WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers has introduced legislation to ensure government agencies assess the full impact of office relocations before moving forward. The COST of Relocations Act, spearheaded by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., mandates that agencies submit a detailed cost-benefit analysis to Congress prior to any relocation. The bill aims to safeguard workers, taxpayers, and agency missions from disruptive, poorly planned moves.
The proposal responds to past relocations, notably during the Trump administration, when two U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offices shifted from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, Mo., in 2018. A subsequent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found those moves led to significant staffing losses and operational setbacks. The lawmakers say the legislation would prevent similar outcomes by requiring transparency and accountability.
“We must stop the Trump administration’s politically motivated attempts to waste taxpayer dollars by unnecessarily moving federal agencies,” Subramanyam said in a statement. He emphasized that the bill ensures decisions prioritize “logic, the best interest of taxpayers, and the agency’s mission” over political motives. “These decisions should be based on what’s best for the American people, not political retribution,” he added.
The GAO report highlighted the USDA relocations’ toll: over one-third of permanent full-time staff left, institutional expertise eroded, and productivity slumped. Key reports faced delays, and grant processing times lengthened, undermining the agency’s mission. The findings underscore the need for thorough planning, a gap the COST of Relocations Act seeks to address.
“Across government, federal agencies and the civil servants who power them provide essential services for Americans across the country,” Van Hollen said. “Abruptly uprooting those agencies for political reasons not only endangers their critical missions, it’s also a waste of taxpayer dollars.” He stressed that the bill promotes thoughtful decision-making driven by public interest.
Under the legislation, agencies would need to produce a comprehensive review before relocating, covering both quantitative data—like financial costs—and qualitative factors, such as employee retention and mission performance. These analyses would be publicly available and subject to scrutiny by the agency’s inspector general, ensuring independent oversight.
The bill’s introduction reflects growing concern over the ripple effects of agency moves. The USDA case, detailed by the GAO, remains a cautionary tale.Federal workforce advocates, including the American Federation of Government Employees, have long called for policies to protect staff and operations during such transitions.
As Congress considers the measure, it could reshape how federal agencies approach relocations, prioritizing data-driven decisions over political expediency. For now, Subramanyam and Van Hollen frame it as a commonsense step to protect taxpayer resources and government efficiency.
