Border bonanza

The Trump administration’s first efforts to realize the president’s feverish vision of a “big, beautiful” border wall won’t persuade Mexico or anyone else to foot the enormous bill. Its inaugural contract to fortify the barrier has already invited questions about its stewardship of taxpayers’ money.

The administration gave the $11 million job to a lightly staffed Nebraska startup linked to a Long Island, N.Y., company that has a history of run-ins with the federal government. The Associated Press reported that SWF Constructors, hired in November to replace a 2-mile stretch of fence on California’s southern border, is owned by Coastal Environmental Group, which has been criticized by federal auditors and sued by the government.

A 2016 review by the Interior Department’s Inspector General’s Office found Coastal could not back up more than $2 million in claimed costs for labor, lodging, meals and more related to its post-Hurricane Sandy cleanup of two wildlife refuges. The government has also sued the company twice, in 2011 and 2014, charging that it failed to pay subcontractors for cleaning up a Superfund site and building docks for the Coast Guard; both suits were settled.

President Trump made the wall, along with a quixotic promise to force Mexico to pay for it, a centerpiece of his campaign. The 30-foot barrier being built in the border town of Calexico (Imperial County) amounts to a tiny fraction of what the White House is contemplating. A $73 million contract to replace fencing along New Mexico’s portion of the border was awarded last week, and Trump’s latest budget proposal asks Congress for $18 billion to fund wall construction over the next two years.

The beginnings of this massive project don’t inspire confidence in the administration’s fitness to manage it. Worse, the nation would shoulder such costs to repel an invasion that, according to the government’s own analysis, is not taking place.