aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14274, "Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space Management," revokes two previous executive orders that required federal agencies to prioritize locating their offices in central urban business districts and historic properties. This new order allows agencies to choose office locations in urban, suburban, or rural areas with a primary focus on cost-effectiveness and mission needs.

Money: The order does not appropriate new funds but is intended to produce significant cost savings. The federal government spends approximately $8.1 billion annually to lease, operate, and maintain office space. Proponents argue that moving out of expensive downtown leases could save millions; for example, one agency saved $1.6 million by avoiding a short-term lease extension. The growth of telework has also highlighted savings, with the Patent and Trademark Office avoiding $45.4 million in office costs.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect is on federal government employees, whose office locations could change. For the average American, the impact is indirect, potentially leading to small savings in federal spending or the relocation of federal jobs to new areas, which could spur local economic growth.

Status: The Executive Order was signed on April 15, 2025, and is now in effect. The General Services Administration (GSA) has been directed to amend federal regulations to align with the order.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14274 fundamentally changes the federal government's real estate strategy. By eliminating decades-old requirements, it grants federal agencies greater flexibility in deciding where to locate their offices. The stated goal is to reduce costs and improve service by placing agencies closer to the populations they serve.

Core Provisions:

Revokes Executive Order 12072: This 1978 order from President Carter mandated that federal agencies give first consideration to locating in centralized downtown business areas to help strengthen cities.
Revokes Executive Order 13006: This 1996 order from President Clinton built on the previous one, encouraging agencies to locate in historic buildings and districts, particularly within those central business areas.
Directs Regulatory Changes: The Administrator of General Services is ordered to update federal regulations (specifically Title 41, Parts 102-79 and 102-83 of the Code of Federal Regulations) to reflect the new, more flexible location policy.
Ensures Broad Compliance: The order applies to all executive departments and agencies, including those with independent authority to acquire and manage their own space.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order asserts that previous policies failed to prioritize efficiency and prevented agencies from moving to lower-cost facilities. The stated purpose is to:

Free agencies to select cost-effective facilities in urban, suburban, or rural areas.
Focus federal resources on successfully carrying out agency missions for American taxpayers.
Ensure the government provides high-quality services by being located where the American people are.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Government Administration, Commercial Real Estate, Historic Preservation, Urban Development.
Timeline: The order was signed on April 15, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2025. The GSA is now tasked with initiating the regulatory amendment process.
Scope: The order has a nationwide scope, affecting all federal agencies that own or lease office space across the United States.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Urban Revitalization Era (1970s-1990s):

Following decades of suburban flight that left many American city centers struggling, federal policy sought to use the government's own footprint as a tool for renewal. President Carter's E.O. 12072 (1978) was a direct response, forcing agencies to locate downtown to support local economies. In 1996, President Clinton's E.O. 13006 expanded this by merging urban revitalization with historic preservation, encouraging the use of historic buildings for federal offices.

The Telework and Efficiency Era (2010s-Present):

The push for government efficiency, combined with the technological shift toward remote work, began to change the conversation. By fiscal year 2021, the federal telework participation rate had hit 47%. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically accelerated this trend, leaving vast amounts of expensive, federally leased office space underutilized. Reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other bodies highlighted the potential for massive cost savings by reducing the government's real estate footprint and embracing flexible work arrangements like coworking hubs. Federal agencies began planning to cut millions of square feet of office space even before the executive order was signed.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

Fiscal Pressure: With the government spending billions on real estate, much of it underused, the order presents a "common sense" way to cut costs and appeal to fiscally conservative voters.
The "Deep State" Narrative: The move aligns with a political agenda to decentralize the federal workforce and move agencies out of the Washington, D.C. area, which is often portrayed as a bubble disconnected from the rest of the country. Some Republicans have openly called for moving federal jobs to "places filled with patriots."
Post-Pandemic Reality: The widespread adoption of hybrid and remote work provides a practical justification for ending the mandate for a centralized, downtown presence that no longer reflects how many federal employees work.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects federal employees and the industries that serve them, while the impact on most Americans will be indirect and financial.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

For Taxpayers: Reduced federal spending on expensive office leases and maintenance could lead to long-term taxpayer savings.
For Suburban/Rural Residents: The relocation of federal offices to new areas could bring jobs and economic stimulus to smaller communities.
For Some Federal Employees: More flexible work location options, including remote work or offices closer to home, could become available.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-3 Years):

For Downtown Businesses: Restaurants, coffee shops, and retailers in urban cores with a large federal presence could lose significant business as workers relocate or work remotely.
For Federal Employees: Some employees may face mandatory relocations to new cities or longer commutes if their office moves and remote work is not offered.

Long-term:

For Major Cities: A large-scale exodus of federal tenants could lower commercial property values and reduce municipal tax revenues in major metropolitan areas.
For Historic Preservation: Without federal agencies as priority tenants, owners of historic buildings may struggle to find occupants, potentially leading to neglect of these properties.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: The 2.4 million civilian federal employees, the General Services Administration (GSA), and large commercial real estate firms in cities with a major federal presence.
Secondary Groups: Downtown small business owners, historic preservation organizations, and municipal governments.
Regional Impact: The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, where about 20% of the federal workforce is located, faces the most significant potential impact. Other cities with large federal hubs could also be affected.

Bottom Line: This order trades the goal of using federal offices to boost urban centers for a new focus on cutting costs, which could shift federal jobs and investment out of major cities.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Cutting Waste, Moving Government to the People"

Core Stance: Strong support for the executive order as a necessary step to reduce government spending and decentralize the federal bureaucracy.

Their Arguments:

✓ Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for expensive, half-empty office buildings in downtown cores.
✓ Agencies should have the flexibility to move where they can operate most efficiently and best serve the American people, not just where it's politically fashionable.
✓ Decentralizing federal agencies from Washington, D.C., makes the government more responsive and less isolated.

Legislative Strategy: Implement the executive order swiftly. Support legislation that would codify this flexibility into law, making it harder for a future administration to reverse, and potentially push for further reductions in federal employee telework.

Democratic Position: "Protecting Our Cities and Valuing Public Service"

Core Stance: General opposition to the order, viewing it as an attack on cities, historic preservation, and the federal workforce.

Their Arguments:

✓ The previous policies provided a stable economic anchor for downtowns and supported the revitalization of American cities.
⚠️ This move could hollow out urban business districts, hurting small businesses and local economies that rely on federal workers.
✗ The order is part of a broader political attack on the civil service, designed to disrupt the lives of dedicated public servants and move agencies for partisan reasons. Federal employee unions have also voiced strong opposition to measures seen as harming their members.

Legislative Strategy: Publicly condemn the order and highlight potential negative economic impacts on cities. Work with federal employee unions and historic preservation groups to resist disruptive agency moves. They may attempt to use congressional oversight to scrutinize the costs and consequences of relocations.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's power to issue executive orders stems from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President executive power to manage the operations of the federal government. This is supplemented by laws passed by Congress, such as the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which grants the executive branch authority to manage federal property.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

Executive Power: The order is a clear exercise of the President's authority as chief executive to manage the departments and agencies under his purview. A president has the well-established authority to issue, modify, and revoke executive orders.
Precedent: It is routine for a new administration to review and revoke the executive orders of its predecessors to align policy with its own agenda.
Federalism: The order concerns the location of federal facilities and does not infringe upon powers reserved to the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

While the executive order itself is on solid constitutional ground, its implementation could face legal challenges. Federal employee unions could sue over how relocations are handled, arguing they violate collective bargaining agreements. Likewise, historic preservation groups or affected municipalities might challenge the government's process for abandoning a historic property or a downtown location, citing procedural or environmental review laws, though such challenges would be difficult to win.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support Executive Order 14274. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support efforts to reduce wasteful spending on federal office space and allow agencies to relocate to more cost-effective areas."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Join an Organization: Groups that advocate for lower government spending include Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I oppose Executive Order 14274. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the abandonment of our cities and historic buildings and to protect our federal workforce from disruptive relocations."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the negative impact this policy could have on your city's downtown or on national historic preservation efforts.
Join an Organization: Advocacy groups opposing this policy are likely to include federal employee unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), or historic preservation groups like the National Trust for Historic Preservation.