Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven
President Trump campaigned on moving tens of thousands of federal workers outside the “Washington Swamp.” He initiated such efforts in his first term, and now a bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a bill to support the process. The sponsors say that the “Strategic Withdrawal of Agencies for Meaningful Placement (SWAMP)” Act would help “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC.
Moving agencies elsewhere would reduce DC traffic jams, but we’re skeptical it would save any money. And we’re concerned that such efforts would distract policymakers from the more important task of cutting agencies to tackle exploding debt. We would rather see a bill to “Shutter Wasteful Agencies and Most Programs.”
SWAMP Act co-sponsor Rep. Jared Golden (D‑ME) said, “Redistributing federal agencies and jobs around the country would bring the government closer to the people.” But that is the opposite sentiment of President Ronald Reagan, who quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” We should shrink the government, not entangle it more closely in our lives.
Federal relocation would impose new costs for logistics, leasing, and construction. Trump wants new buildings in beautiful classical designs. The SWAMP Act says that relocation costs would be offset by the proceeds of building sales, but government projects usually impose cost overruns and Congress would likely pass more funding for projects down the road.
It would be more difficult for congressional committees and the White House to oversee agencies and meet with agency officials if they were spread across the country. And there would be new costs for flights and hotels for thousands of far-flung workers to attend meetings and hearings in DC. Federal decision-making would be slowed.
Moving agencies to distant cities could reduce workforce skillsets. Today, federal IT experts move between agencies within DC spreading knowledge around, while federal executives move around sharing best practices. That sort of cross-pollination would be lost if agencies were distributed and isolated.
Moving agencies closer to the people may have advantages, but it could also intensify the grip of special interests. If the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) moved to Iowa, for example, it would make that state’s economy even more dependent on farming and Iowa legislators more resistant to farm subsidy reforms.
A major relocation effort would create a new battlefield in Congress. The SWAMP Act calls for a competitive process for relocation decisions, but that is wishful thinking. The Congressional Research Service already tallies federal workers by district, and relocations would unleash members to fight for increases in their districts’ federal body count.
Trump moved some USDA and Bureau of Land Management workers out of DC, but Biden moved some of them back. Let’s say that Trump now moves USDA offices to Republican Iowa. Will the next Democratic president shift them over to, say, Illinois? Would Trump’s relocations launch endless and zero-sum migration drives of federal workers back and forth across the country?
We appreciate efforts to drain the DC swamp, but the way to do that is not by strategic withdrawal but by strategic shrinking. President Trump should eliminate the Department of Education as promised, not simply move it around.