The GSA has unveiled a list of 443 federally owned properties deemed “not core to government operations” that are being put up for sale. This list includes high-profile buildings such as the headquarters of the Justice Department, Labor Department, and U.S. Census Bureau.
GSA characterized these properties as “vacant or underutilized” and indicated that their disposal is part of a broader strategy to streamline government operations. However, shortly after the list was released, 123 entries appeared to vanish, including nearly all D.C. properties and many from Virginia and Maryland, leaving observers puzzled about the sudden change.
Among the properties initially targeted for sale were some of the most recognizable federal buildings in the nation’s capital. The list included 41 D.C. locations totaling approximately 17 million square feet. Notable buildings on this list included the Justice Department’s Robert F. Kennedy Building, the Social Security Administration’s Wilbur J. Cohen Building, and the Agriculture Department’s South Building, near the National Mall. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, was also marked for potential sale.
The GSA's assessment identified various other federal properties in D.C. as “non-core,” such as the Labor Department headquarters on Constitution Avenue NW and the National Museum of American Diplomacy within the State Department complex.
A GSA spokesperson called Tuesday's announcement a cost-saving measure, telling The Washington Post that non-core assets incur over $430 million annually in operating costs and have more than $8.3 billion in recapitalization needs.
However, skepticism surrounds whether such an ambitious plan can be successfully executed. A former senior GSA official expressed doubts about the administration's ability to dispose of so many properties effectively, especially given recent staff reductions that have left fewer personnel to manage such transactions. “Even if you wanted to sell the building,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to The Washington Post due to ongoing ties to the real estate sector, “I don’t think they have the manpower to sell all these buildings.”
Concerns also extend to regulatory hurdles associated with disposing of historic properties and environmental compliance requirements that could complicate and prolong any sales process. The official pointed out that some listed properties seem illogical for sale, citing a relatively new federal courthouse in Los Angeles as an example: “If you got rid of that asset, where are you going to hold federal court?”
Reactions from local officials highlight a mix of apprehension and potential opportunity stemming from this initiative. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia), representing an area with many federal employees, acknowledged that evaluating the necessity of certain buildings is reasonable but criticized what he termed a “thoughtless” approach by the administration. He warned that undermining established commuting patterns could destabilize D.C.’s Metro system, which has long relied on a workforce centered around federal employment.
Some local leaders see promise in repurposing underutilized federal buildings for community use and generating property taxes from previously tax-exempt properties. Steve Teitelbaum, an adjunct professor of real estate at American University, told The Washington Post that transforming these spaces could benefit D.C., but cautioned against flooding an already depressed commercial real estate market with too many properties at once.