USDA commits to restore climate-focused webpages after lawsuit by Earthjustice and Knight First Amendment Institute; agency had purged content in January 2025

Washington, DC —

Late last night, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reversed course and committed to restore climate-focused webpages purged from its websites after Earthjustice and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuitCase 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NORTHEAST ORGANIC FARMING ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, and ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, Civil Action No. ________ Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s unlawful purge of climate-related policies, guides, datasets, and resources from its websites, without any advance notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, without engaging in reasoned decision-making as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and in violation of its obligation under the Freedom of Information Act to publish certain information proactively. 2. On January 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) ordered its staff to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change.” Within hours, and without any public notice or explanation, USDA purged its websites of vital resources about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, and investment in clean energy projects in rural America, among many other subjects. In doing so, it disabled access to numerous datasets, interactive tools, and essential information about USDA programs and policies. Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 19 3. USDA’s purge of climate-change-focused webpages has already inflicted significant harm. By removing these webpages or rendering them inaccessible, USDA has hurt farmers and farm advisors who depend on the department’s digital resources to access financial and technical support for conservation practices and other agricultural decisions, researchers who depend on USDA datasets and interactive tools to study climate change and its related risks, and advocates whose mission is to educate farmers and the public about USDA programs and policies.1 4. USDA has deprived the public of this vital information at an especially critical moment. In recent days, and in violation of multiple court orders, the Trump Administration has stopped paying farmers, nonprofit organizations, and businesses money they were promised under USDA conservation and climate-smart agriculture programs, pulling the rug out from underneath grant recipients who have invested significant time, money, and effort implementing practices that help them mitigate and manage the effects of climate change. USDA’s webpage purge has removed critical information about these programs from the public record, denying farmers access to resources they need to advocate for funds they are owed and for the continued survival of programs on which they rely. 5. USDA’s purge of climate-change-focused webpages is unlawful in at least three ways. First, USDA provided no notice before removing scores of vitally important webpages, thus violating the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), which requires federal agencies to provide adequate notice when substantially modifying or terminating “significant information dissemination products.” Second, in ordering staff to unpublish these webpages, USDA failed to 1 By “remove,” Plaintiffs mean that USDA stopped publishing the webpage altogether. By “render inaccessible,” Plaintiffs mean that USDA still publishes the page, but it is impossible to navigate to from USDA’s websites either because USDA has removed the landing page that indexed the webpage or because it removed the link to the webpage from the landing page. 2 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 19 consider how removing these resources would harm farmers, farm advisors, land managers, researchers, and other members of the public, and thus failed to engage in reasoned decision- making, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Finally, by removing or rendering inaccessible numerous records that USDA is obligated to affirmatively disclose to the public in an electronic format, USDA violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Accordingly, this lawsuit seeks an order declaring USDA’s actions unlawful, setting them aside, requiring USDA to restore the unlawfully removed webpages, and enjoining USDA from unlawfully removing additional webpages on the basis of the department’s January 30, 2025, directive. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States, namely, FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. 7. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council resides in New York, New York. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (“NOFA-NY”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization of farmers, gardeners, and consumers working together to create a sustainable regional food system that is ecologically sound, socially just, and economically viable. Through demonstration and education, NOFA-NY promotes land stewardship, organic food production, and local marketing. NOFA-NY is New York’s leading organization providing effective programs and services that promote sustainable, local, organic food and farming. NOFA- NY is based in Binghamton, New York. 3 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 19 9. Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit environmental and public health organization with several hundred thousand members. NRDC engages in research, advocacy, media, and litigation related to protecting public health and the environment, including with respect to food, agriculture, and forestry. To this end, NRDC advocates for building a more resilient food system that protects the health of communities, soils, and ecosystems while helping farmers and ranchers adapt to the realities of climate change. NRDC also works to ensure protections for carbon-rich forests, including by advancing federal policies to protect old-growth and mature forests. NRDC is based in New York, New York. 10. Plaintiff Environmental Working Group (“EWG”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public- interest organization whose mission is to empower the public with breakthrough research to make informed choices and live a healthy life in a healthy environment. Since 1993, EWG has used scientific research, public education, and policy advocacy to highlight federal policies and industrial agricultural practices that pose a threat to public health and to the environment. EWG is based in Washington, D.C. 11. Defendant USDA is an agency of the federal government located in Washington, D.C. It is an “agency” within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1), the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 3502(1), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Paperwork Reduction Act 12. Congress enacted the PRA to “ensure the greatest possible public benefit from and maximize the utility of information created, collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal Government” and “provide for the dissemination of public information on a timely basis, on equitable terms, and in a manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public and makes effective use of information technology.” 44 U.S.C. § 3501(2), (7). 4 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 5 of 19 13. To these ends, the PRA mandates that every agency “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information” and “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products.” 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(1), (3). 14. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, which establishes general federal policy for managing public information on government websites, defines “information dissemination products” as “any recorded information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, disseminated by an agency, or contractor thereof, to the public.” Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, OMB Circular No. A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource (2016). The Administrative Procedure Act 15. The APA gives any person “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action,” the right to federal judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 702. A court must “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A). 16. An agency acts arbitrarily when it “relie[s] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, offer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 17. An agency acts “not in accordance with law” when it “violates a federal statute.” Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209, 220 (2012). 5 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 6 of 19 The Freedom of Information Act 18. FOIA was enacted “to ensure” public access to information necessary “to hold the governors accountable to the governed,” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978), including agency records that have “the force and effect of law,” H.R. Rep. No. 89-1497, at 7 (1966). 19. FOIA thus requires agencies to affirmatively disclose, “in an electronic format,” several categories of information, including “those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register” and “administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(B)–(C). FOIA also requires agencies to affirmatively disclose records that have previously been released pursuant to a FOIA request under § 552(a)(3) and either “have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records” or have been requested at least three times. Id. § 552(a)(2)(D). 20. FOIA independently requires agencies to “index” such records. Id. § 552(a)(2)(E). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS USDA Webpages Provided Vital Access to Department Programs, Policies, Data, and Tools. 21. USDA’s mission is “to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation’s natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.” Our Agency, USDA, https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/our-agency (last visited Feb. 20, 2025). 6 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 7 of 19 22. To support this mission, USDA administers sweeping nationwide programs. For example, each year, USDA provides billions of dollars in financial and technical assistance to farmers, invests billions of dollars in rural infrastructure, and manages wildfire risk across hundreds of millions of acres. USDA’s policies and programs help determine whether the nation’s food supply is stable and safe, whether its forests and grasslands are climate resilient, and whether rural communities have access to essential services. 23. For many years, USDA’s official websites served as repositories of policies, information, and data related to its mission and its programs. Through its websites, the department published information about its policies, facilitated participation in its programs, and disseminated research, datasets, and interactive tools to assist farmers, farm advisors, land managers, and other members of the public in making informed decisions, including with respect to climate-change- related risks and vulnerabilities. USDA websites include: a. usda.gov, which publishes information about department-wide policies and programs, houses webpages about USDA staff offices, and provides links to USDA subagency websites; b. fs.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Forest Service, the USDA subagency charged with managing, conserving, and stewarding the nation’s forests and grasslands; c. nrcs.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”), the USDA subagency tasked with providing farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners with financial and technical assistance to implement conservation practices; d. fsa.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”), the USDA subagency that oversees federal farm loan programs, provides credit to agricultural producers, administers disaster recovery assistance, and dispenses other forms of income support for farmers; e. rd.usda.gov, which publishes information about Rural Development, a USDA subagency that provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees to support infrastructure projects in rural communities; and 7 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 8 of 19 f. farmers.gov, which provides farmers, ranchers, farm advisors, and other landowners with tools for accessing federal farm loan programs, as well as agricultural data and other USDA resources. USDA Ordered Staff to Purge Department Webpages “Focused on Climate Change.” 24. On January 30, 2025, USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee sent an email ordering USDA staff to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change” by “no later than close of business” on Friday, January 31, 2025. 25. Director Rhee also ordered staff to identify and categorize additional webpages related to climate change. The directive instructed staff to sort webpages into three “tiers”: webpages dedicated entirely to climate change were to be designated “Tier 1”; webpages where a significant portion of the content relates to climate change were to be designated “Tier 2”; and webpages where climate change is mentioned in passing were to be designated “Tier 3.” As to each webpage, Director Rhee instructed staff to provide the USDA Office of Communications with “the title, link, and your recommendation on how the content should be handled.” Director Rhee explained that the Office of Communications “will review the submitted materials and make determinations on next steps.” 26. On information and belief, the directive did not give USDA staff discretion to leave any landing pages published and did not explain why the department was ordering staff to archive or unpublish climate-change-focused webpages. USDA Removed or Rendered Inaccessible Numerous Essential Webpages. 27. In response to the January 30, 2025, directive, USDA staff acted swiftly to purge department websites of climate-change-focused webpages. 28. Without any public notice or explanation, USDA removed scores of webpages. Some subagencies, such as the Forest Service, entirely removed the sections of their websites devoted to climate change, eliminating both landing pages and subsidiary climate-change-focused 8 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 9 of 19 webpages. See Ex. A (Forest Service webpage entitled “Climate Change”). Other subagencies, including NRCS and Rural Development, removed landing pages or website sections about funding for climate-change-related programs. As a result, USDA unpublished its own policies, removed critical resources for navigating department programs and funding opportunities, and scrubbed the public record of key information about congressionally authorized programs on which farmers and other members of the public relied. 29. Many of the purged webpages contained resources on which farmers relied to access financial and technical assistance for implementing conservation practices. For example: a. Farmers.gov removed a webpage entitled “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry” which enumerated resources for farmers interested in financing the implementation of climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices and purchasing related equipment, including links to a range of USDA funding opportunities and programs, as well as instructions about how to receive technical assistance from USDA staff. See Ex. B. b. FSA removed a webpage that provided farmers with information about how to apply for Climate-Smart Agriculture and Farm Loan Programs, which “promote sustainable agricultural practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and enhance the resilience of farming operations to climate change.” The webpage explained how the programs work, specified loan purposes and amounts, and provided examples of covered activities, “including conservation projects, renewable energy systems, and other climate-smart technologies.” See Ex. C. c. Farmers.gov removed a webpage that provided illustrative examples of ways in which federal farm loan programs can be used to finance climate-smart agricultural practices and equipment. See Ex. D. 30. Many other purged webpages published or linked to datasets and interactive tools on which farmers, landowners, researchers, and other members of the public relied to understand and combat climate-change-related risks and vulnerabilities, to search for federal funding opportunities, and to assess the efficacy of USDA programs. For instance: a. The Forest Service removed a geospatial interactive tool called “Climate Risk Viewer,” which allowed researchers, land managers, and other members of the public to explore 140 data layers and gain “comprehensive insight into how climate 9 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 10 of 19 change may affect national forests and grasslands.” Among other things, the Climate Risk Viewer allowed users to “[a]ssess the impacts of climate change on wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers,” “[h]ighlight watersheds where future predicted climate change and demands on water supply will be the greatest,” and “[i]dentify areas where mature and old-growth forests on Forest Service . . . lands are most threatened by future climate change.” The Forest Service also removed its accompanying user guide. See Ex. E (unpublished ArcGIS webpage), Ex. F (user guide). b. The Forest Service removed its “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Across the Nation” StoryMap, an interactive tool that helped farmers, researchers, and other members of the public understand disturbances, extreme weather events, and changing climatic conditions by showcasing locations where federal agencies have conducted climate change vulnerability assessments and providing an interactive dashboard for accessing detailed information about each assessment. See Ex. G. c. NRCS removed a webpage entitled “Mitigation,” which explained how conservation practices supported by NRCS can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve carbon storage, and which linked to interactive tools that farmers could use to estimate greenhouse gas reductions associated with NRCS-supported conservation practices. These emissions estimations tools can no longer be found via USDA websites. See Ex. H. d. Rural Development removed a webpage entitled “Inflation Reduction Act Investments by State,” which collected fact sheets about clean energy and conservation program funding in each state. Because this webpage has been removed, it is now impossible for users to navigate to the individual fact sheets via USDA websites. See Ex. I. 31. In many cases, USDA removed landing pages that served as repositories of links to more specific webpages about USDA’s climate-focused programs, including those funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. Without the landing pages, it is virtually impossible to navigate to the underlying webpages from USDA’s websites, rendering those webpages inaccessible. For example: a. USDA removed its “Climate Solutions” landing page, which provided links to “a variety of resources and tools to support farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, partners, and rural communities in making informed, science-based decisions to support climate change mitigation and build climate resilience,” including the now- purged Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center, “a suite of tools that [were] intended to help land managers incorporate climate change and carbon 10 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 11 of 19 stewardship into their decision-making,” as well as a now-deleted Farmers.gov webpage about Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry. See Ex. J. b. NRCS removed its “Inflation Reduction Act” landing page, rendering inaccessible an interactive map that profiles “farmers, ranchers and forest landowners across the nation who are adopting climate-smart conservation practices with funding from the Inflation Reduction Act,” as well as detailed information about funding for oversubscribed conservation programs and greenhouse gas quantification efforts. See Ex. K. c. Rural Development removed its “Inflation Reduction Act” landing page, which explained funding opportunities for clean energy programs authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and linked to now-purged webpages about specific programs, including the Powering Affordable Clean Energy program and Empowering Rural America program. See Ex. L. d. Rural Development removed the landing page for its “IRA Pocket Guides,” which are a pair of documents intended to help eligible groups, including agricultural producers, find opportunities for federal funding to support clean energy initiatives in rural communities. See Ex. M. 32. USDA also unpublished or rendered inaccessible webpages setting forth policies and interpretations on which the department has relied when discharging its responsibilities, including administering funding opportunities available for farmers under the Inflation Reduction Act or other statutes, setting climate change adaptation priorities, and fulfilling its obligations to manage and conserve the nation’s old-growth forests. For example: a. NRCS removed a webpage about climate-smart agriculture and forestry mitigation activities and Inflation Reduction Act funding, which set forth, among other things, NRCS’s policy on adding, removing, or updating practices included on the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Mitigation Activities List, as well as NRCS’s policy on estimating the impact of included mitigation practices. See Ex. N. A PDF presenting the contents of this webpage remains available, but only by navigating directly to its URL. All other references to this content link to the now- removed webpage, including a now-deleted USDA “Climate Solutions” landing page. See Ex. N. b. The Forest Service removed an April 2024 policy document entitled “Mature and Old-Growth Forests: Definition, Identification, and Initial Inventory on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management,” which set forth Forest Service policy on defining and inventorying old-growth and mature forests on federal lands. See Ex. O. 11 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 12 of 19 c. The Forest Service removed a June 2024 policy document entitled “Mature and Old-Growth Forests: Analysis of Threats on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management,” which explained Forest Service policy on defining and identifying threats to old-growth and mature forests on federal lands. See Ex. P. d. USDA rendered inaccessible a policy document entitled “Departmental Regulation 1070-001: U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation,” which “establishes the USDA directive to integrate climate change adaptation planning, implementing actions, and performance metrics into USDA programs, policies, and operations.” The directive is no longer available on USDA’s webpage indexing its department-wide directives and memoranda; it is available only as an appendix to the USDA publication “Action Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience,” which is available only through a different federal website, sustainability.gov. See Ex. Q. e. USDA rendered inaccessible a policy document entitled “Secretary’s Memorandum 1077-004: Climate Resilience and Carbon Stewardship of America’s National Forests and Grasslands,” which “outlines actions that [USDA] and [the Forest Service] will undertake so that data-informed policies, strategies, and actions are in place to provide for increased carbon stewardship and climate resilience across our national forests and grasslands.” The memorandum is no longer available on USDA’s webpage indexing its department-wide directives and memoranda; it is available only by navigating directly to its URL. See Ex. R. f. The Forest Service removed a policy document entitled “2024 National Sustainable Operations Strategy,” which outlines “goals and objectives” for “sustainable operations,” including the Forest Service’s target of a 65 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against a 2008 baseline by 2030, and whose drafting was “required by laws and regulations.” See Ex. S. 33. In addition, USDA rendered inaccessible webpages containing instructions to USDA staff about program administration. For instance: a. By unpublishing its landing page about the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, USDA rendered inaccessible its “Memorandum to the Field for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Concerning Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities,” which “aid[s] in the administration of Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities by summarizing and further defining responsibilities within USDA and external to USDA with respect to the effort.” See Ex. T. b. USDA similarly rendered inaccessible a parallel memorandum to FSA staff concerning the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities. See Ex. U. 12 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 13 of 19 34. USDA has removed or rendered inaccessible many other climate-change-focused webpages that fall within these categories. See Exs. V–Y (collecting examples). It is impossible to know the full extent of USDA’s purge, however, because USDA has not publicly documented the webpages that it removed or rendered inaccessible. 35. On information and belief, USDA’s January 30, 2025, directive did not instruct staff to comply with the department’s obligations under FOIA when deleting climate-change- focused webpages, including the obligation to proactively publish records that have already been released under FOIA and that have either been requested three or more times or are likely to become the subject of future requests. USDA very likely removed or rendered inaccessible records that fall within this provision of FOIA. 36. Numerous additional webpages focused on climate change are at risk of being removed or rendered inaccessible pursuant to the January 30, 2025, directive. On information and belief, USDA continues to review climate-change-focused webpages for possible removal, including webpages that are partially devoted to climate-change-related subjects or merely mention climate change in passing. 37. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiffs wrote to USDA to express their concern about the webpages that have been purged from the department’s websites and to demand that USDA immediately comply with its statutory obligations under FOIA’s affirmative-disclosure provisions. To date, USDA has not responded. Plaintiffs Are Harmed by USDA’s Purge of Climate-Change-Focused Webpages. 38. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, a host of injuries resulting from USDA’s purge of climate-change-focused webpages. 39. NOFA-NY, for example, relied on several purged webpages, including on the NRCS website, the FSA website, and Farmers.gov, that provided guidance and resources to 13 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 14 of 19 farmers interested in participating in federal loan programs to support climate-smart agricultural practices on their farm operations. NOFA-NY has routinely relied on these webpages while administering its Farmer Helpline, a free telephone hotline that helps farmers understand USDA programs and policies that impact organic farming operations, navigate markets, find funding, and access resources for implementing agricultural practices that mitigate and manage the effects of climate change. Without access to the removed webpages, NOFA-NY’s technical service providers are unable to connect participating farmers with resources explaining how to fund, implement, and measure climate-smart practices. NOFA-NY is also unable to assist farmers with USDA interactive tools, such as those on the now-purged “Climate Solutions” landing page, to help them incorporate climate change into their planting and land management decisions. 40. USDA’s webpage purge has also harmed NOFA-NY’s ongoing efforts to ensure that USDA fulfills its existing funding obligations, including to NOFA-NY. Many of NOFA-NY’s financial and technical services, such as those offered through the Climate-Smart Farming & Marketing program, are funded by USDA programs, including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities. Despite promising farmers that USDA funding would not be frozen, and notwithstanding contrary court orders preliminarily enjoining the Trump Administration’s “funding freeze,” USDA has recently halted disbursements to Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities grantees, thus imperiling NOFA-NY’s programming. By removing webpages describing eligibility for USDA programs that fund climate-smart agriculture, including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, USDA has deprived NOFA-NY of public information it could otherwise use to hold USDA accountable for commitments it has made. 41. The webpage purge also harms NOFA-NY’s farmer-members. USDA’s webpage removals coincide with the time of year when farmers are making crucial decisions about their 14 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 15 of 19 operations, including planting and financing decisions. Without access to the purged webpages, NOFA-NY’s farmer-members will be forced to make these decisions without complete information about USDA’s federal loan programs and without the benefit of tools that can help them mitigate climate-change-related risks and vulnerabilities. Moreover, USDA’s webpage purge will make it harder for farmer-members to advocate for unfreezing congressionally authorized funds. By removing webpages about Inflation Reduction Act funding, including funding for the conservation programs on which farmer-members rely, USDA has eliminated from the public record—at a moment of intense public debate—critical information about the scope and efficacy of those programs. 42. NRDC is also harmed by USDA’s removal of climate-change-focused webpages. NRDC’s work relied on numerous removed webpages, including interactive tools and policy statements. For example, NRDC’s researchers depended on now-purged interactive tools like the Forest Service’s “Climate Risk Viewer” and “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Across the Nation” StoryMap, to understand the Forest Service’s analysis of physical conditions affecting federal lands. Researchers were then able to reference—or, when necessary, correct—the Forest Service’s analysis in NRDC advocacy, including in comments and public education. Additionally, NRDC’s advocacy in support of protections for old-growth and mature forests depended on access to the Forest Service’s policy statements concerning how it defines those forests, how it understands and categorizes threats to those forests, as well as its most recent inventory of those forests, all of which have been unpublished. NRDC also relied on Rural Development’s now- purged Inflation Reduction Act-related webpages to advocate for rural clean energy programs. 43. EWG is similarly harmed by USDA’s webpage purge. EWG’s advocacy for federal support for climate-smart agricultural practices depends on several webpages that have either been 15 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 16 of 19 unpublished or are at risk of being unpublished. For example, EWG’s investigation of and public education about USDA’s funding for climate-smart agricultural practices relied on now-purged NRCS and USDA webpages that, among other things, articulated policies concerning mitigation practices and eligibility for various USDA conservation programs. Should USDA unpublish additional webpages concerning climate change pursuant to the January 30, 2025, directive, EWG will be unable to publish in-depth analyses and interactive tools that educate the public about USDA’s administration of conversation programs, including EWG’s Conservation Database. CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D)) 44. This Court must “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), or taken “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D). 45. Many webpages that USDA removed, including the webpages described above, are significant information dissemination products within the meaning of the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(3). 46. Because USDA provided no advance public notice before removing these webpages or rendering them inaccessible, it failed to comply with its obligation under the PRA to “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products.” Id. 47. Because USDA removed or rendered inaccessible webpages containing public information it still possesses, USDA also failed to comply with its obligation under the PRA to “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information.” Id. § 3506(d)(1). 16 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 17 of 19 48. By removing the webpages in violation of the PRA, USDA failed to observe procedures required by law, or took agency action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law, in contravention of the APA. Second Cause of Action (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)) 49. This Court must “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 50. By removing webpages from its websites solely because they focused on climate change, by failing to consider the significant public reliance on those pages, and by failing to provide any justification for doing so, USDA took agency action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law, in contravention of the APA. Third Cause of Action (Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(B)–(D)) 51. Pursuant to FOIA’s affirmative-disclosure provision, USDA must “make available for public inspection in an electronic format” several categories of information, including “statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register,” “administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public,” and records “that have been released” under the responsive provision of FOIA and that either “have been requested 3 or more times” or “have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(B)–(D). 52. Many webpages that USDA unpublished, including those described in ¶¶ 32–33 above, contained records that fall within FOIA’s affirmative-disclosure provision. 53. By removing these webpages, USDA violated its obligation under FOIA to make these webpages available for public inspection in an electronic format. 17 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 18 of 19 Fourth Cause of Action (Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E)) 54. FOIA also requires agencies to “index” all records that must be affirmatively disclosed in an electronic format. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E). 55. In the process of unpublishing climate-change-focused webpages, including landing pages, USDA removed links to numerous records that the department is obligated to make publicly available, rendering those records inaccessible from USDA websites. 56. By making these records inaccessible from its websites, USDA violated FOIA’s mandate to index all records that must be affirmatively disclosed in an electronic format. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Declare that USDA’s purge of climate-change-focused webpages violated the PRA, FOIA, and the APA; B. Order USDA to restore webpages that were unlawfully removed on the basis of Director Rhee’s January 30, 2025, directive; C. Enjoin USDA from further implementing Director Rhee’s January 30, 2025, directive to archive or unpublish climate-change-focused webpages; D. Order USDA to comply with its duties under the PRA, including the duty to provide adequate notice before removing or substantially modifying other webpages focused on climate change and the duty to ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the department’s public information; E. Award Plaintiffs their costs, attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements for this action; and F. Grant any other relief this Court deems appropriate. 18 Case 1:25-cv-01529 Document 1 Filed 02/24/25 Page 19 of 19 Dated: February 24, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Stein* Peter Lehner (PL2290) Earthjustice 48 Wall Street, 15th Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 845-7376 jstein@earthjustice.org Carrie Apfel (4401790) Earthjustice 1001 G St. NW, Ste. 1000 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 667-4500 capfel@earthjustice.org Stephanie Krent (5535414) Jackson Busch** Alex Abdo (AA0527) Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302 New York, NY 10115 (646) 745-8500 stephanie.krent@knightcolumbia.org *Pro hac vice application forthcoming ** Application for admission pending Counsel for Plaintiffs 19 on behalf of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

Resources purged from USDA websites include information on climate-smart farming, accessing federal loans, forest conservation, and rural clean energy projects. USDA erased entire climate sections from the U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service sites, including information helping farmers access billions of dollars for critical conservation practices. It also disabled interactive tools, such as the U.S. Forest Service’s “Climate Risk ViewerForest Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FS-1253 | November 2024 A GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE RISK VIEWER Longleaf pine on Kisatchie National Forest, LA. USDA Forest Service photo by Preson Keres. Identify climate change vulnerabilities and threats to national forests and grasslands using more than 140 map layers curated by experts. Created in response to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture’s memo on climate resilience (Memo 1077-004), the Climate Risk Viewer is a one-stop shop for climate-related geospatial data. The viewer presents comprehensive insight into how climate change may affect national forests and grasslands. Researchers, planners, land managers, students, and members of the public can use the viewer to explore more than 140 data layers to visualize relationships, inform spatial analyses, and identify additional resources related to climate risks and vulnerabilities. How to use the Climate Risk Viewer? Explore data: Answer questions such as: • Assess the impacts of climate change on • Which areas will experience the largest changes wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers. in temperature and snowfall? • Highlight watersheds where future predicted • Which forests will be most affected by drought? climate change and demands on water supply • What habitat types are most vulnerable to will be the greatest. extreme wildfire? • Identify areas where mature and old-growth • Which National Forest System lands have the forests on Forest Service and Bureau of Land highest scores for terrestrial condition? Management lands are most threatened by future climate change. QUICK START GUIDE 1. Navigate to https://arcg.is/WyiTi. 2. View the introduction page to learn about the background of the Climate Risk Viewer and access resources such as the FAQ, data catalog, version history, and citation information. 3. Learn about the themes by clicking on the relevant pages, where each page has a similar structure: an in- troduction to the theme, relevant tools and reports, descriptions of each dataset, and an interactive map that allows users to explore the datasets. Themes include: Climate Exposure and Vulnerability, Management Intent, Water and Watersheds, Biodiversity and Species at Risk, Carbon, Reforestation, Mature and Old-Growth For- ests, and Firesheds. The “All Data” tab contains all data from the Climate Risk Viewer in one place. Tabs at the top will take you to the other pages in the Climate Risk Viewer. These headers describe the sections of the page for that theme. Read through it all or click on a header to skip ahead. The Explore the Data section is an interactive map. Explore data for each theme: Toggle to The Comparison checkable View to see two boxes in maps at once. the table of contents Share your draw layers custom map. on the map. This button preserves your selected layers and the current When a layer map extent so is visible on you can share the map, it exactly what shows up in you are looking the legend. at with anyone. For all instructions, click this button on the map: Find data with ease: • Simply access all datasets. • Overlay map layers or see them side by side. • Create a custom map view to share. Ready to use the data for decision making? Use the data catalog to learn about the datasets, such as where to find and download the data. A key finding of the threat analysis, showcased in this image, is that by mid-century, more than half of the firesheds containing mature and old-growth forests will have very high exposure to fire-related mortality. Try this! • Open the “Climate Exposure and Vulnerability” theme. • Scroll down or skip to Explore the Data section. • Expand the Vulnerability section in the table of contents and check the box on “Terrestrial Condition Scores” to turn on the layer. • Zoom to northern California and note that the legend describes that the red areas are “Very Poor.” • Expand the Climate section by clicking on “>” and then “Snow Residence Time: Percent Change.” • Now it is possible to see which National Forest System lands with a “Very Poor” rating for “Terrestrial Condition” will also see a large reduction in snow residence time in the future. Click the three dots on the “Climate” group name and then “Increase Transparency” to see both at once. The Climate Risk Viewer provides the functionality to change the transparency of the map layers displayed. Questions or comments? Contact SM.FS.OSC_Inquiry@usda.gov. Steamboat Creek in the Boulder Creek Wilderness on the Umpqua National Forest, OR. USDA Forest Service photo. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.,” a “one-stop shop for climate-related geospatial data” with over 140 data layers.

This purge hurt communities across the country by depriving farmers, researchers, and advocates of the resources they need to make time-sensitive farming decisions and participate in highly consequential debates about USDA funding and policies related to climate change.

Shortly after filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs moved the court for a preliminary injunctionCase 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NORTHEAST ORGANIC FARMING ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, and ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01529 Plaintiffs, (MMG) v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Stephanie Krent (5535414) Jeffrey Stein* Jackson Busch* Peter Lehner (PL2290) Alex Abdo (AA0527) Earthjustice Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia 48 Wall St., 15th Floor University New York, NY 10005 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302 (212) 854-7376 New York, NY 10115 jstein@earthjustice.org (646) 745-8500 stephanie.krent@knightcolumbia.org Carrie Apfel (4401790) Earthjustice 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 667-4500 capfel@earthjustice.org * Application for admission pending Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 2 of 33 Table of Contents Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 2 I. USDA webpages provided vital access to Department programs, policies, data, and tools. ............................................................................................................................................. 2 II. USDA removed or rendered inaccessible numerous climate-change-focused webpages. ............................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Plaintiffs have relied, and will continue to rely, on USDA’s climate-change-focused ........webpages. .......................................................................................................................... 11 A. NOFA-NY................................................................................................................... 11 B. NRDC ......................................................................................................................... 12 C. EWG ........................................................................................................................... 14 Standard of Review ....................................................................................................................... 15 Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 16 I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims. .................................. 16 A. USDA violated the PRA’s “adequate notice” provision. ............................................ 17 B. USDA violated the PRA’s “timely and equitable access” provision. ......................... 18 C. USDA’s decision to purge climate-change-focused webpages was unreasoned. ....... 20 II. Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm unless USDA’s climate-change-focused ........webpages are restored. ...................................................................................................... 21 III. The balance of equities and the public interest support preliminary injunctive relief. ..... 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 27 Certificate of Compliance ............................................................................................................. 29 ii Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 3 of 33 Table of Authorities Page(s) Cases Am. Immigr. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 470 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2020) .....................................................................................21, 23 Cosgrove v. Oregon Chai, Inc., 520 F. Supp. 3d 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ........................................................................................6 Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 411 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2019) .............................................................................................24 Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1 (2020) .....................................................................................................................20 Drs. for Am. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. CV 25-322 (JDB), 2025 WL 452707 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2025) .................................. passim Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Just., 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) .....................................................................................21, 25 Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) .................................................................................................................20 L.V.M. v. Lloyd, 318 F. Supp. 3d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................20, 27 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012) ...........................................................................................................18, 19 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ...................................................................................................................20 New York v. Trump., C.A. No. 25-cv-39-JJM-PAS, 2025 WL 715621 (D.R.I. Mar. 6, 2025)..................................24 New York v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01144 (JAV), 2025 WL 573771 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2025) .............................25, 26 New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 477 F. Supp. 3d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ................................................................................15, 22 New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020).......................................................................................................15 iii Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 4 of 33 Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 337 F. Supp. 3d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ......................................................................................27 In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................27 Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................................20 Statutes 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)..........................................................................................................17, 18, 19 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)......................................................................................................................18 44 U.S.C. § 3501(7) .......................................................................................................................18 44 U.S.C. § 3502(12) .....................................................................................................................19 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(1) ............................................................................................................17, 18 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(3) ............................................................................................................16, 17 iv Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 5 of 33 Introduction On January 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) directed its staff to archive or unpublish webpages focused on climate change. Within hours and without any public notice, USDA deleted dozens of climate-change-focused webpages, removing numerous policies, guides, datasets, interactive tools, and other vital resources about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, and investment in clean energy projects in rural America, among many other subjects. USDA also deleted landing pages for or removed links to many additional climate-change-focused webpages, rendering those pages inaccessible to Plaintiffs and members of the public who rely on them. In doing so, USDA disabled access to essential information about its programs and policies. This webpage purge inflicts significant harm on Plaintiffs Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (“NOFA-NY”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), and Environmental Working Group (“EWG”). Plaintiffs and their members are farmers, farm advisors, researchers, and advocates who routinely depend on USDA digital resources to make urgent financing decisions and participate in fast-moving public debates of national significance. By removing or rendering inaccessible scores of webpages,1 USDA disrupted the operations of small-scale organic food producers, impeded Plaintiffs’ ongoing advocacy around USDA programs and policies, and hampered efforts to restore funding allocated by the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) and other statutes. In short, USDA upended Plaintiffs’ time-sensitive work. 1 By “remove,” Plaintiffs mean that USDA stopped publishing the webpage altogether. By “render inaccessible,” Plaintiffs mean that USDA still publishes the page, but it is impossible to navigate to from USDA’s websites either because USDA has removed the landing page that indexed the webpage or because it removed the link to the webpage from the landing page. 1 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 6 of 33 USDA’s webpage purge is plainly unlawful. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires courts to set aside agency action that is unlawful or arbitrary and capricious, and USDA’s conduct fails this standard for at least three reasons. First, the removals were undertaken in disregard of the “adequate notice” provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), which ensures that agencies do not abruptly revoke access to significant sources of information. Second, the removals block “timely and equitable access” to USDA’s public information, also in violation of the PRA. Third, the removals constituted unreasoned arbitrary and capricious decision-making, as USDA provided no explanation at all for its sudden removal of climate-change-focused webpages and did not consider Plaintiffs’ significant reliance on those webpages. Given these clear violations of law—and the irreparable harm they inflict on Plaintiffs—this Court should enter a preliminary injunction ordering USDA to restore unlawfully removed webpages and enjoining USDA from removing or substantially modifying additional webpages pursuant to its January 30, 2025, directive. Statement of Facts I. USDA webpages provided vital access to Department programs, policies, data, and tools. USDA works “to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation’s natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.”2 To carry out this mission, USDA, among many other activities, provides billions of dollars in 2 About USDA, USDA, https://perma.cc/H2DP-XEUX (last visited Mar. 11, 2025). 2 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 7 of 33 financial and technical assistance to farmers, invests billions of dollars in rural infrastructure, and manages wildfire risk across hundreds of millions of acres. See Declaration of Marcie Craig (“Craig Decl.”) ¶ 4 (referencing USDA programs that help farmers finance climate-smart agricultural practices); Declaration of Anne Schechinger (“Schechinger Decl.”) ¶ 3 (describing USDA’s “multi-billion-dollar conservation programs”); Declaration of Jeffrey McManus (“McManus Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–5 (describing multi-billion-dollar rural clean energy programs). These policies and programs help determine whether the nation’s food supply is stable and safe, whether its forests and grasslands are climate resilient, and whether rural communities have access to essential services. For many years, USDA’s official websites served as repositories of policies, information, and data related to its mission and its programs. See, e.g., Declaration of Corrine Hansch (“Hansch Decl.”) ¶ 7 (describing reliance on USDA webpages); Schechinger Decl. ¶ 3 (same). Through its websites, the Department published information about its policies, facilitated participation in its programs, and disseminated research, datasets, and interactive tools to assist farmers, farm advisors, land managers, and other members of the public in making informed decisions, including with respect to climate-change-related risks and vulnerabilities. USDA websites include: • usda.gov, which publishes information about department-wide policies and programs, houses webpages about USDA staff offices, and provides links to USDA subagency websites; • fs.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Forest Service, the USDA subagency charged with managing, conserving, and stewarding the nation’s forests and grasslands; 3 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 8 of 33 • nrcs.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”), the USDA subagency tasked with providing farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners with financial and technical assistance to implement conservation practices; • fsa.usda.gov, which publishes information about the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”), the USDA subagency that oversees federal farm loan programs, provides credit to agricultural producers, administers disaster recovery assistance, and dispenses other forms of income support for farmers; • rd.usda.gov, which publishes information about Rural Development, a USDA subagency that provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees to support infrastructure projects in rural communities; and • farmers.gov, which provides farmers, ranchers, farm advisors, and other landowners with tools for accessing federal farm loan programs, as well as agricultural data and other USDA resources. II. USDA removed or rendered inaccessible numerous climate-change-focused webpages. On January 30, 2025, USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee sent an email ordering USDA staff to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change” by “no later than close of business” on Friday, January 31, 2025.3 Director Rhee also ordered staff to identify and categorize additional webpages related to climate change into three “tiers”: webpages dedicated entirely to climate change were to be designated “Tier 1”; 3 See Will Steakin, USDA Orders Removal of Climate Change Mentions from Public Websites, ABC News (Jan. 31, 2025), https://perma.cc/T7KV-UNYQ. 4 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 9 of 33 webpages where a significant portion of the content relates to climate change were to be designated “Tier 2”; and webpages where climate change is mentioned in passing were to be designated “Tier 3.”4 As to each webpage, Director Rhee instructed staff to provide the USDA Office of Communications with “the title, link, and [their] recommendation on how the content should be handled” to facilitate a review of all climate-change-related USDA webpages.5 In response to the January 30, 2025, directive, USDA staff acted swiftly to purge department websites of climate-change-focused webpages. Without providing any public notice or explanation,6 USDA unpublished its own policies, removed critical resources for navigating Department programs and funding opportunities, and scrubbed the public record of key information about congressionally authorized programs on which farmers and other members of the public relied. See, e.g., McManus Decl. ¶ 10 (describing discovery that USDA webpages had been removed); Schechinger Decl. ¶ 9 (similar). Several of the purged webpages contained resources which farmers and advocates used to access financial and technical assistance for implementing conservation practices. For instance: • Farmers.gov removed a webpage entitled “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry” which enumerated resources for farmers interested in financing the implementation of climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices and purchasing related equipment, including links to a range of USDA funding opportunities and programs, as well as instructions about how to receive technical assistance from USDA staff. An archived 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 See id. 5 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 10 of 33 version of the webpage as of January 22, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/HWV2- FATZ.7 See Hansch Decl. ¶ 7; Craig Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. • FSA removed a webpage entitled “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Farm Loan Programs” that provided farmers with information about how to apply for loans to implement climate-smart agricultural practices, which “promote sustainable agricultural practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and enhance the resilience of farming operations to climate change.” An archived version of the webpage as of January 17, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/C6ZD-R4JR. See Hansch Decl. ¶ 7; Craig Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. • Farmers.gov removed a fact sheet entitled “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Farm Loan Programs” that provided illustrative examples of ways in which federal farm loan programs can be used to finance climate-smart agricultural practices and equipment. An archived version of the factsheet as of January 8, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/UDR4-V2JB. See Hansch Decl. ¶ 7; Craig Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. USDA also removed webpages that published or linked to datasets and interactive tools on which farmers, landowners, researchers, and other members of the public relied to understand and combat climate-change-related risks and vulnerabilities, to search for federal funding opportunities, and to assess the efficacy of USDA programs. For example: 7 The Court may take judicial notice of archival copies of USDA webpages generated by Plaintiffs’ counsel using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. See Cosgrove v. Oregon Chai, Inc., 520 F. Supp. 3d 562, 581 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2021); see also Wayback Machine General Information, Internet Archive, https://help.archive.org/help/wayback-machine-general- information (last visited Mar. 13, 2025) (“The Internet Archive Wayback Machine is a service that allows people to visit archived versions of Web sites. Visitors to the Wayback Machine can type in a URL, select a date range, and then begin surfing on an archived version of the Web.”). 6 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 11 of 33 • The Forest Service removed a geospatial interactive tool called “Climate Risk Viewer,” which allowed researchers, land managers, and other members of the public to explore 140 data layers and gain “comprehensive insight into how climate change may affect national forests and grasslands.” An archived version of a now-removed guide to the Climate Risk Viewer as of January 18, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/L76B-4H59. See also Declaration of Garett Rose (“Rose Decl.”) ¶¶ 10–13. • The Forest Service removed its “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Across the Nation” StoryMap, an interactive tool that helped farmers, researchers, and other members of the public understand disturbances, extreme weather events, and changing climatic conditions by showcasing locations where federal agencies have conducted climate change vulnerability assessments and providing an interactive dashboard for accessing detailed information about each assessment. An archived version of a now- removed announcement of the tool as of February 3, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/M3XU-YX3D. • NRCS removed a webpage entitled “Mitigation,” which explained how conservation practices supported by NRCS can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve carbon storage, and which linked to interactive tools that farmers could use to estimate greenhouse gas reductions associated with NRCS-supported conservation practices. An archived version of the webpage as of January 20, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/T2HB-LBDC. • Rural Development removed a webpage entitled “Inflation Reduction Act Investments by State,” which collected fact sheets about clean energy and conservation program funding in each state. An archived version of the webpage as of January 17, 2025, is available at 7 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 12 of 33 https://perma.cc/6R5X-GHHM. See also McManus Decl. ¶ 8 (discussing reliance on now-removed Rural Development webpages about IRA investments in rural clean energy projects). USDA removed landing pages that served as repositories of links to more specific webpages about USDA’s climate-focused programs, including IRA-funded programs impacted by the Trump Administration’s funding freeze. For example: • USDA removed its “Climate Solutions” landing page, which provided links to “a variety of resources and tools to support farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, partners, and rural communities in making informed, science-based decisions to support climate change mitigation and build climate resilience,” including the now-purged Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center, “a suite of tools that [were] intended to help land managers incorporate climate change and carbon stewardship into their decision- making.” An archived version of the webpage as of January 22, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/2ML6-KVRB. See Craig Decl. ¶ 12; Schechinger Decl. ¶ 12. • USDA removed its “Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities” landing page, which served a central repository of information about the Department’s $3.1 billion dollar program to expand markets for commodities produced with fewer greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, including policies, staff memoranda, fact sheets, interactive tools, and videos, including now-deleted presentations about the program’s scope, efficacy, and administration. An archived version of the webpage as of December 30, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/C6WM-FWTB. See Craig Decl. ¶ 14–15. • NRCS removed its “Greenhouse Gas Quantification and the Inflation Reduction Act” landing page, which aggregated information about USDA’s “comprehensive strategy to 8 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 13 of 33 improve data, models and tools needed for improving estimates of the impact of conservation practices on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration and to advance national reporting,” including now-removed progress presentations in which Department leaders “provide[d] information about [their] work plans and progress made to-date toward accomplishing their goals.” An archived version of the webpage as of January 18, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/3NJ9-LU8G. See Schechinger Decl. ¶ 7. • The Forest Service removed its “Climate Change Policy and Initiatives” landing page, which provided “resources on recent climate change policies and related Forest Service activities,” including “numerous climate adaptation-related literature sources and reviews, assessments, and tools,” such as the now-removed “Climate Risk Viewer” and the “Climate Change Resource Center.” An archived version of the webpage as of January 17, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/J55T-53F4. • Rural Development removed its “Inflation Reduction Act” landing page, which explained funding opportunities for clean energy programs authorized by the IRA and linked to now-purged webpages about specific programs, including the Powering Affordable Clean Energy program and Empowering Rural America program. An archived version of the webpage as of January 16, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/JC9K-X99M. See McManus Decl. ¶ 8. USDA also unpublished webpages setting forth policies and interpretations on which the Department has relied when discharging its responsibilities, including administering funding opportunities available for farmers under the IRA or other statutes and fulfilling its obligations to manage and conserve the nation’s old-growth forests. For example: 9 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 14 of 33 • NRCS removed a webpage entitled “FAQs: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Mitigation Activities and Inflation Reduction Act Funding,” which set forth, among other things, NRCS’s policy on adding, removing, or updating its list of conservation practices that qualify for IRA funding, as well as NRCS’s policy on estimating the climate impact of those practices. An archived version of the webpage as of January 22, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/454R-9L7W. See Schechinger Decl. ¶ 8. • The Forest Service removed an April 2024 policy document entitled “Mature and Old- Growth Forests: Definition, Identification, and Initial Inventory on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management,” which set forth the Forest Service’s approach to defining and inventorying old-growth and mature forests on federal lands. An archived version of the document as of January 15, 2025, is available at https://perma.cc/B9SA-2CVN. See Rose Decl. ¶ 8. USDA has removed or rendered inaccessible many other climate-change-focused webpages that fall within these categories. See, e.g., https://perma.cc/MJ7V-26YA (archiving, as of January 17, 2025, now-deleted Forest Service webpage entitled “Climate Tools and Data” that collected climate-related tools and data); https://perma.cc/7DEM-J4EN (archiving, as of January 17, 2025, webpage entitled “Climate Action Tracker” about the Forest Service’s now-deleted reporting and tracking tool for Forest Service climate-change-related actions); https://perma.cc/P2Y6-XS9H (archiving, as of January 17, 2025, NRCS webpage about climate change adaptation); https://perma.cc/38W8-WQ6K (archiving, as of January 22, 2025, the Forest Service’s analysis of threats to mature and old-growth forests on federal lands entitled “Mature and Old-Growth Forests: Analysis of Threats on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management”); see also Compl. ¶¶ 29-34, ECF No. 1 (collecting additional 10 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 15 of 33 examples). However, because USDA has not publicly documented which webpages have been removed, it is impossible to know the full extent of USDA’s webpage purge. III. Plaintiffs have relied, and will continue to rely, on USDA’s climate-change- focused webpages. USDA’s climate-change-focused webpages have been, and will continue to be, vital to Plaintiffs and their members. A. NOFA-NY NOFA-NY, a “nonprofit organization of farmers, gardeners, and consumers working together to create a sustainable regional food system,” and its members regularly relied on now- removed USDA webpages. Craig Decl. ¶ 2. Among the many services it provides, NOFA-NY guides and supports hundreds of local farmers each year “through the process of implementing organic and climate-smart agricultural practices,” including by fielding their questions about navigating USDA programs and accessing relevant digital resources on USDA websites. Id. ¶ 4. When operating NOFA-NY’s free telephone hotline for farmers, the Farmer Helpline, NOFA- NY’s technical assistance staff “have frequently directed farmers to [now-removed] [FSA] and Farmers.gov webpages,” including when answering their questions about “how to finance projects to make farm operations more sustainable and climate resilient.” Id. ¶ 8. Without access to these webpages, NOFA-NY’s staff lack “key resources” for quickly and effectively explaining “how [USDA’s] farm loan programs work, how much financing farmers can access through various loan programs, and which climate-smart activities and equipment purchases can be financed through different loan programs.” Id. ¶ 9. NOFA-NY’s members have also relied on these webpages—and will need to rely on them again soon. For instance, Corinne Hansch, owner and manager of the certified organic 11 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 16 of 33 Lovin’ Mama Farm, is currently seeking to expand her farm’s capacity to grow field crops using organic and climate-smart agricultural practices and will soon need to finance related equipment and infrastructure purchases. Hansch Decl. ¶ 8. If still available, she would use the now-deleted FSA and Farmers.gov webpages to learn “about how to access loans for the types of climate- smart agricultural practices [she] intend[s] to implement, and equipment purchases [she] intend[s] to make,” but will instead be forced to make these “crucial, short-term financial decisions” without “complete information.” Id. ¶¶ 8−9. The webpage purge has also impaired NOFA-NY’s ability to carry out its work in other ways. By removing and rendering inaccessible numerous webpages without explanation, USDA has “significantly undermined [NOFA-NY’s] ability to trust that USDA digital resources are up- to-date and accurate,” which in turn “damages [its] ability to help farmers make time-sensitive and financially significant decisions in reliance on USDA digital resources.” Craig Decl. ¶ 11. And by removing a central repository of information about the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities—through which NOFA-NY received a significant portion of its funding before it was frozen by USDA—NOFA-NY no longer has access to “public information it could have used . . . to educate the public and members of Congress about the importance of defending USDA programs and restoring promised funds.” Id. ¶ 15. B. NRDC Environmental and public health nonprofit NRDC has also been harmed—and will continue to be harmed—by USDA’s removal of climate-change-focused webpages. For example, USDA webpages are essential to NRDC’s advocacy in support of two multi-billion-dollar rural clean energy programs that were enacted as part of the IRA. McManus Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8. When USDA scrubbed the Rural Development website of multiple webpages about these programs— 12 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 17 of 33 including “the only centralized source for detailed information about . . . funding recipients, the types of clean energy projects funded, [] the scale of investments,” “estimates of job creation,” and “emissions reductions resulting from the projects”—NRDC’s work was impaired in several ways. Id. ¶ 9. NRDC was deprived of key resources for monitoring the effectiveness of these programs, raising public awareness about the benefits of the programs, providing concrete examples of those benefits to members of Congress and other decision-makers, identifying affected community members to enable their participation in required consultation processes, and identifying for assistance rural energy cooperatives whose funding has been frozen. Id. ¶¶ 11−19. This advocacy and outreach are especially important right now “given the fast-moving public debate on the Trump administration’s funding freezes, which have affected both programs,” but USDA’s webpage purge has cut off NRDC’s access to the resources it needs to carry out this work. Id. ¶ 13. The webpage purge has similarly set back NRDC’s efforts to protect “the nation’s mature and old-growth trees and forests, which foster diverse plant and animal life and play an outsized role in sequestering and storing carbon.” Rose Decl. ¶ 4. Now-removed USDA webpages and interactive tools, such as the Forest Service’s inventory of mature and old-growth forests and the Climate Risk Viewer, were essential resources for this work. For instance, the inventory of mature and old-growth forests was “critical” to NRDC’s development of technical comments critiquing the Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement for its proposal to uniformly amend nearly all National Forest Service land management plans. Id. ¶ 8. And NRDC intended to use the Climate Risk Viewer in its ongoing forest protection work to “further develop a workable national mature and old-growth forest policy and build out a technical case supporting it,” and get input from “tribal nations, rural communities, scientists, and other members of the 13 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 18 of 33 public,” but this tool and its dozens of data layers are no longer available. Id. ¶¶ 10−11 (noting NRDC’s reliance on the Forest Service’s recent representations that it would continue to improve the Climate Risk Viewer). Moreover, NRDC’s inability to access these resources impedes its ability to engage in the current, “fast-moving public debate” about recently announced dramatic shifts in federal forest management policy. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12. C. EWG EWG is similarly harmed by USDA’s webpage purge. EWG “routinely rel[ies] on public information published on USDA webpages, including datasets, policy statements, guidance documents, technical reports, and webinars, to track how USDA allocates its funds, to understand USDA’s rationales for its funding decisions, and to assess the climate change and other environmental impacts of those decisions.” Schechinger Decl. ¶ 3. These resources have been especially critical to EWG’s work “ensuring that USDA’s conservation programs pay farmers to implement conservation practices that have proven climate benefits.” Id. ¶ 4. For instance, when drafting a January 2025 report analyzing USDA’s funding for climate-smart conservation practices—which uncovered that USDA paid $624.3 million to farmers to implement conservation practices that do not have proven climate benefits—EWG “relied extensively” on two now-deleted NRCS webpages. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. These webpages were “invaluable resource[s]” for understanding, among other things, “the standards that USDA purports to apply when determining whether a conservation practice qualifies” for certain funding streams, as well as the state of the Department’s progress toward “develop[ing] methodologies for quantifying the climate benefits of certain” conservation practices. Id. Indeed, these webpages “provided the basis” for policy recommendations set forth in EWG’s January 2025 report and were “essential” 14 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 19 of 33 to that report’s analysis demonstrating USDA’s failure to “faithfully implement[]” statutory mandates for climate-smart conservation practice funding. Id. USDA’s webpage purge has also “caused significant confusion about the state of USDA policy,” making it significantly harder for EWG “to hold USDA accountable and advocate for better policy outcomes.” Id. ¶ 10. For instance, even as USDA removed a webpage setting forth NRCS policies with respect to climate-smart conservation practices, it inexplicably left up an older, inconsistent iteration of the same document. Id. This sort of inconsistency greatly undermines EWG’s ability to trust that information on USDA websites is up to date and accurate, “disrupt[ing] [its] ability to engage in effective and timely advocacy.” Id. ¶ 12. In addition, USDA’s webpage removals have impeded “EWG’s ability to provide detailed information to members of Congress” at a moment of intense public debate about the future of IRA-funded programs. Id. ¶ 11. For example, by removing a webpage about NRCS’s GHG quantification efforts funded by the IRA, USDA took down “the only source of recent information about NRCS’s progress towards measuring the climate benefits” of certain conservation practices. Id. In doing so, USDA scrubbed the public record of irreplaceable information about the consequences of “cutting off IRA funds.” Id. Standard of Review To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must establish that: “(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 477 F. Supp. 3d 279, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “Where, as here, the government is a party to the suit, the final two factors merge.” New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 58–59 (2d Cir. 2020). 15 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 20 of 33 Argument Each of the preliminary injunction factors weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief. First, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that USDA violated the APA by failing to adhere to the PRA’s substantive and procedural requirements, and by failing to engage in reasoned decision-making. Second, USDA’s webpage purge is causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm by, among other things, thwarting their ability to address time- sensitive problems and engage in fast-moving, nationally significant debates. Third, the balance of equities and the public interest favor Plaintiffs, because the restoration of vital climate- change-focused webpages will not burden USDA’s ability to carry out its work, whereas farmers, researchers, advocates, and other members of the public will greatly benefit from renewed access to critical resources. I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA claims. USDA’s website purge constitutes final agency action because the removal of webpages in response to the January 30, 2025, directive represents the culmination of the Department’s decision-making process. See Drs. for Am. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. CV 25-322 (JDB), 2025 WL 452707, at *4–5 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2025). And under the APA, final agency action must be set aside where it is not in accordance with law, an abuse of discretion, or arbitrary and capricious. Here, USDA’s website purge violates the APA in at least three ways: USDA (1) violated the PRA’s requirement that it “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products,” 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(3); (2) violated the PRA’s mandate to “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information,” id. § 16 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 21 of 33 3506(d)(1); and (3) engaged in arbitrary and capricious decision-making, see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). A. USDA violated the PRA’s “adequate notice” provision. First, by removing or obscuring vitally important webpages without any notice at all, USDA “substantially modif[ied]” or “terminat[ed] significant information dissemination products” without “adequate notice” in violation of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(3), and therefore acted “not in accordance with law” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The webpages USDA removed or rendered inaccessible constitute “significant information dissemination products,” 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(3). They are information dissemination products because they constitute “recorded information . . . disseminated by an agency, or contractor thereof, to the public.” Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, OMB Circular No. A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource (2016). And the webpages are undoubtedly “significant.” See Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *7 (holding that under the “ordinary meaning” of the term “significant,” HHS webpages were significant information dissemination practices because they “likely have influence or a major effect”). Indeed, among many other webpages, USDA removed “key resources” that “explain how farm loan programs work, how much financing farmers can access through various loan programs, and which climate-smart [agricultural] activities and equipment purchases can be financed through different loan programs,” Craig Decl. ¶ 9; see also Hansch Decl. ¶¶ 7-11 (discussing the importance of these webpages to a small organic farm in upstate New York); deleted “the only centralized source for detailed information about” multi-billion-dollar USDA- administered rural clean energy programs, “including the names and locations of funding recipients, the types of clean energy projects funded, and the scale of investments,” McManus 17 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 22 of 33 Decl. ¶ 9; unpublished “an interactive map” that “aggregates useful climate-related data” and, if still available, could inform analysis of the ecological consequences of recent shifts in federal logging policy, Rose Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12; and eliminated “the only source of recent information about [USDA’s] progress towards measuring the climate benefits” of agricultural practices that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support, Schechinger Decl. ¶ 11. Despite their significance, USDA removed each of these webpages and many other significant climate-change-focused webpages without providing any notice whatsoever—let alone the “adequate notice” required by the PRA. Instead, Plaintiffs simply discovered that vital resources were no longer available, prompting them to “expend[] significant time combing through USDA’s websites” to search for lost resources, id. ¶ 12, and leaving them confused about the accuracy of information that remains on USDA webpages, id. ¶ 10; Craig Decl. ¶ 11. By pulling the rug out from underneath Plaintiffs and depriving them of the opportunity to prepare for lost access, USDA violated the PRA’s requirements and failed to act in accordance with the law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D); Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209, 220 (2012) (holding that an agency acts “not in accordance with law” when it “violates a federal statute”). B. USDA violated the PRA’s “timely and equitable access” provision. Second, USDA’s webpage purge is contrary to its obligation to provide “timely and equitable access” to its “public information” under a separate provision of the PRA. 44 U.S.C. § 3506(d)(1); see also id. § 3501(7) (stating that Congress enacted the PRA to “provide for the dissemination of public information on a timely basis, on equitable terms, and in a manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public”). The webpages at issue here constitute “public information” within the meaning of the PRA. “Public information” is “any information, 18 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 23 of 33 regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public.” Id. § 3502(12). The now-purged webpages fall within this category: the policies, memoranda, guides, presentations, datasets, and interactive tools at issue in this case were once housed by the USDA on its public-facing websites. By entirely removing these webpages from its websites or making it impossible to navigate to the webpages via its websites, USDA has failed to provide “timely and equitable access” to the information. Since January 31, 2025, some Plaintiffs have had to expend considerable effort trying to replicate information that used to be available through USDA webpages so that they can provide resources and education to farmers. See Craig Decl. ¶¶ 9–11 (“My staff are acutely affected by the loss of these digital resources at this time of year, as they are currently advising farmers on planting and operational decisions that must be made before the warmer months arrive.”); see also Hansch Decl. ¶ 8 (describing need for timely access to these webpages as a farmer). In other cases, Plaintiffs’ inability to access USDA webpages has made it impossible to carry out planned outreach and assistance. See McManus Decl. ¶ 19 (stating that if resources were available, he “would have relied on [USDA] webpages to contact and assist cooperatives affected by the Trump administration’s funding freezes”). Plaintiffs have also been left without crucial resources to inform their advocacy efforts during a time of intense public debate around USDA funding, policies, and priorities. See Schechinger Decl. ¶¶ 10–12 (describing “confusion and delay” wrought by USDA’s removal of climate-change-focused landing pages); McManus Decl. ¶¶ 13–14; Rose Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12; Craig Decl. ¶ 14. USDA has failed entirely to provide timely or equitable access to these webpages, and its removal of them was therefore “not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, 567 U.S. at 220. 19 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 24 of 33 C. USDA’s decision to purge climate-change-focused webpages was unreasoned. Third, USDA failed to “engage in reasoned decisionmaking” in taking down these webpages, for two reasons: (1) it failed to provide any justification at all for its webpage purge; and (2) it failed to consider the significant public reliance on now-removed climate-change- focused webpages. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 16 (2020) (cleaned up). USDA is required to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 30 (1983). Nonetheless, USDA offered no justification whatsoever for purging numerous vital webpages. Where, as here, an agency provides “no contemporaneous explanation at all,” its decision is arbitrary and capricious. Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71, 83 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016) (“[W]here the agency has failed to provide even [a] minimal level of analysis, its action is arbitrary and capricious . . . .”); L.V.M. v. Lloyd, 318 F. Supp. 3d 601, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (same). Nor may USDA, consistent with the APA, “entirely fail[] to consider an important aspect of the problem” before it. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. But here, USDA completely “failed to consider” the “substantial reliance” by farmers, farm advisors, researchers, advocates, and many other members of the public “on the removed webpages.” Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *8. Farmers “need accurate, timely, and user-friendly information about federal loan opportunities through USDA” to make “crucial, short-term financial decisions” ahead of planting season, but USDA nevertheless removed such information from its websites. Hansch Decl. ¶ 9; Craig Decl. ¶¶ 8−10. Researchers and advocates depend on access to comprehensive information about USDA programs to monitor their effectiveness and convey concrete examples of the programs’ 20 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 25 of 33 importance to congressional decisionmakers, yet USDA has removed this information, too. See, e.g., McManus Decl. ¶¶ 11−19 (describing NRDC’s reliance on USDA webpages for its planned advocacy in support of rural clean energy cooperatives); Schechinger Decl. ¶¶ 7−11 (describing EWG’s reliance on USDA webpages for its advocacy aimed at ensuring that USDA’s conservation programs pay farmers to implement conservation practices that have proven climate benefits). By entirely failing to consider this significant reliance on now-removed climate- change-focused webpages, USDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims that, by removing or rendering inaccessible climate-change-focused webpages without any notice or explanation, USDA violated the PRA’s procedural and substantive requirements and failed to engage in reasoned decision-making. II. Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm unless USDA’s climate-change- focused webpages are restored. USDA’s webpage purge has already caused Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm, and that harm is likely to continue absent a preliminary injunction. The government’s deprivation of information causes irreparable harm when it impairs a plaintiff in a manner that is “certain and great.” Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *8 (quoting Wisconsin Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). The government inflicts this sort of irreparable injury when it impedes a plaintiff from effectively addressing a time-sensitive problem. See id. at *9. It similarly causes irreparable harm when it thwarts “efforts to inform and impact a rapidly evolving discussion of national consequence.” Am. Immigr. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 470 F. Supp. 3d 32, 38 (D.D.C. 2020); see also Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Just., 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 41 (D.D.C. 2006) (granting 21 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 26 of 33 preliminary relief to ensure “timely” access to “information vital to [a] current and ongoing debate surrounding the legality” of an executive branch policy). Where, as here, an injury “cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of trial,” preliminary relief is appropriate. New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 477 F. Supp. 3d at 303 (citation omitted); accord Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *9. Plaintiffs are likely to suffer precisely these types of irreparable injuries unless a preliminary injunction is granted. NOFA-NY and its members, for example, need access to the now-removed webpages to facilitate immediate and consequential decisions about farming investments. NOFA-NY’s technical assistance staff are “acutely affected” by their inability to access “multiple FSA and Farmers.gov webpages about financing climate-smart agriculture practices through farm loan programs,” “as they are currently advising farmers on planting and operational decisions that must be made before the warmer months arrive.” Craig Decl. ¶ 9; Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *9 (removing agency webpages causes irreparable harm where deprivation of information prevented a plaintiff from effectively performing work on a time- sensitive issue). Farmer and NOFA-NY member Corinne Hansch, who is “currently making decisions about how to finance expansions on [her] farm in the near term,” is similarly harmed by the lack of resources that reliably describe USDA funding opportunities. Hansch Decl. ¶ 8−9 (explaining that the removal of these webpages impairs her ability to “quickly figure out which USDA farm loan programs can fund [her farm’s] planned expansions”). Moreover, NOFA-NY and its members must now do without these digital resources just as USDA has “fire[d] hundreds of staff across the country,” which makes it harder “to access USDA funding opportunities in person or over the phone.” Id. ¶ 11. Against this backdrop, USDA’s webpage purge is likely to 22 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 27 of 33 immediately impede organic farmers from “bringing healthy food to many community members who wouldn’t otherwise be able to access it.” Id. ¶ 5. In addition, USDA’s webpage removals have invited confusion about whether information on its websites is up-to-date and accurate, compromising Plaintiffs’ ability to “serve as reliable liaisons” between the public and “federal resources.” Craig Decl. ¶ 10. For instance, because USDA removed a policy document concerning funding for climate-smart agricultural practices but left up a conflicting, earlier version of the same document, EWG can no longer confidently discern “the state of USDA policy” with respect to these practices. Schechinger Decl. ¶ 10. Such confusion does not simply impede some Plaintiffs’ “ability to hold USDA accountable and advocate for better policy outcomes,” id., but also hampers others’ ability to quickly and confidently help members of the public, including farmers, navigate complex program requirements and funding opportunities, see Craig Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10−11; McManus Decl. ¶¶ 17−18 (discussing how webpage removals thwart NRDC’s plans to facilitate community members’ participation in required consultation processes for rural clean energy programs). As such, USDA’s webpage purge significantly undermines Plaintiffs’ capacity to effectively and swiftly do their jobs. Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *9. USDA’s removal of climate-change-focused webpages also disrupts Plaintiffs’ “efforts to inform and impact [the] rapidly evolving” debate about funding allocated by the IRA and other statutes. Am. Immigr. Council, 470 F. Supp. 3d at 38. In recent weeks, the Trump Administration’s refusal to disburse funds allocated by Congress has been the subject of intense media coverage, high profile litigation, and a fast-moving policy debate. And no wonder: this “funding freeze” constitutes an existential crisis for many businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals—including thousands of farmers across the country—whose survival hangs in 23 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 28 of 33 the balance.8 The ultimate resolution of this debate will have significant consequences for our constitutional order. See New York v. Trump., C.A. No. 25-cv-39-JJM-PAS, 2025 WL 715621, at *1 (D.R.I. Mar. 6, 2025) (“The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.”). Plaintiffs have sought to contribute to this highly consequential public debate, but USDA’s webpage purge hinders these efforts. NOFA-NY—which has been forced to lay off staff because of the funding freeze—can no longer access webpages demonstrating the efficacy of the USDA funding on which it relies, diminishing its ability to defend this funding in outreach to the public and advocacy aimed at congressional leaders. See Craig Decl. ¶¶ 14−15. Likewise, because USDA has removed multiple webpages about IRA-funded rural clean energy programs, NRDC cannot “find concrete examples of how [rural clean energy] programs benefit rural communities,” which prevents it from “rais[ing] public awareness of the benefits of the [clean energy] projects” and educating members of Congress about “the real-world effects these investments would have in their districts.” McManus Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16. EWG has similarly been deprived of information it could use to “educate decisionmakers about specific ways in which cutting off IRA funds may disrupt efforts to improve federal support for climate-smart conservation practices.” Schechinger Decl. ¶ 11. USDA’s webpage purge has thus repeatedly stifled Plaintiffs’ participation in a gravely important, time-sensitive debate. Cf. Ctr. for Pub. 8 See, e.g., P.J. Huffstutter, Leah Douglas, & Tom Polansek, Farmers Put Plans, Investments on Hold Under Trump USDA Spending Freeze, Reuters (Mar. 10, 2025), https://perma.cc/A2J7- JQ7X; Ayurella Horn-Muller & Naveena Sadasivam, Slim Margins, Climate Disasters, and Trump’s Funding Freeze: Life or Death for Many US Farms, Grist (Mar. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/4XGE-DTB6; Linda Qiu & Julie Creswell, Trump’s Funding Freezes Bruise a Core Constituency: Farmers, N.Y. Times, https://perma.cc/TDA6-UD9S (last updated Feb. 18, 2025). 24 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 29 of 33 Integrity v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 411 F. Supp. 3d 5, 13 (D.D.C. 2019) (concluding that irreparable harm occurs on “each day” that a nationally significant debate “move[s] forward without an informed public able to access relevant information”); Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d at 41 (similar). The webpage purge similarly hampers Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in other rapidly evolving policy debates. For instance, in response to recent Trump Administration executive orders designed to dramatically expand logging on federal lands, NRDC is seeking to quickly and effectively explain how increased logging would harm communities and the environment. See Rose Decl. ¶ 9. However, because USDA removed documentation detailing analytics about old-growth and mature forests on federal lands, as well as a related interactive tool, NRDC now lacks vital resources it could have used to efficiently “analyze and publicize the potential consequences” of the executive orders, impeding its participation in another “fast-moving public debate.” Id. ¶¶ 9−10, 12. Finally, Plaintiffs are under imminent threat of further harm because they continue to rely on still-published webpages that fall within the scope of the January 30, 2025, directive. Should USDA remove additional climate-change-focused webpages, NOFA-NY’s educators will be deprived of “reliable, science-based information about Northeast-specific [climate-change- related] vulnerabilities,” Craig Decl. ¶ 13, NRDC will lose access to webpages that inform its wildfire-related policy work, Rose Decl. ¶ 14, and EWG will be unable to ensure that conservation practices that receive billions of dollars in USDA funding are supported by rigorous science, Schechinger Decl. ¶ 13. The likelihood that these webpages will be removed alongside the dozens of similar pages that have already been purged is another independent reason Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable injury. See New York v. Trump, No. 25-cv- 25 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 30 of 33 01144 (JAV), 2025 WL 573771, at *25 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2025) (noting that “increased risk of negative consequences is sufficient to meet the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction” because a court must determine whether there is a “threat” of irreparable harm, not whether “irreparable harm has already occurred” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to continue suffering irreparable harm absent an order preliminarily restoring USDA’s climate-change-focused webpages and preventing the removal of additional climate-change-focused webpages. III. The balance of equities and the public interest support preliminary injunctive relief. The balance of equities and the public interest also weigh strongly in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. “In determining whether the balance of the equities tips in the plaintiff’s favor and whether granting the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest, the Court must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief, as well as the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” New York v. Trump, 2025 WL 573771, at *26 (citation omitted). This balance tips decisively in Plaintiffs’ favor. Whereas Plaintiffs are likely to suffer significant harm due to USDA’s unlawful webpage purge, there is no reason to believe that “the restoration of the removed webpages would pose a burden on the [USDA’s] ability to engage in [its] work.” Drs. for Am., 2025 WL 452707, at *10. None of the webpages identified above contain private or sensitive commercial information whose disclosure might cause harm— indeed, prior to January 31, 2025, all of this information was public. Nor is there anything in the January 30 directive to suggest that maintaining the webpages constitutes a significant cost for the Department. Moreover, it is well settled that an agency “cannot suffer any harm from an 26 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 31 of 33 injunction that terminates an unlawful practice.” L.V.M., 318 F. Supp. at 620. And there is likewise “no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 337 F. Supp. 3d 308, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (cleaned up). On the other hand, many members of the public would be served by an order restoring webpages that were unlawfully removed. Farmers and farm advisors depend on now-removed digital resources to access financial and technical support for agricultural and operational decisions. See Hansch Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Craig Decl. ¶ 9. Advocates depend on now-removed datasets and interactive tools to study climate change risks and threats to ecosystems. See Rose Decl. ¶¶ 7–12. Researchers and other members of the public rely on now-removed USDA webpages for up-to-date and accurate information about the Department’s programs and policies. See Schechinger Decl. ¶¶ 6–10. Where, as here, the government’s removal of information causes widespread harm and frustrates efforts to hold the government accountable, the public interest would be served by an order restoring access to that information. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[O]penness in government [is] crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government.”). Accordingly, the final factor favors granting preliminary injunctive relief. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant a preliminary injunction ordering restoration of all webpages that were removed pursuant to USDA’s January 30, 2025, directive and enjoining USDA from removing or substantially modifying additional webpages pursuant to that directive. 27 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 32 of 33 Dated: March 17, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Stein* Peter Lehner (PL2290) Earthjustice 48 Wall Street, 15th Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 845-7376 jstein@earthjustice.org Carrie Apfel (4401790) Earthjustice 1001 G St. NW, Ste. 1000 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 667-4500 capfel@earthjustice.org Stephanie Krent (5535414) Jackson Busch* Alex Abdo (AA0527) Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302 New York, NY 10115 (646) 745-8500 stephanie.krent@knightcolumbia.org *Application for admission pending Counsel for Plaintiffs 28 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 16 Filed 03/17/25 Page 33 of 33 Certificate of Compliance As required by this Court’s Rule II(B)(2), I certify that this memorandum of law contains 7,786 words, excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature blocks. Dated: March 17, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Carrie Apfel 29, which sought a court order requiring USDA to restore the removed webpages and preventing USDA from taking down additional climate-related information.

Days before that motion was set to be heard in federal court, USDA reversed course. In a letterCase 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 30 Filed 05/12/25 Page 1 of 2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 May 12, 2025 BY ECF Hon. Margaret M. Garnett United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Northeast Organic Farming Assoc. of N.Y., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 25 Civ. 1529 (MMG) Dear Judge Garnett: This Office represents the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA,” “Agency,” or the “Government”) in the above-referenced action brought by Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Working Group (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The parties write respectfully to inform the Court that USDA will restore the climate- change-related web content that was removed post-Inauguration, including all USDA webpages and interactive tools enumerated in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, see Compl. ¶¶ 29–34 (the “Removed Content”). The process of restoring the Removed Content is already underway, and the Agency expects to substantially complete the restoration process in approximately two weeks. Furthermore, USDA commits to complying with any applicable statutory requirements in connection with any future publication or posting decisions regarding the Removed Content, including, as applicable, the adequate-notice and equitable-access provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506(d)(1), (3), and the reading room provisions of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(2)(B)–(D), (E). In light of USDA’s commitment, the parties propose adjourning sine die the evidentiary hearing and oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which is currently scheduled for May 21, 2025. Should the Court grant this request, the parties further propose submitting a joint status report 21 days thereafter, detailing USDA’s progress towards restoring the Removed Content and setting forth the parties’ respective positions about appropriate next steps in this litigation. 1 Case 1:25-cv-01529-MMG Document 30 Filed 05/12/25 Page 2 of 2 The parties thank the Court for its attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Mark Osmond ILAN STEIN MARK OSMOND Assistant United States Attorneys 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor Tel.: (212) 637-2525/2713 E-mail: ilan.stein@usdoj.gov mark.osmond@usdoj.gov 2 filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, USDA now says that it “will restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-inauguration” and that it “commits to complying with” federal laws governing its future “posting decisions.” USDA also says that it has begun restoring climate-related webpages and expects to substantially complete the restoration process in approximately two weeks.

“We’re glad that USDA recognized that its blatantly unlawful purge of climate-change-related information is harming farmers and communities across the country,” said Jeffrey Stein, Earthjustice associate attorney. “Farmers depend on USDA’s websites to protect their farms from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather. We stand ready to ensure that USDA follows through on its promise to restore these crucial resources.”

“This is a major victory and an important first step. Members of the public, including our clients, rely on information from USDA to understand how climate change is affecting our nation’s forests, food supply, and energy systems,” said Stephanie Krent, Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney. “USDA was wrong to remove these webpages in the first place, and it must comply with federal law going forward.”

“Restoring these resources is a major victory for farmers, scientists, and communities who depend on climate information to make critical decisions,” said Rebecca Riley, managing director, Food & Agriculture at NRDC. “Farmers need access to science-based tools to make the best decisions in an era of increasing extreme and more unpredictable weather.”

“NOFA-NY commends the USDA’s decision to restore climate-focused web resources for farmers,” said Marcie Craig, executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York. “Access to timely, accurate, science-based climate information is essential for organic, regenerative agriculture communities facing increasingly unpredictable weather patterns. These tools will help organic producers make more informed decisions, protect their livelihoods, and contribute to a more resilient food system.”

“The restoration of these webpages and tools marks a significant victory for the climate, the environment and farmers,” said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director for the Environmental Working Group. “The Trump administration’s reversal in response to this legal challenge highlights the critical importance of public interest advocates standing up in the name of transparency and government accountability.”