Goldman, Schumer, Gillibrand Call for Investigation Into Trump Admin Plan to Move Army Corps of Engineers Offices From NYC to New Jersey

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Representative Dan Goldman (NY-10), Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand led 7 members of the New York congressional delegation in demanding an investigation into the Trump Administration's decision to move the Army Corps of Engineers New York District and North Atlantic Division's (NAN) offices from federally owned facilities in Manhattan and Brooklyn to office space leased from a private party in New Jersey. The members are asking the Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent investigation to determine if the move complies with all relevant laws and regulations.

The letter was also signed by Reps. Laura Gillen (NY-04), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Grace Meng (NY-06), Tom Suozzi (NY-03), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), and Yvette Clarke (NY-09).

"We write to request the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) New York District and North Atlantic Division's (NAN) planned relocation of its New York District offices from federally owned facilities in Manhattan and Brooklyn to office space leased from a private party in New Jersey," wrote the members. "Substantial concerns exist regarding whether USACE has complied with applicable Department of Defense regulations and directives governing the acquisition of leased real property, including requirements relating to economic analysis, approval procedures, consideration of available federal space, and evaluation of alternatives. Publicly available information suggests the agency may have moved forward with the solicitation process before completing required analyses or approvals. Doing so raises serious concerns relating to wasteful spending and accountability of public funds.

The members continued: "The limited operational and financial rationale that USACE has provided in support of the relocation appears incomplete and inconsistent. Numerous concerns have been raised regarding increased employee attrition, diminished coordination with local and state stakeholders, longer travel times to project sites, disruption to ongoing infrastructure projects, and the substantial costs associated with vacating existing federally owned space. USACE has provided no evidence that it considered increased costs of moving to an annual leasing structure, which would give a private landlord significant leverage to increase costs once staff have moved in. USACE also appears to have failed to consider available alternatives, such as retaining the current offices or delaying or phasing a relocation plan, raising serious concerns relating to responsible use of public funds."

"IFPTE applauds Congressman Goldman, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, and several Members of the New York Congressional Delegation who have requested that GAO investigate the Army Corps' decision to move District and Division Offices out of New York City. Because our members at the Army Corps are dedicated to their work and to fulfilling the agency's mission, we oppose this wasteful, disruptive, and ill-considered effort that will delay projects, drive up costs, hurt emergency response and economic development, and increase the risk of failure. This Congressional request for a GAO investigation is necessary because Army Corps leadership has not been forthright on the relocation process, the cost-benefit analysis, nor the harmful impacts that this office move will create," said Matthew Biggs, President of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).

In March, Rep. Goldman led a bipartisan letter to the Army Corps and the General Services Administration (GSA) expressing concerns about the move and how it would adversely affect the Corps' ability to undertake its core missions in the New York area.

The full text of the letter is available here or below:

Dear Acting Comptroller General Brown:

We write to request the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) New York District and North Atlantic Division's (NAN) planned relocation of its New York District offices from federally owned facilities in Manhattan and Brooklyn to office space leased from a private party in New Jersey. Given Congress's oversight responsibilities regarding Department of Defense real property management, appropriations, and federal leasing practices, we request that GAO examine whether USACE's actions comply with applicable statutes and regulations. An independent investigation is critical to determine the extent to which officials at the USACE and Department of Defense are operating in accordance with the law.

Pursuant to the Comptroller General's authority to issue decisions concerning appropriated funds and fiscal law, we request a decision regarding the legality of the proposed relocation of functions from federally owned space in New York City to privately owned space in New Jersey. USACE NAN currently occupies federally owned office space in New York City that supports

mission-critical civil works, resiliency, navigation, infrastructure, and emergency management operations throughout the New York region.

Despite the longstanding federal presence of these offices and their proximity to major projects, local stakeholders, and state and municipal partners, USACE has initiated an accelerated procurement process to relocate personnel to privately leased office space in New Jersey. Specifically, by letter dated February 23, 2026, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Adam Telle, directed USACE NAN to relocate operations from federally owned space in New York City to New Jersey. According to publicly available procurement materials, USACE issued a Request for Lease Proposals (RLP) seeking private office space in New Jersey, with proposals due by April 27, 2026. The timeline is accelerated: the Assistant Secretary directed that New York leadership functions be located in the new or an interim location by August 15, 2026 and the rest of main District office activities conducted out of the new or an interim location by December 31, 2026. We understand from the publicly available RLP materials that the agency intends to rely on 10 U.S.C. § 2661 as authority for this lease acquisition rather than proceeding through the General Services Administration (GSA) leasing process traditionally used for federal office space acquisitions.

Serious questions exist regarding whether USACE is appropriately invoking 10 U.S.C. § 2661 as authority for what appears to be a long-term office relocation involving civilian personnel and administrative functions. Prior GAO decisions have recognized limits on the Department of Defense's authority under Section 2661 with respect to multiyear lease arrangements and the use of annual appropriations for long-term obligations. While the RLP is written to seek only a series of individual, one-year leases, a permanent headquarters relocation plainly cannot be intended as a one-year arrangement - it is clearly a longer-term move. This raises serious questions as to whether USACE is improperly using 10 U.S.C. § 2661(b), authority that is intended to be used for short term, primarily non-civilian functions, to avoid subjecting this lease to GSA regulation and oversight.

In addition, questions remain regarding compliance with the notice, reporting, and waiting-period requirements set forth in 10 U.S.C. § 2662. Section 2662 requires that military departments may not enter rental property transactions until 14 days after the submission of a special report to Congress. We previously requested clarification from the Department of the Army regarding whether required Congressional notifications had been made before the agency proceeded with the lease solicitation process. To date, it remains unclear whether these statutory requirements have been satisfied or will be satisfied prior to finalization of a lease.

Even if USACE had independent authority to acquire lease space, it would still be required to comply with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance on funding leases acquired under that authority, as well as the agency's own internal policies, regulations, and Procedures. Substantial concerns exist regarding whether USACE has complied with applicable Department of Defense regulations and directives governing the acquisition of leased real property, including requirements relating to economic analysis, approval procedures, consideration of available federal space, and evaluation of alternatives. Publicly available information suggests the agency may have moved forward with the solicitation process before completing required analyses or approvals. Doing so raises serious concerns relating to wasteful spending and accountability of public funds.

The limited operational and financial rationale that USACE has provided in support of the relocation appears incomplete and inconsistent. Numerous concerns have been raised regarding increased employee attrition, diminished coordination with local and state stakeholders, longer travel times to project sites, disruption to ongoing infrastructure projects, and the substantial costs associated with vacating existing federally owned space. USACE has provided no evidence that it considered increased costs of moving to an annual leasing structure, which would give a private landlord significant leverage to increase costs once staff have moved in. USACE also appears to have failed to consider available alternatives, such as retaining the current offices or delaying or phasing a relocation plan, raising serious concerns relating to responsible use of public funds.

Finally, we are concerned that this relocation does not represent an isolated action but instead reflects a broader effort to relocate USACE regional offices from federally owned facilities into privately leased space nationwide. If true, this heightens the concerns listed above and raises broader concerns regarding federal expenditures, real property management practices, and

potential circumvention of traditional GSA oversight mechanisms.

Given the potential for significant waste that will result from a move, we seek an independent review of the legal mechanisms USACE is using for the move as well as the effect of such a move on stewardship of taxpayer funds and whether USACE's actions or any portion thereof violates the Anti-deficiency Act.

We respectfully request that GAO conduct an audit and issue a report including the following:

1. A detailed review of all actions taken by USACE, the Department of the Army, and the Department of Defense in identifying, approving, and implementing the proposed relocation of the New York District offices. Such review should include:

1. A timeline of decisions and actions taken regarding the proposed relocation and lease acquisition;
2. An accounting of the names, titles, and offices of officials involved in approving or directing the relocation;
3. All analyses, memoranda, budgets, or internal evaluations relating to or used in the justification for relocating from federally owned space to privately leased facilities;
4. Any evaluations regarding employee attrition, recruitment impacts, operational disruption, commuting burdens, or project delivery impacts associated with the relocation; and
5. Any analyses comparing continued occupancy of existing federal facilities with relocation alternatives.

2. A detailed review of USACE's reliance on 10 U.S.C. § 2661 as authority for the proposed lease acquisition. Such review should include:

1. Whether the contemplated lease structure complies with limitations applicable to leasing authority under Section 2661;
2. Whether the lease structure creates obligations inconsistent with appropriations law or the Antideficiency Act;
3. Whether the agency's proposed use of annual lease structures is consistent with prior GAO legal interpretations; and
4. Whether the proposed lease arrangement effectively functions as a multiyear lease obligation.

3. A detailed review of USACE's compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 2662 and related congressional notification requirements. Such review should include:

1. Whether all required notices and reports were submitted to Congress;
2. The dates on which any required submissions were made;
3. Whether the agency inappropriately initiated activities prior to satisfying statutory waiting-period requirements.

4. A detailed review of USACE's compliance with Department of Defense directives, procedures, and regulations governing real property acquisition and leasing. Such review should include:

1. Whether required economic analyses were completed prior to issuance of the RLP;
2. Whether required approvals were obtained from appropriate Department of Defense officials;
3. Whether the agency evaluated the availability of federally owned or otherwise available government property before pursuing leased space;
4. Whether the agency complied with all internal procedures governing lease acquisitions exceeding applicable financial thresholds.

5. An evaluation of whether any actions taken by USACE or other federal officials violated applicable statutes, appropriations restrictions, or Department of Defense procedures governing real property acquisition and leasing.

On the basis of this investigation, we further request that GAO issue a legal determination on the following questions:

1. Whether USACE's reliance on 10 U.S.C. § 2661 as authority for the proposed lease acquisition is lawful and consistent with the scope of leasing authority granted under that statute;

1. Whether the proposed lease structure complies with limitations applicable to leases entered pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2661, including limitations concerning multiyear obligations and the use of annual appropriations;

1. Whether the contemplated lease arrangement creates obligations inconsistent with the Antideficiency Act or other federal appropriations restrictions, including but not limited to whether Civil Works appropriations are legally available for costs associated with this relocation;

1. Whether use of Civil Works appropriations for this purpose constitutes impermissible reprogramming, augmentation, or diversion of funds from congressionally authorized purposes.

1. Whether USACE's proposed use of short-duration or annually renewable lease structures is consistent with prior GAO legal interpretations concerning Department of Defense leasing authority;

1. Whether USACE and the Department of the Army have complied with all statutory notice and reporting obligations required under 10 U.S.C. § 2662 prior to initiating or proceeding with the lease procurement process;

1. Whether the proposed leasing arrangement improperly circumvents or avoids the GSA's leasing authority and oversight responsibilities under 40 U.S.C. § 585 and related federal property statutes;

1. Whether USACE complied with applicable Department of Defense directives, regulations, and procedures governing the acquisition of leased real property, including requirements relating to: economic analysis, approval procedures, evaluation of alternatives, consideration of federally owned or otherwise available government property, and documentation supporting the necessity of relocating mission-essential personnel;

1. Whether the agency adequately considered the operational and financial consequences of the proposed relocation, including workforce attrition and recruitment impacts; disruptions to project operations. impacts on coordination with local, state, and federal stakeholders; costs associated with vacating federally owned facilities; and long-term leasing costs and exposure to future rent increases; and

1. Whether the February 23, 2026 directive itself authorized or contemplated obligations absent available appropriations or leasing authority.

Given the significant implications of and planned timeline for the proposed move, we would

respectfully request the expeditious review of these questions as soon as possible.

Sincerely,