August 14, 2025 - By Christine Souza - As the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves forward with its reorganization, questions 
remain about how the changes will affect farmers.
“USDA has provided little information about the reorganization, but our objective at the California Farm Bureau is to ensure that the country’s largest agricultural state has the resources and support it needs from USDA and the U.S. Forest Service,” said Erin Huston, federal policy consultant for the California Farm Bureau.
Agricultural stakeholders have until Aug. 26 to weigh in on USDA’s sweeping reorganization plan, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced late last month.
Rollins said the plan seeks to align the workforce size with the budget, bring the department closer to farmers and rural communities, eliminate layers of management and consolidate redundant support functions.
She said the phased approach calls for relocating much of the department’s headquarters and Washington, D.C.-area staff to five hub locations in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado and Utah.
In addition, the department said it plans to eliminate area offices of the Agriculture Research Service; consolidate 12 existing regions of the National Agricultural Statistics Service to five; consolidate nine regional offices of the U.S. Forest Service; reduce regions at the Food and Nutrition Service from seven to five; and align the regional structure of the Natural Resources Conservation Service with the hub locations. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service centers will remain at current locations, as they are in hub locations.
USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden responded to concerns and fielded questions about the reorganization late last month during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., chairman of the committee, asked about the need to continue essential services.
“As we examine the proposal, we need to fully understand its implications for the people USDA serves, especially how the reorganization will affect USDA’s boots-on-the-ground presence in rural America and the delivery of essential services,” he said.
As the department evolves, Boozman said it is important that the reorganization enhances the ability of USDA to deliver on commitments of supporting farmers and ranchers, stewarding natural resources, investing in rural development, and advancing innovation in food and agriculture.
In response, Vaden said the reorganization “is going to allow us to build the next generation of USDA leadership.” He said the high cost of living in Washington, D.C., makes it difficult for federal agencies to retain employees.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked Vaden about the decision to move USDA offices and services closer to farmers.
“California is the No. 1 ag-producing state in the union, and yet the proposed hub—in place of USDA headquarters—will be located in Salt Lake City, which is more than 500 miles from the Central Valley,” he said. “Why wasn’t a hub placed closer to the largest ag-producing state?”
Vaden responded that the proposed hub in Utah is closer to California than Washington, D.C., and said that hub locations were chosen to lower the cost of living for federal employees.
“We want people to join USDA to build a career, to be able to purchase a home,” Vaden said. “Unfortunately, it’s more difficult to do that in California with the price of housing.”
Vaden denied the hub locations were selected as a “political calculation,” as Schiff called it.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., said many questions still need to be answered about specifics of the plan. She expressed concern about the closure of facilities and implications for agricultural research.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the ranking member of the committee, called the plan “half baked. ”
She said there was no notice or consultation with agricultural leaders. She also expressed concern that cutbacks of employees and services would negatively impact farmers.
Vaden explained that the secretary’s plan proposes relocating 2,600 employees from Washington, D.C., to five hubs around the country.
After the reorganization, USDA expects no more than 2,000 employees to remain in the Washington, D.C., area, where there are currently about 4,600 employees. Ninety percent of the department’s employees work outside the capital region, he added.
Related to the decision to close four of 4,754 USDA facilities, Vaden cited authority to do so under the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act of 2023, signed into law by President Joe Biden. Known as the Use It Act, the law requires that all buildings leased or owned by a government agency be at least 60% occupied. Failing to meet the occupancy rate requires a federal agency to consolidate and vacate, Vaden said.
Considering employees who left the department through the deferred resignation program and the closure of four buildings, Vaden said USDA has estimated it will save at least $4 billion.
After the comment period for the organization plan, Vaden said he and Rollins will travel to the five proposed hub locations, and then a finalize phased timeline for plan implementation will be issued.
To comment on the USDA reorganization, send feedback to reorganization@usda.gov.
Christine Souza is senior editor of Ag Alert. She can be reached at csouza@cfbf.com.
The California Farm Bureau Federation works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 32,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of more than 5.5 million Farm Bureau members.
Source: Reprinted with permission CFBF
