Trump administration hits $9 billion border wall contracts

A federal lawsuit filed May 13 in the Court of Federal Claims challenges how the Trump administration awarded Texas border wall contracts—contending that U.S. Customs and Border Protection steered nearly $14 billion, about 73% of the total, to just two firms.

When Tommy Fisher tried to build a section of border wall in South Texas during the first Trump administration, the project quickly turned into a flashpoint—over shoddy construction, erosion concerns, and a fundraising network that later collapsed under legal scrutiny.

None of it stopped his company from moving forward. And now. the federal government has awarded Fisher Sand & Gravel more than $9 billion to build additional border wall systems. including a $1.2 billion contract in the Big Bend region of Texas—an area where residents have kept pressing for answers about plans near one of the country’s largest national parks.

The fight over procurement has flared again after a New York-based construction company sued the Trump administration, claiming the way contracts are being handed out is not just opaque, but engineered to shut out real competition.

Posillico Civil Inc. filed the lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., on May 13. In the complaint. the company says it offers one of the first public looks into how border wall contracts are being procured in Texas under the administration’s accelerated approach. Posillico argues that out of 11 prequalified vendors for the wall projects, U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded nearly $14 billion—about 73% of the value of the contracts—to just two companies: Fisher’s firm and Barnard Construction. based in Montana.

The work covered by those contracts includes border wall projects around El Paso, Laredo, Del Rio and the Rio Grande Valley.

The administration has faced scrutiny for awarding contracts without bids and for withholding transparency around its expedited border wall plans, a strategy aimed at helping the president achieve his key campaign promise of securing the border.

This is not the first time Fisher’s role has drawn fire. During Trump’s first term. investigators found the government was awarding contracts before acquiring titles to land—costing millions tied to delays—and that the administration made hundreds of contract modifications. increasing the cost of the border wall project by billions.

Trump himself denounced Fisher’s original wall project. In a response posted on X in 2020 after reporting by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune detailed problems with that earlier work. Trump wrote that he “disagreed with doing this very small (tiny) section of wall. in a tricky area. by a private group which raised money by ads.” He added. “It was only done to make me look bad.”.

Yet the dispute on paper has never translated into Fisher’s contracts drying up. Posillico says that, during this new round of federal awards, it faced a system that was supposed to be competitive—but wasn’t.

The lawsuit says that while several vendors were prequalified. the federal process functioned in a way that left companies like Posillico struggling to compete for work the government effectively had already steered. Posillico alleges that it incurred “substantial bid preparation and proposal costs” preparing plans for federal solicitations that were “not genuine competitive opportunities.”.

Though the lawsuit is still an allegation. Project on Government Oversight general counsel Scott Amey—closely watching border wall procurement during the first Trump administration—said border wall contracting has long carried cost and ethics questions. along with persistent scrutiny of political ties.

“There’s a cost, and ethics and contracting questions that all come up whenever you mention anything with the border wall,” Amey said.

For the administration’s critics, the details are what make the stakes feel personal. The procurement process isn’t just a policy question—it’s a question of who gets invited to compete, and what residents get told about what the government is actually building.

In the Big Bend region, residents have continued pressing for answers about what the government intends to build around and near one of the country’s largest national parks.

The lawsuit paints a system where the “fast-track” structure may be expanding beyond emergency speed and into a rule-by-exception model. Charles Tiefer. a leading authority on federal contract law and a former member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. said the prequalification system is usually designed to keep projects moving without cutting out competition.

DHS, Tiefer said, appears to be using prequalification and accelerated contracting in a way that emphasizes compliance and loyalty over best value.

“DHS ‘is picking contractors for loyalty and from confidence that they will do its bidding. rather than. as every other administration has done. picking contractors for best value. ” Tiefer said. referring to reports that then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem awarded a $220 million ad campaign contract to a firm she had connections to. In response to ProPublica’s reporting. DHS said the department “has no involvement with the selection of subcontractors” and that it doesn’t control or weigh in on who contractors hire.

“They got huge blank checks, and they want to write them as fast as possible,” Tiefer said.

The White House declined to comment for this story. A CBP spokesperson said in a written statement that the bidding process has been fair. “Contracts awarded are based on the contractor’s qualifications to perform the work in a timely manner and at prices deemed fair and reasonable. ” the spokesperson wrote. adding that neither CBP nor DHS have an affiliation with We Build the Wall.

Posillico’s attorney declined to comment.

Fisher Sand & Gravel and Barnard did not respond to requests for comment. Barnard has filed as an intervenor in the case, meaning it is not a party in the suit but is seeking to participate.

Fisher’s ties to prior controversy are part of the backdrop to the present awards. In Trump’s first term. Fisher’s company became entangled with We Build the Wall. a conservative nonprofit that included Steve Bannon. Trump’s then-political strategist. as a board member. Some leaders of that nonprofit went to prison for their involvement in the venture.

Fisher and the government reached a settlement in 2022, with Fisher Sand & Gravel agreeing to conduct quarterly inspections, maintain an existing gate, and keep a $3 million bond for 15 years or until property is transferred to the government to cover expenses if the structure failed.

In this new round. the largest shares are going to Fisher and Barnard. but Posillico’s complaint says other companies are also receiving work—just smaller pieces of the funding. Those include Spencer Construction LLC. Granite Construction Co. and Southwest Valley Constructors. which recently won another $1.7 billion contract for barrier construction in and around Big Bend National Park.

Representatives for the other companies did not respond to a request for comment.

Posillico’s lawsuit also argues that some contracts expanded beyond what the federal government told bidders it was seeking.

In CBP’s Big Bend Sector project. the lawsuit says contractors were ultimately required to install cattle fencing and cattle guards—something Posillico says was not what the government originally asked of potential contractors. The company argues that if the scope had been clearer. it may have had a better chance of winning a contract.

Under the new scope, the winning contractors, including Fisher Sand & Gravel, are also required to work with the International Boundary and Water Commission, the federal agency that administers treaties around the Rio Grande and the physical border with Mexico.

Fisher has clashed with the commission before. In 2019, the commission filed a lawsuit claiming Fisher had violated a binational water treaty between the U.S. and Mexico after the company constructed fencing in South Texas. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found that a 3-mile stretch of border wall Fisher built on the banks of the Rio Grande was at risk of collapsing without fixes. They also found Fisher built a segment of border wall in Sunland Park, New Mexico, without following proper procedures. The projects involved We Build the Wall.

Legal fallout from the earlier nonprofit scheme was severe. In the end. four of We Build the Wall’s top leaders. including Bannon. were arrested on fraud and other charges connected to the fundraising scheme. Three men, including an Air Force veteran, were convicted and sentenced to prison. Trump pardoned Bannon, who was awaiting trial.

The procurement dispute has also intersected with a wider fight over transparency in border wall contracting. The procurement process has been especially obscure around border wall contracting because the Trump administration used waivers to regulate financial transparency and competitiveness for the entire southern border. That act marked the first time in American history these waivers were applied to all 1. 954 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Posillico says it does not contest the use of waivers to expedite construction of the wall.

For residents of border communities. the waivers have meant that DHS has released very little information detailing the massive infrastructure projects coming to their communities. This spring. the Center for Biological Diversity filed two lawsuits in federal court related to border wall construction in the Big Bend area. The cases focus on DHS’ failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests for documents related to the project and challenges to the agency’s authority to waive laws without Congress’ approval.

The government has not filed answers yet, with a deadline of June 1 for the FOIA complaint and early June in the congressional authority lawsuit.

In the Posillico lawsuit, DHS moved to seal documents in the case, including depositions or affidavits, and Judge David A. Tapp signed off on the motion.

In the absence of openly posted requests for proposals and direct communication from Washington. residents have relied on an online map posted by CBP showing contracts as they’re awarded. Over the past few months. the lines on the map shifted dramatically. raising questions about what the government planned to build.

The agency briefly took the map down altogether around the same time that protests about the possibility of a physical wall in Big Bend National Park intensified. When the map was restored. it appeared to show a mix of “vehicle barriers” and “patrol roads” planned instead of steel walls within park boundaries.

Fisher Sand & Gravel is currently slated to build a wall-related project in Big Bend Ranch State Park. bordering the national park to the west. though the company has not publicly released plans describing what alternate border barriers might look like. Landowners in communities adjacent to the park are still preparing for eminent domain challenges from the federal government.

Barnard’s work, by contrast, is outside the parks. Documents in Posillico’s lawsuit show CBP flagged sections of wall in Hudspeth. Jeff Davis and Presidio counties for “fast-track” construction by Barnard. To support that work. a pecan farm near the small ranching community of Lobo has begun clearing a swath of land for a 500-person camp and has petitioned the local water conservation district for approval to use agricultural well water for the project.

Amey said the pattern being alleged is consistent with a broader sense—especially in the second Trump term—that exceptions are being treated like the operating system.

“It seems as if this administration, especially this time around, has decided that the rules don’t really apply,” Amey said.

border wall contracts U.S. Customs and Border Protection Fisher Sand & Gravel Barnard Construction Posillico Civil Inc. Court of Federal Claims Big Bend Kristi Noem One Big Beautiful Bill Act transparency procurement eminent domain