On October 22, National Archives Chief Operating Officer Jay Trainer sent a response to a letter sent by Congressman Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) to NARA on September 30, 2026 inquiring about the proposed closures of the NARA San Bruno and NARA Great Lakes branches.

Similar to our response to Trainer's 10/5 letter, our Chicago Area Archivists (CAA) committee wanted to set the record straight on Trainer's additional claims regarding the NARA Great Lakes facility.

NARA Chicago letter regarding personnel job security:

NARA remains in negotiation with our local Union regarding the closure, and this negotiation has limited what can be shared publicly. 

CAA response:

We do not understand why Union negotiations prevent NARA leadership from talking publicly about the move, but do not prevent the move from actually happening. We do not understand how Union negotiations would prevent disclosure but not prevent the actions behind the disclosures. 

We also wanted to share that an MOU between the National Archives and Records Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Council 260 was signed after Trainer's letter was sent. We hope this means more now can be shared publicly.

NARA Chicago letter regarding GSA property management:

The Chicago facility is owned by the General Services Administration (GSA). GSA requires 120 days notice for a tenant to vacate a GSA owned property. The majority of NARA’s other records center and archival facilities are managed by GSA, but GSA leases the facility from private owners. There is much less flexibility in terminating leases on these privately-owned properties.     

CAA response:

Has NARA given the 120 days notice to start vacancy proceedings? Additionally, storing public records in privately owned facilities introduces more potential instability - private owners can end leases on their own terms, can change rates capriciously, and can have their own agendas. At the very least, we need more transparency on who these private owners are. Furthermore, is this implying that all other regional branches are set to be closed when their leases are up?

NARA Chicago letter on Chicago-specific cost savings:

For each of the next three years, the cost of the Chicago move will be $2.9 million per year. Once the facility is closed, there will be annual recurring savings of $1.1 million in rent and security and the opportunity for additional savings from operating costs, salaries, and overhead of up to $3.2 million. Investing around $9M to achieve recurring savings of over $4M per year puts the return on investment at just over two years. 

CAA response:

We still have yet to see an explanation of where this 2.9 million number is coming from, but presumably some of it is Chicago’s share of the 8.8 million Iron Mountain contract, which notably includes that the “potential award amount” is $25 million. We are not government contract experts, but it sounds like 8.8 is the lowest possible figure this contract could amount to, but if there are delays and complications (which there will be - this is a move of thousands and thousands of cubic feet), then it could go up to as much as $25 million. This would significantly change that return on investment calculation. And again, “salaries” implies that the plan is to terminate the staff, too.

Additionally, we have to consider the cost to the public. A few million dollars is a minuscule amount of a federal budget, probably unnoticeable to someone paying their taxes. But the cost for someone in the Great Lakes area to travel to Kansas City for their research could be an insurmountable barrier.

NARA Chicago letter on researcher visits:

The Chicago facility had only 362 archival researcher visits for Fiscal Year 2026. In contrast, we completed 4,662 written requests for remote researchers. Relocating the Chicago archival records to other locations will not impact the more prevalent remote research. 

CAA response:

First, is 362 researchers not enough to justify a physical space? What number would satisfy that need? Much more to the point, moving the records absolutely will impact remote research. Staff that are entirely new to these records are simply not going to be as well equipped to provide reference on them. Additionally, Kansas City already has a backlog of requests. How are they going to handle 4662 additional remote reference requests annually (which actually will be a far higher number, assuming people who would otherwise have gone in person to Chicago now have to request the records remotely).

Also who is the “we” in that response? It is certainly not Jay Trainer, Bradford Wilson, or other NARA administration. It seems like he is bending backward to refuse to acknowledge any positive and specific contribution of the local NARA Chicago staff.

NARA Chicago letter on stakeholder consultation:

For the 2026 announced closures, we are planning on a 2-3 year timeframe. This is to allow, in part, engagement with stakeholders on how best to mitigate the impact of the closure. 

CAA response:

Which stakeholders are they talking about? NARA is legally required to consult federal Tribes, and we are encouraged that they are conducting tribal listening sessions, but while a very important user group, Tribal members are not the only stakeholders. What other stakeholders have they engaged? How can they claim they are engaging anyone about closure mitigation when the move has already begun?

NARA Chicago letter on New York closure comparison:

For comparison, NARA no longer has a physical presence in New York, but access to records from that region continues unabated. 

CAA response:

Since the closure of the National Archives at New York, turnaround time for reference has increased to The National Archives at Philadelphia and Kansas City. 

NARA Chicago letter on moving procedures and previous closures:

We have very strong and tested move procedures. This is evidenced by the fact that NARA has, without incident, closed six 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:

See our earlier response regarding this “justification” using previously closed facilities as examples:

These closures do not compare, certainly not from the perspective of the public. Only one of these facilities was ever open to the public.

1. The temporary Obama location was never open to the public and long-since known to be a temporary situation.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. The Pittsfield Federal Records Center in MA held temporary records with no public access.
   
   

4. The Fairfield, OH Federal Records Center held temporary records with no public access.
   
   

5. We believe the fifth facility was the Office of the Federal Register in DC, which they also mention on this 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.