Maryland Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over FBI Headquarters Relocation Decision

The state of Maryland and Prince George's County have initiated legal action against the Trump administration regarding the planned retention of the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, contends that the administration's decision unlawfully undermines a multiyear collaborative effort to relocate the facility to Greenbelt.

Central to the legal challenge is the allegation that the administration plan would illegally redirect funding that Congress specifically designated for the Greenbelt project. Instead, these funds would be applied toward renovating the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington to accommodate the FBI. This development represents the most recent escalation in the ongoing dispute between state and county officials and the federal government concerning the FBI's headquarters location.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown stated that the legal action seeks judicial intervention to halt the unlawful selection of the Reagan Building, prevent the diversion of congressionally appropriated funds, and ensure the federal government adheres to legal requirements. Brown emphasized that the reversal of the decision to locate the FBI at Greenbelt constitutes illegal action because Congress allocated more than $1 billion specifically for the Greenbelt project, not for the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington.

The controversy stems from what state and county officials describe as a carefully developed proposal spanning more than a decade of study and debate, which was abruptly reversed within weeks. The Ronald Reagan Building was not included on any potential list of sites until July 1, when it was announced as the new intended location for the FBI headquarters. The legal action underscores significant concerns about proper allocation of federal funds and adherence to congressional directives in major government infrastructure projects.

The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the immediate parties involved, potentially affecting how federal agencies approach future relocation projects and congressional funding allocations. The outcome could establish important precedents regarding the executive branch's authority to redirect congressionally appropriated funds and modify long-standing relocation plans for major federal facilities. The case also highlights ongoing tensions between state governments and federal administrations regarding infrastructure development and resource allocation decisions.