S. 353 (119th)Bill Overview

Commission to Relocate the Federal Bureaucracy Act

Government Operations and Politics|Advisory bodiesCongressional oversight
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

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

Creates a federal Commission to study relocating non-security federal agencies headquartered in the Washington, DC metropolitan area to other U.S. regions. The Commission, composed of executive-branch agency heads and officials, must report to Congress within one year and recommend transfers based on cost, infrastructure, industry presence, telework history, technology, and opportunity/distressed-area criteria.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize worker protections and agency capacity concerns

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a statutorily defined commission with explicit membership, a one-year reporting requirement, and detailed factors and a numerical target for relocation recommendations, but it omits funding, staffing, and operational authorities that would typically be expected for a commission charged with producing an expansive, actionable study.

Creates a federal Commission to study relocating non-security federal agencies headquartered in the Washington, DC metropolitan area to other U.S. regions.

The Commission, composed of executive-branch agency heads and officials, must report to Congress within one year and recommend transfers based on cost, infrastructure, industry presence, telework history, technology, and opportunity/distressed-area criteria.

The Commission must consult local stakeholders and prioritize a goal of relocating at least 100,000 covered agency employees outside the DC metropolitan area.

Passage45/100

A narrowly focused, nonbinding commission has modest chance, but Senate hurdles and political sensitivity lower prospects.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a statutorily defined commission with explicit membership, a one-year reporting requirement, and detailed factors and a numerical target for relocation recommendations, but it omits funding, staffing, and operational authorities that would typically be expected for a commission charged with producing an expansive, actionable study.

Contention60/100

Liberals emphasize worker protections and agency capacity concerns

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

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

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

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesMay lower long-term federal operating costs by placing agencies in lower cost-of-living areas.
  • Potential benefitCould stimulate economic growth and job creation in designated relocation regions.
  • Local governmentsWould diversify geographic concentration, reducing risk from localized disruptions in Washington, DC.
Likely burdened
  • CitiesRisks losing experienced staff who decline to relocate, harming institutional knowledge and capacity.
  • Potential burdenMay impose large upfront fiscal costs for relocation, construction, and employee transitions.
  • Local governmentsCould reduce local tax revenue and economic activity in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize worker protections and agency capacity concerns
Progressive50%

Viewed cautiously: progressives may welcome economic investment outside DC but worry about disruption to agency capacity, worker protections, and politicized selection.

Support is conditional on safeguards for employees, civil service integrity, and preservation of program effectiveness.

Because this is a study, some see potential benefits if paired with labor and equity protections.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Pragmatic and generally favorable toward a study assessing decentralization benefits.

Sees potential for cost savings and regional development but demands rigorous cost-benefit analysis, transition planning, and minimal service disruption.

Views as reasonable if the report is evidence-based and includes implementation safeguards.

Leans supportive
Conservative85%

Generally supportive: decentralization seen as limiting DC-centric bureaucracy and boosting Heartland economies.

Favors using telework and opportunity-zone criteria to shift jobs and lower federal overhead.

Wants relocations done efficiently with security exclusions maintained.

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 likelihood45/100

A narrowly focused, nonbinding commission has modest chance, but Senate hurdles and political sensitivity lower prospects.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No appropriation or staffing details included
  • President’s discretion to designate 'security-related' agencies
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

Liberals emphasize worker protections and agency capacity concerns

A narrowly focused, nonbinding commission has modest chance, but Senate hurdles and political sensitivity lower prospects.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a statutorily defined commission with explicit membership, a one-year reporting requirement, and detailed factors and a numerical target for relocation recomm…

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