SBA forced to cut 30% of DC staff, slash their pay, ban remote work
S. 298 — Returning SBA to Main Street Act · Filed by Joni Ernst (R-IA) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 29, 2025 · Reported out
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Small Business Administration to relocate at least 30% of its Washington headquarters employees to regional offices outside the DC area within one year, reduce headquarters office space by 30%, and eliminate full-time telework for relocated and remaining headquarters staff. The bill aims to decentralize the agency and reduce federal real estate costs, but employees relocated will have their pay adjusted downward to match their new locality and lose remote-work flexibility.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a mandatory relocation of federal employees and reduction of headquarters real estate, framed as cost-saving and service improvement. It is not a tax measure, subsidy, or commemorative act, but rather an administrative restructuring with significant labor implications.
What the text implies
- Pay locality adjustments will reduce compensation for relocated employees, effectively cutting salaries for workers moving to lower-cost regions—a hidden cost to federal workers not explicitly highlighted in the title.
- The bill eliminates private right of action and overrides collective bargaining agreements, removing employee legal recourse to challenge relocation decisions or negotiate terms—a significant shift in labor protections.
- Full-time teleworkers remaining in DC will lose remote-work authorization 180 days after the report, forcing in-office presence even for those not relocated—a secondary workforce disruption.
- The 30% office-space reduction may create operational bottlenecks or require further consolidation, with implementation risk falling on the agency and potentially affecting service delivery during transition.
- The bill's cost-reduction determination is left entirely to the Administrator with no independent audit or congressional approval threshold, creating discretionary authority with minimal oversight.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill may improve SBA service delivery in underserved regions and reduce federal overhead costs—genuine public benefits. However, it imposes concrete costs on affected federal employees (pay cuts, forced relocation, loss of telework), eliminates their private right to challenge the decisions, and overrides collective bargaining agreements, raising fairness and due-process concerns that offset the efficiency gains.
Who stands to gain
- Federal real estate market (reduced lease obligations)
- Regional office landlords (potential new tenants)
- Federal government (reduced headquarters overhead)
Named in the bill
Small Business Administration (SBA), Administrator of the SBA, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, House Committee on Small Business, Bureau of the Census, Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title 5 USC (federal employee pay and telework rules)
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.
- Jan 29, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jan 29, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship”
- Feb 20, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. Those filings disclosed $560,426 in lobbying spend. A filing names 35 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Joni Ernst, the sponsor, reported $342,120 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Fed of Government Employees AFL-CIO — $450,426 on 1 filing
- Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund — $110,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jan 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (9,535 characters) on Aug 9, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jan 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“SBA forced to cut 30% of DC staff, slash their pay, ban remote work” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s298 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.