USDA received overwhelmingly negative feedback on its reorg plan from employees, lawmakers and locals governments

The Agriculture Department received overwhelmingly negative feedback on its plan to relocate thousands of staff and consolidate dozens of offices, as employees, lawmakers and stakeholders said it could lead to a significant brain drain and disruptions to key farmer-support programs. 

While just 10% of the USDA workforce is currently in the Washington area, the department is looking to relocate around 2,600 of those employees to new locations. The department is standing up five regional hubs around the country that will house relocated employees, located in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah. It is slashing other regional offices across the country and consolidating many support functions. 

The department solicited emailed comments from the public between Aug. 1 and Sept. 30. USDA received nearly 47,000 responses, most of which were from form letters or part of an organized campaign. Of the 14,000 remaining messages, 82% expressed a negative sentiment, according to USDA’s analysis of the responses. Just 5% expressed a positive tone. 

Among the most common concerns, USDA said, were for the impacts of reductions in personnel and resources. Potential layoffs, which USDA has said would be necessary if an insufficient number of employees agree to relocate, or employees opting to resign instead of moving would lead to reduced operational capacity, the commenters said. 

“Stakeholders worry that cost-cutting measures will prioritize efficiency over service quality, undermining public trust,” the department said in its analysis. 

Commenters also said there has been insufficient transparency in the reorganization process and demanded more stakeholder input. As the department looks to slash regional offices across the country, stakeholders raised concerns about the loss of “local oversight and expertise.” The knowledge of local staff could be replaced by “top-down management, risking misalignment with regional needs.” Each area and community requires a tailored approach, according to USDA’s summary of the feedback it received, and “centralized structures” may fail to deliver it. 

Plans to eliminate facilities like the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland sparked fears the cuts would inhibit scientific research and food security efforts. 

USDA also received hundreds of comments specifically suggesting the reorganization of the U.S. Forest Service, which is phasing out its nine regional offices and four of its five Research Stations, would diminish the agency’s capacity, public access to lands and employee morale. 

Employees, for their part, stressed the importance of support for the workforce throughout the reorganization process. The department should regularly review the impact on employees and check in on their well-being, they told USDA, while ensuring the subject matter expertise is preserved. USDA retirees similarly wrote in to warn the department that the institutional knowledge of the workforce provides an “invaluable contribution” to farmers and that such expertise could be in jeopardy as a result of the changes. 

Employee unions also submitted comments, noting their lack of consultation and concerns over workforce retention. They cited USDA’s relocation of two offices in 2019 to Kansas City, which resulted in the loss of more than half of their staff and significant drops in productivity. USDA has already shed more than 15,000 employees from its initiative that allowed employees to sit on paid leave for several months before resigning. 

The department failed to undertake cost-benefit or operational impact analysis, the unions said, nor did they provide a rationale for choosing the five hubs (USDA has said the locations will provide a cheaper cost of living for employees and move them closer to the department’s core constituency). 

“Without answers, the reorganization appears arbitrary and politically motivated,” the unions said, per USDA’s summary. 

Employees, retirees and the unions suggested USDA back away from its plan in favor of a more decentralized organization that empowers local offices. Eliminating regional offices could harm communication between producers and the government, they said, delaying access to services. 

The unions asked USDA to slow down its efforts, provide more information on its decision making and better explain how it will retain staff and avoid loss of institutional knowledge. 

Dozens of lawmakers from both the House and Senate, who were not identified in USDA’s analysis, also wrote in and warned about a loss of skilled workers and impacts to the nation’s “scientific edge.” They took issue with the administration’s choices for the new hubs and expressed concern over the potential loss of local input. 

The lawmakers asked that certain research labs remain open, the department to hold public hearings and significant efforts are taken to ensure continuity of services. 

Local governments raised questions about the future of components with which they interact most frequently, such as the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development. They asked that USDA maintain funding for those programs and that the agencies preserve and improve on their responsiveness to constituents’ issues. The government commenters, like virtually all of those who wrote to USDA, asked the department to take special care not to sacrifice its efforts with tribal nations. 

The mostly negative feedback from stakeholders is not expected to deter the Trump administration as it reshapes the department, with several employees telling Government Executive the plan was proceeding full steam ahead. Employees were expecting to see changes starting this coming summer and Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden recently told Agri-Pulse all relocations would be effectuated by the end of 2026.

USDA is moving forward over the concerns of its employees and stakeholders, as well as those held on a bipartisan basis on Capitol Hill. In a joint statement accompanying USDA’s fiscal 2026 spending bill, lawmakers reminded the department that Congress has final say on next year’s funding levels. “Therefore, the agencies should not presuppose program funding outcomes and prematurely initiate action to redirect staffing prior to knowing final outcomes on fiscal year 2027 program funding,” they said. Additionally, appropriators reminded USDA that the department requires “specific statutory authority” to transfer between its accounts.

While courts often examine those statements to determine congressional intent, they are not thought to themselves contain the force of law.