Legal, Funding Concerns Loom Over Hud’s Relocation To Virginia

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has started its long-awaited, multistage relocation of Washington-based staff to Alexandria, Virginia, even as questions swirl over the move’s legality, cost and congressional oversight.

The union representing HUD employees argues the department is violating federal law that requires the agency to maintain its headquarters in the District of Columbia, absent explicit approval from Congress. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have been waiting since June — when HUD announced plans to relocate to the previous National Science Foundation building in Virginia — for basic information about the budget and decision-making behind moving approximately 3,000 federal employees.

“We need more transparency and more insight into their plans when it's possible to ask questions and make changes, not just be presented after the fact with what they've decided to do,” Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Development committee ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in an interview. “These guys may think they’re being very clever by hiding information from us, but in the long run, they’re just hiding it from the American people,”

HUD has defended its accelerated relocation plans as important to save taxpayer dollars and protect the well-being of employees, but critics say the administration’s efforts to push the move forward with limited congressional input reflects a broader White House pattern of sidelining the legislative branch.

“It shows the same kind of contempt for Congress and congressional oversight as pretty much every other part of the Trump administration demonstrates,” Warren said.

In response to questions for this story, a HUD spokesperson said the department “is complying with all applicable laws and regulations related to the move to Alexandria, including providing required information to Congressional appropriations staff.”

Some HUD employees moved to the Alexandria building in January. According to a timeline of the relocation obtained by POLITICO, more were set to move this month, with additional staff to follow in March. But the union representing department employees received word Thursday that those relocations will be delayed for another two or three months since HUD needs more time to prepare .

The union also says the laws that established both HUD and Ginnie Mae, the government-owned mortgage corporation under HUD, require their principal offices to be in DC.

The HUD Act of 1968 established the department “at the seat of government.” And according to the U.S. code, “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”

“HUD is moving forward with implementation of an agency headquarters relocation without identifying any statute authorizing a Cabinet-level department to relocate its principal headquarters outside Washington, D.C,” said Sal Viola, chief steward of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 222 representing HUD employees across the country, in a statement. The move raises “issues of congressional authority, appropriations, and oversight.”

Tensions between HUD and the union have escalated over the move. The department proposed firing a union official last week after she raised concerns about the relocation with senior leadership.

HUD has maintained that the relocation is fiscally responsible and necessary for the health and safety of employees. The agency’s current D.C.-based headquarters, the 1968 Brutalist-style Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, has suffered from deferred maintenance leading to water damage, structural issues and air-quality concerns. Repairing the building could cost half a billion dollars, according to the administration’s estimate.

By contrast, the much newer Alexandria building, which was completed in 2017, offers a more contemporary design, a glass and metal exterior and scenic rooftop views of Virginia.

“This move is more than just a change of buildings — it’s a mission-minded shift that puts the health and well-being of HUD employees first while emphasizing HUD’s commitment to fiscal responsibility,” a HUD spokesperson told POLITICO, saying the relocation would save “hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.”

HUD declined to share the move’s total estimated cost with POLITICO.

Still, Congress hasn’t given explicit approval for HUD’s relocation to Virginia. Senate appropriators overseeing HUD’s budget have requested more information about the department’s moving plans.

The lawmakers’ bipartisan report on fiscal 2026 appropriations noted past support for improvements to HUD’s current headquarters but stressed the need for “transparency on any decision as significant and costly as the moving from HUD’s headquarters building.”

The committee directed the department to brief Senate and House appropriators on the budget, timeline and analysis behind the relocation within 30 days of the funding bill’s enactment.

“[HUD] has not requested any funding in fiscal year 2026 to facilitate a transition out of the current headquarters space, and the Committee recommendation does not include any funding for that purpose at this time,” said the report, which was published in July.

Instead, HUD is tapping money appropriated through the FY25 continuing resolution to pay for the move — with more than $26 million going toward the relocation of NSF employees from the Alexandria building to make room for HUD staff, according to people familiar with the agreement between HUD and NSF.

Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations subcommittee Chair Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and ranking member Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) didn’t provide comment for this story.

At a January House Financial Services hearing, committee ranking member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) questioned HUD Secretary Scott Turner about whether the department’s moving plans included securing a private gym space for Turner’s family use in the office, a private elevator for him or a new, expansive dining room — as alleged by a union chapter representing NSF employees. Turner said they do not.

When asked whether she was satisfied by Turner’s answers regarding HUD’s relocation during the hearing, Waters said in an interview, “not at all. Not at all. Not at all.”

The offices of Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott and (R-S.C.) and House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) did not respond to requests for comment.

The General Services Administration and HUD announced in April their joint efforts to expedite HUD’s move and search for a new location. The move was directed to improve office conditions while saving taxpayer money on the estimated $500 million in deferred maintenance for HUD’s DC building. A Biden administration proposal for one of those improvement projects underscored the DC office’s “extensive leaking and structural damage.”

But HUD employees set to benefit from the new building’s improved conditions have been left in the dark about key details regarding the move, according to AFGE Council 222.

Union leadership said the timeline for relocation which HUD shared with employees has changed multiple times since negotiations regarding the move began. HUD’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration Chad Cowan surprised some staff in January when he informed them that they were expected to report to the new Alexandria building the next work day, according to an email exchange viewed by POLITICO.

The union is still trying to resolve issues like accommodations for childcare as well as increased commuting time and costs for staff, but say the bigger issue lies with the legislative branch.

“Congress cannot abdicate its obligation to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely and lawfully,” Viola said. “Oversight must be exercised by the constitutional body charged with that responsibility, not by a political appointee acting without clear statutory authorization.”