Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins asserted Thursday that the administration remains fully committed to a sweeping reorganization of the Forest Service and other federal agricultural agencies, despite a recent federal court order blocking the overhaul.
The restructuring plan involves relocating the U.S. Forest Service headquarters from Washington to Salt Lake City, shuttering numerous research stations, and closing several regional offices to replace them with state-level operations. These measures form part of a broader realignment within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that also impacts food and nutrition programs and rural development services.
Although a court-ordered injunction has temporarily stalled the initiative while litigation proceeds, Rollins made it clear during a conference call with reporters that the administration has not abandoned its goals. She emphasized that the strategy aims to bring the agency closer to its constituents in rural America and the Western states.
Proponents of the restructuring argue that the changes will trim administrative costs and concentrate resources in Western states, which encompass nearly 90 percent of national forest lands. Utah Governor Spencer Cox welcomed the proposal to move the headquarters to Salt Lake City as a major victory for the region, while Republican lawmakers contended the move would foster greater local input.
Opponents, including federal employee unions, environmental organizations, and local officials across states such as California, Maryland, and Washington, have challenged the plan in court. They argue the mandatory shuffling of personnel is designed to force deep workforce reductions.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California agreed with those arguments in an October 13 order, halting the reorganization while the lawsuit proceeds. He noted that the plan would likely force thousands of USDA employees to choose between relocating far from their homes or losing their jobs. Furthermore, the judge stated that the administration almost certainly violated congressional restrictions by using funds intended for other purposes to finance the reorganization activities.
The legal dispute is complicated by broader efforts to slim the federal workforce and improve efficiency. Government data indicates that the Forest Service workforce has already decreased by about 16 percent under the current administration, falling from more than 39,000 employees to 33,000. Additionally, the administration has faced legislative resistance to a proposal that would strip the Forest Service of its wildfire-fighting responsibilities and transfer them to a newly proposed federal Wildland Fire Service.
While the administration announced last month that it would keep 41 research facilities open that previously faced possible closure, nearly two dozen research stations remain slated to shut down.
Critics with long tenure in the agency have raised concerns about the practical effects of the restructuring. Chris Iverson, who spent nearly thirty years at the Forest Service, questioned the actual cost savings and warned that the plan could lead to the loss of experienced personnel, including those skilled in battling wildfires. Iverson also suggested that replacing regional offices with state offices could increase the influence of governors prioritizing industries such as timber, oil, gas, and grazing.
The National Federation of Federal Employees reported that a survey of Forest Service workers showed overwhelming opposition to the reorganization plan, with the majority indicating they would be unwilling to relocate.
