Key Points

• Texas lawmakers discussed the possibility of annexing parts of neighbouring New Mexico during a House committee meeting in Austin.
• The discussion centred on Lea, Roosevelt and Eddy counties, three New Mexico counties near the Texas border.
• The idea originated with New Mexico Republican lawmakers who proposed allowing certain counties to seek separation from New Mexico.
• The New Mexico proposal did not advance, but Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows subsequently directed a Texas legislative committee to examine the legal and economic implications of annexation.
• Texas Attorney General’s Office attorney Michael Cotton told lawmakers that any change to the state boundary would require action by both state legislatures and likely Congress.
• Some Texas lawmakers used humour during the committee discussion, while others raised questions about water, oil production, political differences and relations between Texas and New Mexico.
• Rep. Brooks Landgraf said the discussion was largely tongue in cheek but used the issue to highlight concerns in the Permian Basin.
• Rep. Erin Zwiener warned that discussion of taking territory from New Mexico could damage relations between the two states.
• New Mexico officials have previously rejected the proposal, while some lawmakers in the southeastern part of the state have argued that their region has stronger political and economic ties with West Texas.
• The immediate issue before Texas lawmakers is the legal and policy study, rather than an imminent change to the state boundary.

Edition Online (EO) October 1, 2026 – Texas lawmakers have discussed the possibility of annexing parts of neighbouring New Mexico, turning a proposal that originated among New Mexico legislators into an unusual subject of debate inside the Texas Legislature. The discussion has focused on Lea, Roosevelt and Eddy counties, which sit in southeastern New Mexico alongside the Texas border and form part of the wider Permian Basin energy region. The issue remains legally complicated, with Texas officials acknowledging that any actual alteration of the boundary would require approval beyond the Texas Legislature. Recent reporting by Pat Davis of the New Mexico Political Report confirmed that Texas lawmakers had scheduled hearings to examine the proposal, while earlier reporting by Sarah Bahari of the Dallas Morning News documented Speaker Dustin Burrows’ decision to study the issue.

Why are Texas lawmakers discussing the annexation of New Mexico counties?

The latest discussion follows months of political debate over whether parts of southeastern New Mexico could leave that state and become part of Texas.

According to Pat Davis of the New Mexico Political Report, New Mexico Representatives Randall Pettigrew and Jimmy Mason, both Republicans, introduced a proposed constitutional amendment in January that would have allowed three or more contiguous counties to seek separation from New Mexico. The lawmakers represented areas including Chaves, Eddy and Lea counties.

Davis reported that Pettigrew described the proposal as a way of drawing attention to political differences between the more conservative southeastern counties and New Mexico’s Democratic-controlled state government. The proposal did not progress in Santa Fe.

The proposal nevertheless attracted attention across the border.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican from Lubbock, subsequently directed a Texas legislative committee to examine the potential legal and economic implications of adding one or more New Mexico counties to Texas.

Sarah Bahari of the Dallas Morning News reported that Burrows described the discussion as being connected to culture, opportunity and the right of communities to choose a political direction reflecting what he described as shared values across the Permian and Delaware basins.

The proposal therefore developed from a New Mexico discussion about possible county secession into a Texas examination of annexation.

Which New Mexico counties are being discussed?

The counties identified in the Texas legislative discussion are Lea, Roosevelt and Eddy.

All three are in southeastern New Mexico and are closely connected economically to the wider Permian Basin, one of the major oil-producing regions in the United States.

Pat Davis reported for the New Mexico Political Report that the Texas Governmental Oversight Committee was examining whether those three counties could potentially be annexed by Texas. The report also quoted Lubbock Representative Carl Tepper, a member of the committee, as saying the proposal originated with New Mexico representatives rather than Texas lawmakers.

KCBD/Fox 34 separately reported in April that the Texas Governmental Oversight Committee was studying the potential annexation of Lea, Roosevelt and Eddy counties. Reporter Madeleine Hall described the issue as an examination of whether Texas could expand its border for the first time since the major nineteenth-century boundary settlement.

The counties are significant not only because of their location but also because of their role in the regional energy economy.

What did Texas lawmakers say during the committee discussion?

The committee discussion included both serious questions about the legal process and joking exchanges between lawmakers.

Rep. Brooks Landgraf, a Republican from Odessa, referred to his connection with the Permian Basin and said some New Mexicans in the region might welcome joining Texas.

Rep. Mitch Little, a Republican from Lewisville, responded jokingly about arming moderate New Mexicans, prompting Landgraf to refer to old CIA psychological operations.

Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a Democrat from Laredo, then compared the discussion with wider international territorial comments, saying that if the president could talk about Greenland, Texas lawmakers could talk about New Mexico.

The exchanges were made in a broader committee meeting that had already lasted many hours.

Landgraf later acknowledged that the discussion was largely tongue in cheek. His comments nevertheless provided an opportunity to raise substantive concerns about the relationship between communities on opposite sides of the New Mexico-Texas boundary.

What did the Texas Attorney General’s Office say about annexation?

The legal question is one of the central obstacles to any actual change in the boundary.

During the committee discussion, Michael Cotton, head of the Texas Attorney General’s Special Litigation Division, explained the legal considerations surrounding the potential acquisition of territory from another state.

When Rep. Ellen Troxclair, a Republican from Lakeway, asked whether the explanation meant that there was a possibility of annexation, Cotton answered that there was a possibility in the legal sense being discussed.

The broader legal framework reported by multiple outlets is that Texas could not simply change the state boundary on its own.

Pat Davis of the New Mexico Political Report reported that even if Texas approved legislation, a corresponding measure would have to be approved in New Mexico, with Congress having the final say.

Spectrum News likewise reported in April that legal experts considered approval by both states and Congress necessary for such a change.

This means that the committee’s study does not itself constitute an annexation process or an agreement to transfer territory.

Why does the Permian Basin matter to the debate?

The Permian Basin is central to the discussion because the Texas-New Mexico border cuts through an area with extensive oil and gas production.

Landgraf used the committee discussion to highlight what he described as differences in how the two states manage the economic benefits and environmental consequences of energy production.

He said some residents in southeastern New Mexico view the region as an “extraction colony”, arguing that oil revenues contribute significantly to state government while local communities do not necessarily receive equivalent benefits.

That interpretation is a political argument made by Landgraf rather than an established finding presented by the committee.

The issue also has a practical dimension involving produced water.

Produced water is wastewater brought to the surface during oil and gas production. Its management has become a significant issue across the Permian Basin.

Recent reporting by Jerry Redfern has documented the scale of produced-water management challenges in New Mexico and the movement of significant volumes across state lines into Texas. Redfern reported for Source New Mexico and the Santa Fe Reporter that produced water from New Mexico is transported to Texas for management and disposal.

Why is produced water part of the Texas-New Mexico dispute?

New Mexico’s restrictions on underground reinjection have affected how oil-field wastewater is handled.

According to the material presented during the Texas committee discussion, produced water from New Mexico is transported by truck and pipeline into the Texas side of the Permian Basin, where it is reinjected.

Landgraf argued that this arrangement creates additional environmental and seismic concerns because disposal activity is concentrated on the Texas side of the basin.

The broader issue has been documented independently by energy and environmental reporting.

Amanda Drane of the Houston Chronicle reported that oil production in the Permian creates substantial quantities of produced water and that underground disposal has been associated with concerns about seismic activity. She also reported that companies and regulators have been examining water-treatment and recycling technologies as alternatives to underground injection.

Redfern’s July 2026 reporting similarly described produced water as a growing logistical challenge for New Mexico’s oil industry and reported that a significant share of the state’s produced water moves into Texas for management.

The water issue therefore predates the annexation discussion and represents a separate interstate environmental and industrial-management question.

Why did some Texas lawmakers object to discussing annexation?

Not every Texas lawmaker participating in the discussion viewed the subject as harmless political humour.

Rep. Erin Zwiener, a Democrat from Driftwood, argued that discussing the acquisition of another state’s territory could harm the relationship between Texas and New Mexico.

She specifically connected the issue with wider concerns about relations between neighbouring jurisdictions. Zwiener argued that Texas would have greater difficulty engaging New Mexico in serious discussions over water management if it appeared to be treating the neighbouring state as a weaker party whose territory could simply be taken.

Her comments were particularly relevant because water and energy issues already require cooperation across the Texas-New Mexico border.

The disagreement therefore reflects two different approaches to the issue: supporters have framed the discussion around political and cultural similarities in southeastern New Mexico, while critics have raised concerns about interstate relations and practical cooperation.

What did Dustin Burrows say about the proposal?

Burrows has been one of the most prominent Texas officials to advance the examination.

In February, he said Texas would welcome Lea County back to Texas, where he argued it belonged.

In March, according to Sarah Bahari’s reporting for the Dallas Morning News, Burrows said the conversation was ultimately about culture, opportunity and the ability of communities to pursue a political direction reflecting the shared values of the Permian and Delaware basins.

Burrows also asked the House Governmental Oversight Committee to examine the state and federal statutes that would be required to begin an annexation process.

The committee’s work therefore concerns the legal and practical framework rather than an immediate transfer of territory.

How did the proposal begin in New Mexico?

The idea did not begin with a formal Texas campaign to expand the state’s territory.

According to Pat Davis of the New Mexico Political Report, Pettigrew and Mason introduced the New Mexico proposal in January after representing areas in southeastern New Mexico. Their draft constitutional amendment would have created a mechanism for three or more contiguous counties to seek separation.

The lawmakers said the proposal was intended to highlight political differences between their region and the Democratic majority in Santa Fe.

The measure did not advance through the New Mexico Legislature.

The Texas Legislature subsequently took up the issue from a different legal and political perspective, examining what would be involved if territory from New Mexico were incorporated into Texas.

What are New Mexico officials saying about the idea?

New Mexico’s political leadership has rejected the prospect of losing territory to Texas.

Sarah Bahari reported in the Dallas Morning News that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham dismissed the proposal and said her administration intended to keep New Mexico intact. New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez also rejected the idea in strong terms.

These positions illustrate the gap between the political arguments made by some southeastern New Mexico lawmakers and the position of the state’s leadership.

At the same time, reporting from New Mexico indicates that the original proposal was partly designed to draw attention to that political divide rather than establish an immediate mechanism for transferring counties to Texas.

Does Texas have a historical claim over the territory?

The debate also has a historical dimension.

Sarah Bahari’s Dallas Morning News report noted that Texas and New Mexico have a long history of disputed boundaries. When Texas separated from Mexico in the nineteenth century and became an independent republic, it claimed territory extending into what is now New Mexico.

The territorial dispute was addressed in the Compromise of 1850, when Texas surrendered claims to disputed western lands.

KCBD/Fox 34 also described the current proposal as potentially representing the first major change to the Texas border since the nineteenth-century settlement.

The historical background is relevant to the rhetoric surrounding the proposal, but it does not itself establish a current legal right for Texas to acquire New Mexico territory.

What is the current status of the annexation discussion?

The current status is that Texas lawmakers are studying the issue rather than carrying out an immediate annexation.

The Governmental Oversight Committee has been examining the constitutional, statutory, economic and fiscal implications of the idea.

A report by The Houston Chronicle published around the latest committee discussion said lawmakers were examining the potential implications of annexing parts of New Mexico, while noting that there was no immediate plan to annex New Mexico territory.

The committee’s examination could provide lawmakers with information about the legal steps, economic consequences and administrative issues that would arise if the proposal were ever pursued.

However, the process would face several stages of approval before any boundary could actually be changed.

What legal hurdles would a Texas-New Mexico boundary change face?

A change would require agreement at multiple levels of government.

Texas would need to enact the necessary legislation. New Mexico would also need to agree to the transfer. Congressional approval would then be required.

The requirement for federal involvement means that the Texas Legislature alone cannot complete an annexation.

The legal process is therefore substantially different from a normal state legislative measure. It would involve another state government and the federal government, in addition to potentially affected residents and local authorities.

The New Mexico Political Report reported that even if Texas passed legislation, a companion measure would have to be approved by New Mexico before Congress could give final approval.

What could the discussion mean for residents and businesses in the region?

For residents and businesses in southeastern New Mexico and West Texas, the immediate significance is likely to be continued debate over regional governance, energy policy, water management and the relationship between state governments.

If the proposal remains at the study stage, its practical effects would primarily involve political discussion and examination of the consequences of any possible boundary change.

A genuine annexation process would raise much broader questions, including taxation, regulation, public services, representation, property records, infrastructure, education, policing, water rights and energy regulation. Those issues have not been resolved by the committee’s discussion.

The economic relationship between the communities already exists regardless of the state boundary. Spectrum News reported that Texas lawmakers have pointed to cultural and economic connections between West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, including links involving businesses, hospitals and universities.

That regional interdependence means that questions about energy, water and infrastructure are likely to remain relevant even if the annexation proposal does not progress.

What is the background to the Texas-New Mexico annexation debate?

The immediate background goes back to the New Mexico proposal introduced by Pettigrew and Mason in January 2026.

Their proposal sought to create a mechanism through which certain counties could leave New Mexico. According to the New Mexico Political Report, the lawmakers said the measure was intended to expose political differences between southeastern New Mexico and the state’s Democratic leadership.

The measure did not advance in Santa Fe.

Texas lawmakers nevertheless began considering the possibility after Burrows directed the Governmental Oversight Committee to study annexation.

By September, the Texas committee had formally announced hearings to examine the possible annexation of Lea, Roosevelt and Eddy counties, according to Pat Davis’s reporting.

The debate subsequently expanded beyond the question of political alignment to include legal requirements, interstate relations, energy production and produced-water management.

The history of the region’s boundary disputes provides additional context, but the present-day process is governed by modern state and federal law.

What could happen next and how could this development affect the regional audience?

The next stage is likely to centre on the Texas Legislature’s examination of the legal, fiscal, constitutional and economic questions surrounding the proposal.

For residents of southeastern New Mexico, the discussion could keep political differences between the region and Santa Fe in the public debate. For residents of West Texas, it could bring additional attention to shared energy, water and infrastructure issues across the state line.

For businesses operating in the Permian Basin, the most immediate relevance is likely to be regulatory and operational rather than territorial. Energy companies, water-management operators, landowners and local governments already operate within a cross-border economic system, and any future change in state jurisdiction could affect taxation, regulation and public administration if it ever reached the implementation stage.

However, the current evidence does not establish that such a boundary change will occur. Any actual annexation would require agreement from Texas and New Mexico and approval from Congress, making the committee’s present work an examination of possibilities rather than a completed territorial change.

The committee’s findings could therefore determine whether lawmakers continue examining the concept or conclude that the legal, political and administrative barriers make further action impractical. Until those stages occur, the Texas-New Mexico border remains unchanged.