Many thanks to Nick Smith who posted this on his HFHC News Roundup!
I was originally against the idea of moving (xome) WO folks to SLC. It’s obviously an Admin, not FS, idea. It does have advantages, as I’ve said before. My own experience of trying to hire people in DC as 14s.. it could be very difficult.As I found it easier to hire in Denver, it would probably be true for SLC. What I didn’t think of was the difference in quality of reporting comparing local news in SLC to that of the WaPo.
This story has an editor’s note: “A lawsuit only portrays one side of the story. ” Even the TV news in SLC has an editor. How many litigation stories have we seen without that caveat?
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A group of unions, environmental and civic organizations, and local governments has filed a lawsuit challenging the planned restructuring of the U.S. Forest Service, which includes moving the agency’s headquarters to Salt Lake City and closing regional offices and research facilities across the country.
The plaintiffs are alleging that the reorganization would impair the Forest Service’s ability to manage national forests, and they are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the USDA administration from moving forward with its reorganization plan.
In March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the Forest Service headquarters would move to Salt Lake City as the first step of a massive agency reorganization intended to shift the organization to a “state-based” model. The move aims to get leadership closer to the landscapes managed by the agency and strengthen partnerships on the local level.
This is a fair statement by reporters about the stated intentions.
The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of more than 30 groups, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represent the USDA employees that will be impacted by the reorganization. Many employees will lose their jobs, and the lawsuit states that restructuring will make the jobs of those who remain significantly more difficult.
This is one of those “and how would that work, exactly?” questions. It’s also interesting that the claim “many people will lose their jobs” sounds like they will leave, but the FS says there are jobs for everyone although perhaps different, and for less than 300, requiring relocation. Of course, we don’t have to believe the folks at the FS, but we don’t have to believe these folks either. Now, who exactly, we might ask is “Democracy Forward?” Not surprisingly, we find that they are funded heavily by two DAFs, and run by D political operatives.
Here’s what Influence Watch says:
Democracy Forward (DF) is a left-of-center litigation and advocacy nonprofit created in early 2017 by high-level Democratic Party operatives. The organization has been aggressive in targeting the Trump administration.
So, the lawsuit is not particularly surprising.
The lawsuit alleges that restructuring the Forest Service in this way will reduce the agency’s capacity to sustainably manage national forests and engage in fire response and prevention efforts.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the USDA is exceeding its authority in implementing this reorganization plan and that it is violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
My question is “why so much focus on USDA reorg by this group, compared to Interior, which actually started a new agency? If folks are really worried about “fire response and prevention” wouldn’t that be a good place to focus? Maybe they’re litigating that also, although perhaps the fire truck is out of the parking lot on that one. I do think this sudden interest by these groups for “livestock sustainability” is notable.
The complaint and associated memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction are available at the following links.
Complaint: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/AFGE-v-Trump-Second-Supplemental-Complaint.pdf
Memorandum: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/AFGE-v-Trump-Second-Supplemental-Complaint.pdf
The memorandum at pdf p. 3 outlines the plaintiffs’ arguments.
Thank you. I believe the referenced links are identical?
Sorry, found it: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/AFGE-v-Trump-Memorandum-in-Support-of-PI-Motion.pdf