Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Currently are there mass firings of IRS employees? Around 85%?
Executive Summary
There is no credible evidence that the IRS has conducted mass firings that removed 85% of its workforce; reporting instead shows a mix of targeted cuts, buyouts, probationary-term separations, and localized layoffs that together represent a small-to-moderate fraction of the agency’s roughly 90,000–100,000 employees rather than an 85% purge [1] [2] [3]. Coverage through September 2025 documents specific actions like planned workforce reductions, thousands accepting buyouts or deferred resignations, and localized layoffs, but no authoritative source confirms an 85% wholesale firing of IRS personnel [1] [2] [4].
1. Why the 85% figure doesn’t match reporting: numbers and context that matter
Contemporary reporting shows several different measures of staff changes, but none approach an 85% elimination of IRS positions; AP reporting described drafting plans to cut “as much as half” of a roughly 90,000-person workforce — a large, hypothetical ceiling — while other pieces document thousands, not tens of thousands, of separations and localized layoffs [1] [2]. The inspector-general and news outlets reported roughly 11,400 employees taking buyouts or terminated and an additional ~5,000 accepting deferred resignations, plus a separate report of 6,700 probationary-period firings, which are significant but far short of 85% when set against the agency’s staffing levels [2] [3]. These figures reflect different mechanisms — voluntary buyouts, forced terminations, probationary dismissals — and should not be conflated into a single percentage without precise denominators [1] [3].
2. Plans versus actions: drafting reductions vs. executed layoffs
Media reporting in early 2025 highlighted draft plans for major workforce cuts, including scenarios to halve staffing; drafting a plan is not the same as executing it, and subsequent coverage shows a mix of implemented steps and reversals rather than a full-scale purge [1] [4]. The distinction matters: plans can be broad, aspirational, or politically driven, while actions documented later — buyouts taken, localized layoffs, and probationary firings — represent actual attrition and legal processes with limits, collective-bargaining implications, and administrative constraints [2] [3]. Reporting in September 2025 describing partial reversals and renewed seasonal hiring in Kansas City underscores that implementation has been uneven and contested [4].
3. Where the biggest impacts are being reported: counsel, probationary hires, and local offices
Multiple outlets documented concentrated effects in specific units: dozens to hundreds of attorneys departing the Office of Chief Counsel and shifts in Tax Court representation, the firing of recent probationary hires (about 6,700 reported in one article), and small local layoff events such as at the Kansas City center [5] [3] [4]. These developments carry operational implications — legal capacity, case backlogs, and regional service disruptions — while still representing subset-focused impacts rather than an agency-wide 85% workforce removal [5] [3]. Reporting also notes internal morale and attrition drivers such as return-to-office mandates and spending restrictions, which complicate causal attribution for departures [6].
4. Dates and sequence: how the narrative evolved through 2025
Early-2025 coverage raised alarms with draft-plan reporting in March suggesting deep cuts; by May and September reporters were documenting concrete numbers — buyouts, deferred resignations, probationary firings, and local layoffs — along with partial reversals and hiring events in some locales [1] [2] [3] [4]. This chronology shows an evolving situation: initial policy direction prompted planning for substantial reductions, then implementation produced discrete, legally bounded actions and some backtracking. Analysts and watchdogs flagged further layoffs “to come” while local reports in September showed both cuts and attempts to refill seasonal roles, indicating no single culminating purge had occurred [2] [4].
5. Competing narratives and likely agendas behind the claims
Claims of an 85% mass firing echo broad political narratives about government downsizing and could serve partisan aims to amplify perceptions of chaos or vindicate administrative priorities; conversely, agency statements and watchdog reporting focus on legal constraints and targeted personnel actions [1] [2]. Journalistic accounts vary in tone: some emphasize policy-driven workforce reductions and operational risk, others highlight management limits and localized, reversible decisions. The diversity of reportage suggests motivated framing on all sides, making precise quantification critical and cautioning against accepting extreme percentage claims without primary data [1] [7].
6. Bottom line: what can be said with confidence today
As of the latest reporting through September 2025, the IRS has experienced notable but not catastrophic workforce reductions via buyouts, probationary dismissals, and localized layoffs, and has seen departures among attorneys and staff that could affect operations; however, no authoritative evidence supports an 85% mass firing of IRS employees. Continued monitoring of official staffing data, inspector-general reports, and follow-up journalism is necessary to track implementation and outcomes, because the situation has been fluid, legally constrained, and uneven across units and regions [2] [3] [4] [5].