What Patrick said
Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said the state would continue installing concertina wire along the U.S.–Mexico border, even if federal agents cut or removed sections. He made the remarks in a 29 January 2024 interview on Fox News’ “The Story.” The interview clip and a contemporaneous Axios report document his position.
Patrick framed the wire as a border-security measure and objected to federal agents cutting it. He also credited Texas’ border policies with reducing crossings. Those were his assertions in the interview; the clip does not provide a specific time period, border sector or dataset to substantiate a reduction, nor does it supply evidence for broader claims about crime, drugs or national security.
What the Supreme Court order did
On 22 January 2024, the Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting or clearing Texas-installed wire for the time being. The order addressed whether federal agents could access and clear the barrier while the dispute continued; it was not a final decision resolving Texas’ broader legal challenge. The Associated Press account reports that the justices gave no explanation for their vote and that the lawsuit remained ongoing.
The competing arguments were about both authority and practical access. The federal government argued that the wire impeded Border Patrol agents from patrolling the river and reaching people who might need assistance. Texas officials argued that agents were cutting wire to help groups crossing the river before processing them. These positions describe the parties’ arguments, not findings that settled the underlying case.
Why the distinction matters
Patrick’s interview is evidence of Texas’ stated intention to keep placing wire; it is not independent proof of how much the measure changed crossings or crime. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s interim order permitted federal agents to clear the barrier while litigation continued; it did not decide every question about state and federal immigration powers. Keeping those points separate gives readers a clearer view of what the interview and the court order actually establish.