The USDA’s proposal to reorganize its national structure into five regional offices has collided with one of the agency’s most significant workforce contractions in recent history, prompting an overwhelmingly negative public response.
On July 24, 2025, USDA unveiled a sweeping reorganization plan intended to “refocus core operations” around four pillars: workforce alignment, proximity to customers, reduction of bureaucracy and consolidation of redundant functions. The proposal triggered a public comment period through Sept. 30, 2025, during which the agency received nearly 47,000 emails from employees, lawmakers, Tribes, state and local governments, unions, nonprofit organizations, researchers and private citizens.
Meanwhile, internal data analyzed by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) show the agency lost more than 20,000 employees during the first half of 2025—nearly one in five of its workforce—through retirement, resignation, termination, external transfers and the Deferred Resignation Program.
Comments overwhelmingly negative
Public comments submitted to USDA during the two-month review period reflect that skepticism in strikingly consistent terms. Of the 46,845 messages received, USDA determined that about 14% were duplicative, blank or spam. Of the remaining submissions, more than two-thirds were form or campaign emails. Still, analysis of roughly 14,000 unique comments shows overwhelming opposition: 82% expressed negative sentiment toward the reorganization, compared to just 5% positive and 7% neutral.
More than half of all comments addressed the USDA reorganization broadly, while others focused on specific agencies—most notably the U.S. Forest Service and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Commenters repeatedly warned that reorganizing into five regional offices would erode local knowledge, replace place-based decision-making with top-down management and weaken the USDA’s ability to respond to regional agricultural and natural resource needs. Many argued that rural communities depend on county-level offices and long-standing relationships with staff that centralized regional hubs cannot replicate.
Concerns about the Forest Service were among the most prominent themes. Stakeholders warned that restructuring could undermine the agency’s capacity to manage public lands, maintain recreation access and carry out conservation and wildfire mitigation work. Many comments emphasized that centralized oversight could dilute accountability and reduce responsiveness to local conditions on federal lands.
Agricultural research emerged as another flashpoint. Comments related to the ARS—particularly the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center—were overwhelmingly negative, with more than 90% opposing closure or major reorganization. Stakeholders cited risks to long-term research projects, loss of institutional knowledge built over decades and potential harm to food security, pollinator health and climate research.
Staffing losses
A Dec. 17, 2025, report from the USDA OIG added a new layer of concern by quantifying the scale and timing of workforce losses across the agency.
According to the OIG review, USDA employed 110,384 people as of Jan. 11, 2025. Between Jan. 12, 2025, and June 14, 2025, OIG said that 20,306 employees left the department—an attrition rate of 18% over six months.
The report showed attrition surged in late April and early May, which accounted for 9,606 departures, or nearly half of all separations during the review period. The Deferred Resignation Program drove most of the decline, accounting for 15,114 exits, compared with far smaller numbers from resignations, retirements, terminations and external transfers.
Every USDA agency experienced losses, but the scale of those losses varied widely. The Forest Service lost 5,860 employees, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service lost 2,105 employees, while ARS lost 1,647. Several smaller offices experienced particularly high percentage losses, including the Office of the Secretary at 67%, the Office of Communications at 57% and the Office of Policy and Program Evaluation at 54%. Rural Development lost 1,745 employees, or 36% of its workforce.
Geographically, attrition affected every state and territory, but several western states saw especially notable losses. California lost 1,268 USDA employees; Colorado, 880; Oregon, 704; Washington, 520; New Mexico, 658; and Texas, 1,025.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) released a statement after the OIG issued a staffing report she requested in March. Klobuchar said USDA is the “front door for America’s farmers and ranchers,” warning that the department is being weakened at a time of heightened uncertainty in rural America. She called it “particularly shocking” that agencies serving farmers and small towns lost roughly one-third of their employees, animal health agencies lost nearly a quarter of their staff, arguing that losing almost 20% of USDA’s workforce leaves food supply chains more vulnerable to threats such as New World screwworm and avian flu.
According to Government Executive, USDA is moving forward with its reorganization despite objections from employees, outside stakeholders and bipartisan congressional concerns. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
