Fact check: What percentage of the border wall was built in areas where no barrier previously existed?

1. What officials announced — contracts, miles, and ambiguity that matters

DHS and CBP publicly announced a package of 10 construction contracts totaling $4.5 billion tied to the Smart Wall program, and described the awards as adding roughly 230 miles of barrier along with nearly 400 miles of surveillance and detection technology. Those official statements emphasize project value and capability rather than a precise spatial accounting of where new barrier replaced existing wall versus where barrier was built where none existed previously. The official materials repeatedly omit a simple percentage figure answering the user's question ^[1].

2. How major news organizations framed the expansion — new miles, not percentage

Mainstream outlets such as Reuters and other weekly border updates reported the contract totals, described the Smart Wall’s technology features, and cited the 230 miles figure, but also did not provide a percentage of the entire border or a breakdown between replacement versus new emplacement. These outlets concentrated on the policy and operational narrative—funding, sites like El Centro and Yuma, and detection systems—rather than supplying a geospatial percentage. That reporting pattern leaves a factual gap between announced project scope and the precise share of construction in previously unbarriered areas ^{[3] [4]}.

3. The outlier claim — a 532-mile figure that changes the equation if verified

The Center Square report stands apart by asserting the plan includes implementing barrier technology along 532 miles of the border “where no barrier exists due to unfavorable terrain or remote location.” If that number corresponds directly to new physical barrier installations, it would dramatically increase the proportion of new barrier relative to the 230-mile contract figure cited elsewhere—but the Center Square piece does not reconcile how its 532-mile characterization maps onto the government’s 230-mile construction announcement. The discrepancy prevents a definitive percentage calculation without further clarification ^[2].

4. Why the numbers can’t be combined without clarifying definitions

Published summaries conflate several distinct measures: contract dollars, miles of physical barrier constructed, and miles of surveillance technology installed. “New” can mean replacement, enhancement, or installation in previously unbarriered terrain, and sources do not uniformly apply those terms. Because the public announcements omit a consistent baseline—total border miles considered, the existing miles of barrier, and a standardized definition of “built where no barrier previously existed”—any percentage claim requires assumptions that the reporting does not support ^[5].

5. How differing editorial agendas shape what gets emphasized

Official DHS/CBP releases emphasize procurement and capability; mainstream outlets relay those elements and the policy context; niche outlets like The Center Square emphasize claims about extending barrier into previously unprotected areas. These editorial choices reflect distinct agendas: administrative transparency about contracts, journalistic focus on policy and technology, and advocacy-leaning interest in territorial expansion. Each source is selective, and the omission of a clear percentage can reflect institutional priorities rather than absence of underlying data ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. What would be needed to compute the requested percentage accurately

To calculate the percentage of the border wall built in areas that previously lacked barrier, one must have a consistent dataset showing (a) the total miles of border considered, (b) preexisting barrier miles immediately before the contracts, and (c) mile-by-mile attribution of the new construction as replacement versus first-time barrier. None of the documents in the current reporting set provide that three-part breakdown. Absent those data, any percentage offered would be an estimate derived from conflicting reports rather than a verifiable measure ^{[1] [5]}.

7. Bottom line: claim status and recommended next steps for verification

Based on the available reporting, the claim about the percentage built in previously unbarriered areas is unverifiable: officials and major outlets supply miles added and technology miles, while one outlet asserts 532 miles of previously unbarriered terrain will receive barrier technology, but the figures are not reconciled. The appropriate next step is to request from DHS/CBP a mile-by-mile project map or a tabulation that distinguishes replacement versus first-time barrier construction so the percentage can be calculated and independently corroborated ^{[1] [2]}.