As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026, the occasion demands more than commemoration. It requires clear-eyed strategic reflection on how the Republic can not only survive but thrive through the next two and a half centuries.
The threats facing America have evolved dramatically. Hybrid warfare, swarm drones honed in Ukraine, IED tactics from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a documented surge in assassination plots against President Trump and his inner circle since the start of his second term highlight a dangerous new era.
In this environment, protecting the President, White House staff, and National Security Council in the vulnerable heart of Washington, D.C., is increasingly untenable. A bold, forward-looking adaptation—relocating core executive leadership across the Potomac to Fort Belvoir—offers a practical path to ensure continuity of government and national resilience.
Modern threats have rendered traditional urban executive compounds dangerously exposed. The Russia-Ukraine war demonstrates how affordable commercial drones and precision munitions can strike high-value targets with shocking effectiveness. Non-state actors and state adversaries now possess tools once reserved for great powers. Recent security incidents have stretched the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security to their limits.
These professionals deserve admiration for their dedication, yet sympathy alone cannot overcome the structural deficiencies of their mission. A thorough security assessment of the current White House reveals the core problem: minimal standoff distance in a dense urban landscape filled with public access points, overlapping sightlines, and limited options for layered defense.
Fort Belvoir, spanning 13.4 square miles in Fairfax County, Virginia, provides the essential space and defensibility lacking downtown. Already home to significant Defense Department operations, the site can accommodate a Brigade Combat Team with advanced air defense systems, electronic warfare suites, and hardened infrastructure.
Redeveloping portions as the Capital Command Center and Residence would create a secure, integrated campus for executive operations, secure communications, emergency bunkers, and protected housing. The original White House would remain a powerful symbol for ceremonies, diplomatic events, and public engagement, preserving American heritage while shifting routine governance to a defensible location. This dual-use approach balances tradition with pragmatism.
America’s adversaries are already acting on similar logic at far greater scale. China is constructing a massive new military command center on the outskirts of Beijing—widely described as “Beijing Military City.” Spanning roughly 1,500 acres, the complex is approximately ten times the size of the U.S. Pentagon. Satellite imagery reveals extensive underground excavation, including deep bunkers and tunnel networks designed to protect Chinese leadership during conventional or even nuclear conflict.
This project underscores Beijing’s long-term commitment to safeguarding its command structure against precisely the threats America now faces. While the United States should not mirror authoritarian centralization, ignoring peer competitors’ investments in hardened, dispersed, or expansive leadership protection would be strategically negligent. Great power competition demands that we match foresight with action.
Critics will protest that relocating leadership breaks hallowed tradition. Yet America’s founding principles emphasize adaptation and self-preservation over sentiment. The Framers designed a flexible constitutional system precisely because they understood that circumstances change. They could scarcely have imagined hypersonic weapons, autonomous drone swarms, or persistent urban surveillance.
History shows the United States modernizing its security architecture when necessary: the creation of the Pentagon during World War II, the establishment of NORAD in the Cold War, and repeated enhancements to continuity-of-government protocols. Moving day-to-day executive functions to Fort Belvoir continues this tradition of prudent evolution.
The advantages extend beyond immediate protection. A campus-style Capital Command Center would improve coordination among the Executive Branch, military, and intelligence elements during crises. Redundant power, communications, and data systems on a large, controlled military installation enhance resilience against cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulses, or physical assaults. Expanded facilities could support secure housing for key personnel, reducing daily transit vulnerabilities. Over decades, this investment would prove far more cost-effective than endlessly retrofitting an exposed urban site against ever-advancing threats.
Implementation would require congressional oversight, phased construction, and careful transition planning to avoid any disruption in governance. The scale of Fort Belvoir allows for these measures without sacrificing operational tempo.
On our semi quincentennial, the United States should honor its past by investing seriously in its future. Relocating national leadership is not a concession to fear but a declaration of strategic seriousness.
By acting now, America signals to allies and adversaries alike that the Republic intends to endure. The Secret Service and Homeland Security teams have carried an impossible burden with professionalism. Providing them with adequate standoff, layered defenses, and modern infrastructure is the least the nation can do. Tradition matters, but the survival of the world’s oldest constitutional republic matters more.
Fort Belvoir offers a realistic foundation for protecting leadership through the 21st century and beyond. In doing so, we ensure that the American experiment will celebrate not only 250 years but another 250 and many more.
About The Author
Gary Berntsen is a retired Senior Operations Officer and Chief of Station of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is the Author of the NYT Bestseller Jawbreaker, The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
