When Tommy Fisher began construction on a portion of his border wall in South Texas during the first Trump administration, the project quickly became mired in controversy. Experts raised concerns about shoddy construction work and signs of erosion.
Additionally, Fisher’s company received funding from an influential conservative nonprofit called We Built the Wall, which includes President Donald Trump’s then-political strategist Steve Bannon on its board. Some of its leaders were eventually imprisoned for their involvement in this enterprise.
Even the president denounced the project.
In response to a 2020 ProPublica and Texas Tribune report detailing problems with the wall project, President Trump wrote to X that he “opposes that a private group, raised through advertising, would build this very small section of wall in a sensitive location.”
“It was done just to make me look bad,” the post continued.
However, these did not prevent Fisher’s company from winning subsequent border wall contracts, including in Texas. And now the federal government has awarded his company more than $9 billion to build more border walls. That includes a $1.2 billion deal in Texas’ Big Bend region, where residents continue to demand answers about their government’s plans in and around one of the nation’s largest national parks.
And just like during President Trump’s first term, Fisher’s research is once again stirring up controversy. A New York-based construction company is suing the Trump administration after the administration awarded a contract to North Dakota-based Fisher Sand & Gravel and another company for the bulk of a new border wall in Texas.
Posillico Civil Inc.’s lawsuit, filed May 13 in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., provides the first public glimpse into the procurement process along the Texas border. The complaint alleges that of the 11 vendors prequalified for the wall project, U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded nearly $14 billion, or about 73% of the contract value, to just two: Fishers Farm and Montana-based Barnard Construction. This work also includes wall projects around El Paso, Laredo, Del Rio and the Rio Grande Valley.
The Trump administration has faced harsh criticism for awarding contracts without bids and for a lack of transparency over accelerating plans to build a border wall to help fulfill the president’s key campaign promise to secure the border.
Trump’s moves during his first term were criticized. A 2020 investigation by ProPublica and the Tribune found that the government entered into contracts before taking ownership of the land, incurring millions of dollars in costs related to delays. A review of federal spending data by news organizations also revealed how the first Trump administration made hundreds of contract changes that increased the cost of border wall projects by billions of dollars.
The government shows no signs of slowing down. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has set aside $46.5 billion to build a border wall in 2025 thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Charles Tiefer, a leading expert on federal contract law and a former member of the Wartime Contracting Commission in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the system is built to help the government move projects forward more quickly, so having pre-qualified contractors is not unusual, but it’s not meant to eliminate competition.
“Instead of choosing contractors based on best value, as every other administration has done, DHS chooses contractors out of loyalty and confidence that they will do what it says,” Tiefer said, referring to reports that then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem awarded $220 million in advertising campaign contracts to companies with ties to the agency. In response to ProPublica’s report, DHS said the department “is not involved in the selection of subcontractors” and does not control or consider who subcontractors hire.
“They received a large blank check and they want to write the check as soon as possible,” Tiefer said.
The White House declined to comment on the matter. A CBP spokesperson said in a written statement that the bidding process was fair. “The contracts entered into are based on the contractor’s ability to perform the work in a timely manner at a price deemed fair and reasonable,” the spokesperson wrote, noting that neither CBP nor DHS is affiliated with We Build the Wall.
Mr. Posilico’s lawyer declined to comment. The company has built 43 miles of federal wall in South Texas and won contracts to build parts of Gov. Greg Abbott’s state border projects. The state’s projects have been plagued by construction delays and cost overruns similar to President Trump’s border wall.
Mr. Posilico alleges in his lawsuit that he incurred “significant bid preparation and proposal costs” in order to plan a federal bid that was “not a true competitive opportunity.”
While these are just claims, Scott Amy, a contract expert and general counsel for the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said border wall contracts have long been controversial, raising questions about what the government gets for its money and the political connections of some contractors. Amy closely tracked border wall procurement during the first Trump administration.
“Whenever you mention something about a border wall, it’s about cost, ethics, and contracts,” Amy said.
Representatives for Fisher Sand & Gravel and Barnard did not respond to requests for comment. Mr. Barnard applied as an intervenor in this action. In other words, they are not parties to the lawsuit, but want to participate.
The bulk of the new funding will go to Fisher and Barnard, but several other companies won smaller percentages of the contract. Granite Construction Co.; Southwest Valley Constructors 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 requests for comment for this story.
Mr. Posilico’s lawsuit alleges that contracts issued to other companies exceeded the original scope of wall construction work that the federal government required from bidders.
For example, on CPB’s Big Bend Sector project, contractors were ultimately required to install cattle fencing and cattle guards, which Posilico’s lawsuit alleges was not what the government originally required of potential contractors. The company might have had a better chance of winning the contract if the government had made the scope more clear, the complaint alleges.
As part of the new scope of work, award-winning contractors, including Fisher Sand & Gravel, will also be 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.
Mr. Fisher has clashed with the commission before. The commission filed suit in 2019, alleging that Fisher violated a bilateral water agreement between the U.S. and Mexico after it built a fence in south Texas. An investigation by ProPublica and the Tribune found that the nearly three miles of border wall Fisher built on the banks of the Rio Grande is at risk of collapsing if not repaired. The company also built a section of border wall in Sunland Park, New Mexico, without following proper procedures. Both projects involved the nonprofit organization We Build the Wall.
In the end, four top leaders of the nonprofit organization, including Mr. Bannon, were arrested on charges related to fraud and other fundraising schemes. Three men, including an Air Force veteran, were convicted and sentenced to prison. President Trump pardoned Bannon, who was awaiting trial.
Fisher and the government reached a settlement in 2022 in which Fisher Sand & Gravel agreed to conduct quarterly inspections, maintain the existing gate and hold a $3 million bond for 15 years or until the property is transferred to the government to cover costs if the structure fails.
In March, local residents protested new wall infrastructure in Presidio, Texas. Hannah Gentiles
“The rules don’t really apply.”
Posilico’s case offers a rare glimpse behind the veil of the high-dollar world of border wall construction that has sprung up over the past decade in response to President Trump’s repeated campaign promises to build a wall.
The procurement process has become particularly opaque when it comes to border wall contracts, thanks to Noem’s abandonment of dozens of laws regulating fiscal transparency and competitiveness in government contracts across the southern border. This law marked the first time in U.S. history that these exemptions applied to all 1,954 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Posillico made it clear in his lawsuit that he does not object to the use of the exemption system to facilitate construction of the wall.
For residents of border communities, this exemption means DHS releases little information about the details of large 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, specifically challenging DHS’s failure to respond to a series of Freedom of Information Act requests for documents about the project and the agency’s authority to waive the law without Congressional approval. The government has not yet filed a response to the complaint, with deadlines set for June 1 for the FOIA complaint and early June for the Congressional Authority lawsuit.
In the Posilico case, DHS moved to seal case documents, including depositions and affidavits. Judge David A. Tapp signed the motion.
In the absence of a publicly posted request for proposals or direct communication from Washington, Big Bend residents are relying on an online map posted by CBP to track the status of the deal. The lines on the map have changed dramatically over the past few months, raising questions about what the government actually intends to build. Officials temporarily removed the map entirely around the same time that protests over the potential installation of a physical wall in Big Bend National Park reached a fever pitch. When the map was restored to the website, there appeared to be a mix of “vehicle barriers” and “patrol routes” planned within the park boundaries in place of iron walls.
Fisher Sand & Gravel currently plans to build a wall-related project in Big Bend Ranch State Park, adjacent to the park’s west side, but has not released plans for what the alternative border barrier would look like. Landowners in communities bordering the park continue to prepare to face significant area challenges from the federal government.
Bernard is working on a project outside the park. Mr. Posilico’s lawsuit documents show that CBP flagged portions of the wall in Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio counties for “fast-track” construction by the company. To support that effort, a pecan farm near the small ranching community of Lobo began clearing a swath of land for a 500-person camp and petitioned the local water conservation district for permission to use agricultural well water for the project.
Amy, the contracting expert, said the Trump administration appears to want to make the exception the rule, given controversial practices such as Noem’s decision to win a huge border advertising contract and the fact that the administration waived so many contracting rules to facilitate wall construction.
“It’s as if this administration has decided, especially this time, that this rule doesn’t really apply,” he said.
