How do Biden and Trump differ on border wall funding and construction?
Executive summary
President Biden initially halted construction and rescinded the national emergency that funded much of the Trump-era wall, and his administration sought to redirect or pause Trump‑era appropriations — but courts and lawsuits have forced some funds to be used for wall construction, including a judge blocking Biden from diverting $1.4 billion [1] [2]. President Trump has aggressively restored and expanded wall construction, claiming new contracts and billions in post‑2025 appropriations to complete hundreds of miles of barrier [3] [4].
1. Two contrasting starting points: pause vs. build
Biden began his presidency by rescinding Trump’s national emergency and ordering a pause on further taxpayer spending for the border wall, directing agencies to review and, where lawful, redirect construction funds — a policy framed as stopping “another foot” of wall [1] [5]. Trump’s approach treats the wall as an urgent ongoing project: his team and sympathetic lawmakers move to restore and expand construction, award contracts, and create new funds to finish or vastly enlarge the barrier system [3] [4] [6].
2. Money fights: who controls appropriations
The core dispute is over funds Congress or prior administrations earmarked during Trump’s term. Biden’s officials argued they had discretion to pause obligation of those appropriations and repurpose resources for other border management tasks; critics say that violated congressional intent. Courts and state litigants pushed back: a federal judge barred the Biden administration from redirecting $1.4 billion Congress had allocated for wall construction, a ruling Texas and its attorney general hailed as a victory forcing continued building [2] [7].
3. Legal and political levers shape construction, not just policy
Both sides use courts and legislation to advance their aims. Texas sued to force use of appropriated funds; the Texas attorney general’s office framed judicial wins as final victories that compel the Biden administration to build with specific Trump‑era money [7] [8]. Meanwhile Republican committees and bills such as the Build the Wall Act of 2025 propose new statutory funds and the transfer of other federal dollars into a Southern Border Wall Construction Fund to expand construction further [6] [9].
4. What each claims will change on the ground
Trump’s people and allied agencies report active contracts and rapid deployment — citing dozens of new contracts worth billions and asserting hundreds of miles either under way or planned using leftover and new funds [3] [4]. Biden’s team has at times authorized targeted barrier work in specific high‑traffic sectors, saying those projects used previously appropriated Trump funds that the administration could not legally rescind — a nuanced position explained by watchdogs and reporting noting the administration’s hands were partly tied by prior appropriations [10] [11].
5. Oversight, environment and statutory limits
Actions to build quickly have triggered pushback on environmental and statutory grounds. Past CDC and court decisions, lawsuits from states and environmental groups, and Congressional oversight letters question whether money is being spent as Congress intended or diverted into environmental remediation or other priorities — claims that fuel the legal wrangling and differing narratives [12] [13] [14].
6. Numbers matter — and sources disagree on scale
Republican committee plans call for multi‑billion dollar packages and ambitions measured in hundreds to thousands of miles of barriers [9]. The Trump administration’s communications assert billions in new contracts and point to specific miles under construction or planned using leftover Trump funding [3] [4]. Independent reporting and watchdogs emphasize that much funding originated in 2019 appropriations and that legal constraints limit unilateral redirection of those dollars [11] [2].
7. How to read the competing narratives
Republican and Trump‑aligned sources frame court wins and contract awards as vindication of a build‑first strategy [3] [7]. Biden administration actions are framed in reporting and fact checks as an effort to halt a partisan, expansive program while complying with statutes that bind how older appropriations may be used [1] [11] [10]. Available sources do not mention specific internal White House deliberations beyond the public proclamations and litigation described — for those internal details, reporting is silent (not found in current reporting).
Limitations and final note: this account relies on official statements, litigation filings and reporting supplied here; different outlets emphasize different facts and political aims, so readers should weigh legal rulings (which constrain action) separately from political messaging about miles built or planned (which are often promotional) [3] [7] [2].