Which sections of the border wall were prioritized for completion during the Trump presidency?
Executive summary
The Trump administration prioritized finishing and filling “gaps” in already identified high-traffic sectors of the southern border—most notably the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas and parts of southern Arizona—while layering new contracts for high-tech “Smart Wall” elements and proposing riverine barriers; these projects were driven by funding shifts, contract awards, and repeated regulatory waivers [1] [2] [3] [4]. The administration focused on sections where prior contracts had been halted or where Customs and Border Protection (CBP) described “critical openings,” rather than on a uniform coast‑to‑coast new alignment [1] [2] [5].
1. Rio Grande Valley and South Texas: closing previously canceled contracts and river work
A clear priority was the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) sector in South Texas, where the first contract of Trump’s second term was explicitly to build roughly seven miles in Hidalgo County to “close critical openings” left by canceled projects during the prior administration [1]; broader federal planning and later contract awards also targeted miles of barrier and waterborne defenses in the Rio Grande near the RGV and Starr County, reflecting sustained emphasis on that high‑traffic corridor [6] [7] [8].
2. Southern Arizona and the Tucson/Santa Cruz corridor: contiguous fills through rugged terrain
Southern Arizona was repeatedly prioritized to plug gaps and extend contiguous fencing; CBP awarded a contract to construct about 27 miles in Santa Cruz County within the Tucson sector and described the work as closing “critical openings” that impede illegal crossings, a pattern echoed in reporting about construction through the San Rafael Valley and other Arizona sites [2] [9]. These Arizona projects have often used expedited authorities and waivers to bypass environmental reviews to accelerate construction in sensitive landscapes [10] [9].
3. San Diego/California border areas: small but symbolic fills and waivers
In California, the administration used waiver authority to fast‑track small but politically visible fills near San Diego—such as a roughly 2.5‑mile waiver southeast of San Diego near Jacumba Hot Springs—that were framed as “rapid deployment” spots where barriers were needed most [10]. Local opposition in San Diego and Tijuana areas remains vocal, and media accounts show the administration treating these targeted fills as lower‑mile but high‑visibility priorities [11] [10].
4. “Smart Wall,” buoys and technology: prioritizing mixed physical and technological systems
Beyond steel fence miles, the administration prioritized a hybrid model—significant contract awards for so‑called “Smart Wall” systems combining primary/secondary barriers, sensors and waterborne components largely focused in Texas and Arizona—and planned large deployments of detection technology where terrain made fencing impractical [3] [7]. Separately, officials promoted floating marine barriers for the Rio Grande as an extension of that prioritization of riverine and technology solutions alongside fixed fencing [4].
5. Why these sections: funding, unfinished contracts, and enforcement politics
Choices reflected a mix of practical and political drivers: framing construction as “closing critical openings” allowed reuse of previously appropriated FY2021 funds and CBP contracts stalled under the Biden administration to be restarted in places like Hidalgo and Santa Cruz counties [1] [2], while Congress and later budgets—plus the administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” funding—further directed where larger awards went [5] [12]. The prioritization was also shaped by litigation, landowner and environmental opposition that limited where work could proceed, and a wider strategy to combine physical barriers with technology and waivers to accelerate projects [5] [9] [10].
6. Controversies and limits of reporting: environmental waivers, local opposition, and mile counts
Reporting shows heavy controversy over environmental waivers and damage to habitats where targeted miles were built, including accusations of blasting through national park land in Arizona and criticism over waiving laws such as NEPA to speed projects [9] [10]. Mile counts are also contested—administration statements and archival White House claims about “450 miles” differ from independent tallies and the reality that many miles were replacements or upgrades rather than new continuous wall—so precise measures of “completed” prioritized sections depend on how replacement versus new barrier is counted [13] [5] [8].