What federal funds and court rulings currently affect construction of the southern border wall in 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal funding proposals and executive actions in 2025 have poured billions into new “Smart Wall” construction: the One Big Beautiful Bill / budget reconciliation and committee proposals center on roughly $46–46.5 billion for barriers and associated technology [1] [2] [3]. Courts remain a live constraint: prior litigation over diverted Pentagon and Treasury funds produced stays and mixed rulings that have both blocked and allowed construction at different times, and recent Texas-led litigation produced temporary orders preventing disposal of wall materials [4] [5] [6].
1. Congressional money: big new appropriations and active bills
Republican congressional proposals in 2025 push roughly $46–46.5 billion for a border barrier program that Congress and DHS describe as a “Smart Wall” combining fencing, secondary barriers, roads, lighting and sensors (House Homeland Security figures and CBP FAQs) [2] [1]. Separate bills in the 119th Congress explicitly create accounts for wall construction: S.42 (“Build the Wall Act of 2025”) would seed a Southern Border Wall Construction Fund using unobligated SLFRF COVID relief dollars [7], and H.R.76 similarly directs funding and deadlines for barrier work [8]. Advocacy groups and committee Republicans publicly describe ambitions to fund hundreds of miles and system attributes with that money [3] [2].
2. Executive orders and agency rollout: “Smart Wall” procurement and early contracts
The Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection characterize the 2025 program as the Smart Wall and cite the One Big Beautiful Bill and executive orders as the legal/policy drivers; CBP says the July 4, 2025 signature made $46.5 billion available for Smart Wall construction [1]. CBP awarded early contracts in 2025 using prior FY2021 funds and announced a first second‑term contract in March 2025 for seven miles in Hidalgo County (about $70.3 million) while later press releases (and later 2025 announcements) tout multi‑billion contract packages to add hundreds of miles and technology [9] [10].
3. State actions and parallel funding: Texas program and state easements
Texas has pursued its own wall projects with state funding and donated money; the Texas Facilities Commission reported cumulative state-level funding and completion milestones (dozens of miles completed and $2.5 billion cited for a state program) while acknowledging federal policy could alter the program’s future [11] [12]. State‑level construction exists alongside federal contracting and raises questions about coordination, land easements and whether federal appropriations will replace or supplement state spending [11] [12].
4. Legal restraints: prior injunctions, stays and lingering litigation
The legal history remains messy. Litigation from the Trump era over use of Defense Department and other non‑appropriated funds led to appeals and Supreme Court stays that at times allowed construction to continue pending review (notably stays concerning Pentagon transfers) [5] [13]. Congressional Research Service and court documents show district courts and appeals courts have split on whether statutes permit transfers under authorities like 2808/8005, producing injunctions in lower courts and stays from higher courts that left some funding usable while other avenues were blocked [4] [13].
5. 2025 Texas litigation over materials and enforcement orders
State litigation continued into the 2025 transition: Texas Attorney General filings and a federal judge’s temporary order limited the federal government from disposing of existing wall materials, preventing auctions or sales before the presidential transition and compelling DOJ to provide purchasing records tied to wall appropriations [6] [14]. Texas officials have portrayed these orders as a legal victory forcing the federal government to preserve materials for construction [6] [15]. Reporting shows courts issued narrow time‑limited bans on disposal (some orders ran to late January 2025) [14].
6. Competing perspectives and political context
Republican leaders and DHS frame the funding and waivers as fulfilling operational control and national security needs, emphasizing procurement wins and contract awards [1] [9]. Environmental and civil‑liberties groups and Democratic officials have protested the scale, ecological damage, and legal authority for redirected funding; advocacy groups reported committee votes and condemned massive reconciliation allocations [3]. Independent auditors (GAO) and courts have previously flagged questions about appropriations use and environmental waivers; those issues underpin ongoing litigation and public criticism [16] [3].
7. What sources do and do not say — key limitations
Available sources document the $46–46.5 billion appropriation proposal/claim, bills S.42 and H.R.76 to channel funds (including use of COVID SLFRF in S.42), DHS/CBP statements about Smart Wall contracts, and Texas litigation and temporary orders limiting disposal of materials [2] [7] [8] [1] [9] [6] [14]. Sources do not provide a single definitive court ruling in 2025 that permanently bars or authorizes all Smart Wall construction nationwide; instead the record shows case‑by‑case injunctions, stays, appeals and administrative actions [4] [5] [13]. Sources do not offer a final Supreme Court resolution in 2025 that settles all funding authorities — reporting shows ongoing and split litigation [4] [13].
Bottom line: massive new congressional and executive funding pushes in 2025 have empowered DHS procurement and multiple contracts for Smart Wall construction (roughly $46–46.5 billion cited), but a patchwork of litigation — past injunctions, stays, and state suits over materials — continues to shape where and how fast construction can proceed; the record through these sources shows legal constraints are transactional and uneven, not a single nationwide block [1] [2] [6] [4] [5].