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.
Has the Biden administration continued or dismantled Trump-era border wall?
Executive summary
The Biden administration did not simply abolish Trump-era border-wall programs; it both halted large-scale construction early in his first term and later allowed or directed limited projects using previously appropriated funds, while facing lawsuits that forced some spending decisions (see AP on Biden halting construction [1]; BBC and PBS on limited approvals using Trump-era funds [2] [3]). Texas AG litigation and later court orders contend the administration was required to spend certain appropriations on barriers, a claim reflected in Paxton press releases and court filings [4] [5].
1. A promised halt that ran into legal and budget realities
President Biden campaigned on “not building another foot” and his team moved to stop new construction when he took office, but administration officials and reporting acknowledge funds already appropriated for barriers complicated an absolute halt; AP reported Biden paused construction to evaluate contracts and possible redirection of funds [1], while PBS quoted Biden saying the money had been appropriated and could constrain his options [3].
2. Limited new construction under Biden using prior appropriations
Despite the initial pause and rhetorical opposition to the wall, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Biden administration approved at least some new barrier projects by relying on funds appropriated under prior administrations. BBC and Wildlands Network note specific projects and miles — for example, PBS and BBC reported approvals for about 20 miles in South Texas and other limited projects [3] [2], and Wildlands Network documents 40 miles announced on Nov. 5, 2024 (26 miles in Texas and 14 miles elsewhere) attributed to the Biden administration’s announcements [6].
3. Litigation over who controls appropriated dollars
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state actors sued the Biden administration arguing the executive branch unlawfully tried to redirect statutory wall funds; Paxton’s office frames multiple rulings as victories forcing the administration to continue spending on wall construction and to stop disposing of materials [4] [5] [7]. Those press releases characterize court outcomes as compelling the administration to use appropriated wall funds as Congress directed [4] [7].
4. Administrative choices: redirect versus comply
Congressional appropriations, federal contracting obligations, and court orders limited the administration’s discretion. PBS reporting quoted Biden saying he attempted to reallocate funds but that legal constraints and the fact money was appropriated constrained options [3]. The House Budget Committee summary of GAO inquiries also shows Republican lawmakers probing whether the administration diverted border-security funds to other priorities — the GAO material cited in that congressional release discusses spending choices and compliance questions [8].
5. Transition-era friction and material disposition battles
State litigation and filings around the 2024–2025 transition also focused on whether the administration auctioned or otherwise disposed of barrier materials. Paxton’s office announced court orders preventing disposal of materials before President Trump’s inauguration and sought documentation over any alleged sales [5] [9]. Those filings frame actions as preventing “sabotage” of a successor administration’s plans [9].
6. The later “Smart Wall” and carryover funding
By 2025 the picture shifted: reporting on new “Smart Wall” contracts shows substantial new spending and projects funded in part by the 2025 legislative package and by carryover FY2021 appropriations that had been frozen or not fully spent during earlier parts of the Biden presidency. Newsweek and Dailyfly describe nearly $4.5–$5 billion in contracts for Smart Wall projects and note a portion traces back to FY2021 appropriations that had been frozen during the Biden administration [10] [11].
7. What the sources disagree on and what they don’t say
Texas AG releases assert the Biden administration “illegally” tried to prevent construction and that courts “forced” continued building; those are legal-political framings from Paxton’s office [4] [7]. Independent outlets (AP, BBC, PBS) report factual timelines — a pause, constrained options because of appropriations, and limited project approvals — but do not adopt Paxton’s rhetorical framing of illegality [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single, sweeping policy document from the Biden White House that fully summarizes all programmatic decisions across the period in question; instead coverage is piecemeal across contracts, court decisions, and press releases (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
The administration neither continued Trump-style blanket expansion without constraint nor entirely dismantled the wall program; instead, it stopped broad construction early, fought legally over how appropriated funds could be used, permitted or executed targeted projects using previously appropriated dollars, and later saw substantial new contracting that included carryover funds — all while litigation and partisan claims shaped competing narratives [1] [3] [10] [4].