BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Trump Spent $15 Billion On Border Wall But Skimped On Vaccines

Following
This article is more than 3 years old.

The Trump administration spent $15 billion on a border wall but decided against spending money to ensure a larger supply of vaccines would be available to protect millions of Americans from Covid-19, the respiratory illness that has killed nearly 300,000 people in the United States. The New York Times reported the Trump administration declined repeated offers from Pfizer to lock in hundreds of millions of additional vaccines for Americans. Pfizer board member and former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb confirmed the story. At the same time, the Trump administration moved forward at breakneck speed to buy land and pay contractors to build a southern border wall that analysts view as unlikely to reduce illegal immigration or save any American lives.

“Before Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine was proved highly successful in clinical trials last month, the company offered the Trump administration the chance to lock in supplies beyond the 100 million doses the pharmaceutical maker agreed to sell the government as part of a $1.95 billion deal months ago,” reported the New York Times. “But the administration, according to people familiar with the talks, never made the deal, a choice that now raises questions about whether the United States allowed other countries to take its place in line.”

The decision not to pay for additional vaccines at a crucial time has prompted criticism from even some of the Trump administration’s biggest supporters. “This is an absolute debacle,” according to conservative columnist Marc Thiessen. “What utter incompetence that will lead to lost lives. How did the Trump administration allow the EU to order 200M doses of Pfizer vaccine while the US ordered only 100M – and turned down the chance to order more?”

“The government was in July given the option to request 100 million to 500 million additional doses,” according to the New York Times. “But despite repeated warnings from Pfizer officials that demand could vastly outstrip supply and amid urges to pre-order more doses, the Trump administration turned down the offer, according to several people familiar with the discussions.”

Scott Gottlieb, who many conservatives have turned to for medical guidance during the coronavirus pandemic, confirmed the New York Times report. “Pfizer did offer an additional allotment coming out of that plan, basically the second quarter allotment, to the United States government multiple times – and as recently as after the interim data came out and we knew this vaccine looked to be effective,” Gottlieb said during an interview with CNBC.

The failure to spend the necessary money to secure more vaccines for millions of Americans is in contrast to the spend-at-all-costs approach to building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “Just over $5 billion in funding has come via traditional means through the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but Mr. Trump has also ordered almost $10 billion in Department of Defense (DOD) funding to be diverted – a move that has sparked legal action,” according to the BBC.

High costs and the likely unlawful diversion of funds have plagued what will be a futile effort to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to stop construction of the wall after taking office. “At several locations along the border, crews have been working around-the-clock to install as much of the 30-foot steel bollard fencing as possible before Trump leaves office,” writes Nick Miroff of the Washington Post.

In an embarrassing revelation, a lawsuit revealed contractors on the wall may have brought illegal workers to the United States. “Two whistle-blowers have accused contractors building President Trump’s border wall of smuggling armed Mexican security teams into the United States to guard construction sites, even building an illegal dirt road to speed the operation,” reported Zolan Kanno-Youngs of the New York Times. “Mr. Trump may have failed to make good on his 2016 promise to make Mexico pay for the wall, but if the accusations prove true, the administration apparently did rely on Mexican workers for the project, potentially at the expense of Americans.”

Other issues have emerged that include inflicting environmental damage and confiscating land from reluctant landowners to build a wall at breakneck speed that critics have called a vanity project for the president. “This year alone, the government has filed at least 120 lawsuits to advance the wall from Brownsville to the Laredo area, according to the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit representing landowners being sued by the government,” reports Texas Monthly.

There have been numerous reports of smugglers and immigrants penetrating the wall, and there is no evidence a wall will reduce illegal immigration. The idea for the wall came from Trump campaign advisers, not security experts. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Trump 2016 campaign adviser Sam Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.”

In the past, more enforcement generally has failed to discourage individuals from coming to the United States but instead encouraged them to stay once they arrive. Due to the increased costs and dangers, after making it across the border, individuals are likely to remain in the U.S. rather than travel back and forth.

The best approach to addressing illegal immigration is to maintain an enforcement deterrent while at the same time providing visas to allow Mexicans and Central Americans to work legally in the United States. That approach proved effective during the Bracero program designed for Mexican agricultural workers in the 1950s. Between 1953 and 1959, a large increase in the use of the Bracero program resulted in a 95% decline in illegal entry by Mexicans, as measured by apprehensions at the Southwest border, according to a National Foundation for American Policy report

History will judge whether Donald Trump made the correct choice to focus on building a wall instead of defending Americans from the more tangible and genuine threat posed by Covid-19.

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website