The DRAIN THE SWAMP Act requires the head of every Executive agency to change the permanent duty station of at least 30% of that agency’s headquarters employees so those employees are based outside the Washington metropolitan area, directs OMB to shrink headquarters real property by 30%, and changes pay locality and telework rules for affected staff. The bill sets firm timelines for reporting and implementation, creates specific exclusions (notably national security components and certain ADA accommodations), and instructs agencies to include new workforce and telework counts in budget justification materials.
This matters for agency HR, real property managers, labor negotiators, and regional offices: it forces a rapid, top-down redistribution of staff and space, alters pay calculations for relocated employees, curtails full‑time telework, and purports to override collective bargaining agreements and other laws — all on compressed implementation schedules that will shift costs, operational models, and recruitment/retention dynamics across the federal government.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates that within one year agency heads reassign at least 30% of headquarters employees to permanent duty stations outside the Washington metropolitan area, change those employees’ pay locality to the new location, and prohibit them from teleworking full-time. OMB must issue a memorandum within 60 days directing a 30% reduction in headquarters-owned or leased real property and prioritize disposals and co-location.
Who It Affects
Impacted parties include Executive branch agency leadership, HR offices, regional and field units that will receive staff, federal employees whose official duty station is at headquarters (including full-time teleworkers who are paid at the D.C. locality), and real property managers and lessors in the Washington area.
Why It Matters
The bill forces structural decentralization rather than voluntary relocation, changing pay, telework privileges, office footprints, and reporting obligations. By sweeping aside collective bargaining and other laws, it creates immediate compliance and labor-management tensions while shifting personnel and real estate costs and responsibilities to agencies and regions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act requires agency leaders to identify headquarters employees and, within a year of enactment, convert the permanent duty station of at least 30% of those staff to offices located outside the Washington metropolitan area. ‘‘Headquarters employee’’ is defined to include employees permanently assigned to an agency’s headquarters and full‑time teleworkers who are paid using the Washington locality. For those who are reassigned, agencies must set pay based on the new pay locality and eliminate authorization for full‑time telework.
Agency heads must determine eligibility broadly — all headquarters employees are presumptively eligible except qualified individuals who have an approved ADA reasonable accommodation to telework full‑time and certain national‑security exception positions. Agencies must notify eligible employees before they submit required reports, then notify employees whose duty stations will change again at specified intervals; reassigned employees receive 90 days’ notice before the change takes effect.
The bill also addresses employees who teleworked full‑time as of enactment but remain in the Washington area: those employees will lose full‑time telework authorization 180 days after the agency submits its report.On the facilities side, OMB must issue a directive within 60 days requiring agencies to reduce headquarters office space by 30%, prioritize selling buildings, and co‑locate remaining headquarters functions. Agencies must start reducing space within 180 days and finish within two years.
The Act requires new data to appear in agencies’ budget justification materials (headquarters counts, field/district/regional personnel counts, full‑time teleworkers, and ADA telework accommodations), bars relocation incentives when an official worksite changes from an employee’s residence to headquarters, and contains language to supersede other laws and collective bargaining provisions. Finally, it disclaims a private right of action, leaving oversight and enforcement to Congress and agency management rather than individual lawsuits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires agency heads to change the permanent duty station of at least 30% of an agency’s headquarters employees within one year of enactment, with reassigned employees receiving 90 days’ written notice before the change takes effect.
For reassigned employees, the agency must calculate pay using the pay locality of the new duty station and revoke authorization to telework on a full‑time basis.
OMB must issue a memorandum within 60 days directing agencies to reduce headquarters real property (owned or leased) by at least 30%, start reductions within 180 days, and complete them within two years.
Qualified individuals with approved ADA reasonable accommodations to telework full‑time and explicitly listed national‑security components (e.g.
parts of DoD, CIA, NSA, NGA, ODNI, DHS, DOE) are exempt from being forced to change duty station, but they still count toward the headquarters employee base for the 30% calculation.
The Act expressly supersedes other statutes and collective bargaining agreements, prohibits payment of relocation incentives when an employee’s official worksite changes from their residence to headquarters, and eliminates a private right of action to challenge selections under the Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the formal and short names of the Act (Decentralizing and Reorganizing Agency Infrastructure Nation‑wide To Harness Efficient Services, Workforce Administration, and Management Practices Act; DRAIN THE SWAMP Act). Practically, this is the authority label under which the rest of the requirements operate.
Key definitions that shape coverage and exceptions
Defines who counts as a headquarters employee (including full‑time teleworkers paid at the Washington locality), what constitutes the Washington metropolitan area and its pay locality, and who is excluded from relocation (notably certain national‑security components and employees with approved ADA telework accommodations). Those definitional choices determine the population agencies must analyze and the scope of exemptions, so HR and legal shops must parse these definitions against existing position lists and accommodations records.
Relocation mandate, eligibility, notices, and reporting
Mandates the 30% relocation target and requires agencies to promote geographic diversity and adequate regional staffing when selecting new duty stations. Agencies must notify employees identified as eligible before submitting a report to relevant congressional committees, then give affected employees 90 days’ notice of any duty station change. The section prescribes a 180‑day reporting deadline after enactment containing counts and implementation plans, and sets a separate 180‑day deadline after reporting for current full‑time teleworkers who remain in D.C. to lose full‑time telework authorization.
Real property reduction directed to OMB and agencies
Directs OMB to issue a memorandum within 60 days requiring a 30% reduction in headquarters real property owned or leased by the federal government and to prioritize disposal of buildings and co‑location of agencies. Agencies must begin reductions within 180 days of enactment and finish within two years, imposing compressed real property disposition and consolidation schedules on GSA and agency real estate teams.
New budget‑justification reporting requirements
Requires agencies to include counts of headquarters employees, staff in field/district/regional offices, full‑time teleworkers, and employees with ADA telework accommodations in their first budget justification after enactment and annually thereafter. That pulls workforce distribution metrics into the budget process, giving Congress routine visibility into whether agencies are meeting decentralization goals.
Prohibition on relocation incentives for certain changes
Prohibits paying relocation incentives when an employee’s official worksite changes from the employee’s residence to the agency’s headquarters, removing a common tool agencies use to facilitate voluntary moves and potentially limiting options to mitigate retention problems that arise from forced duty‑station changes.
Severability, supersession, and no private cause of action
Contains severability language, an explicit clause that this Act supersedes any conflicting statute or collective bargaining agreement, and a provision denying a private right of action to challenge selections or actions taken under the Act. Those provisions concentrate implementation authority in agency management and Congress while narrowing avenues for employees or unions to litigate compliance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Regional and field offices: They receive staff and capacity, improving local service delivery and increasing human resources and institutional knowledge in non‑D.C. locations.
- Local economies outside Washington, D.C.: Communities that gain headquarters personnel and leased space may see job creation, higher local spending, and new demand for commercial real estate and services.
- Congressional oversight committees: The reporting and budget‑justification requirements give committees standardized workforce metrics and a lever to monitor and pressure agencies on decentralization progress.
Who Bears the Cost
- Headquarters employees forced to relocate: Employees reassigned face changes in pay locality (often downward), loss of full‑time telework authorization, possible relocation stress, and higher turnover risk if they decline reassignment.
- Agency HR, real property, and finance offices: Agencies must implement rapid personnel moves, change pay calculations, process notices, and manage facility disposals within tight timelines — work that will require resources, expertise, and temporary funding.
- Unions and collective bargaining units: The Act’s explicit supersession of collective bargaining agreements removes negotiation leverage and could produce grievances and labor relations strain even if private litigation is constrained.
- GSA and federal lessors in Washington: Accelerated disposal and lease‑termination priorities will reduce demand for D.C. space and transfer costs and legal work to property managers and contracting offices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between forcing rapid, measurable decentralization to reduce D.C. concentration and preserving the workforce, institutional knowledge, and operational continuity agencies need to deliver programs: the statute’s strict percentage targets and fast timelines are effective at producing movement, but they do so at the cost of pay reductions, reduced telework flexibility, potential service disruptions, and strained labor relations — trade‑offs no single agency can resolve without assuming secondary costs.
The bill swaps a voluntary or incentive‑based approach for a blunt, percentage‑driven mandate with short deadlines. That design raises two sets of implementation risks: operational continuity and workforce effects.
Operational continuity: agencies with distributed mission requirements may find the 30% target misaligned with function‑critical staffing needs; although the statute carves out a range of national‑security components, many program‑critical but non‑listed functions (law enforcement, benefits processing, regulatory work) may still be disrupted by rapid reassignment. Workforce effects: moving pay to a new locality typically lowers locality pay differentials; combined with a prohibition on full‑time telework for reassigned employees, the bill creates tangible retention pressure.
Agencies will have to decide whether to accept higher voluntary turnover, fund retention supplements from existing budgets, or find other workarounds that the statute may not contemplate.
Legal and labor tensions are pronounced. The Act’s supersession language and ban on a private cause of action aim to preempt litigation and collective bargaining challenges, but blanket supersession may itself be litigated (e.g., under statutory protections or constitutional claims) or provoke labor unrest and protracted grievances that slow implementation.
The reporting metrics inserted into budget justifications increase transparency but may not capture qualitative service impacts or the costs of relocation, and the mandate to prioritize building disposal could force sale or lease terminations at unfavorable prices or leave gaps in needed workspace during transition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.