A federal judge has temporarily blocked key parts of the Trump administration’s sweeping reorganization of the US Agriculture Department, siding with labor unions and other plaintiffs who argued that the agency’s planned office closures and employee relocations violate congressional funding restrictions.
The ruling offers a reprieve for employees facing forced moves, but it may be short-lived. The funding restrictions underpinning the decision are set to expire Dec. 11.
Even if the stay is extended and the reorganization ultimately blocked, the USDA has already lost thousands of employees during the Trump administration, and the effects of further departures by employees on agency expertise and essential services remain unclear.
What is at stake?
In July 2025, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins revealed a far-reaching reorganization of the agency, including plans to relocate more than half of the 4,600 positions currently in the Washington, DC, region to five hub locations around the country. Rollins said the agency is “bloated, expensive and unsustainable,” and the relocation would “bring USDA closer to the people it serves while also providing a more affordable cost of living for USDA employees.”
The backlash was swift and strong with members of Congress characterizing the plan as an attack on the federal workforce and ploy to disrupt essential services, including nutrition assistance programs. Members sent letters to USDA about their concerns that forced relocations would require thousands of employees to choose between leaving their current home – often to a different state – or losing their job.
Ultimately, Congress enacted appropriation restrictions limiting USDA’s ability to use existing funds for certain reorganizations and relocations without first obtaining approval from the House and Senate Appropriations committees.
Despite these prohibitions, USDA moved forward with the reorganization – prompting four unions representing agency employees along with nonprofit organizations and local governments to sue the Trump administration to stop parts of the reorganization, which they allege is a ruse to force employees to leave the agency.
The plaintiffs argue that USDA’s planned closures and relocations violate congressional restrictions on spending and that the department failed to adequately account for the potential consequences for its operations.
Temporary relief
On these grounds, US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria on Oct. 13 issued a temporary stay blocking the agency from “reprogramming” congressionally appropriated money to fund the reorganization, including for moving expenses, building closures and other costs, while the litigation continues.
“It is overwhelmingly likely that USDA’s planned closures and relocations violate Congress’s express restrictions on those activities,” he wrote. For this, and additional reasons, “preliminary relief is necessary to protect the congressional prerogative, prevent irreparable harm to federal employees and vindicate the public interest,” he explained.
However, he added, “it is worth emphasizing the temporal scope of this relief could end up being quite short,” as the funding restrictions underpinning the ruling are set to expire Dec. 11.
“If USDA wishes to move forward with the now-stayed reorganization activities, it can ask Congress to change the language of the next appropriations statute, either to give USDA broader spending authority or to express disagreement with the severability analysis set forth in this ruling,” he wrote.
Until then the USDA must hold off on relocating additional staff or enforcing “management-directed reassignment” letters it already issued employees. The letters direct staff to choose between moving outside of their “local commuting area,” such as to a new regional hub, or leaving their job.
The agency is also prohibited from closing or consolidating the resources or locations of any Agricultural Research Service lab or facility, including the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland.
The court order does not prohibit the agency from relocating or reassigning USDA employees currently in the Washington, DC, area to other offices, programs of facilities in the same region. It also does not require the agency to return employees who were relocated before the reorganization and who began work at their new station before the Court’s first administrative stay order on Sept. 14.
Brain drain still a threat
The unions’ victory does not reverse staffing losses already experienced by USDA, nor does it resolve the uncertainty facing employees who have received relocation orders.
According to court documents, USDA sent “management-directed reassignment” letters to 725 employees in late August before Chhabria blocked the agency’s reorganization efforts.
USDA told the federal court that 64% of employees accepted the terms, although that figure does not establish how many employees will ultimately relocate or remain with USDA. Likewise, employees who declined reassignment are not necessarily leaving the department, just as those who accepted may not ultimately move.
Still the threat of staff losses due to closures and relocations could “significantly reshape” how the agency manages programs, Chhabria notes in his order. For example, he notes that planned relocations may affect up to 870 of the roughly 1,200 current Food and Nutrition Administration employees. A recent employee survey found the vast majority are unlikely to opt to relocate, including 90% of respondents working on the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, and 81% of respondents working on SNAP.
Separately, tens of thousands of USDA employees have left the department since the start of the second Trump administration, largely through voluntary separation incentives, according to media reports.
Ultimately, the court’s order leaves the department’s reorganization in limbo, with the future of the funding restrictions now a critical factor in determining whether the challenged changes can proceed. Unless Congress extends or revises those restrictions, the legal basis for the stay could change as soon as Dec. 11.
That leaves USDA employees facing a question the court has not answered: whether the pause will give the department time to develop a different plan, or simply delay the same relocation decisions.
