What happened last time Trump moved a federal agency out of DC
4 min read
Photograph by Britt Reints/Flickr.
In his bid to reclaim the White House, former President Donald Trump promised a bold move: relocating thousands of federal jobs out of Washington, D.C., to places “filled with patriots who love America.” The plan, which he said would help “shatter the deep state,” echoed a controversial initiative from his first term, when he shifted the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from Washington to Grand Junction, Colorado, in 2019.
If the BLM relocation is any indication, the push to move federal agencies outside the Beltway carries substantial risks. The BLM’s move, which aimed to streamline operations and bring staff closer to the public lands they manage, became a significant disruption, resulting in a massive exodus of experienced workers, an increase in vacant positions, and challenges to agency operations. Current and former BLM staffers, including the agency’s current director, Tracy Stone-Manning, called the move “wildly disruptive.” Stone-Manning explained that the agency is still dealing with the fallout, which has delayed key projects and undermined its ability to manage public lands effectively.
The BLM headquarters move has been criticized for increasing vacancies, which grew from 121 to 326 in less than a year, with only 41 out of 176 staff members willing to relocate. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this staff depletion led to delays in policy development and difficulty managing the vast swaths of public lands under BLM’s purview. Some staffers argued that the loss of institutional knowledge compromised the agency’s work, making it more susceptible to lawsuits and less efficient overall. A high-profile case involved the agency’s approval of oil drilling plans in California, which environmental groups challenged for failing to adequately assess the environmental impact.
Although former Trump officials defend the relocation, claiming that moving the headquarters to Colorado reduced costs and attracted applicants who might not have been willing to move to D.C., the logistical challenges of the move and the loss of experienced staff seem to have outweighed these benefits. Grand Junction’s remote location, for example, made communication with Congress more difficult, as there are no direct flights between the town and Washington, D.C. The move also incurred significant costs, with some BLM sources estimating the total expense at $20 million over two years.
While some BLM officials believed that relocating the agency closer to the public lands it oversees allowed for better relationships with local governments, the disruptions were widespread. Former BLM staffers like Joe Tague, who retired as a division chief in 2020, argued that the relocation resulted in a loss of valuable expertise. “When you lose all that knowledge, you lose the knowledge of the processes and how to work them effectively,” Tague explained.
In 2021, the Biden administration announced that the BLM headquarters would return to Washington, while maintaining the Grand Junction office as a secondary “Western headquarters.” However, the back-and-forth created uncertainty for employees, leading some to fear that the process of moving agencies could continue under Trump’s second term. Many federal workers anticipate more disruptions, with concerns about the potential for additional relocations, firings, and changes in job responsibilities.
A particularly contentious element of Trump’s plan for his second term is the potential revival of a 2020 executive order known as Schedule F. This order would allow the president to reclassify federal workers, potentially making it easier to fire nonpartisan staff who are seen as obstacles to his policy goals. Some employees are concerned that this could lead to greater instability, especially if combined with more agency relocations.
The BLM’s relocation also contributed to a vote by employees to unionize in 2022, a move that might be repeated in other agencies if more relocations occur. Stone-Manning, now the BLM director, warned that the loss of experienced federal workers would be detrimental to the functioning of government. “The loss of career experts makes it harder to accomplish any policy objective, regardless of political leanings,” she said. The disruption, she argued, goes beyond individual employees—it can hinder the agency’s ability to serve the American people effectively.
In conclusion, while Trump’s proposal to move more federal agencies out of Washington may appeal to his supporters, it risks undermining the effectiveness of government agencies and exacerbating existing challenges. If the BLM move is any indication, relocating federal offices could lead to a loss of experienced workers, increased vacancies, and logistical challenges that ultimately disrupt government operations and harm public services. As Stone-Manning put it, the move is a “cautionary tale” that should guide future policy decisions.
About The Author
