According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 5520 is projected to have a net negative fiscal impact of approximately $3.91 million in General Revenue-related funds over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. This estimate accounts for administrative and personnel costs tied to the implementation of the bill's major components, including grant programs and the establishment of a new educational center. However, the overall fiscal impact may be greater due to indeterminate costs associated with future grant awards, which will vary depending on the number of applicants and legislative appropriations.

The bill would authorize three key programs: (1) a Border Court Grant Program managed by the Office of Court Administration (OCA), (2) a Border Institution Grant Program under the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), and (3) the Texas Center for Border Policy, a joint initiative of UTEP and UTRGV managed by the UT System. Each of these programs would require additional full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and resources. For the 2026–2027 biennium, the OCA, the THECB, the Office of the Governor, and the UT System estimate a combined need for 14 new FTEs and associated costs of roughly $3.9 million.

The bill does not include a direct appropriation but creates a legal framework for future appropriations. It allows relevant agencies to apply for federal funds and accept private donations or grants, which could offset some of the implementation costs. Additionally, while no significant fiscal impact on local governments is anticipated, the scope and reach of the grant programs could change if participation expands over time.

In summary, HB 5520 would require a significant upfront state investment to launch and operate new programs focused on judicial support, border research, and economic development. Though the long-term economic or social returns may prove beneficial, the fiscal note underscores both the defined costs and the uncertain funding needs tied to variable grant demand.

HB 5520, while well-intentioned in its attempt to enhance border security and invest in economic development along the Texas-Mexico border, ultimately represents an overexpansion of state authority, resources, and administrative structures. The bill creates multiple new grant programs, increases recurring general revenue obligations, and establishes a university-affiliated research center—all without sufficient cost controls, sunset provisions, or guardrails to ensure program accountability. These features pose direct conflicts with foundational principles of limited government, restrained public spending, and administrative efficiency.

A central concern lies in the bill’s establishment of expansive grant-making powers through the Office of Court Administration, the Office of the Governor, and the Higher Education Coordinating Board. These grants would fund courts, law enforcement services, infrastructure, and higher education institutions without robust metrics or enforceable conditions for performance or financial return. While reporting requirements are included, the legislative oversight remains weak, and the potential for politicized or duplicative allocation of taxpayer funds is high. In effect, the bill codifies a long-term financial obligation to support state-directed border activity through soft spending mechanisms, which are often difficult to constrain once established.

Additionally, HB 5520 authorizes the creation of the Texas Center for Border Policy, housed within the University of Texas System, to conduct research and policy analysis. While data-informed governance is valuable, creating an entirely new academic center with recurring staffing and administrative costs—estimated at nearly $2 million over the next biennium—represents mission creep and invites future budget growth beyond the bill's scope. Texas already has existing law enforcement, academic, and governmental institutions capable of fulfilling these roles without forming a new permanent entity.

From a fiscal standpoint, the Legislative Budget Board estimates nearly $4 million in General Revenue spending over the next two years, with additional indeterminate costs tied to the demand for grants. The administrative buildout alone includes 14 new full-time equivalent (FTE) staff across multiple agencies. For lawmakers committed to balanced budgets and avoiding unnecessary expansion of state functions, this structure raises red flags regarding sustainability, efficiency, and scope.

Moreover, the bill duplicates ongoing border-related efforts. Operation Lone Star, DPS coordination, and the Office of the Governor's existing border security initiatives already address many of the areas HB 5520 aims to fund. Rather than consolidating or enhancing current efforts, the bill introduces a parallel set of programs that may undermine consistency or stretch agency missions. Texas does not need redundant policy layers, especially when taxpayer dollars are at stake.

In conclusion, while the bill aims to respond to real challenges faced by Texas border communities, the approach it adopts—one of expanded state spending, programmatic duplication, and open-ended administrative structures—runs counter to the principles of efficient, accountable, and constitutionally restrained governance. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 5520 as a vote for fiscal responsibility, respect for existing institutions, and opposition to the unchecked growth of government.

• Individual Liberty: The bill authorizes expanded use of surveillance and inspection equipment, including X-ray radiographic technology for vehicle and cargo scanning near the Texas-Mexico border. While intended for border security, these measures risk infringing upon individual privacy rights, especially if deployed without clear safeguards for civil liberties. Residents and travelers in the border region may be subjected to heightened monitoring or inspection protocols without sufficient legal protections. The bill does not establish oversight mechanisms to ensure these powers are not abused, leaving open the potential for rights violations.
• Personal Responsibility: Rather than empowering communities to take greater ownership of their public safety and legal infrastructure, the bill proposes top-down state-funded solutions through expansive grant programs. These programs may disincentivize innovation or efficiency at the local level by creating dependency on state-managed aid. The underlying assumption is that only state institutions can adequately manage the complexity of border challenges, reducing the role of local initiative and accountability.
• Free Enterprise: The bill's economic development component—particularly the campaign to attract businesses and support border-region industries—could provide short-term benefits to local economies. However, it does so through publicly funded marketing and support programs rather than natural market incentives. By introducing government-managed initiatives to promote certain industries (like homeland security firms), the bill risks distorting the free market. There is no guarantee that these interventions will lead to sustainable or efficient outcomes, and private competitors not receiving aid may be disadvantaged.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill does not directly mention land acquisition or eminent domain, its infrastructure provisions—particularly for surveillance equipment, border security barriers, and public safety facilities—could implicate private land use. Without explicit statutory limits, the state may undertake or authorize construction in areas that affect private landowners, especially in rural or agricultural regions along the border. The absence of language protecting landowners or requiring consent, compensation standards, or local input creates unnecessary risk to property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill represents a substantial expansion of state government roles, funding obligations, and administrative reach. It creates multiple grant programs, establishes a university-affiliated research center, adds layers of bureaucracy to existing DPS and Governor’s Office duties, and authorizes recurring state-funded campaigns for economic development. This approach conflicts with the core notion that government should be narrowly tailored and fiscally restrained. It also duplicates existing state efforts in border security and public safety, introducing inefficiency rather than consolidation.