Internal documents contradict statements from USDA leaders, who repeatedly said they did not anticipate relocations would lead to widespread staffing losses.
The Agriculture Department is counting on a “significant number” of employees not to relocate to keep their jobs, according to internal documents, deepening staffing cuts across its operations.
USDA is asking thousands of its employees to relocate across the country as part of sweeping reorganization plans it began unveiling last year.
Employees recently began receiving relocation notices and must decide this summer whether they will accept relocation or leave their jobs. Staff who opt to relocate generally must report to their new offices by September or October.
Federal employee unions and nonprofit organizations, as part of an ongoing lawsuit, are asking a federal judge in San Francisco to temporarily bar USDA from carrying out its reorganization plans.
Learn how CMS, DISA, Transportation and Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security Flexibility are reducing complexity and easing secure access in our new executive briefing. Download today!
Citing internal USDA documents submitted to the court, the plaintiffs claim that “USDA not only acknowledges that a high percentage of workers will resign, but uses that attrition to meet its reduction goals.”
“Plaintiffs seek an injunction to halt this unlawful attempt to restructure and downsize USDA without congressional authorization,” the plaintiffs, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, wrote to the court on Wednesday.
The agency announced last summer that it would relocate more than half of its Washington, D.C.-based headquarters employees out to five regional hubs across the country. USDA expanded its relocation plans to many of its subcomponent agencies this spring. USDA has put part of its headquarters complex up for sale, and expects the Food and Nutrition Service to vacate its D.C. office by September.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said the reorganization plan “is not a large-scale workforce reduction.”
But in an April 2025 document, outlining its workforce reduction and agency restructuring plan to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, USDA wrote it “is anticipating that a significant number of employees will decline geographic reassignments out of the [national capital region] or existing regional or state offices to the five target hub locations.”
Employees in several USDA components have already received relocation notices, and must decide whether they will move or quit their jobs. In some cases, the decision deadline has either passed or is approaching in the coming days. Notices at other USDA components remain on hold, pending negotiations with unions.
The Supreme Court ruled last summer that the Trump administration has sweeping authority to shrink the federal workforce through firings and layoffs. But the plaintiffs argue that USDA’s actions “directly conflict” with spending bills passed by Congress that prohibit USDA from carrying out reorganization plans without the approval of lawmakers.
Sign up for our daily newsletter so you never miss a beat on all things federal
They also argue that staffing losses from the upcoming relocations will be so severe that USDA subagencies and programs will be unable to carry out work required by law — including delivering food assistance programs used by millions of Americans.
“USDA’s actions to implement the Reorganization Plan will necessarily degrade USDA components’ capacity to the functions required and authorized by Congress,” the plaintiffs wrote.
The plaintiffs also point out that USDA agencies saw major staffing losses when it relocated hundreds of D.C.-based employees to Kansas City under the first Trump administration — a much smaller plan than what USDA is proposing under the second Trump term.
“USDA’s actions will force many of the experienced and dedicated employees who run the agency’s programs to leave, thereby gutting programs, interrupting and eliminating the delivery of important services, and harming the employees and their families,” the unions wrote. “The harms are as certain and as widespread as if USDA had imposed a large-scale reduction-in-force and cut program staff directly”
The unions are seeking a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that would block the Trump administration from “reorganizing or downsizing any component USDA agency or subagency, including closing, moving, or consolidating offices or transferring programs or functions between offices.” That includes prohibiting USDA from sending any additional relocation notices to employees, or taking any action to remove employees who already declined relocation.
The unions told the court that these internal agency documents “confirm USDA’s plans, in conjunction with OMB and OPM, to restructure and downsize USDA arbitrarily and without congressional authorization.”
USDA initially sought authorization from Congress for its downsizing and reorganization plans, as part of its fiscal 2026 budget request.
Lawmakers, however, rejected the agency’s proposed multibillion-dollar cuts, and included language in a comprehensive spending plan for FY 2026 that barred USDA from using appropriated funds to relocate offices or employees, reorganize offices, programs, or activities — or eliminate them — without congressional approval.
“USDA is defying these direct instructions,” the unions wrote.
Read more: Workforce
USDA’s Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan (ARRP), which it submitted in April 2025, states that the agency planned to cut its total workforce by 23% — or by 31%, when considering its public safety and inspection workforce. The plaintiffs wrote that attrition caused by USDA’s relocations “is on par with the RIFs that were being implemented” in USDA’s ARRP.
USDA’s ARRP states that it is the “first step in the plan to unwind the excesses of the Biden Administration and prioritize an efficient workforce structure and level.” The department wrote that it would carry out layoffs if it didn’t reach its staffing reduction goals through attrition and voluntary separation incentives.
Some USDA components would see more severe staffing cuts than others. The ARRP calls for cutting the Food and Nutrition Service’s workforce by at least 46% and directs FNS to “deemphasize the food stamp program,” referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
USDA also sought deep workforce cuts to its agricultural research agencies — a 43% staffing cut for the Agricultural Research Service and the Economic Research Service, and a 39% staffing cut for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Its Rural Development mission area would see a 47% staffing cut under this plan. The Foreign Agricultural Service would see a 28% staffing cut, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service would see a 34% staffing cut. The Forest Service would see a 15% staffing cut.
Unions representing USDA employees show a majority of their bargaining unit members would rather leave their jobs than relocate. A local chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union representing USDA food assistance employees found that about 80% of SNAP and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) employees who took the survey said they will not relocate.
The plaintiff unions wrote that Food and Nutrition Service workforce losses of this magnitude would “gut the agency’s ability to timely and accurately administer” its programs. In a separate survey, 75% of USDA researchers told their local AFGE chapter that they wouldn’t relocate to keep their jobs. A similar percentage of USDA employees chose not to relocate in 2019, when the department moved hundreds of ERS and NIFA jobs to Kansas City.
“With such a drastic decrease in experienced staff, the agencies’ productivity will plummet,” the plaintiff unions wrote. “After the 2019 relocation, ERS research reports and articles declined markedly due to workforce decreases.”
The Forest Service, so far, expects that about 500 of its employees will be asked to relocate, as part of plans to relocate its headquarters to Salt Lake City. It sent letters to about 6,500 Forest Service employees notifying them that they might be affected by the relocation — but later stated that not all employees who received letters will be impacted.
“The intent is not to push anyone out the door,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz told members of the House Appropriations Committee in April.
But in a June 1 letter to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden wrote that the Biden administration carried out “hiring that was unsustainable” within the Forest Service, and that the Trump administration is reorganizing the agency “to align its workforce size with available resources.”
The Forest Service lost almost 6,000 employees in 2025 from the deferred resignation program and other incentives to shed staff. The unions wrote that Forest Service staff “are already overburdened with staffing shortages.”
Last year, USDA acknowledged that an “overwhelming majority” of public comments it received on its reorganization plans “expressed negative sentiment.” More than 80% of the nearly 47,000 public comments it received raised concerns with the plan — including that the plan would lead to staffing losses and diminish the agency’s ability to manage public lands, conduct scientific research and provide services to the public.
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email jheckman@federalnewsnetwork.com, or reach out on Signal at jheckman.29
Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
Jory Heckman is a reporter at Federal News Network covering the Postal Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, IRS, big data and technology issues.
Follow @jheckmanWFED
Leave a Reply