The Trump administration is proposing to move thousands of U.S. Department of Agriculture employees from Washington, D.C., to new regional hubs, sparking fears of workforce disruption and diminished expertise.

The plan would relocate 2,600 of 4,600 USDA workers to five cities across the country, leaving only about 2,000 in the capital and raising concerns about the agency’s ability to handle national-level agricultural policy work, as The Hill reports.

Under the proposal, staff would be reassigned to Fort Collins, Colorado.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Indianapolis, Indiana; Kansas City, Missouri; and Raleigh, North Carolina. Officials say the move is intended to consolidate functions, streamline management, and reduce duplicative work within the department.

Concerns over attrition arise

The USDA has opened a public comment period through Sept. 30 to collect feedback on the plan.

Many observers remain skeptical, pointing to past reorganizations under Trump’s leadership that caused declines in staff and institutional knowledge.

Economist Chad Hart highlighted the potential risks of uprooting employees. He said many issues handled by USDA are national in scope, noting that moving offices away from Washington will not necessarily improve access for farmers in other states.

“Some of the issues these agencies are trying to address are national issues,” Hart said.

“Moving it from D.C. to Indianapolis doesn’t necessarily make it easier for an Alabama cotton farmer to get a hold of -- or someone who does aquaculture in Maine," he added.

Previous relocations spur new warnings

Critics point to a previous move during Trump’s earlier term, when the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture were shifted to Kansas City. That decision led to significant staff losses and long-term challenges in rebuilding expertise.

Hart added that reversing such a move would not restore lost knowledge.

“Say you were to reorganize in three years and bring these institutions back to D.C., you’re not likely going to get those seasoned individuals back,” he explained.

Other experts argue the disruption may be intentional. Dawn Thilmany, an agricultural economist, said, “The moves were meant to be disruptive because they know they’re going to get attrition when they move something physically.”

USDA defends strategy

Despite criticism, the USDA has defended the plan. A spokesperson described the effort as “right-sizing” the department’s footprint and consolidating functions that are considered redundant or unnecessary.

The spokesperson said the reorganization will eliminate extra layers of management and allow the agency to operate more efficiently. The department also noted that lower wages in regional hubs reflect local costs of living.

Still, questions remain about whether the move aligns with the stated goal of strengthening connections between USDA offices and rural communities. Hart expressed doubt, stating, “The stated goal of connecting these agencies better with their audiences: moving the national office doesn’t help. If anything, it might hurt.”

Mixed reactions from lawmakers pour in

Some lawmakers see potential benefits. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said if implemented carefully, the relocation could help farmers and ranchers in Larimer County by bringing more USDA employees closer to them.

Sen. John Hickenlooper echoed that sentiment, saying the move could better connect USDA research to agricultural communities in his state. “Done correctly, this will harness Colorado’s agricultural communities’ expertise and help better connect USDA’s research to the folks on the ground,” he said.

But critics remain firm in warning that the disruption may outweigh any local gains. Thilmany cautioned that “in the name of expediency, this administration has not been careful thinking about implications.”