Did Biden sell the border wall for Pennie’s on the dollar
Executive summary
No — the available reporting does not support a simple claim that “Biden sold the border wall for pennies on the dollar” as an act of gratuitous sabotage; federal agencies did move surplus wall materials into auctions with low starting bids on GovPlanet and some lots were legally sold or transferred, but those actions took place under a congressional mandate, involved transfers to states and agencies, and triggered lawsuits and injunctions that complicate the picture [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What actually happened: auctions, transfers, and starting bids
Multiple outlets reported that surplus steel bollards and other unused border-wall components appeared on the government-surplus marketplace GovPlanet with very low starting bids (reports cited $5 starts), and the sales began in mid‑2024 under Department of Defense disposition activity [5] [1] [6]. At the same time, federal officials said significant percentages of excess materials were transferred to Customs and Border Protection and to states for refurbishing ports of entry or border projects, with the remainder going to competitive sale under an existing contract [3].
2. The legal frame: Congress required disposal, not a political choice
Fact‑checkers found that Section 2890 of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act compelled the Department of Defense to submit and execute a plan to use, transfer, donate, or otherwise dispose of excess southwest border construction materials within specified deadlines — a statutory requirement that predates the auctions and constrains administrative discretion [2]. That congressional directive undercuts narratives that the sales were purely an ad‑hoc “Biden decision” to dump materials.
3. Political reaction and claims of “pennies on the dollar”
Republican figures from former President Trump to state officials framed the listings as a “fire sale” and characterized the pricing as “five cents on the dollar” or “pennies,” arguing the Biden administration was sabotaging an incoming Republican president and wasting taxpayer assets [7] [1] [8]. Those political claims drove litigation: Texas leaders and Attorney General Ken Paxton filed motions and sought injunctions, arguing the sales violated prior court orders and congressional intent [8] [4].
4. Enforcement and judicial pushback changed the outcome
Courts responded: by early January a federal judge in Texas issued rulings restricting the administration from disposing of certain materials and from assigning funds Congress dedicated to wall construction to other purposes, effectively pausing further sales in some instances [9]. Meanwhile, some states — Texas among them — had already acquired material via transfers or purchases, and reporting shows Texas bought millions in material from federal disposition sales [4] [3].
5. What “pennies on the dollar” actually means — nuance and missing data
Media snippets of $5 starting bids fueled the impression of rock‑bottom pricing, but starting bid is not the final sale price and sale contracts, transfers, and administrative costs (storage, transport) affect net value; public reporting does not show a systematic accounting that proves overall taxpayer loss equal to “pennies on the dollar” across the whole stockpile [5] [2]. Independent fact‑checking traced the sale process to statutory deadlines and competitive sales contracts rather than a unilateral executive giveaway [2].
6. Hidden incentives and competing narratives
The political actors pushing the “pennies” framing had clear incentives — to portray the administration as incompetent or malicious and to rally support for expedited re‑construction claims — while the administration pointed to legal obligations and cost savings from ending storage liabilities; both sides leveraged selective details [1] [10] [11]. Reporting indicates the episode is as much about law, logistics and post‑appropriation politics as it is about any single decision to “sell” the wall cheaply [3] [2].