Exclusive: USDA Bureaucrats Bemoan Move To Red States, In-Person Work To Run Food Welfare Programs

Washington, D.C.-based bureaucrats lamented returning to in-person work and being transferred to various states to administer the nation’s food stamp programs, according to government communications shared with The Federalist. The batch of messages even documents one employee complaining about moving to red states like Texas due to their pro-life laws.

“Washington bureaucrats are eager to work from home, as long as home isn’t a red state where the people they serve live,” Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) Data Investigator Amelia Kuntzman told The Federalist.

Obtained by FGA via open records request, the communications detail an online May 1 town hall among Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees involved in administering food stamps and other food welfare programs. According to FGA, the meeting was closed to the public and press.

The town hall was held to solicit employee feedback on the USDA’s April 30 “reorganization and relocation” announcement that “program leadership and staff from Washington, D.C.” would be moved “to hub and program compliance locations across the U.S.” The agency touted the actions as an effort to “realign the Department’s focus to the States who administer USDA nutrition programs, the households who benefit from them, and the taxpayers who fund them.”

“On my first day leading the People’s Department, I shared several commitments to our state, tribal, territory, and local government partners, including prioritizing customer service and infusing each nutrition program with new energy and vision. This reorganization is designed with those commitments in mind,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at the time.

Among the major moves are shifting management of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Indianapolis, Indiana; the Child Nutrition Programs to Dallas, Texas; and the Supplemental Nutrition and Safety Programs to Kansas City, Missouri. Other notable hub and office locations named in the plan include Raleigh, North Carolina; Denver, Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; Los Angeles, California; and New York, New York.

During the online May 1 town hall with USDA leadership, several bureaucrats tasked with administering the aforementioned programs issued numerous messages in the meeting’s chat box expressing their dissatisfaction with the shift. These include remarks showcasing their apparent disdain for red states and their policies.

One employee is shown questioning how USDA “landed on” Dallas as the location of its Child Nutrition programs. In asserting that “a good chunk of CN are women,” the employee then expressed “concerns on whether we were considered” due to Texas’ supposedly “strict reproductive health laws.”

According to the Family Research Council, Texas law protects unborn life in all stages of pregnancy, with the sole exception being in instances in which the mother’s life is endangered. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized lawmakers’ ability to pass laws governing abortion in its 2022 Dobbs decision.

Another bureaucrat issued a message questioning the “benefit” of moving the programs’ employees out of the D.C. beltway and into the states and closer “to those we serve.”

“Can you explain the justification of moving us closer to those we serve, when these food assistance programs serve people in all states and territories? Why would Indy or Dallas or any of these other places be a benefit based on this pushed theme?” the employee asked.

“This move does the exact opposite of putting the services closer to the people. We are closing regional offices and placing us further away from the people around the country,” another employee complained.

“Let’s discuss the false narrative of brining [sic] us closer to those we serve,” another message reads.

Meanwhile, other comments show bureaucrats lamenting the Trump administration’s efforts to return the federal workforce to in-person office work.

In seemingly expressing opposition to the USDA policy, one employee claimed that an existing union contract and their individual hiring contracts guarantee them a “right to remote work.”

“[M]any of us were hired into remote positions, so being forced to go into an office 5 days a week is both a violation of our [National Treasury Employees Union] NTEU contract AND our employment contracts,” the message reads.

“This is 21 centuries [sic], we can absolutely with no issue work remotely. Why all these relocation? Are we going back in time? this is both the most cost-effective option for taxpayers and more convenient for staff, meaning best for continuation of programs. a return to remote work would be a win-win!” another user wrote.

Others claimed that the USDA relocation effort amounted to a Reduction in Force (RIF) “because 99% of us can’t relocate.”

“This is effectively a RIF because 99% of us can’t relocate — but you know that,” another message reads.

One employee claimed that the agency’s move takes an “integrated … finely tuned organization, and made it into a siloed organization.” It’s worth noting that the USDA’s SNAP program reported a national payment error rate of 10.62 percent for fiscal year 2025 ($10.1 billion) in June — the fourth straight year it’s exceeded 10 percent.

“Whatever is being finely tuned, it is not the payments,” Kuntzman told The Federalist.

The USDA reportedly disclosed last month that it expects a “significant number” of employees to forgo relocation and instead resign their jobs. The agency is currently facing a lawsuit over the contested policy in federal court.