WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — Vice President Kamala Harris sparked controversy Tuesday following reports that she may have softened her stance on the border wall, a central issue of former President Donald Trump’s administration. The report, first published by Axios, claimed that Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, would support a Senate border bill that includes provisions related to the wall’s construction.
The bill, introduced by Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, a key Republican negotiator, includes various provisions, such as rules on asylum claims, funding for border personnel, and authority to expel illegal immigrants if border crossings become overwhelming. Notably, it also mandates the construction of the Trump-era border wall using $650 million previously allocated but unspent by the Biden administration from 2017 to 2020.
Lankford emphasized that the bill “requires the Trump border wall” to be built, underscoring its significance in the ongoing immigration debate. However, Harris’ campaign insists that the vice president’s stance on the border wall has not changed, and she continues to support comprehensive immigration reform that may include strategic border fortifications but not a full-scale wall like Trump’s.
The mixed messaging from Harris’ campaign prompted immediate backlash from both sides of the political aisle. Conservative groups accused Harris of trying to co-opt Trump’s hardline border policy to gain favor with voters concerned about border security. Mark Morgan, the former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection under Trump, criticized Harris’ apparent shift, labeling it “an insult” to Border Patrol agents and American families impacted by illegal immigration.
Morgan highlighted Harris’ earlier criticisms of the wall, describing it as “stupid” and a “waste of taxpayer money.” He argued that using images of the wall in recent campaign ads while reversing her stance on its construction was a “transparent attempt” to appeal to moderates and undecided voters. He further noted that Harris supported President Biden’s decision to halt wall construction on his first day in office, disregarding recommendations from Border Patrol agents who claimed the wall was effective.
Yet, some immigration advocacy groups remain unconvinced of any real policy shift. Rosemary Jenks, policy director at the Immigration Accountability Project, which advocates for stricter enforcement, labeled the Senate bill “anti-wall,” arguing that it did not provide any new funding for construction. “There’s nothing in that whole bill that was pro-anything except illegal aliens,” she said.
The debate over Harris’ border wall stance reflects the broader challenges she faces as the Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has been a vocal critic of Trump’s immigration policies, consistently opposing the wall throughout her political career. However, recent opinion polls indicate that Americans’ attitudes toward the wall have shifted amid growing concerns over border security.
In one campaign ad, Harris featured images of the existing border wall, promising to be “tough” on immigration. Critics like Morgan argue that this use of imagery contrasts sharply with her past comments and policy positions, raising questions about her current stance on immigration.
The Trump campaign quickly dismissed claims of a Harris flip-flop as “preposterous and false.” Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s national press secretary, asserted that Harris had not reversed years of opposition to the wall, framing the report as a misinterpretation of her position.
Harris has remained largely silent on the matter, avoiding direct engagement with reporters as her campaign calibrates its response. Instead, she has focused on blaming Trump for blocking the Senate bill containing the border wall language. “Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal,” she said during her nomination acceptance speech.
While Trump opposed the bill, Republican leaders in the House had already declared it “dead on arrival,” arguing that it did not go far enough in curbing illegal immigration and left expansive parole programs intact. Ultimately, the bill failed to secure the necessary votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.
