Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How much of the 2020–2025 reported wall footage is actual net new barrier versus replacement of existing fencing?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows that most mileage reported as “built” during 2020–2025 consists of replacement or upgrades to pre‑existing barriers rather than net new primary wall where none existed before; U.S. Customs and Border Protection listed roughly ~702 miles of primary and ~76 miles of secondary barrier existing prior to Jan. 20, 2025 (CBP), and earlier CBP tallies during the Trump years noted that only a small fraction of miles were brand‑new in places without prior barricades (for example, 15–80 miles in earlier accounting) [1] [2] [3]. Coverage in the supplied sources emphasizes distinctions between “replacement” versus “new” miles and shows different actors counting miles differently, producing confusion over net new barrier [4] [2] [3].
1. Why the numbers seem to contradict each other — definitions and counting matter
Government and media sources use different definitional rules: CBP’s maps and press releases tabulate “existing” primary and secondary barrier and list miles “completed” since a date, but CBP and some administration statements have historically lumped replacement, secondary, and truly new primary wall together when claiming totals [1] [2]. Independent outlets such as the BBC and FactCheck, and analysts cited in reporting, separate out replacement versus new primary barrier and thus report much smaller “net new” miles compared with headline totals that include rebuilt or upgraded sections [3] [5].
2. What the CBP baseline shows for 2025 planning
CBP’s Smart Wall map states that the “Existing Barrier (prior to 1/20/2025)” consisted of approximately ~702 miles of primary wall and ~76 miles of secondary wall — a starting inventory that matters when evaluating how many post‑2020 miles represent net additions versus replacements [1]. That baseline implies much of subsequent construction could be replacement or augmentation of that existing footprint rather than creation of barrier where none stood previously [1].
3. Examples from past counting: small new‑mile totals amid larger replacement totals
Historic audits of Trump‑era construction underscore the point: BBC and other outlets cite CBP figures that of hundreds of miles reported as “built” through 2020, only a small share were new primary barrier in previously unprotected locations — BBC reported about 15 miles of new primary barrier plus other small new sections in one accounting and noted roughly 350 miles were replacement or secondary additions [2] [3]. FactCheck similarly highlighted that nearly 200 miles of lower‑grade “vehicle barriers” were replaced with taller steel bollards and associated systems — a replacement that changes capability, but may not expand the linear footprint into previously unfenced segments [5].
4. 2023–2025 project announcements — more miles but often mixed types
PolitiFact and news coverage of later projects emphasize that recent contracts and state programs have produced additional reported miles — for instance, Texas state builds reported dozens of miles completed in 2025 — but those state and federal project tallies include both new segments and replacement/secondary wall, and different programs (federal Smart Wall, state Texas Facilities Commission) report completions in different categories [6] [7] [8]. CBP’s 2025 Smart Wall planning/contract information likewise lists specific contracts that may include both “new primary” and “replacement” miles within the same project descriptions [9].
5. Conflicting incentives and communication agendas
Federal and state actors have incentives to present progress in the most favorable terms: administrations tout total miles “built” to show accomplishment, which can include replacements, while watchdogs and media that separate categories highlight the smaller net‑new totals [4] [2] [3]. Advocacy groups and environmental organizations focus on ecological impacts of “newly constructed” miles and may emphasize where entirely new barrier was added [10]. Each party’s framing supports different political or policy aims; that explains much of the public confusion [4] [10].
6. What the available sources do not settle
The provided materials do not offer a single reconciled table that subtracts all documented replacement miles from gross post‑2020 construction to produce one authoritative “net new” mileage figure for 2020–2025. Detailed parcel‑level acquisition and construction records that would allow a precise net‑new calculation are not included in the supplied sources; therefore a definitive net‑new total for 2020–2025 is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line for readers
Rely on disaggregated accounting: when you see headline miles “built” since 2020, ask whether the source is counting replacements, secondary barriers, and upgrades as part of that total. CBP’s own baseline numbers and independent media audits show most reported miles in recent years reflected replacement or reinforcement of pre‑existing barriers rather than converting large stretches of previously unfenced border into new primary wall [1] [2] [3].