HCR 40 carries no direct fiscal impact on the State of Texas because it is a nonbinding policy statement rather than a bill with appropriations or mandates. As a concurrent resolution, it does not authorize spending, modify tax policy, or create enforceable obligations. However, it does aim to influence federal fiscal policy by requesting reimbursement for state expenses associated with Operation Lone Star. If Congress were to act on this request, the result could be a significant federal transfer of funds back to Texas.

Operation Lone Star has already required substantial state investment. Since its launch in March 2021, Texas has appropriated billions—reportedly more than $4 billion over multiple biennia—to fund personnel deployments, surveillance technology, legal proceedings, and humanitarian logistics related to border security. These expenditures have come from general revenue, diverted from other potential uses such as public education, infrastructure, or property tax relief. By seeking federal reimbursement, the resolution highlights the Legislature’s intent to offset these costs and reduce the long-term fiscal burden on state taxpayers.

While passage of HCR 40 itself does not guarantee repayment, any future congressional action in response could ease pressure on the Texas budget. It may also serve to build political momentum among Texas’s congressional delegation to pursue appropriations, cost-sharing mechanisms, or future policy changes that more equitably distribute border security funding across states. In this way, while the immediate fiscal effect is neutral, the potential long-term fiscal impact—if the request is honored—could be significant.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HCR 40. Although the resolution is nonbinding and does not enact statutory changes, it is a significant expression of the Texas Legislature’s position on federal responsibility for border security. HCR 40 underscores the substantial financial burden Texas has assumed under Operation Lone Star and seeks reimbursement from the federal government for those expenditures. The resolution respects the constitutional balance of powers by asserting that the duty to secure the nation’s borders lies primarily with the federal government, not the states.

From a liberty-oriented perspective, the resolution aligns with the principles of Limited Government and Personal Responsibility. It emphasizes that Texas's deployment of resources and personnel was a reaction to a federal failure and not a permanent expansion of state power. Rather than seeking to expand state enforcement authority, HCR 40 calls for the federal government to fulfill its existing obligations and compensate the state accordingly. It also reflects a fiscally responsible approach by advocating for relief from the strain state taxpayers have borne in funding a federally-mandated duty.

While Operation Lone Star has sparked debate over civil liberties and immigration enforcement practices, this resolution neither expands nor contracts those policies. It serves strictly as a fiscal and federalism-based appeal. Therefore, HCR 40 warrants support as a targeted, principled call for accountability that seeks to protect the state’s financial interests without compromising core liberty values. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HCR 40. 

• Individual Liberty: The resolution itself does not alter individual rights or impose new restrictions on people living in or migrating through Texas. However, it implicitly endorses Operation Lone Star, which includes expanded state-level enforcement activities such as arrests, detentions, and physical barriers. While this raises concerns in some contexts about civil liberties—especially for migrants, property owners, and border communities—this resolution is limited in scope. It does not create new enforcement authority or policy; it only requests federal reimbursement for actions already taken. As such, it has a neutral-to-indirect effect on individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The resolution promotes the concept of governmental accountability by asserting that border security is a federal responsibility and that the federal government should bear the costs associated with it. By formally requesting reimbursement, the state is holding the federal government accountable for its constitutional role, rather than allowing taxpayers in Texas to continue subsidizing what is fundamentally a national duty. This reinforces a key aspect of personal and institutional responsibility within a federalist system.
• Free Enterprise: The resolution has minimal direct effect on private markets, but by seeking reimbursement, it indirectly supports the idea that state funds could be redirected away from border enforcement toward economic development or other enterprise-supportive functions. A secure and predictable border policy can also support free enterprise by facilitating lawful trade and minimizing disruptions caused by criminal activity.
• Private Property Rights: While the underlying activities of Operation Lone Star have, in some cases, intersected with private land use (e.g., use of eminent domain or trespassing enforcement), the resolution itself does not authorize or modify these actions. Because the resolution is retrospective and focused on cost recovery, it does not directly threaten or enhance property rights, making its effect neutral on this principle.
• Limited Government: This is where the resolution has its strongest alignment. The resolution affirms that the federal government, not state governments, is primarily responsible for border security. By urging Congress to cover the costs Texas has incurred, it reinforces the idea that state governments should not be indefinitely burdened with federal responsibilities. The resolution also implicitly criticizes the expansion of state government activity in this area and suggests it should be limited in the future through proper federal action. This promotes constitutional boundaries and a more restrained model of governance.