Barnard Construction Company Secures Over $7 Billion in Federal Border Wall Contracts, Raising Concerns About Political Ties and Environmental Impact

Barnard Construction Company, Inc., a Bozeman, Montana-based engineering firm, has secured more than $7 billion in federal border wall contracts since President Donald Trump returned to office, according to federal spending data analyzed by High Country News. The company, founded in 1975 by Tim Barnard, has also faced scrutiny over its financial ties to Trump and the environmental consequences of its projects, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas like Texas’ Big Bend region.

What are the financial details of Barnard’s border wall contracts?

Barnard and its affiliates have received over $5.6 billion in federal border construction contracts since Trump’s 2024 inauguration, with total awards exceeding $7 billion when including prior contracts, according to a High Country News analysis of public spending records. The company’s largest single contract, a $1.6 billion deal to build 112.5 miles of “secondary wall” in eastern New Mexico, was awarded without competitive bidding due to “urgency,” as cited by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Additional contracts include $2 billion for a steel bollard wall in West Texas and $260 million in Department of Defense (DoD) projects through its subsidiary BFBC.

These awards come amid broader federal efforts to expedite border infrastructure. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed in 2017, allocated $46.5 billion for the border wall, with over $28 billion awarded to a small group of contractors. Barnard’s contracts represent a significant share of this funding, with experts questioning the process’s transparency.

How have Barnard’s political contributions influenced its contracts?

Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reveal that Tim Barnard and his wife have contributed over $1 million to Trump’s presidential campaigns, including $1 million to a fundraising committee for his 2024 campaign. The couple also donated to Trump cabinet members such as J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, and Ryan Zinke, according to FEC filings. Charles Tiefer, a law professor and former U.S. commissioner on wartime contracting, called the scale of these donations “an enormous transfer” to a private entity, noting that such contributions “raise questions about the fairness of competition.”

Barnard’s political ties extend beyond Trump. The company has funded Montana conservative groups and campaigns, with its chairman’s name appearing on a science building at Montana State University and a domestic violence shelter. Despite these connections, the company has not commented on the allegations.

What controversies surround Barnard’s border wall projects?

Barnard’s work has drawn legal and environmental challenges. In May, New York-based contractor Posillico Civil, Inc. sued the federal government, alleging that CBP awarded 73% of new Texas wall contracts to just two pre-approved firms—Barnard and North Dakota-based Fisher Sand & Gravel—without genuine competition. Posillico argued that the process violated procurement rules, citing a lack of price-comparison analyses.

Environmental concerns are also mounting. In Texas’ Big Bend region, where border crossings are rare, the Department of Homeland Security has waived environmental and cultural regulations to fast-track construction. Local officials, including five county sheriffs, have urged the federal government to reconsider the project, warning that the wall would permanently alter a “remote and ecologically significant border landscape.” The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the litigation but stated that contracts are awarded based on “qualifications to perform the work in a timely manner and at prices deemed fair and reasonable.”

On the ground, Barnard’s subcontractors have faced backlash for clearing roads without local approval. In April, a Montana artist and river guide organized a screening of the documentary *The River and the Wall*, highlighting the company’s role in Texas. Attendees sent postcards to the Barnards, with one addressing Tim and Mary Barnard directly: “Do not do this. No amount of money is worth it.”

Why is the scale of Barnard’s contracts controversial?

The size of Barnard’s contracts has drawn comparisons to other major federal projects. For example, the $1.6 billion New Mexico deal exceeds the value of most detention facility contracts, according to Tiefer. The company’s revenue surpassed $1 billion in 2024, making it one of the