What federal agencies oversaw Biden-era border barrier projects and how were contracts awarded?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Biden-era border-barrier program was led and overseen primarily by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with earlier and parallel involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers and occasional Department of Defense roles; DHS issued plans and exercised discretion over how appropriated wall funds were used [1] [2] [3]. Contracting during the Biden years included cancelling or revising many Trump-era agreements, pausing obligations while DHS re‑scoped work, and later obligating funds through DHS/CBP contracts or interagency agreements — a process examined and criticized in GAO and congressional reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. Who ran the show: DHS and CBP as the program managers
The available federal record shows DHS as the principal policymaker and implementer for barrier projects during the Biden administration, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection carrying out construction planning and contract awards or project execution under DHS direction [1] [3]. GAO reporting documents DHS producing a Border Wall Plan in 2021 to review and replan projects funded in prior years, signaling DHS control of priorities and project scope [2].
2. Military agencies and other federal partners: support, not sole decision‑makers
While DHS led decision-making, earlier construction and some obligations relied on support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and transfers from the Department of Defense, especially under emergency authorities used by the prior administration; GAO notes DOD assistance and prior use of military construction funds, and that some interagency agreements were used to obligate barrier appropriations [3] [2]. DHS also returned some diverted DOD funds and sought to reallocate remaining appropriations through its 2021 plan [1] [4].
3. Contracts: cancellation, reassessment, and new awards
When President Biden took office, the administration paused many ongoing obligations and cancelled numerous Trump‑era contracts while it reassessed priorities and environmental compliance; DHS then pursued remediation, targeted completions, and revised projects rather than blanket continuation of prior work [1] [3]. GAO and congressional summaries show that DHS’s review “could include rescinding or revising legal waivers” and that many contracts were re‑scoped to meet new environmental and legal conditions [2] [3].
4. How contracts were awarded in practice
DHS obligates barrier appropriations by entering into standard construction contracts or by placing orders under interagency agreements, according to GAO; the agency’s contracting choices reflected funding source restrictions (for example, FY2019 funds statutorily limited to border barrier construction), legal waivers invoked in some cases, and court challenges over whether the expenditures fit appropriations law [3] [2] [5]. Reporting notes that where funds were available and law permitted, CBP issued solicitations and awarded construction contracts, sometimes after obtaining waivers to expedite work in specific sectors [2] [5].
5. Legal and political constraints shaped procurement decisions
Multiple sources document that appropriation language and litigation limited DHS’s options: Congress had appropriated specific barrier funds in FY2018–2020 that DHS largely obligated, but the Biden administration also proposed cancelling unobligated funds and faced lawsuits [3] [1]. GAO highlighted DHS’s discretionary authority under IIRIRA to waive laws for “expeditious” construction, but also noted that use of funds and waivers were the subject of litigation and scrutiny about consistency with appropriations law [2] [3].
6. Competing narratives and interests — contractors, watchdogs, and advocacy groups
Advocacy and watchdog reporting offered sharply divergent frames: critics on the left pointed to environmental harms and said new construction betrayed campaign promises to end new wall building, while analysts and critics on the right argued the administration improperly diverted funds away from construction or slow‑rolled obligations; GAO and fact‑checking outlets documented the complexity — DHS both moved to pause and replan work and later used some appropriated funds for targeted construction and remediation [6] [7] [2] [5]. Industry reporting and investigative commentary also flagged the persistence of a border‑industrial ecosystem that benefits defense contractors irrespective of administration [8].
Limitations and what reporting does not say: available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single public ledger listing every Biden‑era contract award and the internal DHS decision memos for each cancellation or award; GAO and congressional reports summarize patterns but individual procurement rationales for every contract are not fully laid out in the cited materials [2] [3].