How do CBP’s stated mileages for primary and secondary barriers compare with independent geospatial analyses of built fencing?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
CBP’s own public tallies list roughly 702 miles of pre‑2025 primary wall and about 75 miles of secondary wall, and advertise ongoing “Smart Wall” construction and planning that adds hundreds more miles in phases [1]. Independent geospatial analyses are not included in the reporting provided here, so a direct, evidence‑based reconciliation between CBP’s mileages and outside mapping cannot be completed from these sources alone; available documents do, however, show large announced expansion targets and past critiques that signal why independent verification matters [1] [2] [3].
1. CBP’s public accounting: a mix of existing, planned, and “smart” miles
CBP’s Smart Wall Map and related pages present aggregated mileages that combine barriers constructed prior to January 20, 2025 with new construction completed since that date, explicitly labeling about ~702 miles of primary wall and ~75 miles of secondary wall as existing before 1/20/2025 and showing where additional “Smart Wall” elements are planned, under construction, or complete [1]. Separate CBP contracting and press materials cited by local reporting describe project packages—for example a Southern Arizona plan covering 222 miles of barrier system that includes both primary and secondary elements and associated detection technology—indicating the agency counts complex, multi‑component systems rather than a single fence metric [4].
2. Public figures versus grand totals reported in media
Some news outlets and administration statements have presented much larger totals for the program’s endstate, including an assertion that when finished the program would encompass 1,418 miles of new “Primary Smart Wall,” 708 miles of “Secondary Border Wall,” and 536 miles of waterborne barrier systems—numbers that portray an ambitious, expansive buildout beyond the pre‑2025 inventory [2]. Those media tallies appear to aggregate multiple contract awards and planned components across long border stretches; CBP’s public data portal and smart‑wall dashboard are the official sources the public is directed to for drill‑down data [5] [1].
3. Why independent geospatial analysis is necessary — and missing here
Independent geospatial validation is the logical comparator for claims about linear miles of built fencing because maps, satellite imagery, and GIS‑based digitization can confirm where continuous physical barrier exists versus where plans or “detection technology” are intended to substitute for a physical fence; none of the reporting supplied includes such outside GIS analyses, and therefore this review cannot quantify any gap between CBP’s stated mileages and independently measured fencing (no source available). Past policy research and oversight bodies have questioned CBP’s cost and siting analyses, which underscores the need for external mapping audits to verify on‑the‑ground construction and alignment with official mileages [3].
4. Clues in the reporting about aggregation, definitions and incentives
The reporting shows CBP defines a “barrier system” as a combination of primary and secondary steel bollards, waterborne barriers, patrol roads and detection technology—terms that can complicate simple mile counts because “coverage” may include non‑linear assets and technology‑only segments [1] [4]. That definitional breadth creates an institutional incentive to present progress as mileage numbers that are easier to headline, while contractors and political stakeholders benefit from emphasizing larger totals in procurement and press [4] [2].
5. What the record permits and what it does not
From the sources provided, it is verifiable that CBP reports ~702 miles primary and ~75 miles secondary existing pre‑2025 and that it is pursuing large additional projects, including a 222‑mile Arizona package and multi‑hundred‑mile program targets described in some media [1] [4] [2]. What cannot be settled here—because no independent geospatial datasets or third‑party digitizations were provided—is whether the physical, continuous fencing on the ground matches those reported totals, how much claimed mileage is technology or road rather than fence, or whether mapping would reveal gaps, discrepancies or double‑counting (no source available; [3] suggests oversight questions).
Conclusion
CBP’s mileages are clearly documented in agency products and in contract announcements, but the reporting available to this analysis lacks independent geospatial audits that would confirm whether those miles equal continuous, built fencing on the ground; oversight records and policy research cited by others signal the need for such verification, but the datasets and satellite/GIS analyses necessary to make the direct comparison are not in the provided materials [1] [5] [4] [2] [3].