Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue argued in a statement that the Kansas City region will better position the department to attract people “with training and interest in agriculture” because the area is a proven “hub for all things agriculture." | Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images Agriculture Trump administration to move USDA researchers to Kansas City area

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has chosen to relocate two of USDA's research agencies to the Kansas City area, the final step in a process to reshape the department's research wing that has drawn objections from several congressional Democrats.

Perdue said in announcing the new home of the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture on Thursday that the move would bring the research agencies closer to major farming regions, improve customer service and save taxpayer dollars — about $20 million per year over 15 years.


But many employees at ERS, who conduct research into areas such as climate change, nutrition and the farm economy, and at NIFA, who arrange federal grants for agricultural research institutions, have told POLITICO they believe the move is rooted in politics.

Several current and former staffers at the agencies have warned that relocation could disrupt operations and drive out experienced researchers. The proposal has already sparked a brain-drain of veteran economists from ERS, and some lawmakers and ERS staff allege relocation is a back-door attempt to shrink the agency and clamp down on research that doesn't align with the Trump administration's priorities.

Morning Agriculture A daily briefing on agriculture and food policy — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Democrats have questioned the relocation plan and blamed USDA for not providing detailed justification since the concept was first unveiled in August 2018. The House USDA-FDA appropriations bill for fiscal 2020 would prohibit USDA from moving forward with the relocation, but the measure is unlikely to become law before the move is carried out.

Perdue argued in a statement that the Kansas City region will better position the department to attract people “with training and interest in agriculture” because the area is a proven “hub for all things agriculture” and already boasts a “significant presence” of USDA and federal government employees, in addition to the Kansas City Federal Reserve.

“The Kansas City Region will allow ERS and NIFA to increase efficiencies and effectiveness and bring important resources and manpower closer to all of our customers,” he said.

“This agriculture talent pool, in addition to multiple land-grant and research universities within driving distance, provides access to a stable labor force for the future,” he added.

The department has not settled on a location in the Kansas City area. The General Services Administration will release a proposal early next month, allowing interested parties to submit bids, Perdue said Thursday afternoon. In the meantime, employees will be relocated as soon as mid-July and will be placed in temporary office space that fits up to 200 workers.

USDA has argued since the relocation proposal was first announced that the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C., area hinders recruitment and retention at the agencies.

The anticipated savings of $20 million per year will allow more funding to be directed to research initiatives to address “critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness,” Perdue said, adding that the savings will also enable the agencies to maintain service and staffing “even in the face of tightening budgets.”

State and local governments sweetened the deal by offering a package of $26 million in incentives, the secretary said. Perdue refused to reveal what the Kansas City region offered to attract USDA.

"These are proprietary discussions from our perspective," he told reporters. "If the local community chooses to disclose those, they can do so at their will."

The total savings of the projected move — about $300 million over 15 years — is based on a cost-benefit analysis of relocation to the Kansas City area that the department released on Thursday. Several congressional Democrats have called on the department for months to release such a study.

In announcing the pick, USDA backed down on another element of its plan that had drawn pushback from lawmakers — moving ERS within the department's organizational structure so that it would fall under the Office of the Chief Economist. The agency will remain under the department's Research, Education, and Economics mission area.

"While we believe there is considerable synergies and benefits to a realignment, after hearing feedback from stakeholders and members of Congress, USDA will not move forward with the realignment plans," the release said.

Critics of that part of the plan, including several current and former ERS employees interviewed by POLITICO, argued the realignment could subject the agency's research to political influence by positioning it closer to the Office of the Secretary. The House fiscal 2020 spending bill for USDA had sought to block the realignment.

The Kansas City region was selected from a pool of more than 130 locations that had expressed interest in hosting the agencies. Now, the move is on a fast-track timeline.

Agency employees are expected to receive relocation letters on Thursday. Employees anticipate being given 30 days to decide whether to move, according to union leaders.

Employees of both agencies have voted to unionize in the face of the relocation, and leaders at the American Federation of Government Employees, which is representing the workers, have vowed to press for a delay.

Union representatives said employees were not given advance notice of the announcement — something Perdue said on Wednesday he would do. They learned of the site selection through media reports, according to union leaders.

During a town hall briefing following the announcement, nearly 20 employees silently protested Perdue by turning their backs to him while he addressed staff.

"Secretary Perdue continually speaks of transparency and communicating to employees but has failed on both fronts," said Kevin Hunt, acting vice president of the ERS union. "The announcement today highlights his disregard for the rights and wellbeing of employees."

In a letter to employees shared with POLITICO, Perdue said he knows "that this time, especially for the employees directly affected, has been personally and professionally challenging. I am grateful for your patience and your continued hard work."

The secretary said he wrote the letter because he wanted employees to hear the news from him first. But a notice containing the letter was not distributed among staff until 10:37 a.m. Thursday — well after media reports were published and Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) had hailed the decision in a press release.

The four U.S. senators from Missouri and Kansas — all Republicans — issued a joint statement praising Perdue for selecting the Kansas City area. One of them, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), said that "agricultural research is a critical function of USDA, and I am committed to ensuring we continue to support and strengthen the research mission that our U.S. producers rely on."

But some Democrats from other parts of the country were critical of the decision.

Reps. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) and Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), who lead House Agriculture subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the USDA research agencies, criticized Thursday's announcement and said the entire process has lacked transparency.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a House Appropriations Committee member who co-sponsored a bill to stop the move, said she was "appalled" with USDA's decision to force "staffers to uproot their lives to Kansas City in order to keep their livelihoods."

She also noted that a USDA Inspector General investigation "examining the viability of this relocation is not complete."

USDA paid the consulting firm Ernst & Young $340,000 to run the site selection process.

John Lauinger contributed to this report.

