From this story and others. The move was announced in June. This story says they have to be there by the end of September and that "Employees say they are getting conflicting information about how much of their moving costs will be covered by the government."
In a case like this, cost of the move was paid because it was for the benefit of the government.
Not if the intent of the move is to get people to quit.
It would be quite unusual if most of the moves are not being paid for.
Wouldn't it also be unusual at this late stage for the Department of Agriculture not to say how much of the cost of the move, if any, they will cover?
There is not a lot of leeway on the part of the government agency.
Note that no one is being forced to move.
Employees say?
Instead of relying on anonymous unnamed sources, why not contact an actual government source in OPM who has knowledge of the process of moving employees? Then compare that with whatever materials the employees have been given stating what the process will be, and what relocation assistance is to be provided. If there's a conflict there, then that's the story.
That's what journalists should do (but rarely do anymore, it would seem).
The fact that employees are griping means nothing. It's normal, and it certainly isn't news. Rumors run wild in situations like this, and they're rarely accurate. They should never be reported as fact.