Current News



Spread the swamp? Trump administration wants to move government offices out of Washington

Evan Halper, Tribune Washington Bureau on

Published in News & Features

"There is a lot of wisdom outside the Beltway," said Rep. Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley Democrat. He wants agencies to more aggressively tap into it, as the Defense Department did when it set up a shop in Silicon Valley. Khanna, a Stanford economist, is among several in Washington's intellectual circles who say fading factory and farm towns are well positioned to benefit from the kind of relocations envisioned in plans like Ryan's.

There are other reasons the movement has regained steam of late. While only 15 percent of the federal workforce is in Washington, it is where most of the top decision makers live and work. David Fontana, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is writing a book about decentralizing the federal government, says their bubble is growing evermore insulated from reality.

"When you have this concentration of important people all in a single place, they form their own tight networks immune to other influences," he said. Decentralizing that power away from the capital has long been a trend in other countries, Fontana said. "This is not a crazy idea."

The Trump administration will likely put it to the test soon. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a Montanan, is aiming to move the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation out of Washington as soon as logistically possible. Western politicians like Sen. Corey Gardner, R-Colo., are cheering him on.

"Ninety-nine percent of the nearly 250 million acres of land managed by BLM is west of the Mississippi River, and having the decision makers present in the communities they impact in Colorado or across the region will lead to better results," Gardner wrote in an email. He wants the bureau headquartered in his state, and Colorado's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, has joined Gardner's lobbying campaign.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who held a hearing Thursday to examine Zinke's plan, said in an interview that his constituents are so distrustful of what they see as a heavy-handed National Park Service that he had to abandon his plan to elevate Dinosaur National Monument to a national park, a move that he hoped would lure a world-class research center to the state and boost tourism. He's hopeful Zinke's blueprint would ultimately ease those tensions by bringing more public lands management out west.

Some Democrats, though, see a sham at a time Zinke has also been unabashed about his plans to shrink the Interior Department's workforce, which includes pushing workers out by relocating them. "This reorganization is an exercise in weakening the Department of Interior by driving employees out," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. "Once they're gone, the extractive industries will be able to check off the top item on their wish list" -- getting the stewards of public land out of their way.

A lot of the broader relocation debate is familiar. And some scholars project that while a few hundred jobs might get moved here or there, the broader vision of moving large pieces of Washington officialdom hundreds or thousands of miles away will end up in the shredder, as tends to happen with outsized plans to reinvent and reimagine government. The politics are messy, the logistics are tough, and the status quo is entrenched.

"While this has perennial appeal, it is hard to pull off," said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College in Maine.


There is also the danger of that it could create problems instead of solving them. Matt Lee-Ashley, a public lands expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, warns that accountability is undermined when agencies move away from the lawmakers and federal investigators who watch over them. He points to the scandal that enveloped the Minerals Management Service during the administration of George W. Bush. It had been set up in suburban Denver with a mandate to conduct the business of collecting $10 billion in royalties like a private company. It turned into a cesspool of corruption and bad behavior, according to federal investigators.

Of course, the argument that Washington is the cure for corruption and bad behavior can be a tough one to make. And the headaches and expense of shoehorning so many agency headquarters into this costly, congested town keep growing.

The projected costs of a new FBI headquarters in suburban Washington escalated until they hit close to $2 billion. The plug got pulled on the whole project over the summer amid the rising price and difficulties pulling off the land swap it was designed around.

"There is all this unused office space outside of Detroit where the FBI could build for not much money," said Paul Kupiec, a scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. That city, unlike suburban Washington, desperately needs the economic surge such an agency would bring, he said. "Why are we spending billions of dollars on these headquarters in Washington?"

(c)2017 Los Angeles Times

Visit Los Angeles Times at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.



blog comments powered by Disqus