Judge halts USDA plan to close 23 research facilities until at least 11 December
A U.S. district judge has blocked USDA's plan to move the Forest Service headquarters and close 23 research facilities until at least 11 December. Judge Vince Chhabria's preliminary injunction preserves the status quo until a ruling, though he noted the relief could be relatively short.
The Scientist · Science desk
Three figures. USDA's RIF and Reorganization Plan acknowledges a 23% workforce cut. The March restructure would close all nine USFS regional offices and 23 research facilities.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce cut, per USDA's RIF and Reorganization Plan | 23% | 11 | |
| All USFS regional offices | 9 to close | 1 | |
| Research facilities | 23 to close | 1 |
What happened
- The March plan would put the Forest Service headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, and also close all nine of its regional offices.
- USDA's own RIF and Reorganization Plan acknowledged that the approach would cut the workforce by 23%, a figure separate from the 23 facilities.
- Groups including AGU, AFSCME and the American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing that Congress's appropriations did not allocate funds for such a relocation.
- Judge Chhabria noted that the plan risks disrupting programs many Americans depend on, including SNAP and the Forest Service's wildfire work.
Why it matters
- constraint Teams at the 23 sites have little firm ground to plan on. The legal basis for the pause is a missing appropriation, and Congress can supply one.
- decision Anyone scheduling around the relocation has a date to work to: 11 December is the earliest the plan can move again.
- contradiction Secretary Rollins said publicly that the restructure did not involve reductions in force, but the department's own plan says otherwise. The ruling as Eos describes it turns on appropriations law, so that dispute sits outside the reported grounds.
Judge Chhabria's reasoning is about money. In the ruling granting the preliminary injunction, he wrote: "The law deems funds to be reprogrammed if an agency uses them for a purpose not contemplated by Congress at the time the appropriation was made. Congress did not contemplate USDA using its appropriated funds to shut down offices or relocate employees. To the contrary, Congress was actively working to restrict the agency's ability to do so." [5]
It is a narrow ground, and a temporary one. According to Eos, the applicable appropriations statutes expire in less than two months [8]. The agency could then convince Congress to appropriate funds toward initiatives like office closure and employee relocation [8].
The plaintiffs' side has put the case in plain terms. Patrick Moran, president of AFSCME, one of the groups that filed the suit, said: "The administration's attempt to gut this essential agency is blatantly illegal" [9]. That is a party's characterization, and the court's own finding, as quoted above, is the narrower statutory one.
Eos does not say how the order applies to individual research sites. It describes the order as disallowing major restructuring for the time being [6], and the programs it quotes the judge naming as at risk are SNAP and wildfire response [7], not research. Nor does it carry a response from the department. Everything here comes from one short item, so the order itself is the document to read before planning around it.
What to watch
- Whether Congress appropriates funds for office closures and relocation before the current appropriations statutes expire.
- What the court does on or after 11 December, including any ruling that goes beyond the preliminary injunction.
- Whether USDA responds publicly or appeals, since the Eos item reports no department reaction.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence58
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+15
- Incentives65
- Confidence60
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
In March, USDA announced a restructure that would move the U.S. Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and close 23 research facilities as well as all nine USFS regional offices.
- [2]
The March announcement followed a July 2025 announcement about relocating thousands of USDA employees from Washington D.C. to offices in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado, and Utah.
- [3]
A judge ruled that USDA cannot move forward with its restructuring efforts at least until 11 December.
- [4]
A lawsuit filed by groups including AGU, AFSCME and the American Federation of Government Employees argued that the federal government broke the law in trying to close offices, because the appropriations funding USDA specify how funds should be used and did not allocate funds for such a relocation.
- [5]
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote in his ruling granting the preliminary injunction: "The law deems funds to be reprogrammed if an agency uses them for a purpose not contemplated by Congress at the time the appropriation was made. Congress did not contemplate USDA using its appropriated funds to shut down offices or relocate employees. To the contrary, Congress was actively working to restrict the agency's ability to do so."
- [6]
A preliminary injunction asks that the status quo be maintained until a ruling is reached; in this case it means disallowing major restructuring for the time being.
- [7]
Judge Chhabria noted that the USDA efforts "risk disrupting programs on which many Americans depend," including the SNAP program and the Forest Service's role in preventing and fighting wildfires.
- [8]
The judge noted that the relief could be relatively short: the applicable appropriations statutes expire in less than two months, which means the agency could convince Congress to appropriate funds toward initiatives like office closure and employee relocation.
- [9]
Patrick Moran, president of AFSCME, said in a statement: "The administration's attempt to gut this essential agency is blatantly illegal".
- [10]
Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins publicly said the restructure did not involve reductions in force.
- [11]
The agency's RIF and Reorganization Plan acknowledged that the approach would cut the workforce by 23%.
Get this ledger inside ChatGPT. Ask about any of our stories and the answer brings its figure, each claim’s verdict and the sources. Free, no account.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- eos.orgJudge Stops USDA’s Radical Restructuring, For Now
1 article · October 14, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Entities
- U.S. Department of AgricultureFollow
- U.S. Forest ServiceFollow
- Vince ChhabriaFollow
- Brooke RollinsFollow
- AFSCMEFollow
- AGUFollow
- American Federation of Government EmployeesFollow