The FBI Relocation, Six Months In: Where the Move to the Reagan Building Actually Stands

It has now been almost a year since the Trump administration announced that the FBI’s new headquarters would be the Ronald Reagan Building rather than the Greenbelt site selected under the previous administration. In that time, the project has accumulated a lawsuit, a statutory funding restriction, a new round of security objections from the people who built the Reagan Building, and a parallel reorganization that is redefining what “FBI Headquarters” even means. With so much shifting at once, it is worth pausing to take stock of where the relocation stands today.

The Maryland Lawsuit Is Now in the Court’s Hands

When Maryland and Prince George’s County sued the federal government in November 2025, the immediate question was whether the case would survive long enough to matter. Six months later, the answer is yes, and the parties have moved past the procedural skirmishing that often consumes the early phase of a federal challenge.

In February 2026, Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a relatively aggressive procedural move that asks the court to rule for Maryland based on the documents already submitted, without the need for further fact-finding or trial. Brown’s argument is that there are no real factual disputes left to resolve, only legal questions about whether the administration had the authority to abandon the Greenbelt site and redirect more than $1 billion in appropriated funds. He is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to permanently block the Reagan Building plan and restore Greenbelt as the selected location. (Maryland Attorney General’s February 2026 announcement.)

The Department of Justice has declined public comment on the case, but the underlying federal position is straightforward: the executive branch has discretion over how the FBI is housed, and the Reagan Building is an existing federal asset that can be repurposed faster and at a lower cost than building from scratch. A ruling on Maryland’s motion is not on a public schedule yet, but the case has now reached the stage where the court itself, not the parties, controls the timeline.

The Hoover Building Is Officially Closing

While the litigation has been moving forward, the administration has been moving forward too. On December 26, 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the J. Edgar Hoover Building would be “shut down permanently.” In a statement and a social media post, Patel framed the decision as the resolution of a problem more than two decades in the making, arguing that the Bureau had scrapped a $5 billion plan that would not have been complete until 2035 in favor of moving into existing federal space at the Reagan Building. (Patel’s December 26 statement on X.)

The announcement matters less for what it says about the Reagan Building, which has been the administration’s plan since July 2025, than for what it says about the Hoover Building. With Patel publicly committing to a permanent shutdown, the FBI has now closed off what had been a quiet fallback for the project’s critics, namely, the option of staying in place and using appropriated funds to renovate Hoover. That door is now closed, at least rhetorically, and the only operational path forward for the Bureau’s Washington footprint runs through the Reagan Building.

A New Round of Security Objections, From Unexpected Voices

In February 2026, two of the people who helped build the Reagan Building published an op-ed in The Hill arguing that the structure cannot meet the security standards the FBI now requires. Richard Hauser, who chaired the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Elizabeth Gannon, who served as the Reagan Building project’s executive vice president, made the case in unusually direct terms. They wrote that the building was deliberately designed as a public, mixed-use, quasi-public facility with a glass atrium, an underground public garage, and open access to surrounding streets, and that retrofitting it to meet Interagency Security Committee Level V standards is not realistic. They also noted that the GSA’s $1.4 billion estimate omits the cost of temporary housing during construction, the cost of maintaining Level V interim facilities, and the likely cost of additional leased space if full consolidation cannot fit inside the Reagan Building’s footprint. (The Hill op-ed, “The Reagan Building is not a safe place for the FBI to relocate.”)

The significance of this particular intervention is not the argument itself, which echoes objections Maryland lawmakers have been raising for nearly a year. It is the source. When the original architects of a building publicly say that their building cannot be made safe enough for the agency moving into it, that is a different kind of evidence than a political statement from a senator whose state lost the project. It is the kind of evidence appropriators may eventually have to weigh when the FBI submits the architectural, engineering, and security plan that the January 2026 funding law now requires before reprogrammed construction money can be spent.

As of this writing, that plan has not been publicly delivered.

The “Headquarters” Itself Is Getting Smaller

Running parallel to the building fight is a quieter but possibly more consequential change in what the FBI’s headquarters is supposed to do at all. In a draft letter to the FBI workforce released in early May 2026, Patel announced that more than 1,000 agents and staff have already been reassigned from Washington to field offices, with roughly 1,500 additional personnel slated to follow. Patel framed the changes as a “generational” overhaul focused on cutting bureaucracy, embedding artificial intelligence in investigative work, and pushing operational personnel into the field. (Federal News Network and Fox News coverage of Patel’s May 2026 letter.)

For the relocation, this matters in a very practical way. The original argument against the Reagan Building has always included a square footage problem: the Bureau has more than 30,000 employees, and the Reagan Building cannot reasonably hold a workforce that size at Level V security. If the headquarters footprint shrinks, that argument loses some of its force. The administration has effectively been answering one of its critics’ strongest objections, not by producing a security plan, but by reducing the number of people the security plan has to cover.

It also reframes what the Reagan Building has to be. If a meaningful share of the workforce is being permanently dispersed to field offices, the Reagan Building is no longer being asked to serve as a single consolidated headquarters in the traditional sense. It is being asked to serve as a smaller, more selective core, with the rest of the Bureau’s mass distributed elsewhere. That is a different real-estate problem with a different cost structure and a different security profile.

The GSA Timeline Says 2030

The General Services Administration’s fiscal 2026 prospectus, approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in October 2025 on a 10-9 party-line vote, estimates that alterations to the Reagan Building will be complete in fiscal 2030. The total project cost is currently pegged at roughly $1.4 billion, of which approximately $844 million comes from GSA appropriations and $555 million from the FBI for preconstruction, construction, and fit-out. The work itself is significant, including reconfiguring approximately 2.6 million rentable square feet, exterior and interior security enhancements, and the relocation of existing tenants. Customs and Border Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Commerce all currently occupy space in the building. (GSA FY 2026 prospectus.)

That 2030 target assumes the project moves forward without significant friction from any of the constraints described above. It assumes Maryland’s lawsuit does not result in a court order blocking the diversion of funds. It assumes the FBI submits an architectural, engineering, and security plan that satisfies the appropriations committees. And it assumes the security assessment of the Reagan Building, which the FBI has been conducting in parallel, does not surface problems significant enough to force a redesign.

What All of This Adds Up To

Six months into the new year, the FBI relocation looks less like a single decision being implemented and more like a project being negotiated in real time across four different forums. There is the executive branch, which is moving forward as if the Reagan Building plan is settled. There is Congress, which has used the appropriations process to slow the project’s spending until a complete plan is delivered. There is the federal judiciary, which is now considering whether the original July 2025 decision was lawful at all. And there is the FBI itself, which is quietly redefining the size and shape of the workforce that the new headquarters will eventually need to house.

For an administration that emphasized speed and savings as the rationale for the move, the practical reality is that the relocation timeline is now controlled less by what the FBI wants to do and more by how each of these forums resolves the questions in front of it. We will keep tracking it as it develops.

---

Learn more about Interstate’s Government Relocation Services: moveinterstate.com/global-mobility-services/government-employee-relocation