If Donald Trump’s first week back in office has taught us anything, it’s that bold action rattles the establishment while sparking overdue debates. His desire to sell off two-thirds of the federal government’s sprawling office space empire is a prime example. Critics balk at the audacity; conservatives cheer the pragmatism. Trump is right: this government has grown bloated, inefficient and unmoored from the principles of frugality and flexibility that once defined the American experiment. By liquidating most of these properties and leasing back only what’s essential, we could generate $50 billion in cash, achieve cost savings, improve efficiency and secure a symbolic victory for limited government.
The federal government’s real estate portfolio sprawls like the swamp itself, encompassing 370 million square feet of office space. Yet studies reveal that much of it is underutilized. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed an embarrassing truth: telework has rendered vast swathes of federal office buildings obsolete. According to a 2023 GAO report, federal agencies use only 25% of their headquarters’ capacity on average. In Washington, D.C., the occupancy rate plummets to an appalling 12%.
Maintaining this infrastructure costs taxpayers billions annually, draining resources that could fund more pressing priorities. The General Services Administration (GSA) oversees 8,000 properties, yet can’t seem to justify the upkeep for buildings that sit half-empty. Meanwhile, private-sector property managers operate with far greater efficiency, driven by market incentives rather than bureaucratic inertia.
To argue for divestment is to argue for principles older than the Republic itself. The Founding Fathers championed small government, wary of overreach and inefficiency. By selling off most federal office spaces, we honor this legacy and assert that government exists to serve, not to swell.
The GSA’s own estimates suggest that selling excess properties could save over $1 billion in a decade. Divesting these properties eliminates wasteful maintenance expenses and shifts the financial burden to private operators, whose profit motives ensure more efficient management. Leasing back space as needed would provide flexibility, allowing agencies to scale up or down based on actual requirements—an adaptability foreign to today’s rigid bureaucracies.
The sale of federal buildings would inject significant capital into the economy. Returning these properties to the private sector would spur local development, increase property values and create construction jobs for renovation or repurposing. Consider the historical precedents: the post-World War II sale of surplus military installations catalyzed economic growth across America, transforming dormant spaces into vibrant commercial hubs.
Selling office space isn’t just practical; it’s symbolic. It sends a message that government recognizes its own excess and takes responsibility for trimming its footprint. It’s a visual demonstration of the conservative ethos that government should do less and do it better.
Critics raise predictable objections, but each concern is surmountable with prudent planning and execution.
- National Security Risks: Sensitive facilities like the Pentagon and FBI headquarters would, of course, remain off the table. Sales would focus on administrative properties with no critical security concerns.
- Loss of Control: Leasing back properties raises fears about dependency on private landlords. Yet long-term leases with fixed terms and renewal options can mitigate these risks. Such arrangements are standard in the private sector and ensure stability without the burdens of ownership.
- Market Disruption: Opponents warn of flooding real estate markets, especially in D.C., with federal properties. A phased approach to sales would prevent market shocks, and public-private partnerships could be explored for particularly complex properties.
Thomas Jefferson once declared, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” The bloated bureaucracy embodied by millions of square feet of empty office space illustrates Jefferson’s warning. Historical examples reinforce the wisdom of downsizing. After World War II, the War Assets Administration liquidated surplus military assets, a process that spurred postwar economic growth while cutting federal costs. Today, a similar opportunity awaits.
Modern international examples also offer guidance. Japan’s Cabinet Office centralized and streamlined its government real estate, while several European countries have employed sale-leaseback models to reduce costs and modernize facilities. The U.S. can learn from these successes, crafting a uniquely American solution to a shared problem.
Divesting two-thirds of federal office space aligns with the conservative vision of a leaner, more accountable government. It’s a chance to reset the relationship between the state and its citizens, emphasizing service over sprawl. President Trump’s proposal isn’t just fiscally responsible; it’s philosophically sound.
As Benjamin Franklin might remind us, “Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship.” In the case of federal real estate, the leaks are vast, but the ship can still be saved. By shedding unnecessary office space, the government can steer toward a future of efficiency, flexibility and liberty—a future worth fighting for.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Is Elon Influencing Trump On This ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL Issue?
With so many spoiled bureaucrats STILL working from home, the first task is getting everyone to the office…every day!
THEN, assess the need.
I still believe the federal gargantuan should be broken up, with agencies located in areas they serve! This would eliminate DC Cocktail Party schemes across agencies. And, new hires would come from the local labor pool, instead of members of the entrenched bureaucracy. The swamp would be quickly diluted by Patriots…as it should be!
According to the organic Constitution, the United States Government has only two functions; 1) promote trade, 2) defend the nation. Everything else that has been added since 1868, are political maneuvers to empower the government, without the benefit of being legislated. It is far easier to corrupt a demoncratic bureaucracy than a republic form of government. Since 1868, the United States is no longer a republic. There is more to this issue than I have room to explain in this venue. Another essential point of law is that government policy does not have the power of law behind it. However, we, as individuals, no longer can lean on the Bill of Rights, when being dragged into court when bureaucracies enforce policies, why? Because the Constitution was converted into a “trust,” but for the most part, we Americans were never informed of this and the reason why the bureaucracies have arresting powers when violating a government policy. A policy comes under contract/administrative law, the Constitution notwithstanding, and the reason is that we Americans are treated like corporations, for which corporations have no rights. And the reason is because we do not have Article III courts. All of our courts are under a commercial venue, and we Americans are commercial chattel. Unless you have a constitutional attorney, no other attorney will back up what I am saying here. Why? Because most attorneys are trained in the commercial venue of law. I have been a student of law for 30 years, outside the classroom, as have many other astute individuals who understand the law as I do. What I have said here is greatly abbreviated.
Well if anyone knows how to rent out space — it’s the Donald! And he works for free!!