The SWAMP Act bars the placement of executive agency headquarters in the Washington metropolitan area going forward, allows agencies with existing Washington‑area headquarters to remain only under strict limits, and directs the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to set up a competitive process through which States and their political subdivisions may bid to host relocated headquarters. GSA must permit public notice and comment, consult with agency heads, and evaluate proposals on economic impact, alignment of local expertise with agency mission, and national security implications.
The bill matters because it transforms headquarters location from an internal executive decision into a competitive, state‑driven process with fiscal constraints: GSA may offset costs by selling federal property but receives no new appropriation authority. That mix of decentralization, market‑style bidding, and tight funding creates practical and legal questions for agencies, affected workforces, local governments pursuing bids, and national security officials weighing relocations with classified work.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits locating an executive agency's headquarters in the Washington metropolitan area (subject to a narrow grandfathering exception) and requires GSA to design, within one year, a solicitation and competitive bidding process for any relocation. States and political subdivisions may submit bids; GSA must provide public notice and use criteria that include economic impact, mission alignment, and national security.
Who It Affects
Executive agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. §105 (with an explicit list of excluded departments and intelligence agencies), GSA as the implementing agency, state and local governments that will prepare bids, local developers and labor markets at candidate sites, and federal employees whose jobs or duty stations could move.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal federal mechanism for decentralizing agency headquarters and hands economic development leverage to states while constraining federal spending on moves. It also embeds national security review and public comment into location decisions, altering how agencies plan facilities, staffing, and classified operations outside the Washington area.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by defining which entities count as 'Executive agencies' and narrows what 'headquarters' means — the statute focuses on the managerial and administrative center and expressly excludes separate offices that agency heads may keep in the Washington area. The definition list also carves out major departments and national security agencies (Defense, DHS, State, Energy, ODNI, CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, and the Executive Office of the President) so the relocation rule targets civilian agencies outside those units.
Its core prohibition prevents an agency from locating its headquarters in the Washington metropolitan area, but agencies already headquartered there when the law takes effect can stay only under tight constraints: no new construction or major renovations, no lease renewals, and no new leases for that headquarters. That combination effectively forces agencies that outgrow or need to replace their Washington facilities to pursue relocation under the new process.GSA must establish, within one year, a process by which an agency head can request a formal solicitation or GSA can initiate one on its own.
States and political subdivisions submit proposals; the statute requires public notice and an opportunity for comment on those proposals. GSA selects a winning site in consultation with the agency head using three enumerated criteria: economic and workforce impact on the bidding jurisdiction, whether the jurisdiction possesses expertise relevant to the agency's mission, and the extent to which moving would implicate national security.
The bill also contains a rule of construction making clear that Maryland and Virginia localities outside the Washington area may bid.On finance and implementation, the bill authorizes GSA to use proceeds from the sale of federal buildings or land to offset relocation costs but does not appropriate any new funds; GSA must carry out the statute using existing resources. Those two funding points mean relocations depend on asset dispositions and agency budgets rather than a guaranteed relocation appropriation, which will shape the pace and scope of any move.
The Five Things You Need to Know
GSA must establish the competitive relocation solicitation process no later than one year after enactment.
Agencies with headquarters already in the Washington metropolitan area are grandfathered but prohibited from new construction, major renovation, lease renewal, or entering new leases for that headquarters.
Any State or political subdivision may submit a bid; GSA must provide public notice and an opportunity for public comment on submitted proposals.
Selection criteria require GSA, in consultation with the agency head, to weigh economic and workforce impact, local expertise aligned with the agency mission, and national security implications.
GSA may use proceeds from selling federal buildings or land to offset relocation costs, but the bill authorizes no additional appropriations for implementation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Strategic Withdrawal of Agencies for Meaningful Placement Act' or 'SWAMP Act.' This is the statutory label and has no operative effect, but it frames congressional intent to shift placement of agency headquarters.
Who and what the statute covers
Defines 'Executive agency' by reference to 5 U.S.C. §105 while explicitly exempting the Executive Office of the President and a list of national security and cabinet departments (Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, State, ODNI, CIA, plus specified defense intelligence elements). It narrows 'headquarters' to the managerial/administrative center and excludes separate Washington offices maintained by agency heads. Those choices limit the law's reach to most civilian agencies but preserve centralized placement for departments and sensitive intelligence functions.
Ban on new Washington‑area headquarters; strict grandfather rules
Prohibits placing an executive agency's headquarters in the Washington metropolitan area. Agencies already headquartered there at enactment may retain that location, but the statute stops short of perpetual immunity: it forbids new construction or major renovation, lease renewal, and entering new leases for those headquarters. In practice, this creates an operational trigger — when an existing facility needs replacement or the lease expires, the agency must go through the relocation solicitation to remain or move elsewhere.
GSA must design and run solicitations; who can bid and how selections are made
Requires GSA to establish a process within one year that allows agency heads to request a solicitation or permits GSA to issue one if needed. Any State or political subdivision can submit proposals; GSA must publish notices and allow public comment. The agency head is part of the selection process; GSA must use a competitive bidding procedure and apply three statutory criteria: economic/workforce impact, local expertise aligned to the agency mission, and national security implications. This section restructures a headquarters move as a public, competitive procurement and embeds consultation with the affected agency.
Clarifies Maryland/Virginia localities can bid
Specifically states that political subdivisions of Maryland or Virginia located outside the Washington metropolitan area are eligible to submit proposals. That prevents a narrow geographic interpretation that would exclude nearby jurisdictions simply because the State contains portions of the Washington metro area.
Funding mechanics and limits
Authorizes GSA to use proceeds from the sale of federal buildings or land to offset relocation costs but expressly bars any new appropriations for carrying out the law. GSA must implement the statute using funds otherwise available to it. The combination incentivizes asset disposition to underwrite moves but creates a practical constraint where relocations compete with other agency priorities for limited GSA resources.
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
- State and local governments offering sites — they gain leverage to attract federal headquarters, new jobs, and associated economic development if their proposals win and they can demonstrate workforce capacity and facilities.
- Non‑Washington metropolitan communities and regional economies — stand to receive federal jobs, contracting dollars, and secondary growth from hosting relocated headquarters.
- GSA and federal property managers — receive authority to sell surplus buildings and reuse proceeds, giving them a stronger role in reshaping the federal real estate footprint and potential to reduce lease liabilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Executive agencies required to relocate — face logistics, mission continuity challenges, and administrative burdens of moving major functions and staff to new jurisdictions.
- Federal employees located in Washington area headquarters — face potential relocation, position loss, separation, or longer commutes if their duties move and relocation incentives or protections are not funded by the statute.
- District and regional economies in the Washington metropolitan area — could lose jobs, commercial leases, and local tax base if headquarters move and are not replaced, affecting real estate and services sectors.
- GSA operations budget (and indirectly other GSA programs) — must absorb implementation costs within existing appropriations, risking slower execution or reallocation of funds from other GSA priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the political and economic goal of dispersing federal headquarters to spur state and local development and the administrative, fiscal, and security imperatives of keeping complex agency functions together and mission‑capable; the bill forces choices that favor economic redistribution but relies on existing agency resources and asset sales to absorb costs, creating a trade‑off between decentralization benefits and risks to continuity and workforce stability.
The bill sets a policy goal — decentralize agency headquarters — but leaves several implementation levers under-specified. It does not create a funding stream for employee relocation allowances, redundancy for mission continuity, or explicit timelines for when a Washington‑area grandfathered headquarters must relocate once a lease expires.
Those gaps mean agencies and GSA must resolve pay, personnel, and mission‑continuity details under existing law and budgets, which could stall relocations or shift costs to agency operating accounts.
Another significant ambiguity is how national security concerns will operate in practice. The statute requires GSA to consider national security implications but excludes many security agencies from coverage; for covered agencies that handle sensitive but non‑intelligence work, the process does not prescribe classification safeguards, secure facility standards, or an adjudication process for disputed security findings.
Finally, the public‑comment requirement and the competitive process create political friction: localities will lobby vigorously, and selection decisions may face litigation over factors like 'mission alignment' or alleged procedural defects. Those disputes could extend timelines and increase costs despite the absence of dedicated appropriation authority.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.