USDA, undeterred by judge’s stay, moves ‘full-bore ahead’ with reorganization steps 

The Agriculture Department is “full-bore ahead” with a sweeping reorganization, according to its top official, but is not explaining what that statement means in the context of a court order that has put key elements of the plan on hold. 

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins gave a brief update on the state of the department’s reorganization plans, which includes relocating about 2,600 employees across the country, in a call with reporters on Thursday. 

“We are full-bore ahead in the reorganization,” Rollins said on the call, following an announcement on fertilizer production, according to the Associated Press. “We believe in it more today than we ever have — taking the USDA to our constituents, which is rural America, the Forest Service out West.”

USDA’s relocations are currently on hold, following an Oct. 13 stay ordered by a federal judge in San Francisco. The department appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeals court has kept the lower court’s ruling in place for now. 

A USDA spokesperson declined to clarify what Rollins meant by her statement, and said “her comment speaks for itself.” 

“Any further responses will be filed with the court, not the press,” the USDA spokesperson said.  

U.S. District Court Judge Chhabria wrote his stay does not prevent USDA from relocating or reassigning employees in the Washington, D.C. area to other offices within the region. The stay specifically bars USDA from “closing or eliminating offices” at component agencies impacted by reorganization plans, or “relocating or reassigning employees or their positions or functions to different and/or new locations outside the local commuting area.” 

Undeterred by these developments, USDA is still carrying out reorganization activities not explicitly barred by the judge’s stay. 

USDA’s second-largest component, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, planned to relocate employees across the country to several “hub” locations. But following the court’s stay, NRCS is now looking to fill positions at those hub locations through local reassignments, according to three agency employees who spoke with Government Executive. 

NRCS, an agency created in the Dust Bowl era to help farmers protect and conserve private lands, opened its online critical vacancy portal on Tuesday, and will give employees until Nov. 2 to apply for available positions at their current grade level or lower. 

Screenshots shared with Government Executive show NRCS is listing positions at “hub office” locations in Fort Worth, Texas; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Raleigh, N.C., in its critical vacancy portal. 

Prior to the court’s stay, many NRCS employees received letters of intent, informing them that they may soon need to relocate to one of these hub locations in order to keep their jobs with the agency. Many employees say they’re unable to relocate and expect they will have to quit their jobs if USDA is allowed to proceed with its plans.  

“They have included the positions they ‘offered’ us that many of us declined. They have also posted those positions at a higher grade level than what was offered to us. Those of us that declined the ‘offer’ still don't know what's going to happen to us,” one NRCS employee said. 

NRCS has a Central National Technology Support Center (CNTSC) located in Fort Worth. But a second agency employee said most of that building space has been sold off or has faced environmental issues. As a result, employees in the area have been teleworking for years. 

“We don't have a space for people to go to,” the second NRCS employee said. “I believe there was talk that a lease was being developed, but as far as on paper, the only way we have a Fort Worth location is because of the reorganization.” 

The second NRCS employee said USDA is unlikely to staff up most hub locations through local reassignments, and that the department is ultimately trying to shrink its workforce without carrying out layoffs through a reduction in force. 

“When you look at where these jobs are, in relation to people that would be eligible for them, the math doesn’t work. There’s no promotions that are associated with any of these jobs. There’s no relocation, so you have to be within the commuting distance,” he said. “The ultimate goal is to reduce the numbers of staff. That's really what it gets down to – without having to go through the RIF process, which is more structured and deliberate. With this one, you can sort of pick and choose winners.”

The Food and Nutrition Service, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the “Food and Nutrition Administration,” notified employees in mid-October that the agency has officially restructured its operations, but has yet to carry out any of its planned employee relocations. The agency oversees 16 nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that collectively serve about one-in-four Americans. 

‘Held hostage by a court order’ 

Meanwhile, a fourth USDA employee said his voluntary relocation from one job to another has been put on hold by the district court’s stay – despite the move having nothing to do with the department’s reorganization plans.  

The employee told Government Executive that he requested to relocate “separate from any reorganization plan,” but that his request has now been “denied.” He said that reversal forced his spouse to rescind a resignation for their current job, as well as rescind a job offer initially accepted where they intended to move. The denial has also forced the couple to cancel a lease where they planned to relocate. 

“We have requested our own move, at our own expense, and are being denied,” the employee said. “Our lives are being put on hold because of this court case that has nothing to do with us, except that our agency has been named.” 

Several USDA vacancies currently posted on USAJobs now include a disclaimer that department employees covered by the court’s stay, “whose current permanent grade is equal to the grade of the advertised position, and whose selection would result in a relocation outside the commuting area of their current duty station may not currently be considered for selection to this position.” 

The employee said it’s frustrating the court’s decision has kept his family from carrying out a relocation “on our own accord,” and unrelated to USDA’s reorganization plans. 

“We are being held hostage by a court order that should not have bearing on me as an individual that wants to make a decision that is best for my family,” the employee said.