Build It...and They Won't Come.
- Ed Sullivan
- Jul 15
- 5 min read
Updated: Aug 8
"The Wall" is Back On with the "Big Beautiful Bill" Adding to Cement/Concrete Consumption.
Introduction
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was recently enacted into law. The bill contains both positive and negative impacts for near-term and longer-term economic activity. It will also impact construction activity. The key impacts of OBBBA on the economy and construction activity will be addressed in future articles. This article focuses on one aspect of OBBBA – the building of the wall and its impact on cement and concrete consumption during the forecast horizon (2025-2030).
What is Proposed by the OBBBA?
OBBBA allocated $46.5 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for “physical barriers” along the Mexican border. (Physical barriers include walls, fencing, pedestrian and vehicle barriers, security access roads, and surveillance equipment.) High trafficked and high threat areas will likely be the focus of spending. Spending for the new wall initiative is triple the amount spent during the first Trump Administration of roughly $15 billion.
Funds are available through September 30, 2030, giving the DHS a five-year window to plan and execute projects. During the first round of wall building in 2017-2020, it took roughly one year from the executive order for building to begin. If similar timing materializes, construction probably won’t begin until the second half of 2026 or early 2027.
The Border Characteristics
The border with Mexico spans four states totaling 1,933 miles. The four states include California (140 miles), Arizona (373 miles), New Mexico (180 miles) and Texas (1,241 miles). Natural barriers, such as mountains and rivers, reduce the need for man-made barriers. These areas, as well as very remote areas, will likely rely on drone surveillance.
Man-made physical barriers of entry into the U.S. from Mexico already exist along some portions of the border. By state, these barriers include California (130 miles), Arizona (253 miles), New Mexico (136 miles) and Texas (320 miles). Some of these barriers include fences and vehicle barriers. Some of these barriers may not constitute a “secure border area” by the Administration and as such may have to be rebuilt/upgraded.
OBBBA does not specify where the wall will be built. Unsecured, high trafficked border areas are likely the targets. According to my calculations, California has 10 miles of unsecured border, New Mexico has 44 miles of unsecured border, and Arizona has 120 miles of unsecured border. By far, Texas is the biggest beneficiary due to its large expanse of unsecured border estimated at 921 miles. Of this, 900 miles is attributed to the Rio Grande River, which some consider as a natural border. Given the milage dedicated to river barriers (900 miles) it is clear that the Act views the Rio Grande River as currently unsecured.
Barrier Characteristics
OBBBA funds the construction of 701 miles of primary wall, 900 miles of river barriers, and 629 miles of secondary barriers, along with the replacement of 141 miles of existing vehicle and pedestrian barriers. Not all this constitutes new wall construction. Some construction targets the rebuilding of existing barriers. Each of these activities, to a greater or lesser degree, require cement and concrete for their construction. The amount of cement and concrete used in constructing the wall depend on the length of the wall, the type of wall, its design, dimensions, and construction method.
River Barriers: River barriers represent the largest stretch of milage to be constructed. Construction of this barrier will exclusively target high-traffic illegal crossing zones along the Rio Grande River in Texas. No design or material specification is stated in the Act. The river barriers are likely to include floodwalls/retaining walls, submerged cutoff walls and riprap-reinforced barriers. Each can vary in size. Each uses different amounts of cement and concrete.
Primary Barriers: Seven hundred and one miles of primary land barriers represent the second largest stretch of milage to be constructed. These barriers are what typically comes to mind when talk concerns “building a wall”. Based on the amount of unsecured border, each of the four states are expected to see the construction of these barriers. California is expected to build as much as 10 miles of “wall”, New Mexico 44 miles, Arizona 120 miles, and Texas 526 miles.
No design or material specification is stated in the Act. During the first Trump Administration, the most commonly built wall was a bollard-style barrier made up of vertical steel posts (bollards) that are set closely together (typically 4–6 inches apart), anchored into a reinforced concrete foundation, and tall enough (often 18–30 feet) to deter climbing. In addition to anchoring the posts, the bollards were often filled with concrete.
Secondary Barriers: Secondary barriers are designed as additional layers of fencing behind or alongside the primary steel bollard wall to enhance security and delay crossings. While specs during the first Trump Administration varied by region and site, typical barriers include bollard-style fences, reinforced concrete walls, and chain linked fences topped with razor wire.
Vehicle & Pedestrian Barriers: Vehicle barriers are intended to prevent unauthorized vehicular access across the border. These are typically lower-profile Jersey” vehicle barriers that block cars and trucks. Pedestrian barriers and tall, fortified walls designed to deter and prevent individuals from crossing on foot. These often include steel bollards, reinforced fencing, or solid wall segments.
Summary
To get to the estimate for cement consumption required to build the wall, some mathematical gymnastics is required. Combining the mileage of unsecured border in each state, cross reference these estimates with the total mileage of barrier identified in the Act by type of barrier, and then applying the average cement consumption per mile of barrier yields cement consumption by barrier, by state. For the most part, the amount of cement consumption per mile of barrier approximates the usage by barrier estimated during Trump’s first term.
Still with me? No? Good that was the intent.
At the end of the day, a good bit of assuming has to be undertaken to yield estimates. I believe the assumptions I have used are across-the-board conservative. Even relatively small changes in the assumptions can lead to significant changes in the estimate. As a result, when establishing high-low estimates a large-risk variance should be used. A 15% variance yields a range of 750,000 to 1,000,000 metric tons. The table below summarizes the findings. It should be noted that more than 80% of estimated cement consumption is expected to be consumed by Texas.
Overall, very little construction is expected to materialize during the next 12 months. Thereafter, construction in the second half of 2026 accelerates reaching peak consumption in 2027 and gradually retreating in subsequent years. Keep in mind, some of the land, particularly along the Rio Grande is privately owned. Building the wall could involve lengthy legal battles and eminent domain issues that could slowdown and reduce realized construction. These estimates do not include ancillary infrastructure investments such as towers, gates, culverts, and access roads.
About The Sullivan Report
The Sullivan Report delivers subscription-based economic forecasts and market updates tailored to the cement, concrete, construction, and aggregates industries. Its flagship publication, the Cement Outlook, is released three times a year and features 5-year forecast projections, expert analysis, and actionable insights to support informed decision-making and long-term strategic planning amid an evolving economic landscape.
Guided by renowned economist Ed Sullivan, The Sullivan Report also offers keynote presentations and customized forecasting services for organizations and regions seeking deeper, data-driven market intelligence. For more information, message us here, visit TheSullivanReport.com, or email us at info@thesullivanreport.com.
