Federal Judge Blocks Trump Plan to Relocate Thousands of USDA Workers

A federal judge has temporarily halted a broad Trump administration initiative that sought to close multiple USDA offices and force thousands of federal employees to relocate. The decision came Tuesday from U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California, who ruled the plan likely violates Congress’s explicit restrictions on such actions, keeping the program on pause while a lawsuit from federal-worker unions continues.

Judge’s Ruling Highlights Legal Overreach

In a detailed 40-page order, Judge Chhabria concluded that the USDA’s proposed closures and relocations ‘‘overwhelmingly’’ breach congressional boundaries. The judge emphasized that Congress did not authorize the agency to use its funds to shut down offices or displace employees. ‘‘To the contrary, Congress was actively working to restrict the agency’s ability to do so,’’ Chhabria wrote. The ruling challenges the Trump administration’s interpretation that the removal of a congressional provision automatically granted USDA broad reorganization powers.

Scope and Impact of the Planned Reorganization

The reorganization was first unveiled in summer 2025 after President Donald Trump ordered a ‘‘critical transformation’’ of the federal government. It would have required thousands of USDA employees to either relocate, often to different states, or face job loss. Key elements of the plan included moving the Forest Service’s headquarters from Washington D.C. to Salt Lake City, shuttering all nine Forest Service regional offices, and closing every regional office of the Food and Nutrition Service, which administers vital programs such as SNAP and WIC.

Up to 870 of the Food and Nutrition Service’s approximately 1,200 employees could have been affected. Despite concerns, USDA leadership maintains that all current employees will retain positions and that no layoffs are planned. Last month, USDA estimated that no more than 250 Forest Service employees would be asked to relocate outside their commuting areas.

Concerns Over Public Impact and Legal Authority

Judge Chhabria underscored the risks the reorganization posed to essential services, including food aid benefiting 38 million low-income Americans monthly and wildfire prevention efforts. He wrote that ‘‘there is no public interest in allowing the government to violate federal law.’’ The court rejected the administration’s argument that pausing the plan would incur costly delays, describing those concerns as ‘‘self-inflicted harm’’ resulting from an unlawful reorganization attempt.

Additionally, the Trump administration’s request to limit the injunction to just employees represented by unions was denied. Chhabria ordered the USDA to halt all expenditures related to the reorganization immediately.

Broader Political and Legal Context

The dispute centers on congressional limits set to prevent agencies from unilaterally closing offices or forcing relocations without legislative approval. Both parties agreed that a provision allowing House and Senate Appropriations Committees to approve exceptions was unconstitutional. However, Judge Chhabria found it ‘‘highly unlikely Congress would have wanted the statutes to operate’’ as providing blanket authority to reorganize.

This ruling adds to ongoing legal challenges against the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape federal agencies and their workforce, including previous court actions blocking taxpayer-funded ads promoting the President’s agenda and attempts to impose loyalty questions on federal workers.

The case remains pending as the court continues to weigh the legality of the Trump administration’s sweeping federal workforce changes.