What happens to federal military equipment and weapons stationed in Texas?

It gets settled at the negotiating table, the same as every other asset question, and both sides have strong reasons to reach a sensible deal. Some equipment stays with Texas, some is purchased or transferred, some leaves with departing United States forces. None of it is a mystery, and none of it changes whether Texas can defend itself.

This is an asset negotiation, and those have well-worn precedents

When a new nation becomes independent, the military hardware and installations on its soil are divided through negotiation, not by either side simply seizing or stripping everything. There is a long record of exactly this. When the Soviet Union broke apart, the successor states negotiated the division of an enormous military inventory. Czechoslovakia split its assets when it became two countries. The principle is settled: equipment and bases are part of the separation agreement, allocated by negotiation between the two governments, and that is how Texas and the United States would handle it too.

Continuity is in everyone's interest

Neither side benefits from a fight over hardware. The United States has no interest in the expense and provocation of physically hauling away everything in Texas, and Texas has no interest in a hostile stripping of the installations its economy and defense are built around. The far more likely outcome is the orderly one: a negotiated split in which Texas retains or purchases what makes sense for Texas defense, the United States retains what it needs for any continued presence under the defense pact, and the rest is sorted by agreement. We describe the bases themselves in a separate answer, and equipment follows the same logic.

Equipment that is already Texas's stays Texas's

A meaningful share of the military equipment in Texas already belongs to the state. The Texas Military Department, the Texas Army Guard, the Texas Air Guard, and the Texas State Guard operate their own vehicles, aircraft, and gear. That is Texas property, under Texas command, and it simply remains so. The question only really concerns the federal hardware, and even there, the answer is a deal, not a disaster.

A defense pact keeps the supply line open

Here is the part that matters more than any single piece of hardware: an independent Texas would not be cut off from arms and equipment. As part of the mutual-defense arrangement described elsewhere, Texas would seek guaranteed tariff-free access to military arms and equipment for manufacturers on both sides of the new border. And remember where a great deal of advanced American hardware is actually built. The F-35 is manufactured in Fort Worth. Texas is not only a customer for advanced weapons. It is a producer of them. A nation that builds front-line fighters does not have to worry about being shut out of the arms market.

Texas can defend itself regardless of how the inventory splits

The most important point is that Texas's security does not hinge on inheriting any particular stockpile. Texas would scale and equip its forces to its actual threat environment over time, funded comfortably out of its own economy, building on the Texas Military Department that already exists. Whatever the equipment negotiation yields, Texas can buy, build, and field what it needs. The hardware question is a matter of orderly accounting, not of whether Texas is safe.

The bottom line

Federal military equipment in Texas is divided by negotiation, the way it always is when a nation becomes independent, with strong incentives on both sides for a sensible, orderly split. Texas keeps what is already its own, settles the rest by agreement, retains open access to arms through the defense pact, and, as the home of the F-35 line, builds advanced weapons itself. Texas's defense does not depend on the outcome.