This story was originally published by High Country News.
Barnard Construction Company, Inc., an engineering contractor based in Bozeman, Montana, recently celebrated its 50th year in business. On its website, the company lays out a colorful history that starts in 1975, when 25-year-old Tim Barnard moved to Montana with “$1,000, two shovels, a pick, and all of his possessions in the cab of his pickup.” A timeline offers highlights of the half-century since, from building a natural gas pipeline in Utah and hydropower in Alaska to winning a federal government contract to bring down dams in Washington and increase spawning habitat for native salmon species.
What the website doesn’t show are the company’s largest federal contracts: the billions of taxpayer dollars Barnard has been awarded to build President Donald Trump’s border wall. Also unmentioned are its founder’s financial ties to the president.
Trump made finishing the border wall a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and soon after he took office, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocated $46.5 billion for the project. The administration has since waived dozens of federal contracting laws to expedite construction, and more than $28 billion in contracts have been awarded to a small group of companies, according to Customs and Border Protection.
A High Country News analysis of publicly available federal spending data finds Barnard is among the biggest winners. The company and its affiliates have been awarded more than $5.6 billion in federal border construction contracts since Trump returned to office. Add their previous border wall contracts and the total rises to more than $7 billion.
Meanwhile, Federal Election Commission records show that company chairman Tim Barnard and his wife have contributed millions of dollars over the years to Republican candidates and causes — including more than $1 million to Trump’s presidential campaigns.
Experts say the contracts raise red flags, and Barnard’s competitors seem to agree: In May, another contractor sued the federal government after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) promised the lion’s share of new Texas and New Mexico wall construction contracts to Barnard and one other company. Now, Barnard is facing criticism both at home and on the border as it prepares to begin construction in one of the least-trafficked parts of the border.
THOUGH IT’S HEADQUARTERED in an undulating building on the northern outskirts of town, Barnard’s financial influence is evident all over Bozeman. The chairman’s name decorates a science building at Montana State University, a domestic violence shelter nearby, and an aquatics center to the south. The Barnards have also given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Montana conservative groups and political campaigns.
The company’s revenue surpassed $1 billion in 2024, according to industry publication Engineering News-Record, making it one of the top 150 engineering firms in the country. It has received contracts from numerous federal agencies, including the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. But more than 80% of the value of its federal awards comes from border wall contracts. Barnard received several under the first Trump administration, before and after its leadership donated $5,600 to Trump’s reelection campaign. FEC records show the Barnards have also donated to several Trump cabinet members, including J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Ryan Zinke.
One award in particular generated controversy: Reporting by ProPublica found that an initial $142 million contract awarded to Barnard’s subsidiary BFBC in 2019 grew to more than $1 billion as the administration quietly modified it over and over. The firm was promised $33 million per mile of wall for one section of construction — about $13 million more than the government’s standard price.
Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed called for an investigation into the contract, calling it a “no-bid contract to an apparently politically-connected, private contractor,” and a Government Accountability Office report the following year advised the Army Corps to rethink its procurement strategy.
But neither the company nor the administration seem to have been deterred. In 2024, FEC records show the Barnards donated $1 million to a fundraising committee for Trump’s presidential campaign, and $3,300 to a Trump political action committee. Federal spending records indicate the company has since received $4.54 billion in awards from CBP — plus more than $260 million in Department of Defense (DoD) wall contracts to subsidiary BFBC. That’s in addition to $853 million in contracts to Barnard Spencer Joint Venture, Barnard’s collaboration with Arizona-based contractor Spencer Construction, which have grown by more than $75 million since they were first awarded in September.
Charles Tiefer, an emeritus law professor at the University of Baltimore who previously served as U.S. commissioner on wartime contracting, called the awards “an enormous transfer” to a private company. “Even the biggest detention facilities don’t rank with four and a half billion,” he said.
And he said the scale of the Barnards’ political contributions calls the fairness of competition into question. “If you tip a waiter 15 bucks, that doesn’t raise any red flags,” he said. “But if you tip them 150 bucks or 300 bucks, then somebody watching may wonder what you’re getting special that you’re not supposed to be.”
Barnard representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Other contractors share Tiefer’s concern. On May 13, New York-based contractor Posillico Civil, Inc., sued the Trump administration, saying CBP had promised around 73% of the value of new Texas wall contracts to just two of 11 pre-approved contractors: Barnard and North Dakota-based firm Fisher Sand & Gravel.
Fisher is known for its controversial work to build a private border wall and financial ties to We Build the Wall, a scandal-ridden nonprofit whose board included Trump strategist Steve Bannon. The federal spending database lists nearly $15 billion in border construction contracts to the company over the years, including more than $13 billion under this administration.
Posillico’s lawsuit argued that the contracting process lacked “genuine competitive opportunities,” and alleged that CBP does not keep a price-comparison analysis or documentation of its methodology for awarding the contracts.
In a statement, CBP said the agency does maintain documentation for its decisions but declined to share it, citing the pending litigation. “Border Wall 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 statement said.
While pre-approving a set of contractors is not uncommon, it’s not meant to remove competition between those companies, Tiefer said. But at least one of Barnard’s new CBP contracts — its largest — was awarded without competitive bidding.
In April, Barnard received a $1.6 billion contract to build 112.5 miles of “secondary wall” in eastern New Mexico. A CBP spokesperson said the contract was awarded without competition “due to various factors particular to that project.” In the spending database, the reason listed for the lack of competition is “urgency.”
Scott Amey, a lawyer who investigates federal contracts for the Project On Government Oversight, said the process merits scrutiny. “What was so urgent that they couldn’t bid it to other contractors that are already on the pre-approved list?” he said.
THE NEW CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS awarded to Barnard and its affiliates span the four U.S. states of the border, in some places building “secondary” walls or replacing stretches of existing barrier.
a. 60 miles of new lighting and technology along existing wall near the California-Arizona border
b. Replacing 20 miles of existing wall across western Arizona’s Barry M. Goldwater Range
c. 6 miles of “barrier fencing” near Antelope Wells, New Mexico
d. More than 20 miles of new wall, 110 miles of a second wall, and 80 miles of new technology in New Mexico’s Luna, Doña Ana, and Hidalgo counties
e. More than 100 miles of wall construction in the Big Bend region of West Texas
f. 30 miles of wall near Del Rio, Texas
g. 10 miles of new wall in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley
Among the most controversial are the company’s two contracts in West Texas, where it’s been awarded nearly $2 billion to build just over a hundred miles of new, 30-foot steel bollard wall through the remote Big Bend region.
Though it’s the largest Border Patrol sector on the Mexican border, the Big Bend consistently sees some of the fewest crossings, thanks to its remote location and harsh terrain. So far this fiscal year, just 1.6% of all “apprehensions” on the southern border have occurred here. The region is also home to some of Texas’ most beloved public land, including Big Bend National Park, and its border counties are heavily reliant on river tourism.
The Department of Homeland Security has waived dozens of environmental and cultural regulations to fast-track construction through the Big Bend, and hundreds of private landowners could have their property seized by eminent domain. Plans to build the wall have faced near-universal bipartisan opposition locally — including from law enforcement. In March, five county sheriffs in the region issued a joint statement urging the federal government to reconsider the construction.
“Major permanent infrastructure, accompanied by lighting systems, access roads, and maintenance corridors would permanently alter one of the most remote and ecologically significant border landscapes in the United States,” they wrote.
Barnard also faced direct criticism from local officials after its subcontractors began using heavy machinery to clear a county road leading down the border without consulting with local officials.
“You’re not going to be able to improve a county road without commissioner court approval,” local county judge Curtis Evans told Marfa Public Radio. “I’m not pleased with them not contacting the county and going through cooperation and collaboration channels in order for everyone to be transparent.”
As word of Barnard’s work on the border spread, opposition emerged in Montana, too. In April, local artist and river guide Morgan Kemp organized a Bozeman screening of the 2019 documentary The River and the Wall, which explores the impacts of wall construction in Texas. Kemp, who is originally from El Paso, said she felt it was important for people to know it was a Montana firm building the wall there.
“If a company that’s local is going to travel all the way down to the other side of the country and border to build something like this and take away people’s lands and access, what would stop them from doing it locally?” she said.
She told HCN that around 30 people attended, many of whom were surprised by the beauty and tranquility of the border in the Big Bend region.
“Most people think Texas, they think tumbleweeds, flat plains, nothing super diverse going on. It’s like, no, this is such an ecological oasis that is so important and so special,” she said.
Following the screening, attendees wrote postcards to the Barnards, urging them to reconsider the contracts. “One of my favorite ones was somebody that clearly knows who the owner is, because they addressed them directly,” Kemp said. “They were like, ‘Mary and Tim, do not do this. No amount of money is worth it.’”