National Archives Chief Operating Officer Jay Trainer sent a response to a letter of inquiry about the proposed closures of the NARA San Bruno and Chicago regional offices on October 5, 2026. This initial letter primarily focused on the San Bruno facility, as did Trainor’s response. U.S. Reps. Kevin Mullin (CA-15) and Judy Chu (CA-28) have issued their own response in turn, which we would encourage everyone to read. Additionally, our Chicago Area Archivists (CAA) committee would like to respond to several of the claims made, and we hope that more Chicago-specific information is available when NARA answers a similar letter sent by Congressman Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) on September 30, 2026.
Trainer letter regarding digitization potential:
Since 1950, our facilities existed largely to ingest textual records from all three branches of the Federal government. Over time, the government records and access has become increasingly digital and online. NARA began adapting to this evolving environment as early as a decade ago with the closure of archival facilities in Alaska and Massachusetts as well as down-sizing archival facilities in Pennsylvania and Texas. With the issuance of OMB memoranda M-19-21 and M-23-07, which squarely impacts our Federal Records Centers Program, our pace of change has accelerated with five closures completed since 2022.
CAA response:
The second paragraph implies existing records could be digitized. There are zero plans from NARA to digitize any of these records before they leave. Many historical records from NARA can never be digitized due to condition and content, as well as prohibitive labor and storage costs. We understand that less than 1% of the records at the Chicago NARA facility have been digitized.
Trainer letter, cost savings:
Once the facility is vacated, NARA expects to save in excess of $4.7 million annually. Vacating the facility will also lead to annual ancillary savings in personnel and operating costs for NARA and cost avoidance for repairs and systems replacement outlays by GSA. NARA’s facilities in Southern California are not sized to absorb the San Francisco operations.
Additionally - NARA Researcher Updates, August 2026, on facility conditions:
The closure of the San Bruno and Chicago FRCs also necessitates the closure of the co-located archival operations. In addition, these facilities, which are over 50 years old, possess aging infrastructure requiring significant upgrades that are fiscally unviable for the agency.
CAA response:
Mullin correctly pointed out that 4.7 million is a very small amount of a federal budget. We would like to see the exact numbers for Chicago as well, hopefully forthcoming in a response to Rep. Garcia’s Sept. 30 letter. As to the condition of the NARA Chicago facility, Hilarie Pozesky, founder and lead archivist of Sepia Archival Management and CAA Steering Chair, received a tour of the Chicago facility along with Representative Chuy Garcia in September of 2026. Pozesky states, “As an archives consultant, I make my living assessing archives. During my career, I’ve toured my fair share of physical archives. The NARA Chicago facility showed little wear and tear and appeared to be extremely well maintained.”
Trainer letter, previously closed facilities:
Since 1950, our facilities existed largely to ingest textual records from all three branches of the Federal government. Over time, the government records and access has become increasingly digital and online. NARA began adapting to this evolving environment as early as a decade ago with the closure of archival facilities in Alaska and Massachusetts as well as down-sizing archival facilities in Pennsylvania and Texas.
…
Based on past experiences with record moves, we are confident that the two to three year move timeline is adequate and will ensure protection of the records during physical moves….This is evidenced by the fact that NARA has, without incident, closed five other locations since 2022. While we value all records entrusted to us, the recent closures have involved moving records and artifacts for former President Obama, veterans claim folders, and Immigration A-files.
CAA response:
These closures do not compare, certainly not from the perspective of the public. Only one of these facilities was ever open to the public.
-
The temporary Obama location was never open to the public and long-since known to be a temporary situation.
-
The NYC location perhaps should have caused more of an outcry. But that facility was extremely small and was in the Hamilton Customs House in Manhattan so it actually was very expensive, unlike the San Bruno and Chicago locations. It also already stored most of its holdings offsite.
-
The Pittsfield Federal Records Center in MA held temporary records with no public access.
-
The Fairfield, OH Federal Records Center held temporary records with no public access.
-
We believe the fifth facility was the Office of the Federal Register in DC, which they also mention onthis page. We believe this was just an office space without records. Regardless, the staff and functionality are moving to the building on the Mall, which would not disrupt access or staff.
Trainer letter, affect on local employees:
At this time, we are unable to answer your inquiries regarding the staff assigned to our San Francisco location. The majority of staff are bargaining unit employees, and as is required, NARA has engaged in impact and implementation bargaining with American Federation of Government Employees Council 260. We do not yet have a signed Memorandum of Understanding and to comment would undermine the integrity of bargaining. When NARA announced the pending closure to staff in June 2026, NARA managers committed to on-site engagement with the staff once bargaining was completed. We fully intend to fulfill that commitment to our staff.
CAA response:
Trainer mentions previous closed facilities many times but never states if any employees were impacted by those closures. He uses the Union negotiations as a reason not to answer questions about the future of employees in Chicago, San Bruno, and Seattle. Elsewhere in the letter he says "Vacating the facility will also lead to annual ancillary savings in personnel and operating costs for NARA." (emphasis ours)
Trainer letter, project timeline:
Based on past experiences with record moves, we are confident that the two to three year move timeline is adequate and will ensure protection of the records during physical moves. This timeline was principally selected to allow NARA to continue to meet daily workload requirements for our Federal agency customers and researchers while absorbing added move related activities at San Francisco as well as the receiving locations. While our attention is heightened anytime a record is not in its assigned storage location, we have very strong and tested move procedures.
CAA response:
Trainer claims he is confident 2-3 years is enough time to complete the move "Based on past experiences with record moves," but does not provide any details about similar moves that were so large, involved so many accessioned records, and took place within such a compressed timeline.
