The Trump administration’s decision to relocate thousands of agricultural workers from Washington, D.C., has raised eyebrows among economists. The primary concern is that this shift could strip away valuable expertise from a reluctant workforce.
The administration’s plan involves consolidating operations at the USDA and bringing employees closer to local clients. Out of the 4,600 staff based in D.C., about 2,600 will transition to a new, smaller hub. Locations under consideration include Fort Collins, Colorado, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Missouri, and Raleigh, North Carolina. While these cities already host existing USDA offices, the exact destinations for many divisions remain unclear.
“Some of the issues these institutions handle are broader national matters,” noted Chad Hart, an agricultural economics professor at Iowa State University.
He added that moving from D.C. to Indianapolis may not necessarily ease challenges for cotton farmers in Alabama.
During a July announcement, Secretary Brook Rollins characterized the D.C. offices as plagued by excessive spending and poor control. Post-reorganization, USDA expects fewer than 2,000 employees to remain in the capital, with potential building vacancies being returned to the General Services Department.
The adjustment in pay scales corresponds with the varying living costs in different cities. For instance, salaries could be reduced by 34% in Fort Collins, 30.5% in Kansas City, and other notable reductions in Indianapolis and Salt Lake City.
The USDA initially opened a 30-day public comment period ending August 31, but it has now been extended to September 30 due to skepticism on both sides of the political aisle.
This skepticism largely stems from fears that relocating numerous agricultural workers could lead to significant resignations, resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge. Hart pointed out that similar concerns were voiced when the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) were moved to Kansas City during Trump’s previous term.
“This isn’t the first time he’s followed this pattern,” Hart remarked.
He also noted that during those earlier relocations, ERS and NIFA experienced a noticeable drop in staff. This context leads him to suspect that a motive behind the current regionalization might be to reduce employment numbers within those sub-agencies.
A report from the Government Accountability Office indicated a temporary decline in the workforce post-relocation, highlighting that institutions still lack essential operational knowledge. Hart mentioned a decrease in ERS publications and challenges NIFA has faced in managing grant applications.
While he acknowledged that restoring expertise might take years, he also suggested that time could eventually rectify this situation—or maybe not.
Denver Tillmany, a Colorado State University professor, characterized the earlier relocations as purposefully harmful. She observed that some critical units benefitting from proximity to policymakers risk losing that connection due to the relocation.
Hart further commented on how the Biden administration hasn’t necessarily undone the Trump-era relocations but has rather opted for stability over disruption.
“Once people leave for other jobs, they’re not likely to come back,” Hart cautioned. “It’s tough to recover that seasoned talent.”
Tillmany noted that the earlier relocation coincided with the rise of remote work due to Covid-19, allowing the USDA to attract emerging talent. However, she remarked that many young recruits appear to be leaving again.
Looking ahead, she voiced concerns about a “second round” of relocations impacting perceptions of government jobs. “People will definitely think twice,” she remarked, stressing that while federal roles might not offer the best pay, the stability they provided was previously appealing.
Furthermore, she indicated that some USDA divisions already exist in close proximity to producers, which makes the choice of new locations a bit puzzling.
Tillmany expressed surprise that Fort Collins made the cut, especially being in a blue state. “It’s raised a few eyebrows,” she said.
The USDA spokesperson emphasized that the reorganization intends to streamline operations and eliminate unnecessary management layers, assuring that all key functions would continue smoothly.
At the time of the announcement, two Democratic Senators from Colorado publicly supported the move, with Sen. Michael Bennett highlighting that having more USDA staff in Fort Collins would benefit local farmers and ranchers.
Sen. John Hickenlooper echoed this sentiment, asserting that the hub would enhance connections between research and real agricultural needs.
While Hart anticipates positive local impacts from these new hubs, he remains concerned about the national focus required to support farmers effectively. He suggested that the recent relocation decisions could limit the expert support available to lawmakers during the development of federal policies.
Like many changes pushed by the Trump administration, Hart speculated this strategy also carries a cost-cutting agenda. However, he questioned whether these savings could be realized without compromising service quality.
“Pushing for local connections by moving national offices seems counterintuitive,” he remarked, adding that it could potentially do more harm than good.
