Increased opposition from Congress against the proposed USDA relocation plan
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is preparing for a significant relocation of about 2,500 federal employees from Washington, D.C., to five regional hubs across the country. This move, aimed at reducing costs associated with high federal salary locality rates, has raised concerns among House Democrats who question the plan's impact on workforce stability and effective service delivery.
Relocation Details and Concerns
The USDA plans to reduce the National Capital Region (NCR) staff from around 4,600 to approximately 2,000. Employees will be relocated to Raleigh, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Fort Collins, and Salt Lake City, chosen based on existing USDA presence and lower cost of living factors. However, some offices are being consolidated or eliminated, with details on employee impacts still uncertain.
House Democrats have expressed concerns about potential disruptions and the transparency of the process. In a letter dated Aug. 7, they urged USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to turn over all documents and communications related to the relocation plans and gave a deadline of Aug. 21 for the agency to explain how it prepared for the relocation and detail any cost-benefit analysis that occurred prior to announcing its plans.
Essential Services Preserved
USDA Secretary Rollins emphasizes that critical services related to public safety and national security, such as food safety inspection and wildfire response, will be maintained. However, concerns remain about the fate of employees in offices being consolidated or eliminated. USDA has stated it will approach the process transparently and provide updates, but details on timing and employee outcomes remain limited.
The COST of Relocations Act
In response to the Trump administration's relocation efforts, Democratic lawmakers have reintroduced the COST of Relocations Act earlier this year. This bill requires agencies to conduct and publish a detailed cost-benefit analysis before permanently relocating any offices. The COST of Relocations Act requires an assessment of real estate and staffing costs, as well as estimates of employee attrition and anticipated impacts on agency mission in the cost-benefit analysis.
A Look Back and Ahead
The Democrats warn that the relocation could mirror what happened at USDA on a much smaller scale in 2019 during Trump's first term. The prior relocations of USDA's Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, Missouri, led to staff attrition, a loss of institutional knowledge, and worsened productivity at both agencies.
USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden argued that the prohibitive cost of living in the D.C. area makes it hard to keep employees, and that the reorganization plan will allow USDA to recruit the next generation of its workforce. The Trump administration also rescinded two executive orders that encouraged agencies to prioritize urban areas and historic properties in decisions on federal buildings.
As the USDA moves forward with its major reorganization plan, the focus remains on ensuring a smooth transition for employees and maintaining the agency's mission. The COST of Relocations Act, if passed, could provide a more rigorous analysis to ensure that any attempt to move federal agencies is appropriately analysed.
- In light of the USDA's relocation plan, democrats have reintroduced the COST of Relocations Act, a bill that requires agencies to conduct and publish a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis before relocating offices.
- The USDA's planned move to five regional hubs, aimed at reducing costs, has raised concerns about potential disruptions in workforce stability and effective service delivery, as well as the fate of employees in offices being consolidated or eliminated.
- The Department of Agriculture faces scrutiny as concerns have been raised regarding the transparency of the relocation process and its potential impact on health-and-wellness (employee attrition) and workplace-wellness. The PROCESS of the relocation, its costs, and the impacts on the agency's mission are under debate, with the COST of Relocations Act possibly providing a more rigorous analysis.
