Axed Once, USDA Employees Anxiously Await Potentially Being Fired Again

This story was originally published on Investigate Midwest.

Following judges’ orders, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has begun reinstating employees who were fired en masse in February. But now, many of those workers who are being paid not to perform any duties fear that another shoe will drop.

The uncertainty over their futures comes as Elon Musk and the Trump administration chainsaw the federal workforce. Judges have ruled the mass terminations were unlawful, but the administration is moving forward with plans to reduce headcount at agencies across the federal government.

The Trump administration has argued the federal bureaucracy is wasteful and corrupt, sentiments echoed by new Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. The roughly 6,000 USDA employees fired in February worked on a range of issues that keep America’s food system secure, from battling invasive crop diseases to funding the construction of sewer systems in rural areas.

On Feb. 13, the USDA began firing employees who were on probation, meaning they had less than a year, or in some cases, less than three years, of experience. Soon after, an anonymous worker filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates federal employment disputes.

On March 5, the board issued a 45-day stay and ordered probationary employees return to work. The stay ends April 18.

That’s just days after a deadline the administration has imposed on departments to submit detailed reduction-in-force plans to the White House. The plans need to achieve a “significant reduction” in employees that “are not required,” according to an administration memo.

As the end of the 45-day stay draws near, USDA employees worry they could be fired again and are exploring other options, according to interviews with several employees who requested anonymity to protect their career prospects. Investigate Midwest is also withholding their roles at the department.

This month, calls went out to probationary employees asking them if they wanted their jobs back.

During one such call, an employee responded yes but added they were looking for other jobs. The manager replied that it was a good idea.

While they wait to hear the department’s plans, employees have received back pay and placed on administrative leave with pay. They could return to work as soon as late March or early April.

With that timeline, likely thousands of USDA employees could receive paychecks for six weeks or more for not actually performing their duties.

“This is all a huge waste of taxpayers’ money,” one employee said.

While many are discontent with the administration’s actions, some USDA employees agree with the moves. One told Investigate Midwest it was just “growing pains.”

The USDA did not respond to a request for comment. It did not answer when asked how many employees were recently reinstated.

After the 45-day stay was issued, USDA rank and file received few details on what would happen next.

This has been a common complaint. USDA leaders are sharing very little information with middle managers so employees feel left in the dark, they said. One employee’s manager said it was now normal to receive little guidance from higher-ups and that things were changing very quickly.

About a week after the stay was issued, the USDA announced on its website that all probationary employees would receive back pay while the department worked “quickly to develop a phased plan for return-to-duty.”

For days, this is all many employees knew about their job status.

Then, in mid-March, they received an email. It said they would receive their paychecks and be placed on administrative leave, with no specified date to return to work, according to the email obtained by Investigate Midwest.

About a week later, employees received another email. This one informed them a district judge in California had recently ruled their terminations were “unlawful.” Employees would be reinstated while the administration appealed the ruling.

On Monday, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the California judge’s ruling, adding more uncertainty to USDA workers’ futures, they said.

Like the mass terminations, the reinstatements seemed haphazard, according to employee interviews. One employee noticed coworkers were returning to the office while the employee received no communication about getting back to work. Eventually, it was discovered the department had incorrect contact information for the employee.

Some employees filed for unemployment benefits after they were fired. But, once they were reinstated, they had to pay the money back.

The dragged-out process is likely because of an overwhelmed HR department, one employee suggested. But it could also be “to see who chooses not to come back,” they added. “Some folks have gotten job offers other places.”

As the department worked to bring employees back, USDA leaders were also formulating a plan to reduce its workforce.

By March 13, the department was supposed to submit the plan’s first phase, including how the department would “achieve efficiencies,” according to a memo from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the government’s human resources arm. OMB is run by Russ Vought, who has said he wants to put federal workers “in trauma,” according to ProPublica.

Per OMB’s memo, departments could reduce workforce by continuing the federal hiring freeze, retirements and “attrition achieved by RIFs,” or reduction in force.

The deadline for the second phase of OMB’s plan is April 14, four days before the 45-day stay ends. By then, departments need to submit a plan with a new organizational chart and areas for “large-scale RIFs.”

Investigate Midwest is an independent, nonprofit newsroom. Our mission is to serve the public interest by exposing dangerous and costly practices of influential agricultural corporations and institutions through in-depth and data-driven investigative journalism. Visit us online at www.investigatemidwest.org

This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.