Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The bill repeals 4 U.S.C. §72 and requires each executive agency (excluding the Executive Office of the President) to develop by September 30, 2026, and implement by September 30, 2030, a plan to relocate its headquarters outside the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Plans must identify a new location, maximize potential cost savings, limit to at most 10% the agency employees based in the Washington area after relocation, and consider national security implications.
Liberals stress civil service retention; conservatives stress decentralization benefits.
Broad institutional change with significant local impacts and costs; may split coalitions despite political appeal.
The bill repeals 4 U.S.C. §72 and requires each executive agency (excluding the Executive Office of the President) to develop by September 30, 2026, and implement by September 30, 2030, a plan to relocate its headquarters outside the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
Plans must identify a new location, maximize potential cost savings, limit to at most 10% the agency employees based in the Washington area after relocation, and consider national security implications.
The Director of OMB and the GSA Administrator must certify plan compliance before submission.
Sweeping, costly mandate lacking funding and exemptions; high political and practical resistance makes enactment unlikely on content alone.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals stress civil service retention; conservatives stress decentralization benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress civil service retention; conservatives stress decentralization benefits.
Cautiously skeptical.
Supports decentralization and regional equity in principle but worries about civil service disruption, staff losses, and partisan motives.
Would want strong worker protections, continuity safeguards, and transparency around cost estimates.
Pragmatic and measured.
Sees potential efficiency and democratic benefits from decentralization but wants rigorous cost-benefit analysis, national security exceptions, and protections for mission continuity before strong support.
Generally favorable.
Views relocation as shrinking DC-centric bureaucracy, cutting costs, and returning jobs to states.
May press for faster implementation and strong enforcement of the 10% rule.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Sweeping, costly mandate lacking funding and exemptions; high political and practical resistance makes enactment unlikely on content alone.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress civil service retention; conservatives stress decentralization benefits.
Sweeping, costly mandate lacking funding and exemptions; high political and practical resistance makes enactment unlikely on content alone.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Drain the Swamp Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.