectiveness remains uncertain. ICE participation is voluntary, and the law offers no statutory recourse if the agency declines to enter into agreements. Previous attempts to mandate such agreements, both in Texas and other states, have faced logistical pushback, legal ambiguity, and sometimes political non-cooperation from county sheriffs.
Civil liberties advocates warned that the bill’s lack of guardrails or due process protections could result in racial profiling or wrongful detentions. Supporters hailed it as a meaningful effort to eliminate sanctuary jurisdictions and enhance statewide consistency.
Homeland Security Division at DPS – Senate Bill 36
Senate Bill 36 (SB 36), authored by State Sen. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound), creates a Homeland Security Division within the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to lead coordinated efforts across state, local, federal, and private entities on border security and homeland threats. The division is responsible for planning, intelligence collection, risk assessment, and interagency coordination. It also formalizes the state’s surveillance operations, such as Operation Drawbridge, and centralizes the transition of related functions from other agencies.
The division’s creation marks a formal bureaucratic shift, pulling homeland and border security responsibilities previously spread across departments under a singular authority within DPS. Proponents say this structure will enhance operational efficiency and reduce redundancy. Critics, however, see the potential for mission creep and opaque spending. Texas already spends more on state-led border enforcement than any other state, raising questions about whether new bureaucracies are improving results or duplicating efforts.
The bill becomes effective on September 1, 2025, giving the agency time to build infrastructure and staff. Future legislative sessions may revisit the division’s scope depending on political sentiment and performance data.
2026-27 State Budget (Border Security Funding) – Senate Bill 1
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the state budget for the 2026–27 biennium, includes over $3.3 billion in continued border security funding. The funds support Operation Lone Star, border wall construction, surveillance infrastructure, and the deployment of law enforcement and National Guard resources.
This builds on a trend started in 2021, when the state launched Operation Lone Star in response to what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) described as a “federal failure” at the border. Since then, the program has drawn legal scrutiny, federal lawsuits, and criticism over unclear metrics and possible duplication of federal functions. Fiscal watchdogs have flagged the lack of outcome tracking, e.g., how many arrests, detentions, or drugs seized correlate to dollars spent.
Notably, several budget transparency amendments authored by State Rep. Mike Olcott (R-Aledo) were proposed to the overall budget. One amendment would have required the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to report the number of undocumented students in public schools, information that has often fueled debates over education funding and enrollment. Another amendment would have required the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to annually report on the costs and impacts of providing uncompensated care to non-citizens or non-lawful permanent residents in Texas hospitals. Yet another amendment would have mandated that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice annually report on the confinement of “illegal criminal aliens,” including numbers, associated costs, facility capacity usage, and estimated total sentence costs. Despite being ultimately adopted to Article XI of the budget as it was being considered by the House, the amendments were ultimately never seriously considered by the Conference Committee.
Bills That Did Not Make It
Despite broad attention to border issues, several major proposals failed to cross the legislative finish line. These included controversial constitutional amendments, new state enforcement powers, and reforms to education and healthcare policy tied to immigration status. Though many were championed by Republican leadership, their failure reflects a recurring challenge: how to balance security, constitutional rights, and limited government.
“Jocelyn’s Law” (Detention Without Bail) – Senate Joint Resolution 1
Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1), authored by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), would have amended the Texas Constitution to allow courts to deny bail to illegal aliens accused of certain serious felonies, including murder, sexual assault, and drug trafficking. The proposal would have required a judicial determination of probable cause and voter approval on the November 2025 ballot.
The bill was named in reference to a high-profile case involving an undocumented defendant accused of murder. Despite this emotional appeal, strong Republican backing, and the prioritization of Gov. Abbott, the measure failed in the Texas House. Its defeat highlights the legal complexity of pretrial detention reforms, especially those based on immigration status, which courts have traditionally treated as a civil, not criminal, matter.
Bail Reform Amendment – Senate Joint Resolution 87
As an attempted compromise, upon the defeat of SJR 1, Huffman also authored Senate Joint Resolution 87 (SJR 87), which proposed broader bail reform by amending the Texas Constitution to expand judicial discretion in denying bail based on perceived danger to public safety. It aimed to complement statutory reforms and give judges more tools to hold repeat or violent offenders pretrial.
Like SJR 1, the resolution fell short of the required supermajority in the Texas House. Civil liberties organizations warned that it could fuel indefinite detentions without trial.
Immigration Compliance in Higher Education – Senate Bill 1798
Senate Bill 1798 (SB 1798), authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), would have repealed in-state tuition eligibility and access to state financial aid for undocumented students, revoking key elements of the 2001 “Texas Dream Act”, a law passed with bipartisan support under former Gov. Rick Perry (R).
The bill gained traction in the Senate but ultimately was never considered by the full body. Proponents argued that taxpayer-funded benefits should be limited to lawful residents. Critics countered that the bill targeted students who had grown up in Texas, attended local schools, and were working toward higher education goals, penalizing them for circumstances outside their control.
Its failure reflects not just political division, but the enduring complexity of education policy at the intersection of immigration enforcement and economic mobility.
Nevertheless, its core objective is now unfolding through other channels. In June 2025, a federal judge ruled that Texas’s in-state tuition policy for undocumented immigrants violates federal law, prompting Attorney General Ken Paxton to join a joint motion with the U.S. Department of Justice to end the policy. Following the ruling, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board directed university presidents to identify and reclassify non-lawfully present students as non-residents starting in the fall 2025 semester. Though SB 1798 failed legislatively, its intent appears likely to take effect through judicial and administrative means.
Enhanced Sentencing for “Illegal Aliens” – Senate Bill 1099
Senate Bill 1099 (SB 1099), authored by State Sen. Pete Flores (R-Pleasanton), proposed increasing penalties for noncitizens unlawfully present in the U.S. who are convicted of felony crimes. It would have required judges to make immigration determinations at sentencing and enhanced punishments by one degree, including imposing a 15-year minimum for first-degree felonies.
Supporters said the bill was necessary to deter cross-border crime. Critics argued it created unequal justice and blurred the line between immigration law (a federal responsibility) and criminal prosecution (a state matter). Concerns about due process and the difficulty of verifying immigration status in criminal court contributed to the bill’s defeat. Though SB 1099 passed the Texas Senate, it was never considered by the overall Texas House.
Border Security Interstate Compact Requirements – House Bill 176
House Bill 176 (HB 176), authored by State Rep. Ryan Guillen (R-Rio Grande City), aimed to strengthen Texas’s participation in multi-state border security compacts by allowing for shared infrastructure investment, intelligence-sharing agreements, and joint law enforcement efforts with other states. It was envisioned as a constitutional workaround to federal inaction.
The concept echoes past efforts, such as the American Governors’ Border Strike Force, but HB 176 stalled amid questions about the administrative complexity of multistate coordination and whether such compacts would withstand legal scrutiny from the federal government. HB 176 never made it out of the House Calendars Committee.
Reporting on “Illegal Criminal Aliens” in Jails – House Bill 4878
House Bill 4878 (HB 4878), authored by State Rep. Mike Olcott (R-Aledo), would have required annual reporting by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and county jails on the incarceration of individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., including numbers, capacity impacts, and costs.
The reporting requirement was intended to support future budget planning and enforcement policy. But critics pointed to definitional vagueness and warned that such data might be misused for political purposes. HB 4878 never made it out of the House Calendars Committee.
Border Protection Unit Act – House Bill 354
House Bill 354 (HB 354), authored by State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park), would have created a new Border Protection Unit under DPS with authority to arrest and detain individuals for unlawful border crossings, build physical barriers, and, under certain conditions, return migrants to Mexico. It also proposed criminal penalties for illegal entry and authorized suspensions of entry based on public health risks.
The proposal drew comparisons to Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 and raised constitutional red flags around the state’s ability to enforce immigration law independent of the federal government. Critics also questioned the bill’s implications for property rights and executive authority. The bill died in the House State Affairs Committee.
Reporting on Uncompensated Care to Noncitizens – House Bill 2587
House Bill 2587 (HB 2587), authored by State Rep. Mike Olcott (R-Aledo), would have required hospitals to report quarterly on the cost of providing uncompensated care to individuals not lawfully present in the U.S. Data would have been reported to the Health and Human Services Commission, with personal identifiers withheld from public view.
The proposal mirrored prior attempts by conservative lawmakers to quantify the public cost of illegal immigration. While it had broad House support, it was ultimately killed on procedural grounds. Opponents warned that it could deter immigrants from seeking critical care, while supporters maintained it was a common-sense transparency measure.
Political Takeaways/Trends
The 89th Legislature embraced a muscular state-led approach to border policy. Lawmakers imposed new mandates on local governments, expanded DPS authority, and invested billions into surveillance and interdiction, often with limited checks on effectiveness or constitutionality.
This trend reflects both genuine public concern over border security and a political strategy that leverages high-profile enforcement efforts. Yet many proposals sidestepped due process, transparency, or budgetary restraint. The result is a sprawling enforcement regime whose long-term costs, both financial and civil, remain uncertain.
Adding to this complexity, federal attention has started to mirror Texas’s urgency. In June, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R) introduced legislation that would reimburse Texas over $11 billion for costs associated with Operation Lone Star. If passed, it could transform Texas’s investment into a national precedent, raising questions about state-federal overlap and fiscal sustainability.
Conclusion
Texas lawmakers left no doubt that border security is a legislative priority, but the methods chosen raise concerns about constitutionality, accountability, and government growth. From mandated ICE partnerships to centralized homeland security operations, the 89th Legislature opted for sweeping control and escalating budgets over limited, targeted reforms.
As these programs roll out, Texans must stay vigilant. The cost of duplicating federal responsibilities may prove steep, not only in taxpayer dollars but in diminished liberty. The path ahead must be shaped not only by urgency but by prudence, restraint, and a steadfast commitment to constitutional governance.
Other Policy Briefs in the Series
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
