Which watchdog or academic groups have published geospatial audits of border wall construction and what methodologies did they use?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several federal, academic and nonprofit teams have published geospatial audits or maps of U.S.–Mexico border barriers: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s official “Smart Wall” interactive map, journalism–academia collaborations led by Esri/USA Today and Arizona State University/Geospatial Research and Solutions, investigative newsroom projects such as inewsource’s “America’s Wall,” conservation–GIS efforts from Defenders of Wildlife, and academic researchers who used geospatial wall datasets in quasi‑experimental analyses; the methods range from agency basemaps and contract GIS maintenance to helicopter imagery, feature‑class creation, satellite/aerial imagery layering, and statistical difference‑in‑differences designs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Federal baseline: CBP’s Smart Wall map and program GIS practice
The principal federal source is CBP’s “Smart Wall Map,” an official interactive product that displays the location and status of primary and secondary barriers as well as related detection technology and roads along the roughly 1,954‑mile Southwest border; CBP states it uses program funds to build a “Smart Wall” combining steel bollards, waterborne barriers and sensors, and the agency’s map shows existing and planned segments [1] [7]. The program management and engineering documents show that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and DHS will host GIS personnel to manage geospatial baselines and maintain alignment records, indicating agency geospatial maintenance as an explicit methodological backbone for construction and auditing [8].
2. Journalism + commercial GIS: Esri, USA Today and the “Wall” mapping project
A high‑visibility geospatial audit came from a collaboration that used a government‑provided PDF fence map as a basemap, then verified and enriched it with close‑range helicopter imagery and in‑person reporting to create a permanent, navigable GIS layer; Esri described using the federal PDF to inform the team’s GIS basemap and said helicopter flights and ground observation were used to validate fence locations and composition [2]. That approach exemplifies a hybrid verification methodology: starting from an official geospatial file, then triangulating with aerial imagery and field observation to correct and document the physical reality on the ground [2].
3. Academic and university lab contributions: ASU/GRS and spatial feature engineering
Arizona State University’s Geospatial Research and Solutions (GRS) produced a continuous feature class of fencing for the border and layered it with 3‑D topography, parcels, streets and aerial/satellite imagery to produce an interactive web map, a methodology rooted in feature engineering and multisource raster/vector integration common in academic GIS projects [3]. Such university projects typically emphasize reproducible data structures (feature classes) and visual context (topography and land ownership) to support subsequent spatial analysis [3].
4. Investigative newsrooms and watchdog datasets: inewsource and others
Investigative teams like inewsource used previously undisclosed CBP details to map every fence segment and then layered temporal construction dates, enforcement trends and other datasets to analyze impacts; their public writeups explain the use of federal disclosure data plus additional layers to connect construction timing with migration and enforcement metrics [4]. Conservation NGOs and technical teams — such as Defenders of Wildlife’s Center for Conservation Innovation — have compiled and continually updated standardized spatial datasets to track changing wall proposals and their ecological implications, an ongoing audit practice responding to shifting policy and field realities [5].
5. Academic research that applies geospatial audit products: statistical and health analyses
Peer‑reviewed researchers have used geospatial datasets that demarcate where and when wall segments were built to run quasi‑experimental designs; for example, a mortality study used spatial demarcation of Secure Fence Act construction and a difference‑in‑differences framework to evaluate changes in county‑level mortality before and after wall construction, demonstrating how geospatial audits feed into causal inference methods [6]. Other scholarly pieces propose geospatial optimization and modeling techniques to allocate security measures, reflecting a modeling and simulation methodological strand beyond pure mapping [9].
6. Audits, limitations and competing agendas
Official CBP maps serve both as a data source and a public relations tool for the “Smart Wall” program, creating an implicit agenda that federal basemaps may emphasize planned capabilities and progress [1] [7]. Independent journalism, university labs and NGOs counterbalance that by validating basemaps with aerial imagery, feature creation and field observation [2] [3] [4] [5]. DHS oversight reports and OIG audits have critiqued technology rollouts and shifting priorities, underscoring gaps between mapped claims and operational realities [10]. Source material does not comprehensively list every watchdog group that has ever produced a geospatial audit, so this account is limited to entities documented in the reporting reviewed [2] [4] [3] [5] [6].