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.

If this passes, the federal government would relocate thousands of offices and tens of thousands of jobs out of sanctuary cities—the largest being Washington DC (which is de facto a sanctuary jurisdiction), New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Economic impacts would be severe: federal payroll spending in these cities would decline significantly, local tax revenues would drop, commercial real estate values would decline, and local contractors and service providers would lose federal contracts. This has no direct historical precedent at federal scale, though it mirrors state-level budget cuts used to punish jurisdictions with disfavored policies. The constitutionality is highly uncertain—courts have previously struck down conditional federal spending schemes that are deemed coercive (South Dakota v. Dole, NFIB v. Sebelius). A CBO score was not provided in the bill text, but the relocation costs and economic disruption would likely be substantial. The bill creates a legal test case for whether the federal government can use real estate and employment as a coercive tool to override state and local policy choices.