The DISPOSAL Act requires the General Services Administration to dispose of six specified federal buildings in Washington, D.C., by selling them at fair market value or entering ground leases (up to 99 years). The statute gives GSA wide transactional discretion — including limited leasebacks and authority to relocate affected agencies — while explicitly barring sales or ground leases to foreign persons as defined in the Secure Federal LEASEs Act.
The bill fast-tracks transactions by exempting covered disposals from several procedural statutes (including NEPA, the historic-preservation statute, McKinney‑Vento homeless-assistance provisions, and certain procurement chapters), directs how net proceeds are allocated (relocation costs to the Federal Buildings Fund; remaining proceeds to the Treasury), and precludes judicial review of GSA actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and related provisions. The authority sunsets at the end of 2028, but prior actions remain effective.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates GSA to sell or enter ground leases for six named federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and allows GSA to add other low‑utilization buildings under specified criteria. Transactions may include short leasebacks and relocation arrangements, and GSA may ignore certain environmental, historic-preservation, homelessness-assistance, and procurement rules for these disposals.
Who It Affects
GSA and the federal agencies occupying the listed buildings (and any additional buildings added), private real-estate buyers and developers in the D.C. market, preservation and community stakeholders, and the Treasury (via how sale proceeds are allocated).
Why It Matters
The statute creates a fast-track mechanism to monetize and repurpose high-profile federal assets, shifts financial benefits to the Treasury after relocation costs, and removes familiar procedural safeguards — a structural change in federal real-estate disposition with immediate operational and political implications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a mandatory disposal program for a specific set of large federal buildings in Washington, D.C., directing the GSA Administrator to convert those assets either to outright sale at fair market value or to ground leases lasting up to 99 years. Sales and ground leases are to be negotiated at the Administrator's discretion and may include practical transaction terms such as relocating tenant agencies or short-term leasebacks (limited to five years) so operations can continue while buyers repurpose properties.
GSA has concentrated authority over the logistics of relocation: the Administrator alone chooses new sites for displaced agencies, must consult agency heads about mission‑related location needs, and is expressly prohibited from using build‑to‑suit leases that would contract a developer to custom-build space for an agency. The bill also carves out wide exemptions from procedural statutes for these disposals — meaning GSA need not run standard environmental reviews, historic‑preservation clearances, or certain homelessness-assistance or procurement procedures for covered transactions — though those exemptions carry specific size and designation limits when GSA adds other low‑utilization buildings to the mandatory list.Financial flows are tightly prescribed: GSA may deposit amounts necessary to implement the disposals — including relocation costs — into the Federal Buildings Fund, but any additional net proceeds must be transferred to the general Treasury to reduce the deficit.
Money placed in the Fund under this authority still requires a subsequent appropriations action for outlays. The bill also bars sales or ground leases to foreign persons as defined by an existing federal statute, and it removes judicial-review remedies for actions taken under the law, including review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Finally, GSA may expand the list of properties it must dispose of, but only for buildings averaging under 60 percent utilization and subject to a 20-building-per-year cap; the entire authority sunsets at the end of 2028, while preserving the legal effect of prior actions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Administrator may sell a covered building at fair market value for its highest and best use or enter a ground lease for up to 99 years.
GSA may agree to leasebacks no longer than five years and has sole discretion to relocate agencies from disposed buildings, but the bill prohibits build‑to‑suit contracts.
Disposition transactions are exempted from NEPA, key historic‑preservation requirements, section 501 of the McKinney‑Vento Act, and specified procurement chapters, with tighter limits when GSA adds additional low‑utilization buildings.
Net proceeds first cover implementation and relocation costs deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund; any remaining proceeds must be transferred to the Treasury to reduce the deficit, and Fund spending requires a future appropriation.
The bill bars sales or ground leases to foreign persons (per the Secure Federal LEASEs Act definitions) and precludes judicial review of Administrator actions under the APA and related statutes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'DISPOSAL Act' (Disposing of Inactive Structures and Properties by Offering for Sale And Lease Act). This is formal but signals the focus: converting underused federal structures into private or long‑term leased assets.
Mandatory disposal authority and transaction mechanics
Directs GSA to dispose of six specified D.C. federal buildings and authorizes two disposal paths: sale at fair market value for highest and best use, or a ground lease with a term up to 99 years. The Administrator may attach terms GSA deems in the United States' best interest, including relocating incumbent agencies or agreeing to a leaseback for no more than five years to bridge operational continuity. Practically, this gives GSA latitude to structure complex public‑private deals (purchase, long ground leases, or hybrid arrangements) rather than a single prescriptive sales process.
Statutory exemptions and foreign‑ownership prohibition
Makes covered disposals exempt from several standard federal processes — specifically NEPA, the formerly named National Historic Preservation Act, section 501 of McKinney‑Vento, and certain provisions of title 40 — reducing procedural review and timelines for transactions. The same subsection forbids sales or ground leases to foreign persons or entities (using definitions from the Secure Federal LEASEs Act), narrowing the universe of eligible purchasers or lessees and adding a national‑security/ownership screen to the disposition.
Relocation authority, consultation, and procurement limits
Vests sole and absolute discretion in the Administrator to select relocation sites for agencies moved from the listed buildings, but requires consultation with agency heads about mission‑related needs. The Administrator cannot use build‑to‑suit leases that commission developers to construct tailored facilities for a relocated agency. The section also exempts relevant relocation actions and funds from certain contracting and procurement statutes, narrowing procedural constraints on where and how agencies may be re‑housed.
Disposition proceeds, Fund rules, and judicial preclusion
Specifies that net proceeds may be used first to implement disposals and relocate agencies, with those amounts deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund; any surplus must be credited to the general Treasury to reduce the deficit. Amounts in the Fund require a separate appropriation before spending. The bill also removes judicial review for actions taken under this authority, including review under the Administrative Procedure Act and certain federal claims procedures, limiting courts' ability to enjoin or reverse disposals.
Adding additional properties, procedural limits, and sunset
Allows GSA to add other buildings to the mandatory disposal list if utilization averaged below 60 percent over the prior year, subject to 30 days' notice to key congressional committees and a cap of 20 additional buildings per calendar year. When adding properties, the bill narrows exemptions (McKinney‑Vento exemptions apply only for buildings over 100,000 sq ft; historic‑preservation exemptions only for National Historic Landmarks) and makes those notices subject to the Congressional Review Act. The authority sunsets on December 31, 2028, but prior actions and finalized decisions survive the sunset.
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
- Federal government fiscal offices: The Treasury stands to receive net proceeds beyond relocation costs, helping reduce deficits if sales fetch strong prices.
- GSA (operationally): The agency gets expanded discretion and expedited processes to monetize underused assets, simplifying transaction timelines and deal flexibility.
- Private developers and real‑estate investors: Competitive buyers gain access to high‑value D.C. sites for redevelopment or long‑term ground leases, with reduced regulatory review accelerating project timelines.
- Local economic actors in D.C.: Redevelopment can unlock new commercial, residential, or mixed‑use projects that stimulate construction activity and property‑tax revenue for local jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies located in the affected buildings: They face disruption, relocation expenses, and potential mission impacts if relocation sites do not meet operational needs.
- Historic‑preservation and environmental stakeholders: The statutory exemptions remove normal avenues for review and public participation, increasing the risk of irreversible impacts to historic fabric and urban environment.
- Local governments and communities dependent on federal employees: Reduced federal presence in downtown neighborhoods could harm small businesses and commuting patterns; local planners must absorb redevelopment impacts.
- Potential foreign investors: The explicit prohibition on foreign buyers limits access for global capital, reducing competition and potentially lowering sale prices.
- Courts and affected litigants: With judicial-review preclusion, parties lose typical legal remedies to challenge disposals, concentrating dispute-resolution pressure into political and congressional channels rather than the judiciary.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: the bill pursues rapid monetization and consolidation of federal real estate to realize fiscal and operational benefits, but it does so by stripping procedural protections and judicial oversight that traditionally balance public interest, environmental stewardship, and historic preservation — trading speed and revenue for reduced transparency, legal remedies, and community input.
The bill stacks several powerful tools — exemption from major procedural statutes, preclusion of judicial review, a foreign‑ownership ban, and a requirement to route excess proceeds to the Treasury — into a short, time‑limited authority. Exempting NEPA and historic‑preservation reviews shortens transaction timelines but shifts environmental, cultural, and community risk away from formal safeguards and into political negotiation; communities, preservationists, and local governments have fewer procedural levers to influence outcomes.
The prohibition on judicial review reinforces that transfer of risk, while also raising separation‑of‑powers and administrative‑law questions about the limits of agency discretion when Congress forecloses standard remedies.
Financially, the bill forces a trade‑off between immediate deficit reduction and practical relocation funding. While GSA may move implementation costs into the Federal Buildings Fund, those funds cannot be spent without a future appropriation; this creates timing risk where GSA or relocated agencies may not receive timely appropriations to cover relocation work, potentially increasing short‑term expenses or forcing interim leasing solutions.
The foreign‑ownership ban narrows the buyer pool in high‑value markets, which could reduce competitive bids and depress sale receipts — an outcome at odds with the bill's deficit‑reduction goal. Finally, allowing GSA to add properties based on utilization, capped at 20 per year, creates incentives to push properties into disposal quickly before community planning or site remediation is completed, and the limited carveouts for added properties (100,000 sq ft threshold, National Historic Landmark designation) leave many edge cases unresolved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.