The Trump administration’s dramatic efforts to restructure the federal workforce have included the longest hiring freeze in recent history, wide-scale terminations of probationary employees, extensive reduction-in-force plans and protracted litigation. In one of the first official indicators of these extensive disruptions, the administration issued a memorandum in February requiring all federal agencies to submit reorganization plans.

Less noticed amid the brouhaha, the February memorandum also called for “proposed relocations of agency bureaus and offices from Washington, D.C. and the National Capital Region to less-costly parts of the country.” The administration reinforced this call in April with an executive order that rescinded previous limitations and gave agencies more flexibility in relocation options. Major goals for agencies to consider now largely focus on lowering costs and improving government services by siting agencies closer to the people they serve.

There has been less public discussion on how state officials might seek benefits for Nevada from this stated agenda. Perhaps Nevada policymakers would be well-advised to take this relative silence as an opportunity to pitch Reno as the ideal candidate for the new headquarters for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

CISA lacks a central headquarters, with operations spread across five non-governmental rental spaces throughout Arlington, Virginia. CISA has acknowledged the need to consolidate these headquarters into one location, but DHS recently halted its $524 million headquarters construction project to achieve cost savings. Among federal agencies CISA has a uniquely pressing need for a centralized headquarters, while lacking an existing, or even proposed, location.

For a cyber-focused agency, relocating to Reno would move the agency much closer to its largest, most prominent cluster of stakeholders and potential talent in Silicon Valley. The 300-mile distance isn’t exactly close, but it’s a day trip away, with convenient meeting points in between, including Lake Tahoe and San Francisco, the latter of which hosts the world’s leading cybersecurity event, the annual RSAC Conference.

The administration has articulated a goal of locating agency headquarters closer to the stakeholders they serve, which is challenging when stakeholders are scattered throughout the country. Yet given the unique prominence that Silicon Valley’s high-tech cluster boasts within the fields of cybersecurity, information technology and tech generally, CISA is an unusually strong candidate as an agency that can tangibly move closer to its most important stakeholders. To the extent that public-private cooperation can be enriched and facilitated by in-person interactions, moving CISA a day trip away from Silicon Valley has obvious appeal.

If the only consideration were to move closer to stakeholders, then Silicon Valley or San Francisco might make sense. However, the other major stated goal in the February memorandum is to achieve cost savings. The General Schedule tables maintained by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management classify the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland region as the most expensive locality in the country, with civil servants entitled to a wage premium almost 9.3 percent higher than in the national capital region. 

In contrast, Reno-Fernley is one of the cheapest locality areas; the federal government would essentially save 12.25 percent in salary costs for every employee relocated from Arlington to Reno. The real estate discrepancies are probably higher. CISA could find a Reno headquarters for significantly cheaper than the $524 million that had previously been budgeted for in D.C.

Thus, Reno would represent a sweet spot, closer to CISA’s Silicon Valley stakeholders while dramatically cheaper. For cost savings, proximity to stakeholders and recruiting potential for Silicon Valley talent, Reno beats D.C. on all measures.

Moreover, CISA has a uniquely operational rather than programmatic focus. For example, relocating Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters to a cheaper location would not affect FEMA’s budget very much because the vast majority of its funds have a programmatic focus, namely disaster assistance. Similarly, only a miniscule amount of the Department of Education’s expenses are actually spent on the salaries and administration at headquarters. Relocating such agencies would only have a negligible budgetary impact.

In contrast, CISA does not administer such major programs. CISA’s $3 billion budget is mostly focused on the salaries of its employees and related administrative expenses. Of CISA’s 3,702 funded full-time positions, only 827 positions are within CISA’s Integrated Operations Division, where it places its field personnel. Under the president’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Proposal, this would be reduced to 500 positions out of 2,649 total. Given the lack of expensive programmatic costs and a workforce concentrated in headquarters, relocating CISA’s headquarters would be a uniquely effective way to reduce the agency’s budget.

CISA’s workforce, already heavily weighted toward its Cybersecurity Division, will only grow more focused toward its cybersecurity operations after extensive proposed cuts to its other divisions. Virtually all of the public messaging opposing CISA cuts has invoked its cybersecurity responsibilities, while ignoring the smaller divisions facing steeper cuts. Relocating the agency nearer to its cybersecurity stakeholders is the natural culmination of these trends.

An old saying goes, “The President proposes, and Congress disposes.” The fact that the president has proposed steep cuts does not mean that Congress will accept them. Although President Donald Trump proposed a $491 million cut to CISA, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security lowered this cut to $134.8 million.

This gap could largely be resolved by relocating CISA’s headquarters to Reno, given the location-based salary reduction and lower real estate costs.

Even with the administration’s proposed cuts, relocating CISA could bring more than 2,000 well-paid, federal cybersecurity jobs to Nevada. CISA’s $3 billion budget is hardly a drop in the water to D.C.’s $600 billion local economy, but could add close to a percentage point to Nevada’s $200 billion economy.

Nevada’s Congressional delegation is serendipitously situated to advocate for this change. Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) represents Reno and is a House Cardinal, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which determines DHS funding levels, including for CISA. Meanwhile, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, which has jurisdiction over much of CISA’s cyber-focused work.

Could there be a role for Nevada’s congressional delegation and the president to cooperate on a rare, bipartisan victory here? With an administration expressly committed to relocating federal agencies outside of D.C. and a Silver State congressional delegation unusually well placed to fight for Nevada, this could be the opportunity of a lifetime for Nevada and America.

Trevar Kolodny joined the federal government in 2017, working as a management fellow for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and the Treasury, and in details and deployments for the Office of Management and Budget and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most recently, he worked for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency as a senior policy analyst until accepting a deferred resignation offer.

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. They can be submitted here.