Get started free →
HR 9288 119th Congress · House

Bill to Move Federal Offices Out of Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Advocate

Official title: To provide for relocation of certain Federal office space located in sanctuary jurisdictions and to prohibit establishment or occupation of any Federal office space in a sanctuary jurisdiction, and for other purposes.

This bill would require certain federal office space in sanctuary jurisdictions to be relocated and would bar the federal government from establishing or occupying federal office space in those jurisdictions. In practical terms, it targets where federal agencies can lease, own, or use office space, with the goal of reducing the federal presence in places that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The measure would affect federal agencies, employees, contractors, and the local communities that host those offices.

  • Requires relocation of certain federal office space in sanctuary jurisdictions.
  • Bars the establishment or occupation of new federal office space in sanctuary jurisdictions.
  • Applies to federal agencies that lease, own, or use office space in those locations.
  • Would shift where federal employees and the public access federal services.
Public Relevance 22 / 100
Niche Modest scope Broad

If you live or work in a sanctuary jurisdiction, this bill could affect whether federal offices remain nearby or are moved elsewhere. That could mean longer travel for in-person federal services, changes in where federal employees work, and possible disruption if an existing office is relocated or closed. For people outside those jurisdictions, the direct effect would likely be limited.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • Immigration enforcement advocates They argue the federal government should not maintain offices in places that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Moving offices is seen as a way to discourage sanctuary policies and reinforce federal priorities.
  • Conservative taxpayers and budget watchdogs They may support the bill if they believe federal office placement should reflect operational and policy alignment, not subsidize jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement goals. They could also argue it creates pressure on local governments without creating a new spending program.
  • Some federal law-and-order supporters They may see the measure as a straightforward way to ensure federal presence is not concentrated in jurisdictions that are hostile to federal enforcement efforts. In their view, federal facilities should not be located where cooperation is weakest.
AGAINST
  • Local governments in sanctuary jurisdictions They may argue the bill punishes communities for local policy choices and interferes with normal federal siting decisions. They could also contend that federal offices should be located based on cost, access, and mission needs rather than immigration politics.
  • Federal employees and contractors They may oppose forced relocations because moving offices can disrupt work, increase commuting burdens, and create uncertainty about staffing and facilities. Employees could face longer travel times or be required to move to less convenient locations.
  • Residents and businesses near affected federal offices They may worry that losing a federal office reduces foot traffic, local spending, and convenient access to federal services. If an office closes or moves, nearby communities can lose both economic activity and a service hub.
  • “relocation of certain Federal office space”

    This means existing federal offices in covered jurisdictions could be moved, which can trigger lease changes, construction or renovation costs, and service interruptions during transition.

  • “prohibit establishment or occupation of any Federal office space”

    This would block future federal offices from opening or operating in sanctuary jurisdictions, limiting where agencies can place staff and facilities.

  • “sanctuary jurisdictions”

    The bill ties federal property decisions to local immigration policy, so the practical reach depends on which places are treated as sanctuary jurisdictions in implementation.

  • “for other purposes”

    This standard legislative phrase signals that the bill may include related administrative or enforcement provisions beyond the relocation and occupancy restrictions named in the title.

June 11, 2026

Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.