By relocating federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump proposes a radical restructuring of the U.S. government. His vision is one where the government reconnects with the citizens it serves, redistributing resources to economically deprived areas and reducing the cost of bureaucracy. This idea challenges decades of centralisation, which has concentrated power, wealth, and federal employment within the nation’s capital.
The bureaucratic swamp
Over the years, Washington, D.C., has transformed from a literal swamp into a bureaucratic stronghold. The federal government’s growth has created a sprawling network of agencies and offices. From the FBI to the Department of Education (DoE), these entities have accumulated power, siphoning tax revenues from struggling communities into an already wealthy metropolitan area. With over 449,000 federal employees working in Washington and its surrounding states, the region enjoys an average federal salary of $133,000, significantly above the national average.
Meanwhile, economically distressed areas across the U.S. continue to pay into this system, receiving little in return. Real estate prices soar in the D.C. area, traffic congestion worsens, and resources remain concentrated in a relatively small part of the country.
Trump’s decentralisation proposal
Trump’s plan builds on an earlier initiative from his first term, during which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began relocating employees to Kansas. Despite some resistance—many workers opted to work remotely or quit—the move demonstrated the feasibility of decentralisation.
As of 2024, the USDA had only 10% of its workforce in Washington, signalling that similar efforts could work for other agencies. For example:
- The Department of Education employs 64% of its staff in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, with an average salary of $151,000.
- The Department of Health and Human Services has 51% of its personnel in the region, earning $147,000 annually.
By relocating such agencies to regions like Appalachia or the Rust Belt, the federal payroll could help revitalise struggling local economies.
Economic and political impacts
Decentralisation would inject federal funds directly into communities that need them most. For instance, moving an agency to Enid, Oklahoma, would channel millions into Garfield County’s economy, creating jobs and boosting infrastructure. This redistribution of wealth would not only address economic disparities but also foster a sense of fairness in how federal resources are allocated.
Politically, some critics argue that relocating agencies might shift voting patterns, turning red districts blue. However, in deeply conservative areas, this shift would likely be minimal, while the economic benefits would be immense. Swing districts could see greater political impact, but thoughtful dispersion of agencies could mitigate this risk.
Cost reduction and efficiency
Beyond economic revitalisation, decentralisation could significantly reduce costs. Office spaces in D.C. are notoriously expensive, as are salaries in the region. Relocation to lower-cost areas would lead to substantial savings. Moreover, decentralisation could naturally reduce the size of the federal workforce. Employees unwilling to relocate might voluntarily leave, easing the process of reducing bureaucracy without contentious mass firings.
Preserving washington’s role
While decentralisation moves agencies out of Washington, it would preserve the city’s role as the political heart of the nation. Freed from the overwhelming presence of federal bureaucracy, Washington could focus on its historical and cultural significance. Congress would remain accessible to citizens, and the city’s iconic museums and monuments could become more central to its identity.
Vacant office buildings in D.C. could be repurposed creatively, potentially revitalising the local economy in new ways. Reduced congestion and pollution would improve the city’s quality of life, while tourists might find the capital more appealing without the bureaucratic haze.
More Read
Challenges and opportunities
Critics of decentralisation might question whether federal agencies could maintain their efficiency when relocated. However, the COVID-19 pandemic proved that remote work is not only possible but often effective. Many agencies have already transitioned to remote or hybrid models, demonstrating adaptability to change.
Moreover, decentralisation could lead to a more ideologically diverse federal workforce. Employees would gain a closer view of the nation’s realities, fostering empathy and reducing the insular mindset often attributed to Washington bureaucrats.
Conclusion
Relocating federal agencies is more than a logistical exercise; it’s a transformative vision for government reform. By breaking the cycle of centralisation, Trump’s proposal offers a way to reconnect the federal government with the people it serves, while revitalising economically struggling regions.
As Washington sheds its bureaucratic excess, the United States might finally break free from its historical tendency toward ever-expanding centralisation. Decentralisation, far from weakening the government, could strengthen it by making it leaner, more responsive, and better connected to the lives of ordinary Americans.
