Which agencies and contractors were responsible for final construction and maintenance of the wall by 2025?
Executive summary
Federal agencies leading wall construction and upkeep by 2025 were principally the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which managed planning, waivers and contract awards [1]. Contracts to build and replace barrier segments in 2025 were awarded to private heavy‑civil contractors including Granite Construction Co. (first contract, $70.3M, Hidalgo County, Texas) and Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. ($309.5M for ~27 miles in Santa Cruz County, Arizona) as documented in CBP releases and trade reporting [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. DHS and CBP: the federal customers pulling the levers
DHS set policy, issued waivers and certified funding priorities; CBP’s “Smart Wall” program and public releases list project planning, sector assignments and contractor awards, and the agency maintains an interactive Smart Wall map showing existing, under‑construction and planned barrier and technology works [1] [6]. DHS publicly announced use of earlier appropriations and recent executive actions to restart or accelerate barrier work in 2025 [7] [8].
2. Who actually built the segments: named contractors in 2025
CBP named specific private firms winning 2025 contracts: Granite Construction Co. received the first contract of Trump’s second term — $70,285,846 for ~7 miles in Hidalgo County, Texas (CBP release, March 15, 2025; reported by Construction Dive and local press) [2] [5]. CBP later awarded Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. a roughly $309.5 million contract for ~27 miles in Santa Cruz County, Arizona [3] [4]. Trade outlets and agency notices also list other contractors historically and under state programs (see Texas‑funded contracts and earlier shortlistings) [9] [10].
3. State and nonfederal players: Texas and joint ventures
Texas’ own border program continued in 2025 alongside federal work: the Texas Facilities Commission reported dozens of miles completed under state funding and contracts to firms such as Posillico Civil, Southwest Valley Contractors (Kiewit affiliate), Fisher Sand & Gravel and BFBC (Barnard unit) for Texas‑funded segments [9] [11]. Those state contracts and federally funded projects sometimes used the same pool of heavy‑civil builders [9].
4. Large multi‑project procurements and joint ventures
CBP and DHS planned lots of multi‑sector projects sold in large packages and joint ventures. Reporting and agency statements indicate joint ventures like BCCG and Barnard‑Spencer were named for later Smart Wall packages (September 2025 awards described in HSToday and CBP summaries, showing the pattern of large JV awards that had been foreshadowed in earlier shortlist rounds) — illustrating the federal approach to divide work into large regional packages for major contractors or consortia [12] [13].
5. Maintenance responsibility and costs: federal promise, private delivery
CBP positions the Smart Wall as a system—including steel barriers, patrol roads, lighting, cameras and sensors—and federal funds in appropriations were intended to cover construction and maintenance; the agency’s FAQs and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act language envision ongoing maintenance by federal authorities funded through multi‑year appropriations [1]. Independent analysts warned maintenance costs could be large: one estimate cited maintenance potentially rising above $750 million annually in past advocacy research [14]. Available sources do not specify which firms performed routine, long‑term maintenance contracts by 2025 beyond the construction award notices.
6. Environmental waivers, expedited procurement and legal friction
DHS/CBP used environmental waivers and expedited procedures to accelerate work; CBP announced waivers tied to selected projects and sectors in 2025 [15] [3]. Environmental and advocacy groups publicly challenged these waivers, and state/federal legal disputes over funds and procedures were ongoing in the reporting sample [16] [8]. Those legal and political pressures shaped which segments were advanced and which contracts moved fastest [8] [16].
7. What reporters and agency data leave unclear
Available sources identify the principal federal agencies (DHS/CBP), named prime contractors for headline contracts in 2025 (Granite; Fisher) and multiple state contractors used by Texas (Posillico; Kiewit/Southwest Valley; BFBC/Barnard) [2] [3] [9]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single roster of every contractor or every maintenance subcontractor for the entire border program as of 2025; they also do not provide a line‑by‑line accounting of which firm is responsible for long‑term maintenance on each completed mile [6] [1].
Sources cited: U.S. Customs and Border Protection contract releases and Smart Wall FAQ [2] [3] [1] [6], trade reporting (Construction Dive, ENR, HSToday summaries) and state program reporting (Texas Facilities Commission) [5] [4] [9] [11] [13].