The unprecedented expansion of federal telework during the pandemic created a unique opportunity to fundamentally rethink where government work gets done.
As President Trump implements his return-to-work order for federal employees, we face a pivotal moment that could either solidify centralization in Washington or ignite a historic rebalancing of American federalism. The choices we make in the next few weeks in structuring this transition will have lasting consequences for administrative governance.
The current landscape presents a compelling case for reform. A substantial proportion of federal employees now work remotely, many having established lives at considerable distances from the Washington metropolitan area.
Rather than compel these workers to choose between uprooting their families or departing government service, we should harness this moment to advance a more ambitious vision: systematically redistributing federal presence to state capitals nationwide through a carefully structured voluntary relocation program.
Specifically, agency implementation of the return-to-work directive should transcend the false binary of returning to D.C. or else resignation by offering a third path.
Federal employees could elect to delay their in-person return by 90 days while transferring their permanent duty station to a state capital, subject to supervisory approval and operational constraints. This implementation window would enable the General Services Administration to secure appropriate facilities while systematically disposing of surplus real estate in the Washington area, and it would allow Congress and the Office and Management Budget the time to set budget coordination policies permitting agencies to pay per seat for facilities costs.
Moreover, because employees would accept relocation in exchange for flexibility, many of the complex collective bargaining provisions currently impeding the return-to-work mandate would become moot. Indeed, relocated workers could resume in-person work more rapidly than D.C.-based colleagues bound by existing contract terms.
This approach presents a more rapid and cost-effective mechanism for achieving meaningful decentralization than traditional agency relocation initiatives. Previous attempts to move entire agencies from Washington have proven procedurally cumbersome and politically fraught — requiring extensive planning, site selection and mandatory transfers that frequently encounter resistance or reversal.
Even when successful, such relocations typically span years and affect only marginal segments of the workforce. In contrast, leveraging the return-to-work order could facilitate the relocation of tens of thousands of federal workers within months by building on where they already live and work.
Such voluntary migration would accelerate the state capital consolidation strategy I previously advocated for federal regional and field staff, generating substantial benefits for governance, workforce development and fiscal stewardship.
Rebased in state capitals, federal employees would maintain closer working relationships with state government counterparts, facilitating the intergovernmental coordination essential to effective program implementation. While relocated positions might initially retain their existing portfolios, proximity to state agencies would naturally drive the evolution of responsibilities toward functions that take advantage of their location and align the employees with overseeing joint state-federal grants and programs.
The establishment of robust federal offices would particularly benefit state capitals facing economic challenges.
Financially troubled cities like Richmond, Hartford and Harrisburg would gain stable, professional employment bases while offering federal workers affordable housing options and reasonable commutes from nearby suburbs, many with good public schools and a high quality of life. While some employees would experience reduced locality pay in lower-cost areas — generating taxpayer savings — they could preserve their careers without disrupting their families.
Implementing a conventional return-to-work mandate disproportionately harms federal employees who have intentionally established lives outside the Beltway’s insular culture, often in communities that better reflect broader American experiences.
These workers, frequently balancing family needs with professional obligations, embody precisely the grounded perspective the incoming administration seeks to restore to federal service. Providing them a mechanism to maintain their current arrangements while formalizing their presence near state capitals advances both operational efficiency and our fundamental constitutional values.
Critics might contend this approach could fragment federal operations or complicate oversight. However, modern technology enables strong coordination among distributed teams, as demonstrated during the pandemic.
The widespread concern that decentralization weakens policy coordination reflects an outdated perspective on administrative capability, which modern communications technology has largely made obsolete. In particular, the current administration’s commitment to public sector digital transformation by incorporating DOGE into the United States Digital Service should facilitate a high level of integration once the employees are on-site.
The expansion of federal telework driven by the pandemic arose as an emergency measure, but we now have the chance to institutionalize their absence from D.C. into a thoughtful reform that advances constitutional principles.
Instead of returning to pre-pandemic habits, we can redirect this disruption toward a more sustainable and representative federal presence across the nation. This approach would show that enhancing government effectiveness and restoring American federalism are complementary objectives rather than conflicting ones.
A return-to-work implementation incorporating this state capital option represents a rare convergence of sound politics and policy. It offers affected employees meaningful choices while advancing structural reform, promotes efficiency while expanding opportunity and, most importantly, elevates a necessary administrative action into a transformative step toward restoring proper constitutional balance in American governance.
This is the moment for bold yet practical reform that brings federal employees closer to the communities they serve. By thoughtfully restructuring where government work happens, we can begin rebuilding not just federal operations but faith in federal institutions themselves.
Charles Keckler served as a senior adviser to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the first Trump administration.
