On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it would close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). This blog post examines the plan’s legal justification. The July 24 announcement was made in the form of a secretary’s memorandum, a form of internal communication between a federal department’s leadership and its staff.

Although the July 24 memorandum includes an “authority” section, the memorandum does not identify a law that clearly gives the Agriculture Department the authority to relocate BARC’s hundreds of employees1, to vacate the largest agricultural research facility in the country, and to dispose of, as it sees fit, the center’s hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space and ten square miles of land.

Keep in mind that a law that allows a department to move an individual employee’s job location would be insufficient legal cover for moving so many employees that a nationally significant facility is vacated at huge cost to the taxpayer and with detrimental effects to congressionally funded activities.

It is possible that the Department would not break any laws if it relocated all BARC research, yet that action might still be foolish. Given time, Congress or the public may articulate the advantages of keeping the research at BARC instead of breaking up this impressively large body of research and scattering it across the country to the locations that the USDA has in mind. The USDA may have a legal responsibility to publish an evaluation of the pros and cons of these two alternatives, but it hasn’t done so.2

The Maryland county that has hosted BARC for the past century, Prince George’s County, features an extremely high concentration of researchers in many fields working for many agencies, a top-tier research university four miles from BARC, and an average home price lower than in most of the hub cities where the USDA plans to move employees.3

On July 30, the USDA announced that Congress and the public have 30 days from July 24 to submit comments.4 This 30-day period lines up almost perfectly with the only month of the year when Congress isn’t in session. Only one congressional committee has managed to hold a hearing on the reorganization plan, doing so as senators were about to leave on their summer break. The July 30 hearing had only one witness, a USDA representative who failed to name any laws other than one already mentioned in the July 24 secretary’s memorandum.

Can an executive branch action be illegal?

A department might propose an action that is borderline legal, which is to say it is unclear if the action would interfere with the department carrying out a duty assigned by Congress. Proposed actions in many such high-risk categories have their review and implementation choreographed by existing law. In general, it would be unlawful for a department to carry out the provision of one law in a manner that violates the provision of another law. In some cases, it is complicated to figure out if a proposed action is legal.

The July 24 secretary’s memorandum that describes the USDA’s reorganization plan contains several types of risky actions that are constrained by some combination of law, regulation, and congressional oversight.5 The USDA’s plan includes relocating employees, closing facilities, firing employees, selling government property, and making big changes in the Department’s organizational structure.

The schematic diagram below shows a hierarchy of documents: laws, regulations, and internal department communication. The USDA reorganization plan is currently expressed in the weakest kind of document: a memorandum issued by a department head. A secretary’s memorandum is merely a form of internal communication in which a department head gives guidance to his or her staff. If an action proposed in a secretary’s memorandum contradicts a law or regulation, then the law or regulation takes precedence.6

Is closing BARC a “reorganization”?

The term “reorganization” usually refers to a department shuffling around the responsibilities that the department assigns to various organizations within it.7 In major reorganizations, it is generally understood that Congress agrees to authorize and fund the reorganization activity after it helps the department develop the reorganization plan.8

In the July 24 secretary’s memorandum, the USDA calls its plan a “reorganization.” Reading the plan, one finds many types of actions in it, only some of which change the organization chart. For example, USDA doesn’t plan to change which agencies manage the research currently done at BARC, so closing BARC really is a separate action from any major reorganization of the Department’s reporting structure.

Whether or not you call the July 24 plan a reorganization, what matters is that the plan is major enough to trigger concern that, if the plan were carried out, it would affect the Department’s ability to carry out its duties. Because of these concerns, senators have asserted that the Agriculture Department was wrong to exclude Congress from helping create the plan prior to the July 24 announcement.9

Initial thoughts on the legality of the USDA deciding to close BARC

At the time of writing (late August 2025), the USDA has so far failed to cite a law that proves it has the right to decide, on its own, to close the largest agricultural research facility in the country, scatter the research across the country, and sell off the buildings and land.

Not only is legal justification missing from the Department’s plan, but also missing are details about the BARC closure itself. On July 24, the USDA’s five-page description of its reorganization plan included just three sentences that mentioned either BARC or buildings on BARC’s campus:

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC): this facility will be vacated over multiple years to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities. George Washington Carver Center (GWCC): this facility will be sold or transferred upon conclusion of its use as a temporary location for USDA personnel during the re-alignment of USDA offices and personnel. National Agricultural Library: retained for use, and the Department will fully leverage available office space for USDA mission areas and staff offices.

Also missing from the July 24 memorandum is any mention of Public Law 100-202, which forbids the sale of BARC land without congressional approval.10

It may be difficult for the USDA to prove it has the legal authority to close BARC because of the hollowing out of the USDA workforce this year. On July 30, Senator Klobuchar said that USDA research agencies have already lost 1,600 people this year. On July 25, the Secretary of Agriculture said she estimates that perhaps half of the USDA jobs that she plans to move out of DC as part of the just-announced reorganization will result in employees resigning rather than moving.11 In August, Congress members expressed concerns that the USDA is already having trouble meeting congressional mandates due to workforce reductions that have occurred this year.12 Further losses could further hamper the USDA’s ability to fulfill its duties. It would be unlawful for a department to take an action that could reasonably be expected to prevent it from carrying out congressionally funded research and public services.

Furthermore, the USDA’s plan isn’t really its plan, as strange as that may sound. The July 24 plan states that DC-area employees, including all BARC employees, will be moved to five hub cities: Raleigh, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Fort Collins, and Salt Lake City.

In contrast, USDA told BARC researchers at a meeting in late July that their jobs would not be moving to the five hub cities, and instead, the researchers would likely move to unspecified locations among the 95 Agricultural Research Service (ARS) facilities scattered across the country. The Greenbelt News Review broke this story: 13

In a staff meeting at BARC held after Rollins’ announcement, researchers learned that they likely would be moved to one of the 95 locations across the country where ARS conducts research rather than to one of the five hubs Rollins identified.

It is difficult for the public to make meaningful comments on the July 24 reorganization plan if the Agriculture Department is privately telling its employees that the Department will do something other than what the Department announced to the public. It is difficult for Congress to provide oversight under these circumstances too.

Laws cited by USDA do not authorize closing BARC

Now let’s look at the specific legal justifications that the USDA gave for its reorganization plan and see if any apply to closing BARC.

The July 24 secretary’s memorandum cites sections of the U.S. Code that were passed in 1994 and 1953.14 The 1994 law seems irrelevant because essentially all of its provisions expired in 1996. The 1994 law does mention the same 1953 report that the USDA mentions in the July 24 memorandum: the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.15

The 1953 report gives the Agriculture Department the right to shuffle the duties of organizations within it. It allows the responsibly for managing a property to be transferred to the managers made responsible for the work done there.16 The 1953 report makes no mention of changing the physical location of people’s jobs, of closing facilities, or of selling property.

A mysterious requirement for a 30-day comment period

At the July 30 Senate hearing, Deputy Secretary Vaden made a cryptic reference to a legal justification for one aspect of how the Department intends to finalize its reorganization plan. Vaden asserted that there is a statutory requirement for the Department to give Congress and the public 30 days to submit comments on the reorganization plan.17

It is troublesome that Vaden chose not to identify the law or section of the U.S. Code that establishes the need for this 30-day comment period. It is difficult for Congress and the public to comment meaningfully on the reorganization plan if its legal justification is unclear.

To the average person, a 30-day comment period may seem woefully inadequate before moving forward with vacating the country’s largest agricultural research facility. In the past, the federal government has used a more thorough review process when considering closing federal facilities.18

Whether or not the USDA’s current 30-day comment period seems fair, the real question is whether it satisfies legal requirements. The USDA claims it does, but it doesn’t name the mysterious law. If you tried to guess what law Deputy Secretary Vaden had in mind, your speculation might go in one of the two following directions.

Does the 30-day comment period apply to RIFs?

You could speculate that the statutory requirement for the USDA’s current 30-day comment period comes from the sections of the U.S. Code that regulate the firing of federal employees. The federal government euphemistically calls firing someone a Reduction in Force (RIF).

The reason for looking at laws governing RIFs is because the Office of Personal Management (OPM) directed on February 26, 2025, that all departments issue “RIF and Reorganization Plans” that implement DOGE principles. In those plans, OPM directed each department to ask OPM for permission for the department’s RIFs to undergo a shortened 30-day review period instead of the normal 60-day review.19 It is plausible that the reorganization plan the USDA announced on July 24 was developed as a response to the February 26 OPM directive and therefore the USDA justifies the current 30-day review period based on RIF laws.

But the USDA is on thin ice if this is how it justifies a mere 30-day review period for closing BARC and implementing the rest of its July 24 plan. No RIFs are involved in USDA’s plan to move all BARC jobs out of the mid-Atlantic region.

Does the 30-day comment period mean the USDA is rulemaking?

Alternatively, you could speculate that the statuary requirement that Deputy Secretary Vaden had in mind for the current 30-day comment period is the review period required when a department is engaged in rulemaking.20 Rulemaking is an activity that involves public comment while a department determines how it will carry out some aspect of its congressionally mandated duties.

If the USDA believes it must engage in rulemaking in order to carry out its July 24 reorganization plan, then the plan is in serious trouble. In most cases, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that a proposed rule be published in the Federal Register as stated in 5 U.S. Code 553. Also, a department engaged in rulemaking must factor in every substantial point made in any comments it receives prior to the department finalizes its proposed rule. The comments themselves must be made public. If a department can’t demonstrate that it has fulfilled these requirements, then a court can overturn the rule.21

The USDA has not published the July 24 reorganization plan in the Federal Register.22 Also, the USDA is not using the normal mechanism for capturing public comments, i.e., using the regulations.gov website or a method published in the Federal Register notice of the draft rule. Instead, one week into the 30-day comment period, the USDA announced the existence of the comment period in a press release that stated comments should be sent to a USDA email address.

These actions may invite extra scrutiny around whether the Department satisfies all the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Conclusion

So far, the Department of Agriculture has failed to demonstrate that it has the legal authority to terminate research at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, relocate all its employees, and dispose of the land as it sees fit. It is unclear if the current 30-day comment period is a legally sufficient review of the Department’s reorganization plan including the closure of BARC.

Notes

[1] The total number of people working at BARC is unclear. Some documents report how many people from any USDA agency work in the four large office buildings of the George Washington Carver Center (GWCC) that is located on the BARC Linkage Farm. Other reports count just employees of the USDA Agricultural Research Services (ARS) who are stationed at BARC, either in a GWCC office or an office in another BARC building. 1,300 employees in the 365,000-square-foot Carver office buildings: Prince George’s County Planning Department, March 2024, Greenbelt Metro Area Sector Plan, page 135. 1,300 employees at the Carver office buildings: Eugene Meyer, October 10, 2001, USDA Center Twisted by Tornado, Washington Post. The Carver office buildings have room for 1,191 employees following their renovation: USDA, 2020, GWCC Modernization Beltsville, Maryland, Solicitation No. 12314420B0001, page 8. There are 500 BARC positions, 400 of which were filled as of July 2025: Greenbelt News Review, July 31, 2025, pages 1 and 6. In 2023, there were about 550 BARC employees down from about 600 in 2017: Leah Douglas, May 19, 2023, Staff at top U.S. farm research center file complaint alleging unsafe work conditions, Reuters. During fiscal years 2023 through 2025, 583 to 593 people from the USDA’s Agricultural Research Services (ARS) worked at BARC (including at the National Agricultural Library on the BARC campus): USDA, 2026, USDA Explanatory Notes — Agricultural Research Service.

[2] “courts have required that, especially for rules likely to have significant economic or other impacts, the statement [i.e., the preamble to the final rule] (a) must demonstrate that the agency seriously considered significant alternatives to its final rule, important public comments, and relevant information and scientific data” from American Bar Association, 2013, A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law, pages 29–30.

[3] For a house-price comparison, see the chart in the July 2025 Greenbelt Online blog post tilted, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Threatened.

[4] The announcement that the 30-day comment period began on July 24 was first made during the July 30 Senate hearing. At the hearing, Deputy Secretary Vaden said, “First, we have a 30-day period of consultation that is required by statute and we are going to honor every day of that. [13:50].” See also 11:57. Some people probably first heard about the comment period when news of the August 1 USDA press release spread.

[5] At the July 30, 2025, Senate hearing about the proposed USDA reorganization, Senator Deb Fischer (Republican from Nebraska) said, “I also agree with Senator Hoeven that, to accomplish a major reorganization, Congress will need to partner to provide resources and perhaps additional authorities. I hope you will commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in engaging with this committee and also with the appropriations committee [1:14:22].”

[6] Congressional Research Service, May 2, 2025, Organizing Executive Branch Agencies: Structure and Delegations of Authority. For a discussion of department actions that are constrained by rulemaking procedures, see part 2 of American Bar Association, 2013, A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law, 2nd edition.

[7] An FAQ on a Partnership for Public Service website described reorganization in this way: “Agency heads are responsible for the powers, duties and functions of their agency’s subcomponents and may effect small organizational changes by delegating those responsibilities. When an agency undergoes a statutory reorganization or a smaller-scale reorganization authorized by the president, the agency can influence the impact of the reorganization through its internal operations, such as by deciding whether to relocate responsibilities from one of its operational locations to another.” (Fed Support website, FAQ on reorganization). The Congressional Research Service said that federal departments “typically enjoy some discretion in determining how best to structure themselves to carry out their statutory responsibilities, provided that reorganization does not conflict with their governing statutes or legislative funding restrictions.” (Congressional Research Service, July 25, 2018, Trump Administration Reform and Reorganization Plan: Discussion of “Government-Wide” Proposals, memorandum)

[8] Congress has a role to plan in reorganizing executive departments: Paul Larkin, Jr., and John-Michael Seibler, July 12, 2017, The President’s Reorganization Authority, legal memorandum no. 210, The Heritage Foundation. Congress’ role in executive-branch reorganizations: Constitutional Accountability Center, June 6, 2025, Amicus brief, Docket 24A1174. U.S. Senators have asserted that Congress must play this role in this particular USDA reorganization. For example, Senator Deb Fischer (Republican from Nebraska) said at the July 30 Senate hearing on the USDA reorganization: “I also agree with Senator Hoeven that, to accomplish a major reorganization, Congress will need to partner to provide resources and perhaps additional authorities. I hope you will commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in engaging with this committee and also with the appropriations committee [1:14:22].”

[9] At the July 30, 2025, Senate hearing, the following Senators either expressed concern that the proposed USDA reorganization would harm services or stated that the USDA was in error for not consulting with Congress prior to publishing the plan. Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat from Minnesota) described the USDA reorganization plan as “a half-baked agenda that will almost certainly result in worse services for farmers, families, and rural communities [2:45].” Senator Klobuchar also expressed concern about impacts to USDA research:

“1,600 employees have left USDA’s research agencies. USDA fired many researchers including those working on a avian flu only to later backtrack. USDA is extremely delayed in setting out funding for competitive research programs this year, as so many of my colleagues know. To me, these actions completely undermine agricultural research just as we are seeing more and more animal diseases that are used against us in trade arrangements that hurt our producers. Senator Smith and I have seen the horrific effects of avian flu. Deputy Secretary Vaden, USDA’s reorganization plan would vacate USDA research labs and eliminate or consolidate offices for the Agricultural Research Service [and] the Agricultural Statistics Service. Do you believe that vacating research sites, eliminating offices, and losing researchers will improve outcomes for farmers who depend on this research? [19:35]”

Senator John Hoeven (Republican from North Dakota) said, “when the Trump administration went through this process during the President’s first term, and moved NEFA and ERS to Kansas City, there was a process. We had a process where the administration worked with Congress and went through the options, people could request being included, and there was a give and take, you know. That’s kind of what we are looking for… [27:10].”

Senator Michael Bennet (Democrat from Colorado) said, “This is a moment obviously of deep peril in the West, as it is every summer…. The implementation of these bureaucratic choices are not philosophical at the end of the day…. The re-org that you are talking about with respect to fires generally, it has to be something that there are deep consultations on it [36:12].”

Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (Republican from Mississippi) said, “Page 3 of the secretary’s memo that was made public last week states that the Agricultural Research Service will eliminate its area offices and residual functions will be performed by its Office of National Programs. I have concerns about the implications that this section may have for agricultural research… [39:26].”

Senator Tina Smith (Democrat from Minnesota) said, “I am a little concerned about what is in this reorganization or what isn’t in this reorganization plan regarding what the administration’s plans are for rural development [48:01].”

Senator Peter Welch (Democrat from Vermont) said, “The concern I have is whether the reorganization plan is on the level. Whether it’s about empowering local communities or whether it’s about decimated the already severely cut back workforce [56:17].”

Senator Ben Ray Lujan (Democrat from New Mexico) said, “The administration needs to provide more details about this reorganization plan and how proposed changes will impact wildfire response. A lot of these questions many not have even had to be asked today if the our staff’s questions had been answered as opposed to ignored. When will you, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, provide this information to his committee… [1:10:31]”

Senator Deb Fischer (Republican from Nebraska) said, “I also agree with Senator Hoeven that, to accomplish a major reorganization, Congress will need to partner to provide resources and perhaps additional authorities. I hope you will commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in engaging with this committee and also with the appropriations committee [1:14:22].”

Senator Raphael Warnock (Democrat from Georgia) said, “Last week, without notice to the members of this committee, Secretary Rollins announced this mass reorganization and now you are here in response to the Chairman’s call. I would like to know if this plan will disrupt the lives of everyday Georgians who depend on USDA’s programs [1:18:50].”

Senator Adam Schiff (Democrat from California) said, “I share the bipartisan concerns that have been raised about the creation of this plan without input from impacted entities or the Congress… [1:31:35]”

Senator John Fetterman (Democrat from Pennsylvania) said, “I am concerned there really wasn’t any negotiation or anything with the unions for this in advance…. I am asking, are you willing to commit to covering all the relocation expenses for the USDA staff who choose to move or are forced because this is part of the plan [1:43:50]?”

[10] Public Law 100-202 was passed on December 22, 1987, and the relevant section 523 appears in 101 Stat. 1329-417. This section states that no funds appropriated by Congress may be used for “the sale, lease, rental, excessing, surplusing, or disposal of any portion of land on which the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is located at Beltsville, Maryland, without the specific approval of Congress.”

[11] At July 30, 2025 Senate hearing, Senator Klobuchar said: “1,600 employees have left USDA’s research agencies…. To me, these actions completely undermine agricultural research [19:35].” During an interview on FOX News that aired on July 25, 2025, Secretary Rollins said, “our best guess is that perhaps 50-70% of our Washington DC staff will want to move. They will actually take that relocation…. We will fill those positions again in North Carolina, Indiana, in Utah, and Colorado, and Missouri…. President Trump’s vision was always to move people out of these government jobs…”

[12] Congress members pointed out that moving USDA employees out of the DC area (including BARC employee) could hamper the USDA’s performance especially because of the lasting impacts of recent workforce reductions. Two members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Robert Garcia and Kweisi Mfume) and others sent a letter for USDA Secretary Rollins on August 7, 2025, that stated:

“The Administration’s cuts to USDA’s workforce and upheaval caused by relocating offices and functions to other parts of the country could reduce USDA’s capacity to provide essential services and perform the research critical to the maintenance and safety of America’s agricultural sector. This is precisely what happened in 2019, when President Trump directed USDA to relocate two agencies from Washington, DC to Kansas City, Missouri.”

Members of the House Agriculture Committee (Angie Craig and Shontel Brown) and others wrote a letter to Secretary Rollins on August 13, 2025, that stated:

“we are deeply concerned that the Department’s proposal will make it less effective and significantly hinder its ability to provide the customer service and support our farmers and rural communities deserve. Especially given that the Department has reportedly already lost or forced out 21,600, or one-fifth, of it its employees this year – the second-most workforce reductions of all federal agencies.”

[13] Greenbelt News Review, July 31, 2025, pages 1 and 6. The staff meeting is alleged to have happened after the publication of the secretary’s memorandum on July 24 but the meeting must also have occurred prior to the submission deadline for the July 31 issue of the News Review, which was July 29.

[14] From the July 24, 2025, secretary’s memorandum: “Section 2. Authority: This Memorandum is issued under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. app.; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note) and The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354).”

[15] Title II of Public Law 103-354 is called the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Title II is found in sections 201–296 of Public Law 103-354. Section 296 states that most of the sections of the 1994 act expired in 1996. Section 296 of the 1994 law also states that a 1953 report adopted by Congress remains in effect. The 1994 act is codified, in part, by 7 U.S. Code 6901, and the expiration is mentioned in 7 U.S. Code 7014. To quote from this section of the U.S. Code:

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (b), the authority delegated to the Secretary by this chapter to reorganize the Department shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after October 13, 1994. (b) Functions. Subsection (a) shall not affect: …. (2) The authority delegated to the Secretary under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. App.; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note).

[16] Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 deals with the Department of Agriculture, and it appears in 67 Stat. page 633. This 1953 report also appears as the note to 7 U.S. Code 2201. In general, notes in the U.S. Code have the same legal power as the main text of the U.S. Code. The 1953 report was submitted according to Public Law 83-109, the Reorganization Act of 1949, which is found in 63 Stat. page 203. Within the 1953 report, sections 4 and 5 are relevant:

(b) To the extent that the carrying out of subsection (a) of this section involves the assignment of major functions or major groups of functions to major constituent organizational units of the Department of Agriculture, now or hereafter existing, or to the heads or other officers thereof, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Secretary, he shall give appropriate advance public notice of delegations of functions proposed to be made by him and shall afford appropriate opportunity for interested persons and groups to place before the Department of Agriculture their views with respect to such proposed delegations.

(c) In carrying out subsection (a) of this section the Secretary shall seek to simplify and make efficient the operation of the Department of Agriculture, to place the administration of farm programs close to the state and local levels, and to adapt the administration of the programs of the Department to regional, state, and local conditions.

Section 5. Incidental transfers.—The Secretary of Agriculture may from time to time effect such transfers within the Department of Agriculture of any of the records, property and personnel affected by this reorganization plan and such transfers of unexpended balances (available or to be made available for use in connection with any affected function or agency) of appropriations…

The only mention of the 1953 report during the July 30 Senate hearing was when Deputy Secretary Vaden said, “This is another matter that drove our consideration of this plan and that’s looking at USDA’s reorganization authority granted to us by Congress in 1953…. The statute says in carrying out this law, quote, the Secretary shall seek to simplify and make efficient the operation of the Department of Agriculture to place the administration of farm programs close to the state and local levels, close quote [1:05:14].”

[17] During the July 30 Senate hearing, Deputy Secretary Vaden said, “First, we have a 30-day period of consultation that is required by statute and we are going to honor every day of that. [13:50].” See also 11:57.

[18] Examples of federal facilities cleared to be sold only after a congressionally defined approval process: Congressional Research Service, November 16, 2022, The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation; April 30, 2025, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities; March 19, 2014, Military Base Closures: Frequently Asked Questions.

[19] The sample RIF timetable on page 7 directs departments to seek a waiver from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to reduce the waiting period for implementing RIFs from 60 to 30 days: Russell Vought, February 26, 2025, Guidance on Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans Requested by Implementing The President’s “DOGE” Workforce Optimization Initiative, OPM memorandum. The 60- and 30-day periods associated with RIFs are established in 5 U.S. Code 3502.

[20] 5 U.S. Code 553 describes the 30-day review period during rulemaking.

[21] “The agency must maintain, and allow and facilitate public examination of a rulemaking file consisting of… (2) copies of or an index of written factual material, studies and reports relied upon or seriously consulted by agency personnel in formulating the proposed or final rule, (3) all written comments received by the agency” (page 28 of American Bar Association, 2013, A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law, 188 pp). Also, “courts have required that, especially for rules likely to have significant economic or other impacts, the statement [i.e., the preamble to the final rule] (a) must demonstrate that the agency seriously considered significant alternatives to its final rule, important public comments, and relevant information and scientific data” (pages 29–30 of the same source).

[22] A discussion that suggests that any rulemaking associated with the USDA’s reorganization must include publishing the proposed rule in Federal Register: Congressional Research Service, March 27, 2017, A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review. The abbreviated version of rulemaking that skips this step applies only to “agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties”: Congressional Record, July 28, 2025, US Government Accountability Office Legal Opinion, Vol. 171, No. 129, page S4769.