F
ederal real‑estate excess has become a pressing issue. The shift to hybrid and remote work, combined with a sharp federal workforce cut, has left the government with far more office space—both owned and leased—than it needs. Aging buildings and decades of deferred maintenance add to the problem, creating hundreds of properties that could be vacated or sold.
Despite broad agreement that action is required, progress has been uneven. The Office of Management and Budget’s 2012 “Reduce the Footprint” and 2015 “Freeze the Footprint” programs curtailed space at the agency level, but the overall portfolio size did not shrink, leading to congressional frustration, especially with the General Services Administration’s disposal program. The 2016 Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act sped up disposal and created the Public Buildings Reform Board to identify assets for sale. The 2024 USE IT Act further pushed agencies to track utilization and gave GSA authority to relocate agencies from under‑used buildings.
Today, agencies report utilization data, consider sharing space, and GSA is speeding up disposal preparation by tackling multiple issues simultaneously. GSA now employs commercial real‑estate brokers not only to market but also to conduct sales, marking a significant improvement over past practices.
The mismatch between the size of the owned portfolio and the funds available to maintain it is widely acknowledged. Agencies are moving toward smaller, leased spaces, and the long‑awaited alignment between Congress and the administration signals a potential rapid realignment of federal real‑estate holdings.
However, obstacles remain. Federal real‑estate often receives less attention than program and policy matters, and staffing and funding shortages—especially at GSA—hamper progress. Even if contractors take on more work, requiring only “wet signatures” from contracting officers, current shortages could stall relocation and disposal projects.
To sustain momentum, GSA, with OMB support, should aggressively collaborate with agencies to solidify strategic housing plans that reflect current staffing levels. A centralized, revolving fund financed by agency rental payments could fund GSA‑directed relocations and consolidations, allowing agencies to shed older, inefficient buildings and acquire newer leased space as needed. OMB’s focus and contract support would enable GSA to expand use of tools such as exchange authority, administrator discretion, ground leases, and negotiated sales, fostering private‑sector‑style transactions to trim the portfolio more aggressively.
In an ideal scenario, GSA would also deepen coordination with local governments—especially in Washington, D.C.—to anticipate future use and zoning of surplus properties. This would help GSA meet statutory obligations for historic preservation and environmental mitigation while maximizing value and avoiding market saturation or negative community impacts.
With top‑down direction, focus, and resources, the government can finally achieve a leaner, more productive real‑estate portfolio, delivering better outcomes for communities and taxpayers alike.
