Lawfare Unlocked: Maryland Files Suit Over FBI Relocation Decision

And so, as inevitably will happen in every dispute between two parties in the USA, it's come to a lawsuit.  The big players in Maryland politics are desperate to snatch back that FBI HQ land development deal from the District of Colombia, where the Trump administration recently decided that it should go. 

Their arguments leave me completely unpersuaded, but then, there isn't any money in it for me whichever way the decision goes. 

Maryland's case relies first of all on the premise that a 100 percent proper site selection process resulted in the choice of the Greenbelt, Maryland, site.

Maryland earned the new FBI headquarters through a fair and transparent selection process that took more than 10 years – a rigorous evaluation that identified Greenbelt as the site best suited to meet the FBI's security, operational space, and mission needs," said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown during the news conference.

However, that fair and transparent process had earlier resulted in the selection of the Springfield, Virginia, site, after which a brand new GSA official dropped into the process and overruled the selection committee to award the project to Maryland. 

Most interestingly, that official came from a career at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which coincidentally is the owner of the Greenbelt property. A cynical person might suspect some kind of funny business went on there. 

Anyway, the Greenbelt selection was in turn overridden by the Trumpening, which changed the project concept from one of new, purpose-built, construction to the adaptive reuse of an existing federal office building, the Ronald Reagan Center in DC's Federal Triangle. 

That change in project concept creates what might be Maryland's strongest argument, which is that the Federal Triangle site cannot meet all of the physical security standards that should apply to an FBI HQ. 

And what standards are those exactly? Well, that probably gets into Matters of Official Concern which I must avoid. But I think it can be said without revealing anything sensitive that one of those standards rhymes with "get back." 

The Maryland side must be feeling pretty sure of itself when it plays the security card. We all know that security is sacrosanct in government business, right? 

Wrong! You see, those standards must be interpreted, and application policy followed, not to mention risk assessments performed, cost/benefit analysis done, and final decisions to be made by the responsible officials, including the potential decision to waive standards and accept risk. 

Oh, let me tell you, from the bottom of my governmental heart, nothing is guaranteed where security standards are concerned. 

I'll venture one small guess about what might become of that "get back" problem. It could be risk-analyzed away by someone who reasons that in a built-up urban landscape such as the Federal Triangle a vehicle-borne attacker would have limited approach routes to a target such as the Reagan Building, and therefore adequate "get back" really kinda exists. 

By contrast the Greenbelt site would have practically unlimited straight and level high-speed approaches to its perimeter. 

How's that for being a security problem solver? If this shutdown continues a few more weeks I might just send GSA or DHS a resume and pitch them on my alternative risk mitigation powers.

The FBI Relocation Project Must Comply With the DHS Risk Management Process

Assuming the FBI HQ relocation to the Reagan Building really happens, then some unlucky people will be impressed into a Facility Security Committee and charged with carrying out the extensive Risk Management Process that the Interagency Security Committee requires of federal civilian office facilities.  

I was a bit surprised to find that the RMP is made available in the public sphere, but there it is to inform our public debate over the new FBI HQ. 

The RMP consists solely of process, you understand, and all details about security standards are kept out of public view. Still, please browse that process at the link above and prepare to be impressed by its comprehensiveness, starting with the determination of a facility's baseline Level of Protection and ending with the paperwork for accepting less than the full Level of Protection. 

One suspects that the FBI's Facility Security Committee and its unhappy Chair will be most interested in that last part of the process because, as the RMP recognizes, sometimes the full LOP is not achievable.

In an existing facility, physical limitations and budgetary restrictions may make the necessary LOP [Level of Protection] unachievable. For example, additional standoff distance might not be available; upgrade of window systems to resist blast loads might require complete renovation of the façade so the window system will stay attached to the walls and thus be cost-prohibitive; or the current design of the air handling system could prohibit relocation of air intakes to a less vulnerable area.

Oh, you can say that again. That paragraph ought to have been highlighted in bright neon. 

The full LOP also may not be cost-effective, which is a consideration that could be in play given the vast cost avoidance of the Reagan Building option over the Greenbelt site - reportedly $1.5 billion versus $3.5 billion. 

The process has wiggle room, of course, most notably in the authority given to senior officials to make "intangible adjustment" to the requirements. It is my guess that the White House was sold on the Reagan Building option despite its most glaring physical security vulnerabilty - which rhymes with "get back" - entirely because some clever person saw a way to work around the non-achievable LOP. 

Maybe he'll be right about that, but the acid test will be whether or not he personally signs off on the acceptance of that risk. Do that and it's his ass that'll be on the line. 

Meanwhile DHS and/or the FBI have a whole lot of work to do on that extensive RM process. If the shutdown goes on much longer I might pitch them my consulting services while I wait to go back to work. I'll even use the business name "Rosslyn Shuttle" just to make my qualifications clear!

Senate Majority Moves on New FBI HQ Project in DC, Leaving Maryland Behind

Maryland Senator leans hard on the security argument to oppose administration plan to relocate FBI HQ to federal triangle instead of Greenbelt. https://t.co/BjGSclyH9F

— TSB (@TweetingTSB) October 29, 2025

Maryland's Senator Van Hollen makes two points in his immediate response to today's approval of a prospectus for the relocation of the FBI HQ to the Reagan Building, one of which is laughable and the other of which is serious and heretofore ignored.

First, the laughable one. He calls the majority side's unilateral approval "wholly partisan." No kidding. As all adults know, every government decision is made for political reasons; there are no exceptions. And that's actually how it should be in a representative government. When Senate Democrats have had the whip hand they've used it, as they will again the next time they take the majority. But today, they are out of power. Vae Victis.   

Now the serious point, which is one that Senator Hollen has made before: the Reagan Building will certainly fail to comply with the applicable physical security requirements for an FBI Headquarters building. He rightly calls this a failure to address "glaring security issues" and points out that this matter went unmentioned in today's prospectus. 

Granted, his motive in making that objection is far from disinterested - billions in development money are at stake - however, he's performing a public service anyway a la Adam Smith's 'invisible hand.' 

Out of gratitude for that, I'll do him a favor and point out that the Interagency Security Committee security standards he refers to were not "developed following the 9/11 attacks" but instead originated in 1995 after the Oklahoma City federal office building bombing. That's a common mistake, but a lazy one since you could look it up. Van Hollen's staffers are doing him a disservice. 

My own unsolicited advice is to demo and rebuild the current FBI HQ on the same site. I won't elaborate on my reasons since I've aired them often enough before, and I'm sure I will again as the FBI relocation project creeps on for years to come.

   

One Month In and Substitute Teaching Is Looking Attractive

Reading the political tea leaves, you can get the impression that the shutdown may be settled soon. I'd caution against optimism on that. The Trumpening creates unprecedented conditions that make the old rules of Washington in-fighting no longer apply. 

Looking on the sunny side, you'll note that October is a three-paycheck month for most of us feds (since there are 26 biweekly pay periods in a year but only twelve months), and that may provide a little bemusement. 

I haven't seen this nugget covered by the news media, but at some DOS Bureaus certain of the exempted employees - those are the ones who have to come in to the office despite the shutdown - are actually getting paid. That's because they perform functions the administration has defined as priorities. 

But please keep that quiet, since the large majority of exempted employees are still working without pay. Getting backpay for them after the shutdown ends is authorized by law but is not required, so we'll see how that goes. 

Well, at least us furloughed employees can be happy that we're saving on commuting gas and parking costs. Take that, Arlington County parking meter enforcement quasi-cops!

India Found Out: Issue Visas in Haste, Repent at Leisure

India blew that visa thing big-time. https://t.co/qcUGYE2itV

— TSB (@TweetingTSB) October 23, 2025

In defence [note the British spelling, another imperialistic legacy] of those Indian visa officers of 1608, they didn't have our modern investigative resources, such as social media screening. 

A little less trust, a little more skeptical rigor, and they might have saved the vast subcontinent from a few centuries of grief.

    

The Crime of the Colombian Mariner (or, At Length Did Cross a Reaper Drone)

Great slant to how the NYT reports this exchange of accusations: It’s “The administration has provided no evidence to support [its] claims“ while Petro’s “description of Mr. Carranza and his boat could not be immediately confirmed.” https://t.co/YziPnKB5bv

— TSB (@TweetingTSB) October 20, 2025

As an aside, that old Coleridge poem (here) is well worth re-reading, provided of course that you were able to read it the first time back in high school. But that is not my point today.

Today, I'm struck with admiration for the creative power shown by the New York Times in its differing insinuations about the dueling narratives from Trump and Petro, his Colombian counterpart, over one of those kinetic interceptions of drug boats that we're carrying out in the Caribbean Sea. 

Petro, like Trump and his administration, provided no evidence for his claim, which is that an innocent fisherman was killed. But in his case, far from dismissing his claim, the NYT could not "immediately" confirm it. 

That sounds like they almost could confirm it. You get the impression that we should stay tuned because they might well confirm it later today. Or they at least have a good chance of confirming it someday. Just a few missing details to nail down and - wham! - Petro's claims will get the NYT's seal of approval.  

With such nearly poetic talent for between-the-lines messaging on display, I can't understand why the legacy news media is in free fall. 

   

Gaza's Famine is Over and Not a Meal Too Soon

Palestinians in Gaza celebrate the end of the war and announce that they have enough food to feed all of Gaza for 3 months.

“The genocide and famine are over.”

What do you notice?

pic.twitter.com/BkEsPOKqlz

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) October 9, 2025

That poor fellow in the clip above has survived a long hard-fought battle with food deprivation these past two years, but it looks like he's finally got malnutrition whipped. 

While it's none of my business, if I may make a suggestion, Gazans might want to cut down on the carbs in that new three-month supply of food.