The Federal Government Spent $3.3 Billion on Office Furniture as Employees Worked From Home
The Department of Defense spent $1.2 billion on furniture between 2020 and 2022, although it only uses 23 percent of its office space.

More than three years since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that working from home is here to stay. A March 2023 Pew Research survey noted that of all Americans who have the option, more than one-third work entirely remotely—a fivefold increase from pre-pandemic levels. Another 41 percent work a hybrid schedule of both remote and in-person work, an increase from 35 percent in January 2022.
Federal employees are no different: According to a November 2022 survey, one-third of federal employees work entirely remotely while 60 percent work a hybrid schedule; most of the hybrid group go into the office one day per week and work remotely the other four days.
So why, then, is the federal government still spending billions of dollars on office furniture?
According to a new report by the government watchdog organization OpenTheBooks.com, the federal government has spent $3.3 billion on office furniture since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report found "no material difference in the amount federal agencies collectively spent on office furniture between the years 2018 and 2022." In fact, the government spent considerably less in 2018 than in any of the subsequent four years.
A July 2023 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) surveyed the 24 federal agencies that occupy most of the federal government's buildings. It found that 17 out of the 24 agencies "used an estimated average 25 percent or less of their headquarters buildings' capacity in a three-week sample period across January, February, and March of 2023."
In fact, none of the agencies surveyed—which included the Departments of Defense, Commerce, State, Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, among others—used more than 49 percent of their capacity in an average week.
The GAO report notes that none of the surveyed agencies have returned to pre-pandemic staffing levels and have instead embraced the hybrid model. The situation presents a cost-saving opportunity, according to the report, as "the federal government retains more space than it needs" and did so even prior to the pandemic.
Not that the government seems to be paying attention. Using the GAO report's ranges, OpenTheBooks.com compared expenditures on office furniture with the agencies' respective levels of in-person staffing. In one example, despite only using around 9 percent of its office space, OpenTheBooks.com found that the Department of Agriculture spent almost $57 million on furniture between 2020–22. The General Services Administration—which manages federally owned buildings, including the purchase of office furniture—also uses only around 9 percent of its total office space, and yet it spent $308 million on furniture.
The biggest pandemic purchaser was the Department of Defense, which spent $1.2 billion on furniture although it only uses 23 percent of the space at its administrative headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, according to OpenTheBooks.com.
"Most federal headquarters are barely a quarter full on a given workday, and no major agency is at more than half capacity," OpenTheBooks.com founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski said in a statement. "Yet for some reason we've bankrolled [billions of] dollars in desks, chairs, couches and more – while employees clock in from their own living rooms."
Government furniture scandals are nothing new: In 2017, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spent over $31,000 on a dining room set for Secretary Ben Carson's office. The HUD inspector general later reported that it "did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations of misconduct" as Carson canceled the expenditure once it was reported in the media.
In 2018, the West Virginia House of Delegates impeached members of the state's Supreme Court of Appeals over lavish spending of state funds. The justices reportedly spent more than $3 million on furnishings and renovations as the struggling state made tens of millions of dollars in budget cuts. One justice in particular spent over $500,000, including $28,000 on rugs; another spent $32,000 on a blue suede sectional sofa.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Probably something as simple and stupid as government people following rules that say to replace things based upon age rather than wear.
They do have tables for all of that. It's called an EUL or 'Expected Useful Life'.
I've also had projects with various agencies where we were told to re-layout a space for a new department moving into an existing space that we had just done a layout for the previous department a year or two prior. Rather than just work with the existing furniture in the existing layout. Of course, the new department typically gets all new furniture. Sometimes we will reuse things that are well within that 'Expected Useful Life' window.
Agency managers have annual budgets, if the don't spend all the money their budgets for the next fiscal year will be reduced. So in order for them to request more money they need to spend all of this years budget.
This. Furniture was always an easy way to spend the surplus budget when I was working for the government. We really need to change the system to reward being under-budget.
Combination of that and the fact that in every department/agency budget, there's some annual allocation for "furniture", and that money can't be reallocated or carried over to another FY period. If they don't spend it in one year, for whatever reason, they not only lose the money for that year, but they'll likely see their allocation reduced in following years.
If they hadn't bought the "normal" amount of new furniture for empty offices in 2021, they'd be denied the funds needed to buy new furniture in whatever year the staff ultimately returned to on-site work and the new furniture was legitimately needed.
A BILLION!!!! No way.... Now try picking on something that isn't a Constitutional Authority of the federal government and put that billion into perspective.
Make 'em sit on the floor with laptops.
They don't need no stinkin' furniture.
(the savings could pay the interest on the national debt for several minutes)
I’m more charitable than that. I would supply them with used folding card tables and used folding chairs. I could even end up ahead by getting them cheap desktop computers versus laptops.
Shouldn't they be shopping for furniture at goodwill by now?
If it’s like the Federal building I worked in years ago, a lot of it probably walked home with the security guards.
what we need is Congressional action on single issue appropriations bills.
Hmm. Perhaps we could house some homeless folks in all that extra space? That might be quite the eye-opener for bureaucrats and politicians alike.
In fact, the government spent considerably less in 2018 than in any of the subsequent four years.
So glad we got rid of sequestration. To think the DOD had to cut back on office furniture over those years.
I'll bet none of that shit's IKEA either.
Buy American Act dictates that none of it can be.
We should start a committee to study this issue.
Of course we will have to order new meeting tables and chairs first.
Don't even joke about it. They'll happily spend $3Billion on the investigation by the DoD IG, then another $4.5Billion out of GAO if someone gets it into their head that some portion of $1.3Billion was "wasted".
Yes. When I worked for a defense contractor, the contract requirements essentially meant that for every person doing the real work, we'd need a QA inspector and an accountant, both paid more than the actual worker. So we were required to waste about 3/4 of the funds in order to prove that we weren't stealing or wasting even more.
This is why we need to tax the rich way more.
Haha. Imagine thinking like this.
I imagine people who think like that being delivered to local landfills in dump trucks.
austerity is the most pro environment policy imaginable
profligacy is the most anti environment policy imaginable
first law of thermodynamics
Think of all that carbon put into the atmosphere for no reason heating and cooling all of those empty government buildings.
Nothing left to cut.
Can't try austerity now, a recession is about to hit.
And why bother when the economy is booming?
It probably has a lot to do with how federal budgeting works. If you're give a million dollars to spend on furniture in a Fiscal Year and only spend half that, the next year you'll just get half-a-million dollars. Congress has created a system which incentivizes waste. The agencies keep spending all of the monies appropriated for furniture because they won't get enough later.
Gee, if only someone would invent a system that wouldn’t work that way.
Oh, wait……
The intention when it was established was almost certainly to prevent waste from carrying over. Legislators don't burn calories considering the possibility that there's any difference between the intention and the actual result when it comes to the paper they're producing every day.
I will say that some of it also has to do with Republicans in Congress deciding to "decentralize" federal agencies, and move entire agencies or bureaux out to Colorado or Kentucky or wherever. It's easier to just buy new stuff for the new place than truck the used stuff to the new place, leaving an empty space behind.
Have any of those moves actually happened? In case you haven't noticed, it's almost 3 years since the Republicans were in charge, so maybe it's time to start blaming the Democrats.
As if that matters
If you are still building your career and reading these kinds of articles, don't be lulled into thinking you can work remotely AND get ahead. If they don't see you, they don't know you, and if they don't know you, they won't promote you.
Get yourself to the office for every meeting where a customer or a superior will be in attendance.
My most recent pay test was for a 12-hour-per-week internet job for $9,500. For months, my sister’s friend has been making an average of 15,000, and she puts in about 20 hours every week. As soon as I gave it a try, I was shocked at how simple it was.
Do this instead————————————>>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
Two examples of similar waste from when I was in the Air Force, 1978 to 1987:
1) Waxing the no-wax floors: Somewhere higher in the hierarchy than even the full colonel commanding the 27th TFW at Cannon AFB, it was decided to replace all the floor tiles with no-wax tiles. Supposedly, we could just mop the floor, and it would shine when it dried. To no one’s surprise, the senior NCO’s still had details apply wax and run the floor buffers.
2) Replacing the test stations for aircraft that were about to be scrapped: The F-111 family of aircraft were designed with more complex avionics (flying electronics) than anything before, and the brass worried about whether the technicians could troubleshoot something that complex. So they had the on-board electronics divided into modules (boxes) that could be swapped out and worked on in the shop, and ordered automated test stations for the shops. These automated test stations were really pushing the envelope for electronic systems built in the 1960’s, and keeping the test stations running required much better technicians than were needed just for the aircraft avionics. (The Air Force switched back and forth between considering test stations and avionics modules two different specialties or one specialty, but in practice when a test station was broke everyone worked on it, and when it worked, everyone worked to get as many avionics modules as possible done before it broke again.)
The F-111D used at Cannon AFB had possibly the worst of this, because it’s avionics were an experiment in adding digital electronics on top of the analog electronics used by the earlier models, and because less than 100 of this model aircraft were delivered and only enough testers for a single shop, so the learning curve was slow.
Then in the 1980’s when the test stations were 10 to 15 years old and becoming increasingly unreliable (I think due to all the repairs that had been needed), and many parts were becoming impossible to find, the Air Force started an ambitious new project to replace all of them, at a cost of many millions. They began with the testers for the more numerous models, and replacing those, may have made sense, since many of the new ones were used for 10 years.
However, the new testers for the F-111D were only delivered around 1990, and the D’s were scrapped in 1991. That had to have been planned years before, but no one canceled the millions of dollars of new test stations that were going to be barely used.
Also, Gulf War I was starting, the war the 27th TFW had been practicing for throughout the 1980’s, but it was happening without the 27th TFW. The airplanes weren’t going anywhere but the scrapyard, and my buddies that had stayed in were not participating because they had to learn their new jobs.
I want to ask vets and new recruits alike; shouldn't a guarantee of "vets will never be homeless" be a better incentive for service than the G.I. tuition bill?