AFSCME members at the U.S. Department of Agriculture should not be forced to move thousands of miles away or lose their jobs, according to a new lawsuit that challenges the Trump administration plan to gut the agency and weaken services for rural communities, farmers and those who need food assistance. 

“This illegal reorganization will jeopardize families’ access to food and eliminate the jobs of qualified public service workers,” said AFSCME President Patrick Moran. “Instead of addressing the cost-of-living crisis that is making life unaffordable, the administration is attempting to gut the agency that supports rural communities and strengthens our food supply. We are filing this lawsuit to protect these workers who provide essential services to communities across the country.” 

The lawsuit was filed by a strong coalition of unions, nonprofits, cities and counties and asks a federal judge to halt the forced relocations because the agency reorganization was not approved by Congress, as required by law, and did not consider the harm that its massive resulting attrition would cause to USDA services. 

USDA’s unlawful plan would close or sharply cut capacity at offices and facilities across the agency because so many employees would be unwilling or unable to uproot their families and move several states away. 

For example, AFSCME Local 3976 reports that 71 percent of bargaining unit members in the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) would quit before relocating to Kansas City, weakening that office’s ability to help American farmers and producers export their products across the world. 

In support of AFSCME’s motion, Collin Bradley, president of Local 3976, submitted a declaration describing how important important it is for FAS employees like him and his colleagues to be located in the nation’s capital, close to U.S. exporters, foreign importers, financial institutions, other federal agencies and diplomatic offices.

“Leaving the Foreign Agricultural Service would break my heart because I love my job. I am committed to working in the public service and want to continue building my career at the Foreign Agricultural Service. I have dedicated significant resources to becoming an expert in my program area. However, it is simply not feasible for me to relocate to Kansas City,” Bradley said in the court filing. “At the same time, I know the best place for me to be located to do my job well is within the National Capital Region, not Kansas City, which makes the prospect of being relocated even more frustrating.” 

The lawsuit alleges that USDA knew forced relocations would drive out experienced employees, with no regard for how the losses would impact the agency’s ability to meet its mission. Ultimately, the cuts would endanger food safety, weaken the ability to fight wildfires, make rural communities wait longer for aid and leave farmers with less support. 

AFSCME is not alone in this fight. On September 16, the states of Washington, California, Maryland, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, filed an amicus brief in support of AFSCME and its fellow plaintiffs. The attorneys general explained to the court that, absent the relief requested by AFSCME, USDA’s illegal reorganization would harm federal programs “that conduct and facilitate research, support agricultural and rural communities, protect food supplies, administer nutrition assistance to families, conserve natural resources, and prevent and respond to devastating wildfires.”

In addition to AFSCME, the union plaintiffs are the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE); the National Federation of Federal Employees, IAM, AFL-CIO (NFFE); and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). The full coalition of plaintiffs also includes the County of Santa Clara, California; the City and County of San Francisco, California; Prince George’s County, Maryland; the Alliance of Crop, Soil and Environmental Science Societies; the American Geophysical Union; the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks; NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council); and Western Watersheds Project. 

A federal judge in a related lawsuit over changes at multiple federal agencies recently ruled that the claims against USDA should be reviewed separately, which is why the coalition filed this new case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.