How effective has the completed barrier been at reducing illegal crossings and what metrics are used?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The completed sections of the U.S. “Smart Wall” coincide with a sharp decline in Border Patrol apprehensions in fiscal year 2025, which federal figures and administration statements characterize as the lowest annual level in decades [1][2]. However, attributing that decline specifically to the physical barrier is contested: CBP emphasizes barrier-plus-technology effects while independent analysts say CBP has not developed robust metrics isolating the fence’s contribution from concurrent policy changes and enforcement measures [3][4].
1. What “completed barrier” covers and how it’s counted
CBP’s public status maps and updates count miles of primary and secondary barrier both from earlier construction and since January 20, 2025, noting roughly 702 miles of prior primary wall and additional completed miles since that date, and they describe the newer system as a “Smart Wall” combining steel or waterborne barriers, roads, cameras and sensors [5][3]. The agency also reports that about 536 miles of border without a physical barrier will instead be covered by detection technology where terrain or remoteness prevents fencing [5].
2. The observed change in illegal crossings since completion
Official statistics and administration releases document steep drops: Border Patrol recorded roughly 238,000 apprehensions in FY2025 and monthly lows such as about 8,400 apprehensions in September 2025, figures publicized as the lowest in over 50 years and as evidence of a “plummet” in unlawful crossings [1][6][2]. CBP’s monthly updates highlight dramatic month-to-month declines—for example, a reported 93% drop in southwest border encounters in May 2025 versus May 2024 [7].
3. Metrics CBP and supporters use to judge effectiveness
CBP and proponents point to quantitative operational metrics: numbers of Border Patrol apprehensions and encounters, miles of completed barrier, coverage by detection systems, and response times enabled by access roads and cameras—framing “impedance and denial” plus “domain awareness” as the mechanism by which crossings fall [3][8]. CBP also uses interactive maps and weekly status charts to show construction progress and to present the Smart Wall as an integrated system rather than isolated fencing [5][3].
4. Limits of those metrics and the attribution problem
Independent policy analysts and research institutions caution that raw apprehension counts are blunt instruments that confound enforcement intensity, asylum policy changes, expulsions, and external migration drivers with the physical barrier’s effect; a Baker Institute review found CBP has not developed specific metrics to assess the marginal contribution of new fencing to overall border security [4]. Media analyses and experts similarly note the decline likely reflects a raft of policy changes and operational changes—so numbers alone cannot disentangle how much of the drop is physical deterrence versus legal or operational shifts [9].
5. Local case studies, costs and operational nuances
CBP and supporters point to localized historical examples—such as stretches in Arizona—where barrier-plus-operations were credited with cutting illegal crossings by “90-plus percent,” while cost estimates and independent studies emphasize large price tags and maintenance burdens, and warn that barriers do not address visa overstays or remote sectors like Big Bend, where crossings are already rare and walls are impractical [8][4][10]. CBP’s “Smart Wall” doctrine explicitly ties fences to cameras, lighting and roads, signaling that physical panels are intended as one part of a layered system rather than a standalone cure [3].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Government sources present rapid construction and falling apprehension figures as validation of administration policy and funding decisions, while watchdogs and academics emphasize methodological gaps and fiscal trade-offs, and media outlets underline that policy changes (not just construction) coincided with the declines—revealing political incentives on both sides to claim credit or to cast doubt [1][4][9]. CBP messaging promotes the Smart Wall as transformative technology and physical barrier combined, an argument that advances the agency’s case for continued funding [3].
7. Bottom line: what can be said, and what remains uncertain
The completed barrier correlates with a pronounced decline in recorded illegal crossings and is presented by CBP as a force multiplier when combined with sensors, cameras and roads, but independent analysis stresses that CBP lacks public, audited metrics isolating the wall’s specific contribution from parallel policy and enforcement changes; therefore effectiveness at reducing crossings in isolation remains plausibly significant in some sectors but not empirically settled across the border as a whole [1][3][4].