What funding and legal obstacles have prevented completion of remaining border wall sections in 2025?
Executive summary
By 2025, the failure to finish remaining border-wall sections stems from a mix of contested funding paths, litigation over use of federal money and environmental waivers, land-acquisition bottlenecks, and administrative contracting delays — not a single missing check — with both Congress and the courts shaping what can be spent, where, and how [1] [2] [3].
1. Congressional money exists but is fragmented and conditional
Congressional action has produced large, partisan funding proposals and statutes aimed at finishing barriers — from House and Senate bills creating new wall funds and revenue sources to reconciliation packages that carve out tens of billions for barriers — but those appropriations are often earmarked, contested, or tied to political timelines that complicate rapid construction; for example, H.R. 76 and S.42 seek to create dedicated border-wall accounts and new fees, while the House Homeland Security Committee pushed tens of billions into reconciliation, showing political will but uneven consensus on execution [4] [5] [6] [7].
2. Executive pauses and shifts in policy slowed obligations and re-planning
A presidential proclamation in January 2021 paused wall construction and obligating of funds “to the extent permitted by law,” prompting DHS to undertake a lengthy review and replan of projects and legal waivers; GAO records show DHS had only obligated about half of its FY2021 appropriation as of January 2024 and said it would continue selecting projects per an amended Border Wall Plan through late 2025 — a process that inherently delays shovel-ready work [1].
3. Legal fights over repurposing and waiver authority tie up dollars and edge projects into courts
Efforts to repurpose Defense or other appropriations (Sections 8005, 9002, 2808 in prior fights) and to rely on IIRIRA §102 waivers to bypass environmental laws have produced multiple lawsuits and mixed rulings, with courts sometimes staying transfers and at other times allowing them while litigation proceeds; CRS reporting documents repeated constitutional and statutory challenges to waiver and transfer authorities and explains how courts have alternately enjoined or allowed uses of military-construction funds, creating recurring legal uncertainty for project implementers [2].
4. Environmental, tribal and advocacy litigation raises practical and political hurdles
Environmental groups and tribal communities continue to litigate and lobby against new construction on the grounds of habitat destruction and desecration of cultural sites; organizations like Earthjustice publicly opposed congressional funding and highlighted on-the-ground harms, demonstrating that even when funds are available, project-specific environmental and tribal objections can force remapping, mitigation or delays [7].
5. Land acquisition and easements are a surprisingly hard physical constraint
DHS officials and reporting indicate that acquiring or securing access to the private, tribal, and state lands where planned barriers would sit is a principal bottleneck — the agency itself has said “getting the land to build on” is the biggest issue to completing more wall miles, meaning funding alone cannot overcome lengthy negotiations, eminent-domain processes or coordination with landowners and sovereign tribal nations [3].
6. Contracting logjams and internal administration processes have slowed mobilization
Even after appropriations, moving from plan to contractor takes time; DHS and CBP have initiated large “Smart Wall” contracts and support agreements, yet implementation has been slowed by internal sign-off systems and oversight that agencies and lawmakers have publicly criticized, with Axios reporting that agency approval processes and leadership sign-off thresholds have delayed contracts and project starts [8] [3].
7. Political polarization turns construction into a shifting target rather than a predictable program
The wall’s status is tethered to partisan agendas: successive administrations altered scope, halted obligations, or re-prioritized funds, ensuring continued flips in policy that complicate long-term planning — Congress and presidents have alternately reallocated, reclaimed, or supplemented funds, which combined with litigation and land issues turns “completion” into a moving political target rather than a straight procurement problem [1] [6].
Conclusion: multiple chokepoints, not a single failure
The incomplete 2025 picture is the product of layered obstacles: legally contested funding authorities and waivers [2], time-consuming re-planning and obligation pauses [1], active litigation and advocacy against projects [7], land-acquisition barriers [3], and administrative contracting frictions even where money has been appropriated or announced [8]; together they explain why significant funding does not translate into finished miles on the ground by 2025.