Mexico did not pay for the wall

The argument

Proponents of this position treat the border wall as a case where the structure was partly delivered but the promise attached to it was not. The promise, they emphasise, was not merely that a wall would be built but that Mexico would pay for it, and it is the second half that determines whether the commitment was kept. On the account given, Trump built almost 400 miles of the border wall with Mexico, and over the course of his administration some $15 billion was set aside for it. The source of that money is the point at issue: the funds were diverted from the Department of Defense and drawn from appropriated congressional funds, domestic public money rather than Mexican. Every mile therefore stands as evidence against the promise rather than for it. Supporters then address the fallback version of the claim. Trump's assertion that Mexico would pay for the wall remained unfounded, as did the later and weaker suggestion that Mexico would pay indirectly through the revised trade deal with Mexico. On this view the indirect formulation was offered precisely because the direct one had failed, and it too lacks support, since there is little evidence to indicate how the new trade deal would fund the wall. An unspecified mechanism, proponents argue, cannot discharge a specific financial promise. The final element is the persistence of the claim. Despite the absence of evidence, Trump continued to assert on the campaign trail that Mexico was paying for his border wall. Supporters take this to compound rather than repair the failure, since restating a commitment is not the same as honouring it. Mexico did not pay for the wall, they conclude, and a promise whose defining term went unmet is a promise not kept.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Mexico has paid for increasing amounts of security surrounding the wall. Furthermore, the Mexican government has vowed to support Central American development in order to help stem the flow of migrants. They have pledged $30 billion towards improving the economies and infrastructure of these nations. Some say this could be seen as a virtual wall to stop people crossing the border.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The construction figures are not in dispute, but they concern how much was built and out of whose appropriations. The promise at issue was about who would ultimately bear the cost, and this premise establishes only the source of the initial funding. [Rejecting P2] "Unsupported by evidence" is the right verdict on the indirect-payment claim, but the argument would be stronger for engaging the mechanism proposed. As the counter-argument notes, Mexico did increase border enforcement and committed funds to Central American development; the reply is that spending on one's own programmes is not reimbursing another state's construction costs, and the argument leaves that reply implicit. [Rejecting P3] Repeating a claim on the campaign trail shows persistence, not falsity, and adds nothing the previous premise has not already established. This premise is rhetorical rather than evidential.