What southern wall materials were sold under the Biden/Harris Administration?
Executive summary
The Biden–Harris administration oversaw the transfer, donation and sale of leftover border-barrier components — primarily steel bollard wall sections (sometimes described as hollow steel tubes or steel beams/panels) and associated grout or materials — that had been procured during prior administrations, with roughly 60% transferred to federal and state users and the remaining ~40% offered for competitive sale through a government surplus contractor (GovPlanet) beginning in 2024 [1] [2] [3]. Those actions followed congressional direction in the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act and triggered partisan outrage, litigation and a temporary court block [4] [5] [6].
1. What exactly was being sold: steel “bollard” wall sections, beams and grout
Government auction listings and contemporaneous reporting identified the items put up for sale as steel bollard wall sections — often described in coverage as hollow steel tubes or bollards intended for bollard-style barriers — sometimes listed with grout or grout-ready components; other descriptions and oversight reports also referred broadly to steel beams, panels and related construction materials that had been procured for border-barrier projects [3] [7] [8].
2. How much was transferred versus sold: about 60% transferred, 40% sold
Reporting based on Department of Defense execution of a statutory disposal plan says that after fulfilling requests from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and eligible southern-border states the Defense Department transferred nearly 60% of covered materials and sold the remaining roughly 40% through a competitive sales contract [1] [2].
3. Timeline and authorities behind the sales: statutory direction, auctions in 2024
The disposal began after Congress enacted language requiring the DOD to “use, transfer, or donate” covered materials in the FY24 NDAA; Snopes and other outlets note the sale process began in mid-2024 and accelerated late that year, with auctions visible on GovPlanet and related listings by December 2024 [4] [1] [3]. Advocates of the disposal point to the statutory mandate and to earlier disposition efforts such as a 2022 donation of about $6 million of parts to Texas [4] [8].
4. Price and condition disputes: “pennies on the dollar” and “mostly junk” claims
Republican officials and allied outlets alleged materials were being sold “for pennies on the dollar” and characterized many pieces as rusting, deteriorated or “mostly junk,” while auction listings showed low opening bids (as low as $5) and buyers who purchased truckloads of components [5] [3] [9] [10]. Independent remedies and oversight disputes followed; reporting documents both the low bid listings and the lawmakers’ portrayal of waste, but the condition and valuation of every item remain contested in the public record [11] [8].
5. Legal and political fallout: lawsuits, congressional probes, and partisan framing
The disposition prompted congressional investigations and Republican oversight letters accusing the administration of waste (House Oversight) and led Texas officials to seek court intervention; a federal judge temporarily blocked further sales in late December 2024 while litigation proceeded [12] [6]. Political actors framed the sales through partisan lenses: critics said the administration sabotaged border security, while defenders pointed to compliance with the law and prior pause of construction efforts ordered by the Biden presidency [12] [13] [4].
6. Limits of available evidence and open questions
Source reporting converges on the core facts — the items were primarily steel bollard wall components and related materials, a portion was transferred to border agencies/states and the remainder auctioned via GovPlanet under statutory direction — but public sources differ on quantities, unit condition and ultimate prices realized, and some claims (e.g., “thousands of truckloads” or uniform descriptions of all parts as “junk”) rely on partisan statements or singular purchases rather than exhaustive inventory audits, leaving room for further document-based verification [1] [9] [10].