USDA workers fear the worst as Trump admin threatens a reorganization

USDA Employees Brace for Mass Departures Amid Controversial Relocation Drive

Earthguardiansonline.com – Thousands of federal workers across the United States Department of Agriculture are facing an uncertain future as the agency pushes forward with what many describe as a covert workforce reduction. The initiative, announced in mid-2025, requires employees to relocate hundreds of miles from their current locations or risk losing their positions entirely. For many career civil servants, the decision represents more than a simple change of address—it signals the potential end of their professional lives within the federal government.

A Repeated Pattern from the First Trump Term

Laura Dodson, an agricultural economist serving as vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, received her relocation notice in late June. The directive required her to move from her current position to Kansas City, Missouri—a scenario she recognized all too well. During the previous Trump administration in 2019, the USDA reassigned numerous employees from the Economic Research Service and a related institute to the same Midwestern city.

Officials at the time argued the move would reduce taxpayer costs and place workers closer to agricultural stakeholders. The results proved mixed at best. According to a federal watchdog report, more than half of the affected employees refused to relocate. Those who stayed faced demoralization and a chaotic workplace environment. The agency subsequently produced fewer research reports and journal articles while experiencing slower grant processing times for several years following the reassignment.

“The USDA knows what happened; they know the results,” Dodson explained. “They ran the experiment in 2019.”

Now Dodson anticipates that as many as eighty percent of her ERS colleagues who received similar notices will choose to depart rather than relocate. A survey conducted by Local 3403 revealed that only six percent of respondents planned to move, while twenty-five percent remained uncertain. Dodson herself holds a work-related exemption granting her until January to complete the move, though she has begun actively pursuing opportunities in the private sector.

Disguised Reduction in Force

Union members and labor advocates argue the relocation program serves a dual purpose. While publicly framed as organizational realignment, many view it as a reduction in force—commonly abbreviated as RIF—designed to shrink the workforce without formal layoffs. The approach aligns with broader departmental efforts to reduce headcount after years of growth.

When the USDA unveiled its reorganization plans in July 2025, officials stated the initiative would refocus core operations to better support American farming, ranching, and forestry. The department simultaneously emphasized that reducing its workforce would ensure financial sustainability. A USDA spokesperson told CNN that all current employees retain opportunities within the department if they choose to relocate, with relocation expenses covered for those required to move.

“Many call it a RIF, or reduction in force, disguised as a relocation,” Dodson noted, referencing a sentiment shared by multiple union members interviewed by CNN.

Legal Challenges Mount

The controversy has sparked legal action. Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of a coalition comprising unions, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations. The plaintiffs contend that the USDA lacks the authority to execute the reorganization and that Congress failed to approve the Trump administration’s request to fundamentally overhaul the department.

Court documents reveal the USDA maintains it possesses broad statutory authority to reorganize its internal structure. The department also asserts that Congress has been properly notified of its reorganization plans. CNN has contacted the USDA for additional comment on the ongoing legal proceedings.

Personal Stakes for Federal Workers

For individual employees, the uncertainty extends far beyond professional considerations. One anonymous staffer described having already decided against relocation despite the requirement. Their partner maintains stable employment in their current location, and they provide care for a seriously ill family member nearby. Additionally, elevated mortgage rates have made purchasing a home in another city financially impractical.

“I planned to spend my career here and advance within the agency,” the employee told CNN. “Now I realize it’s just a matter of time before I’m effectively laid off.”

Another employee described struggling to maintain normalcy while awaiting her own relocation notice. The prospect of moving hundreds of miles away threatened to overwhelm her daily functioning. “It would consume me. It would make it impossible to work,” she said, adding that the question of whether her notice would arrive next keeps her constantly anxious.

The reorganization arrives during a period of significant downsizing since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. Tens of thousands of federal employees have departed through voluntary resignations, retirements, and incentive programs designed to encourage early exits. For those remaining, the relocation mandate represents both a test of loyalty and a potential pathway to career transformation—or termination.