As part of his ambitious campaign to reclaim the presidency, former President Donald Trump has articulated a bold vision for his potential second term, emphasizing a dramatic shift in the geography of federal employment. Specifically, Trump has proposed relocating tens of thousands of federal jobs from Washington, D.C., which he refers to as the “Washington swamp,” to regions populated by what he terms “patriots who love America.” This move, he claims, would be a step towards dismantling the so-called deep state, a term used by Trump and his supporters to describe perceived conspiracies within the federal government. In one of his campaign videos, he confidently declared, “This is how I will shatter the deep state.”
The relocation of federal jobs is not a new initiative; Trump attempted to implement this strategy during the latter part of his first term. A notable example is his administration’s relocation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters approximately 2,000 miles from Washington to Grand Junction, Colorado. While Trump has portrayed this move as a necessary restructuring to cut costs and bring government employees closer to the communities they serve, it remains to be seen whether such actions positively impact agency functionality.
Critics of the relocation plan caution that it poses significant risks, including the potential loss of experienced workers. Many seasoned employees chose to leave the BLM rather than relocate, resulting in a dramatic spike in vacancies that could hinder the agency’s performance and its ability to fulfill its mandates. According to current and former senior BLM staffers, including the agency’s current director, the move to Colorado was not only disruptive but could undermine the effectiveness of the Trump administration’s agenda. Tracy Stone-Manning, the BLM director appointed by President Biden, described the relocation as “wildly disruptive” and likened it to a “cautionary tale.”
Stone-Manning emphasized the long-term consequences of such a drastic relocation, illustrating the years of lost opportunities when the bureau should have focused on serving the American people rather than rebuilding itself after the tumult of relocation. According to her comments, the agency is still struggling to regain its footing.
In contrast, some former Trump officials argue that the BLM’s move to Colorado was beneficial, claiming it enhanced efficiency and attracted applicants who might otherwise avoid Washington due to high living costs. Some proponents of the move noted that it fostered better relationships between BLM and local officials, who possess invaluable local knowledge (particularly regarding public lands). Despite these claims, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office revealed that the BLM’s vacancies had increased nearly threefold within a year due to the relocation, revealing significant challenges in attracting and retaining qualified personnel.
The fallout from the relocation extended to the agency’s relationships with Congress and other federal offices, creating logistical challenges for communication and collaboration. These complications were compounded by the fact that direct flights between Washington, D.C., and Grand Junction were nonexistent, leading to increased operational inefficiencies and escalated costs estimated at approximately $20 million over two years.
In 2021, the Biden administration reversed the BLM’s relocation decision, returning its headquarters to Washington. This flip-flopping created instability for agency employees and raised fears regarding potential further reversals should Trump regain the presidency. Former BLM officials expressed concerns that constant changes in location exacerbate problems for employees and waste resources, since staff may be forced to repeatedly adapt to new environments.
Moreover, critics have pointed out that the high turnover of BLM personnel contributes to difficulties in managing the vast areas of land and resources under its jurisdiction. Insufficient personnel and institutional knowledge have hindered the agency’s ability to craft and implement coherent policies, leading to vulnerabilities in potential legal scenarios surrounding environmental assessments, as seen in recent lawsuits over oil drilling plans.
Looking forward, some former Trump administration officials have suggested that further relocations could still be in Trump’s plans, particularly as conservative proposals, such as Project 2025, advocate returning BLM to the western U.S. The current status of Trump’s plans remains somewhat unclear as his transition team has been reticent to disclose specific relocation details, emphasizing instead that he remains committed to fulfilling his campaign promises.
Federal employees are currently on high alert, grappling with the uncertainty that characterizes the prospect of a Trump return—especially with his intentions to revive a controversial executive order aimed at facilitating the dismissal of nonpartisan federal staffers. In light of these developments, the potential instability in federal employment could drive more civil service workers to organize unions, as seen with BLM employees who sought union representation following the agency’s relocation. Ultimately, Stone-Manning encapsulated the sentiment shared by many in her remarks on the significance of retaining experienced personnel, emphasizing that knowledge loss disrupts not only employees but also public service delivered to citizens across the country.
