- 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.
SWAMP Act
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
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.
Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss
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).
Administrative scope and some bipartisan appeal offset by significant practical costs, affected constituencies, and Senate hurdles; outcome uncertain absent strong coalition or offsets.
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.
Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- 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.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Tradeoff: decentralization and jobs versus staff disruption and oversight loss
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.
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.
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.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrative scope and some bipartisan appeal offset by significant practical costs, affected constituencies, and Senate hurdles; outcome uncertain absent strong coalition or offsets.
- No cost estimate or GAO/CBO score included
- Which specific agencies would be prioritized is unspecified
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
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…
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.