H.R. 514 (119th)Bill Overview

SWAMP Act

Government Operations and Politics|Building constructionDistrict of Columbia
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 16, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Prohibits Executive agency headquarters from being located in the Washington metropolitan area, except existing headquarters may remain subject to limits on new construction and lease renewals. Requires GSA to create, within one year, a competitive solicitation process allowing States and political subdivisions to bid to host relocated agency headquarters, with public notice, comment, and selection criteria including economic impact, mission expertise, and national security.

Why people may split

Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that sets a clear high-level rule and a framework for competitive relocation of Executive agency headquarters while leaving many operational, fiscal, and oversight details to be developed by the Administrator of General Services.

Prohibits Executive agency headquarters from being located in the Washington metropolitan area, except existing headquarters may remain subject to limits on new construction and lease renewals.

Requires GSA to create, within one year, a competitive solicitation process allowing States and political subdivisions to bid to host relocated agency headquarters, with public notice, comment, and selection criteria including economic impact, mission expertise, and national security.

Allows GSA to use proceeds from federal property sales to offset relocation costs and requires the work to be done using existing GSA funds (no new appropriations).

Passage35/100

Administrative scope and some bipartisan appeal offset by significant practical costs, affected constituencies, and Senate hurdles; outcome uncertain absent strong coalition or offsets.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that sets a clear high-level rule and a framework for competitive relocation of Executive agency headquarters while leaving many operational, fiscal, and oversight details to be developed by the Administrator of General Services.

Contention50/100

Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsCreates economic development and local jobs in states that win headquarters relocations.
  • Federal agenciesDistributes federal employment geographically, reducing concentration in the Washington metropolitan area.
  • Federal agenciesCould produce long-term federal real estate savings by selling Washington area assets.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesRelocations could disrupt agency operations and decrease day-to-day interagency coordination.
  • Potential burdenLoss of specialized staff unwilling to relocate may create recruitment and retention challenges.
  • Potential burdenRelocation costs may strain GSA budgets and divert funds from other programs.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss
Progressive70%

Likely cautiously supportive of decentralizing federal jobs and spreading economic benefits, while worried about worker impacts and oversight.

Would want strong employee protections, transparency, and assurances that civil service careers and program delivery are preserved.

Leans supportive
Centrist55%

Pragmatic but cautious: supports competitive, transparent bidding and potential cost savings, yet worries about operational disruption and unclear costs.

Will look for rigorous cost-benefit analysis and safeguards for continuity and national security.

Split reaction
Conservative75%

Generally favorable to shrinking the Washington footprint and promoting state economic development, provided moves reduce federal centralization and don't increase permanent federal spending.

Concerned about bureaucratic discretion in site selection and potential wasteful relocation costs.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Administrative scope and some bipartisan appeal offset by significant practical costs, affected constituencies, and Senate hurdles; outcome uncertain absent strong coalition or offsets.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No cost estimate or GAO/CBO score included
  • Which specific agencies would be prioritized is unspecified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss

Administrative scope and some bipartisan appeal offset by significant practical costs, affected constituencies, and Senate hurdles; outcome…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that sets a clear high-level rule and a framework for competitive relocation of Executive agency headquarters while leaving many operat…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis