Business Insights: The Shifting Landscape of Headquarters Relocations: 2026 Update

• Texas metros—especially Dallas–Fort Worth and Austin—remain the strongest magnets, with DFW receiving over 100 HQ relocations since 2018, the most of any U.S. metropolitan area. In 2025, the metro gained an additional 11 HQs from other higher-cost metro areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, New York and Chicago.
• Charlotte, Miami, Nashville and Phoenix continue rising as major contenders due to pro‑business environments, tax benefits, growing and diverse talent pools and supportive infrastructures.
• California’s largest metros (San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles) continue to experience net HQ losses, with departures driven by high taxes, labor regulations and cost‑of‑living pressures.

Figure 3: Top Cities That Gained Net New HQs (Interstate & International)

Figure 4: Top Cities That Lost HQs

Dallas-Ft. Worth:

• Of DFW’s 18 announcements in 2025, 11 were interstate or international relocations with companies moving their HQ out of high-cost markets like Chicago, NYC, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
• Seven companies executed intrastate relocations, moving buildings within the Dallas metro to consolidate operations and right-size their total square footage in the city. Others outgrew current space and sought out buildings with vacancies and attractive amenities.

New York City:

• Of the 17 total HQ relocation announcements where NYC was the destination city, only seven represented net‑new entrants, while 10 were intrastate moves by existing companies. These 10 companies highlighted portfolio optimization and reaffirmed their commitment to the metro, seeking right‑sized or expanded space within the broader region, within Manhattan or crossing state lines into New Jersey or north toward White Plains.
• Nine of the 10 intrastate HQs moved into newly constructed or retrofitted buildings within the New York–Newark–Jersey City metro, collectively representing more than 2 million sq. ft. of activity. CBRE’s analysis of the nation’s top 100 occupier expansions also found that Manhattan captured 36% of total square footage, with most companies citing real‑estate‑driven requirements—such as space optimization, quality upgrades or access to growth opportunities—rather than market exit as the primary driver of relocation decisions.
• The New York–Newark–Jersey City metro remains home to 114 Fortune 1000 headquarters. Even amid nine companies exiting the NYC metro for other U.S. markets in 2025, relocation activity still skewed toward retention rather than flight: Those nine companies, including only three of the Fortune 1000, represent a small fraction of the region’s corporate base, accounting for a modest loss of 5,220 employees.
• Only one relocation was an interstate move of a company leaving San Francisco to NYC to improve access to highly skilled talent and establish an East Coast presence.
• Six relocations were international companies establishing a United States HQ, to better serve their North American consumer base or seek out established finance or technology labor.

Phoenix:

• Five relocations were net new HQs with companies relocating their HQ to the Phoenix metropolitan area from other U.S. cities.
• Four of the announcements were existing companies seeking new intrastate locations due to rightsizing their portfolio or seeking a building with better amenities and fewer total square feet.
• One international company relocated their HQ to Phoenix from Canada.

Miami:

• Six companies sought Miami from other U.S. metros such as LA, the Bay Area and Boston.
• Companies cite Miami as a metro that still offers access to a growing FinTech talent pool, start-up ecosystem and opportunities to consolidate operations.
  
  Miami’s tech labor market is characterized by a wide base of general technology talent and strong growth momentum, but limited depth in specialized and advanced technical skills, often requiring firms to recruit experienced specialists from outside the region. This disparity may explain why Miami appears on both lists of the top cities that gained and lost HQs.
• Florida’s tax system ranks 5th overall on the 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index. Companies benefit from maintaining an East Coast presence, enabling them to take advantage of lower corporate tax rates.
• Two international companies selected Miami due to its strong industry‑specific concentrations, including a cosmetics company attracted by Miami’s position as one of the nation’s leading hubs for medical spas and dermatological aesthetic clinics and a travel company drawn to South Florida’s deep pool of talent with experience across the travel and leisure sector.

• In 2025, the top reason for relocations was Consolidate Operations/Portfolio Optimization/M&A (34), followed closely by Business Climate (Lower Taxes/Incentives Awarded/Cost of Living, (27), Real Estate (Building Amenities/Lower Cost, (27) and Access to Consumer Base (27).
• This represented a shift from 2024, when Business Climate (21) and Access to the Consumer Base (19) were the primary drivers for 40 relocations, with lower corporate taxes being a key factor.
• Lower-Cost Tech Talent (3), a trend that was prevalent in 2021-2023, decreased, while Labor Availability (24) increased. The number of companies citing Real Estate (Building Amenities/Lower Cost) increased to 27, with companies seeking lower lease rates or specific amenities for hybrid environments.
• Companies specifically citing a Growth Opportunity (22) as the primary reason for relocating increased nearly 47% from 15 in 2024.

Figure 5: Number of Relocations by Reason

• Technology (39) and manufacturing companies (33) were the most active movers, shifting away from traditional coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and Seattle in favor of lower‑cost, innovation‑friendly metros. Additionally, several companies in these industries citied growth opportunities that have outpaced the real estate capacity and specialized labor availability in markets of their originating cities.
• Business services firms had high relocation activity, with 17 headquarters announcements, reflecting the sector’s push to optimize costs, access new talent pools and reposition core administrative hubs in business‑friendly metros.
• Financial services companies announced 15 HQ relocations, underscoring their continued migration toward lower‑cost, pro‑business states—particularly in the Sun Belt. This movement closely follows the motivations seen across other regulated industries: improving compliance cost structures, gaining access to skilled financial talent and adopting flexible real‑estate strategies aligned with hybrid work.

Figure 6: Number of Relocations by Industry

Figure 7: Number of Relocations by Industry and Reason

• In 2025, the trend of global companies moving to the U.S. continued, with 26 international companies establishing or relocating their global HQs to the U.S.
• The greater NYC metro area benefited from this trend in 2025, as with 6 companies in finance and technology establishing North American HQs. Regions with robust economic infrastructures, advanced technology ecosystems and access to global markets are the most attractive locations for international businesses, making the U.S. a prime destination for companies seeking to grow and expand.
• Manufacturing companies from China, South Korea and Japan established US HQs, seeking metro areas with access to advanced manufacturing skilled labor, as well as targeting their existing consumer base.
• Israeli aerospace and technology companies also sought out U.S.-based locations like Detroit and Tampa—needing smaller footprints while still aligning with a targeted consumer base.
• U.K.-based finance and technology companies sought out large metros like Atlanta, Columbus and NYC for their access to expanded diverse labor pools.

Companies should be asking the following questions ahead of an HQ relocation:

1. Which business groups should stay, shift or relocate from headquarters, and how does our hybrid‑work environment influence the future role of the HQ?
2. How well do our current organizational models and operating policies support a distributed footprint, and what skill sets will we need going forward?
3. What business priorities—such as culture, cost and access to talent—should guide our long‑term strategic planning and location decisions?
4. How do we balance the benefits of lower‑cost markets (labor and real estate) with talent quality, labor demand and competitive dynamics in potential HQ locations?
5. What should be the size and structure of our future HQ, and how does this align with our broader real estate portfolio and ownership strategy?
6. What investment is required to refresh our existing HQ versus relocating, and what would be the total cost and expected payback period of a move?

With corporate mobility accelerating—reflected in CBRE’s tracking of 725 total relocation announcements since 2018 and a renewed surge of activity last year—2025 became a year of elevated headquarters decision-making. Companies are increasingly adopting intrametro strategies, weighing the benefits of various submarkets within the same region, as hybrid work reshapes location priorities and drives demand for more flexible, efficient footprints.

Our expanded dataset now includes 725 public headquarters announcements made between 2018 and 2025—an increase of 164 over the previously collected 561. Drawn from a wide range of public news sources and companies across industries, this broader sample offers a clearer view of emerging corporate real estate patterns. While not an exhaustive list of every real estate transaction across metros, the large volume of data enhances our ability to spot trends, understand shifting motivations behind relocations and provide more informed insights for stakeholders shaping future CRE strategy.