What Will Happen to Military Bases and Federal Buildings After Texit?

As the Texit movement continues to gain traction and Texas becoming an independent nation moves closer to reality, a central question arises: What will happen to the federal military bases and federal buildings located in Texas?

With more than 15 major military installations, including Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, and Fort Bliss, as well as countless federal offices and courthouses, these properties represent a significant part of the U.S. government’s presence in Texas. The fate of these military bases and federal buildings will not only impact the future of Texas’s defense capabilities but will also play a crucial role in the economic and political negotiations between Texas and the United States following Texit.

Using historical precedents like the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Czechoslovakia, and other cases of state succession, we can explore the most likely scenarios for the fate of federal properties in Texas. Drawing on international legal frameworks and state succession norms, we’ll discuss how Texas might negotiate the transfer, shared use, or continued leasing of these valuable properties.

Understanding the Historical Context of Military and Federal Property Transfers

When a region or state secedes or undergoes a major political transition, the disposition of military and federal properties becomes one of the most important aspects of the process. These negotiations are typically governed by a combination of international law and bilateral agreements, and the specific outcomes often depend on the strategic importance of the properties, the nature of the secession, and the willingness of both sides to negotiate in good faith.

The Soviet Union’s Dissolution: Lessons from History

One of the most significant historical examples of military and federal property transfers comes from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. As the Soviet Union broke apart, the newly independent republics had to determine what to do with the vast network of military bases, nuclear installations, and federal government buildings that had previously been controlled by Moscow.

• In many cases, the new republics seized control of the military bases and federal buildings within their borders. For example, Ukraine took control of Soviet military bases, though there were ongoing disputes over the fate of key installations like the Black Sea Fleet.
• Russia, as the successor state, negotiated with the republics to retain access to some strategic military assets through leasing agreements or shared use, particularly in Kazakhstan and Belarus. In other cases, Russia withdrew its forces over time, as seen in the Baltic States, where a full withdrawal was completed within a few years.

This process was highly complex, but it established a blueprint for how military and federal property could be divided between a parent state and newly independent regions. The principle of equity and negotiated transfers played key roles, ensuring that both sides had a vested interest in maintaining stability.

The Case of Czechoslovakia: Peaceful Separation

Another relevant example comes from the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. In this case, the two nations negotiated a fair division of military assets, with the Czech Republic retaining the majority of the air force and Slovakia assuming control over other key military installations. This peaceful transition demonstrates that mutually beneficial agreements can be reached without conflict.

Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and Bilateral Military Leases

Beyond state succession cases, the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that the U.S. has negotiated with numerous countries, including Germany, Japan, and South Korea, provide a model for how military bases could be handled in Texas post-Texit. Under SOFAs, the U.S. retains military bases on foreign soil in exchange for leasing fees, shared use agreements, and local control over some aspects of base operations.

For example, in Japan, the U.S. operates Okinawa Air Base under a SOFA, which allows for continued U.S. military presence while recognizing Japanese sovereignty over the land. Similar arrangements could be negotiated between an independent Texas and the U.S., allowing for U.S. access to strategic bases like Naval Air Station Corpus Christi while providing Texas with financial compensation and increased control over base operations.

The Legal Framework for State Succession and Federal Property Transfers

Under international law, the transfer of federal property in the event of a state’s secession is governed by the principles of state succession. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives, and Debts provides a legal framework for how state property is divided when a new state is created. While not all countries are parties to the convention, it sets out general principles that have been applied in various secession cases.

According to the Vienna Convention, the newly independent state has a right to claim ownership over state property within its territory, provided that the property is essential to the functioning of the new government or defense forces. However, the convention also allows for negotiated settlements, where the parent state (in this case, the U.S.) retains certain assets through lease agreements or compensation packages.

In the context of Texit, this means that Texas would have a legal claim to the federal military bases and buildings within its territory. However, the final outcome would depend on negotiations between Texas and the U.S. federal government, with both sides seeking to protect their strategic and financial interests.

Valuing Federal Properties in Texas: What’s at Stake?

Before any negotiations can take place, both Texas and the U.S. would need to conduct a comprehensive valuation of federal properties in the state. This includes military bases, federal buildings, and other assets, such as national parks and federally owned land.

Military Bases

Texas is home to more than 15 major military installations, many of which are among the largest in the U.S. military’s arsenal. These bases house thousands of military personnel, critical infrastructure, and advanced equipment. The most significant bases include:

• Fort Hood: One of the largest military bases in the world, Fort Hood spans 214,000 acres and houses nearly 40,000 active-duty soldiers. It is a critical asset for the U.S. Army, serving as a training and deployment hub.
• Joint Base San Antonio: This massive installation includes Fort Sam Houston, Lackland Air Force Base, and Randolph Air Force Base, and is home to key military training facilities.
• Fort Bliss: Located near El Paso, Fort Bliss is a critical base for missile defense and training operations.

The combined value of these military installations is enormous, with estimates ranging in the tens of billions of dollars. For example, Fort Hood alone has been valued at $12 billion in terms of its infrastructure and operational capacity. The valuation of these assets will be a key point of contention in any Texit negotiations, as Texas may seek to take ownership of these bases or negotiate leasing arrangements with the U.S. government.

Federal Buildings and Land

In addition to military bases, Texas is home to a wide range of federal buildings, including courthouses, IRS offices, and FBI headquarters. These buildings play a vital role in the administration of federal law, but in the event of Texit, they would likely be transferred to Texas for use by state agencies.

• Federal Courthouses: Texas is home to 27 federal courthouses, which handle cases ranging from immigration to criminal law. These buildings would likely be repurposed as part of Texas’s judicial system.
• National Parks: Texas is home to 14 national parks, including Big Bend National Park and Padre Island National Seashore. These lands could be transferred to Texas for management, or remain part of a shared federal-state conservation agreement.

In total, the federal government owns more than 3.5 million acres of land in Texas, valued at over $5 billion. The disposition of these lands would be another important topic in Texit negotiations, as Texas may seek to reclaim ownership or continue federal conservation efforts under a new agreement.

Possible Outcomes for Military Bases and Federal Buildings

Based on historical precedents and international norms, several possible outcomes could arise from negotiations over federal military bases and buildings following Texit. The exact outcome will depend on the strategic importance of each base, the willingness of both parties to negotiate, and the financial and political stakes involved.

Transfer of Ownership to Texas

The most straightforward outcome is that Texas could take full ownership of most or all of the federal military bases and buildings within its borders. This outcome aligns with the principle of state succession, where newly independent states typically assume control of federal assets on their territory.

• Military Bases: Texas could take control of military bases like Fort Hood and Joint Base San Antonio, repurposing them for the Texas National Guard or its own independent military. This would allow Texas to maintain a strong defense posture while reducing its reliance on foreign powers.
• Federal Buildings: Federal courthouses, IRS offices, and other administrative buildings could be transferred to Texas for use by state agencies, reducing the need for new construction and allowing for a smooth transition of government functions.

In this scenario, Texas might offer financial compensation to the U.S. government in exchange for the transfer of ownership, particularly for valuable military installations and infrastructure.

Leasing Agreements with the U.S.

Another possible outcome is that the U.S. could retain ownership of certain military bases and federal buildings through leasing agreements with Texas. This arrangement is common in international military relations, where the U.S. maintains bases on foreign soil through long-term leases.

• Strategic Military Bases: Bases like Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, which plays a critical role in U.S. naval operations, could be leased to the U.S. military, allowing for continued American presence while providing Texas with financial compensation. In exchange, Texas might gain access to advanced military technology or training facilities.
• Federal Offices: Certain federal buildings, such as U.S. embassies and consulates, might also be leased to the U.S. government, ensuring the continued functioning of essential diplomatic and administrative services.

This arrangement would allow both Texas and the U.S. to maintain strategic interests without fully relinquishing control of valuable assets.

Shared Use Agreements

In some cases, Texas and the U.S. might opt for shared use agreements, particularly for military installations that serve both defense and civilian purposes. Under such agreements, Texas and the U.S. military could jointly operate certain facilities, sharing resources and responsibilities.

• Joint Base Operations: Bases like Fort Hood could be jointly operated by the Texas National Guard and the U.S. Army, ensuring continued military readiness while providing Texas with greater autonomy over its defense forces.

Shared use agreements could also extend to federal buildings that house both state and federal agencies, allowing for continued cooperation between Texas and the U.S. on matters like law enforcement and immigration.

Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

If Texas were to take full ownership of all military bases within its borders, the U.S. might request a phased withdrawal of its forces to ensure an orderly transition. This would involve a gradual transfer of control over military installations, allowing the U.S. time to relocate personnel and equipment.

• Timeline for Withdrawal: The withdrawal process could take several years, with Texas progressively assuming greater control over military operations while the U.S. prepares for a complete handover. This phased approach would reduce the risk of disruption to military readiness and ensure that both sides have time to adapt.

This outcome mirrors the process seen in the Baltic states, where Russia gradually withdrew its forces after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, allowing for a smooth transition of control over military assets.

Texas is Well-Positioned for Negotiations

As Texas moves toward independence, the fate of military bases and federal buildings will be a key point of negotiation between Texas and the U.S. government. Drawing from historical precedents and international norms, it is clear that Texas has several options for how it can manage these assets, ranging from full ownership to leasing agreements and shared use arrangements.

With a strong legal foundation and strategic assets like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, and more, Texas is well-positioned to negotiate favorable terms for the transfer or continued use of federal properties. While the exact outcome will depend on the specifics of the negotiations, Texas’s economic strength and strategic importance will ensure that it emerges from the process with a robust defense infrastructure and greater control over its resources.