Could This Texas Wind Farm Project Pose A National Security Threat?
A developing wind farm project located in West Texas could pose a national security threat to the United States Infrastructure and nearby Air Force base.
A proposed wind farm operation in West Texas has become a possible national security problem due to the Chinese owner, who has ties to the communist regime in Beijing, along with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), specialists say.
A Chinese company called GH America Investment Group has bought 130,000 acres of land the size of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in Val Verde County, Texas, starting in 2015. The person behind the investment firm is Sun Guangxin, a businessperson from Xinjiang, China, described by the Chinese media with strong ties to the Communist regime as a "carpetbagger."
According to Forbes, Sun, a former PLA officer, is currently the richest person in the western Xinjiang region, with a fortune of $1.9 billion. He was also vice-chairman of the Xinjiang Province Youth Association.
Sun's investment company bought the land to build wind farms, with a proposal to build 50 to 130 wind turbines.
A CFIUS panel headed up by the Treasury Department reviewed the acquisition. It concluded that the wind farm did not pose a threat to national security. However, an expert in Texas familiar with the project told the media that there are many potential national security concerns regarding Chinese control of the country.
The top concern is that the wind farm will generate electricity, comprising critical infrastructure, and posing a risk to the Texas grid. Possible cyber attacks on the power grid could disrupt power supply operations and lead to widespread blackouts.
For example, an attack on the electrical grid in the western United States in March 2019 disrupted power systems in California, Utah, and Wyoming for several hours. The US Department of Energy noted that the number of cyber and physical security incidents in the United States is increasing and remains a concern.
Moreover, the admission of a Chinese company to the US power grid raises serious cyber-security concerns. Outgoing Texas Republican Will Hurd has repeatedly warned against the project, calling on the government to prevent foreign cyberattacks on Texas energy infrastructure.
In an open letter in July, Hurd complained that the federal government was not acting fast enough to stop it, and the state government did not have the power to stop it.
He stated that allowing an adversary to connect to our power grid allows the attacker to conduct a false data injection attack. The attacker mistakenly believes the monitoring tools of the system to be activated in the power grid.
On May 1, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order to crack down on such "malicious" cyberattacks on the US power grid.
He pointed to risks, saying that a successful attack on our mass-flow system would pose significant risks to our economy, human health, security, and make the United States less able to act in defense of itself and its allies.
About 95 percent of Texas' land is privately owned; private ownership combined with lax regulations in the state makes it easier for foreign buyers to buy a property.
In Texas, the bar is set for authorities to block wind farm development under a law restructuring the electricity supply signed into law by the then-Texas governor in 1999, George W. Bush, who commissioned renewable electricity generation development.
The proposed wind farm is within 30 miles of the US border with Mexico. According to national security experts, it is also close to Laughlin Air Force Base, the Air Force's largest pilot school, which could pose several problems. These include cyber-security threats to flight training, collecting information on flight patterns and pilots, and electronic surveillance of the Mexican border.
Sun is said to have overpaid for land in Val Verde County. According to Daniel Hoffman, Blue Hills Wind appears to be his only renewable energy project in the U.S., according to a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency.
He added that China could not only gather information about US border security operations and connect to Texas critical infrastructure, including its power grid, but could also use Sun's wind farm project as a cover to gather information about nearby Laughlin Air Force Base, which is the Air Force's premier training facility and trains hundreds of pilots each year.
Texas lawmakers, local leaders, military officials, and activists have been following the case for two years.
GH America Energy has acquired 10 ranches in Val Verde County since 2015. Sun claims one of the large ranches, formerly called Morning Star Ranch, is for personal use.
The property has a high fence, a large hunting lodge, and a jet runway, which he regularly visits.
A November 4 report by Moody's Investors Service showed that 40.9 percent of GH America's parent company, Guanghui Group, controlled by Sun, will be taken over by Synergy, a state-owned company owned by the Shanghai government.
If and when the acquisition is completed, Synergy will become Guanghui's second-largest shareholder.
In July, Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Hurd sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that sounded alarm bells.
Lawmakers have requested a classified briefing to address national security concerns.
About the Creator
Buzzword
BuzzWord features, news, reviews and top ten lists.
First Person Charged Under New Crossing Law: A Turning Point in Border Enforcement
The charging of the first individual under the newly introduced crossing law marks a significant moment in the government’s approach to border control and irregular migration. Designed to deter unauthorized crossings and strengthen enforcement, the new legislation represents a sharper legal response to a problem that has long dominated political debate, public concern, and humanitarian discourse. While officials describe the charge as a necessary step toward restoring control, critics warn it may signal deeper legal and moral challenges ahead. Understanding the New Crossing Law The new crossing law was introduced to address the growing number of people attempting to enter the country through irregular routes, particularly via dangerous sea crossings and unauthorized land entry. Under the legislation, individuals who knowingly enter the country without permission or assist others in doing so can face criminal charges, fines, or imprisonment. Supporters of the law argue that it closes loopholes in previous immigration frameworks that allowed repeat crossings with limited legal consequences. The government insists the law targets organized smuggling networks and discourages perilous journeys that have resulted in injuries, fatalities, and large-scale rescue operations. However, the wording of the law has raised questions about how broadly it can be applied—and who ultimately bears its consequences. The First Charge: What We Know So Far Authorities confirmed that the first person charged under the new crossing law was detained shortly after entering the country through an unauthorized route. Officials allege the individual knowingly violated immigration rules under the provisions set out in the legislation. Details of the case remain limited, but early reports suggest it will serve as a test case for how courts interpret the law. Legal experts expect the proceedings to set important precedents regarding intent, vulnerability, and the distinction between asylum seekers and deliberate lawbreakers. For the government, the charge demonstrates that the law is operational and enforceable. For critics, it raises concerns about whether the legislation risks criminalizing people fleeing war, persecution, or economic collapse. Political Significance and Government Messaging Politically, the timing of the charge is significant. Immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in modern politics, and the government has faced mounting pressure to show tangible action. Officials have framed the charge as evidence that enforcement mechanisms are finally matching political promises. Statements from senior ministers emphasize deterrence, claiming that visible consequences will discourage future unauthorized crossings and reduce pressure on border infrastructure. The government also maintains that safe and legal routes remain available for those genuinely in need of protection. Yet opposition figures argue that symbolism is driving policy, warning that headline-grabbing charges may do little to address the root causes of irregular migration. Human Rights and Legal Concerns Human rights organizations have reacted with alarm to the first charge. Advocacy groups argue that asylum seekers often have no choice but to use irregular routes due to limited legal entry options. Criminalizing their arrival, they say, risks violating international refugee protections. Legal analysts also point out potential conflicts with existing asylum laws, which protect the right to seek refuge regardless of the method of entry. The case may prompt judicial scrutiny over whether the new crossing law aligns with international obligations. There is also concern about selective enforcement. If the law is applied unevenly, critics fear it could disproportionately affect the most vulnerable while leaving organized criminal networks untouched. Public Reaction: Divided Opinions Public response to the charge has been sharply divided. Some citizens welcome stricter enforcement, arguing that border integrity is essential for national security and public trust in the immigration system. Others express discomfort at seeing individuals criminalized for actions driven by desperation rather than malice. Social media reactions reflect this split, with supporters praising decisive action and critics questioning whether punishment alone can solve a complex global issue. What This Means Going Forward The first charge under the new crossing law is likely just the beginning. If courts uphold the prosecution, authorities may pursue further cases, fundamentally reshaping how irregular migration is handled. Conversely, legal challenges could force revisions or clarifications to the legislation. Much will depend on how judges interpret intent, vulnerability, and proportionality. The case may also influence international perceptions of the country’s commitment to human rights and refugee protection. Conclusion The charging of the first individual under the new crossing law represents a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement. While the government views it as a long-awaited assertion of control, critics warn it may deepen humanitarian and legal tensions. As the case unfolds, it will test not only the strength of the law itself but also the balance between border security and compassion. In an era of global displacement and political polarization, how this law is enforced may shape the country’s immigration landscape—and moral standing—for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.