About 25% of IRS workers planning to take buyout offer

CNN - Apr 15th, 2025

A significant development is underway at the Internal Revenue Service as 25% of its workforce has opted to take buyouts and resign, amounting to approximately 22,000 employees. This decision follows a second round of 'deferred resignation' buyout offers with a deadline set for Tuesday morning. The Trump administration, in collaboration with the Elon Musk-aligned Department of Government Efficiency, is spearheading efforts to reduce the federal workforce, particularly targeting the IRS. The first round of buyouts saw about 4,700 employees, 5% of the workforce, accepting offers. The scale of the current round, however, indicates a larger impact, potentially mitigating the need for the involuntary layoffs that are anticipated by the end of the week.

This workforce reduction arises amidst criticisms and concerns from tax experts and former IRS officials about the potential negative implications on federal revenue and taxpayer services. The decision to accept buyouts reflects a troubling work environment within the IRS, characterized as 'toxic' by current employees. Morale is reportedly low, with employees expressing dissatisfaction with the internal climate. As the IRS braces for additional layoffs, the resignations may influence the scale and necessity of these terminations, with employees like one in New York choosing to risk the Reduction in Force (RIF) rather than resign voluntarily.

Elon Musk Trump Administration Department Of Government Efficiency Irs Buyouts Customer Service Federal Workforce Reduction Tax Experts Revenue Morale

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of significant workforce reductions at the IRS, focusing on the potential impacts on government revenue and taxpayer services. It effectively highlights concerns about employee morale and the Trump administration's policies, which are issues of public interest. However, the article's reliance on unnamed sources and lack of official confirmation for key claims limit its accuracy and credibility.

While the story is generally clear and well-structured, it could benefit from more diverse perspectives and expert opinions to provide a balanced view. Greater transparency about the sources and methods used to gather information would enhance the article's reliability. Overall, the article raises important questions and prompts discussion, but its impact is constrained by the need for more authoritative evidence and viewpoints.

Accuracy

The article presents several key factual claims that require verification, such as the number of IRS employees taking buyouts and the size of the current workforce. The story claims that about 25% of IRS employees, or roughly 22,000 people, are taking the buyout offer. This figure is substantial and requires confirmation from official sources like the IRS or Treasury Department. Additionally, the claim about the IRS's current workforce being around 90,000 needs verification.

The article mentions that this is the second round of buyouts offered by the Trump administration, which also needs corroboration from official statements or policies. The claim that the first round of buyouts involved about 4,700 employees, or 5% of the workforce, should also be verified against previous reports.

The story notes that the Trump administration is aggressively reducing the federal workforce, which is a significant claim that requires evidence from official policies or statements. Additionally, the article discusses the potential impact on IRS operations, which would benefit from expert opinions or studies to support these claims. Overall, while the article makes several significant claims, it lacks sufficient evidence or corroboration from authoritative sources.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the perspective that the reduction in IRS employees is a result of aggressive policies by the Trump administration. It highlights the negative impacts on IRS operations and employee morale, which suggests a particular viewpoint. However, it does not provide a balanced range of perspectives, such as potential benefits of the buyouts or reasons for the administration's actions.

The story includes quotes from IRS employees who express dissatisfaction, contributing to a portrayal of a toxic work environment. However, it lacks input from IRS management or government officials who could provide context or justification for the buyouts. This omission creates an imbalance in the narrative.

While the article does mention that CNN reached out to the IRS and the Treasury Department for comment, it does not provide any responses or alternative viewpoints. Including perspectives from officials or experts who support the workforce reduction could have provided a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and presentation of information. It effectively communicates the main points and claims, such as the percentage of IRS employees taking buyouts and the potential impact on the agency.

The structure of the article is logical, with a clear progression from the introduction of the buyout offer to the discussion of its implications. The inclusion of quotes from IRS employees adds a human element and helps illustrate the reported work environment.

However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the terms "deferred resignation" and "reduction in force," as these terms may not be familiar to all readers. Providing definitions or additional context would improve overall comprehension.

Source quality

The article relies on two unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the matter, which raises questions about the credibility and reliability of the information. While anonymous sources can be valuable, they should be used cautiously and supported by additional evidence.

The story does not cite any official documents, reports, or statements from the IRS or the Treasury Department, which are critical for verifying the claims made. The lack of attribution to authoritative sources diminishes the overall reliability of the information presented.

Moreover, the article mentions that CNN reached out to the IRS and the Treasury Department for comment but does not provide any responses or further information from these entities. This lack of direct source attribution and reliance on unnamed sources limits the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides some context regarding the buyout offers and the Trump administration's efforts to reduce the federal workforce. However, it lacks transparency in terms of explaining the methodology used to gather information and the basis for the claims made.

The use of unnamed sources without further explanation of their credibility or background reduces transparency. Readers are left to rely on the journalist's judgment without understanding the sources' potential biases or conflicts of interest.

Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may affect the reporting. Greater transparency about the sources and the methods used to verify the information would enhance the article's credibility.