IRS plans to cut up to 25% of workforce in next round of layoffs
David Ake/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The IRS started a new round of layoffs on Friday beginning with the agency’s Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, according to an email obtained by ABC News.
Overall, the agency is planning to cut nearly a quarter of its workforce with the cuts beginning Friday, sources familiar with the plans said.
“This action is being taken to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRS in accordance with agency priorities,” according to the email, which added that the layoffs will “result in staffing cuts across multiple offices and job categories.”
The civil rights office will be effectively shuttered by the move, with the remaining staffers moved into the Office of Chief Counsel, according to the email.
The agency had previously drawn up plans to cut roughly 18% to 20% of the 100,000-person workforce by the middle of May.
The email sent to IRS employees Friday said the reduction in force will “be implemented in phases” and noted that employees will be offered early retirement incentives starting next week.
The agency also recently put approximately 50 IT security staffers on administrative leave, according to people familiar with the move, as the agency faces pressure to make workforce cuts and demands for data-sharing across the federal government during tax season. The Trump administration has said workforce changes will not affect staff directly working to process tax returns.
However, there are concerns that the layoffs may still cause delays.
“The bottom line: Forever, it has been an absolute rule of thumb that you keep things stable during filing season. Because it’s delicate,” one former IRS commissioner told ABC News. “And the idea that nearly 10% of the entire IRS workforce is being laid off right in the middle of filing season is extremely risky.”
Earlier this year, more than 4,000 IRS employees accepted the Trump administration’s deferred resignation offer. The agency also fired more than 6,600 probationary employees but has been forced to reinstate them under court orders.
It’s not clear if members of those two groups of employees will be targeted in the new reductions in force.
Several senior agency leaders, including the chief human resources officer, acting commissioner and acting general counsel, have resigned or been demoted since January.
The IRS and the White House did not respond to a requests for comment from ABC News.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has requested access to an Internal Revenue Service system that retains the personal tax information of millions of Americans, two sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The system, known as the Integrated Data Retrieval System, is used by IRS employees to review tax information, issue notices and update taxpayer records.
Access to the files, which is tightly controlled within the agency, had not been granted as of this weekend, several sources told ABC News.
Still, the request itself has been received with alarm both within the government and among privacy experts who say that granting Musk access to Americans’ private taxpayer data could be extraordinarily dangerous.
Musk, estimated to be the richest man in the world, has criticized federal judges for curbing his power and called for their impeachment. Musk also has alleged without evidence or examples of wrongdoing that federal workers were defrauding taxpayers.
“We do find it rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars, but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” Musk told reporters on Feb. 12 while in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump. “We’re just curious as to where it came from.”
Earlier this month, DOGE employees demanded access to the Treasury Department’s vast federal payment system responsible for managing trillions of dollars in government expenditures. That access triggered a lawsuit by 19 states and has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
Sources say one DOGE staffer arrived at the IRS last Thursday seeking meetings with various offices about how the IRS collects and manages data and what each business unit within the IRS does. It is not clear whether that staffer made the request to access IDRS or if it came through via the White House.
The White House did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
According to the Washington Post, which first reported the development, the IRS is considering a memorandum of understanding that would give DOGE officials access to several systems, including IDRS.
Musk and the White House have not said what federal data the DOGE team has been able to get to, or what’s been done with the data that’s been acquired.
“People who share their most sensitive information with the federal government do so under the understanding that not only will it be used legally, but also handled securely and in ways that minimize risks like identity theft and personal invasion, which this reporting brings into serious question,” said Elizabeth Laird, a former state privacy officer now with the Center for Democracy and Technology.
When pressed by reporters on what checks are in place to ensure Musk — whose companies have billions of dollars in current federal contracts — is accessing data to his advantage, the billionaire insisted that DOGE posts all of its activity on its website “so all of our actions are maximally transparent.”
The DOGE site on Sunday included a list of mostly canceled government contracts and a message on its “savings” tab: “Receipts coming over the weekend!”
According to one person familiar with DOGE’s efforts, the team acquiring access the IRS system would not allow them to change any data within it. But if granted, the access would allow unfettered access to access any person’s tax filings.
According to an IRS rulebook for the system posted online, anyone accessing IDRS is specifically not allowed to review the personal tax information of relatives, friends, neighbors or celebrities.
“IDRS users shall not access the account of any taxpayer or another IRS employee unless there is a business need and access has been formally authorized as part of the user’s official duties,” the agency rulebook stated.
The policy noted: “Willful unauthorized disclosure, access or inspection of non-computerized taxpayer records, including hard copies of returns – as well as computerized information – is a crime, punishable upon conviction, by fines, prison terms and termination of employment.”
While a district court judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department system for now, a separate ruling by another district court judge has allowed DOGE to access data at the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
A federal judge spent Wednesday morning grilling a Department of Justice lawyer about the legality of the Pentagon’s transgender service member ban, repeatedly suggesting the policy relies on a flawed understanding of gender dysphoria.
The Pentagon’s new policy to separate transgender U.S. service members from the military is facing its first legal test as U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes considers issuing an order blocking the policy from taking effect.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Reyes said that the government “egregiously misquoted” and “cherry picked” scientific studies to incorrectly assert that transgender soldiers decrease the readiness and lethality of the military.
While Judge Reyes has not yet issued a formal ruling, she repeatedly suggested that the policy unfairly targets a class of people that the Trump administration dislikes.
“The question in this case is whether the military under the equal protection rights afforded to every American under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, if the military … can do that and targeting a specific medical issue that impacts a specific group that the administration disfavors,” she said.
Judge Reyes also pressed DOJ attorney Jason Manion to identify any other similar medical issues that has prompted a similar response from the Department of Defense.
“Identify for me a single other time in recent history where the military has excluded a group of people for having a disqualifying issue, because I can’t think of one,” Judge Reyes asked.
Manion answered that the military applied a similar policy for soldiers who declined to take the COVID-19 vaccine, prompting an incredulous Judge Reyes to ask anyone in the gallery to raise their hand if they had gotten COVID.
“Lots of people raise their hands, right?” Judge Reyes said. “All different kinds of people … so it wasn’t just aimed at getting rid of one group of people.”
The plaintiffs have argued that the DOD’s policy — which was finalized in late February and bans most transgender service members from serving with some exceptions — violates the Fifth Amendment’s right to equal protection and causes irreparable harm by denigrating transgender soldiers, disrupting unit cohesion and weakening the military.
“This case is a test of the core democratic principle that makes our country worth defending — that every person is of equal dignity and worth and is entitled to equal protection of the laws,” the plaintiffs argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have defended the policy by arguing the court should not intervene in military decision-making, describing gender dysphoria as a condition that causes “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of human functioning.”
“DoD has been particularly cautious about service by individuals with mental health conditions, given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service,” government lawyers argued.
During a hearing last month, Judge Reyes — a Biden appointee who was the first LGBT judge on the D.C. District Court — signaled deep skepticism with the government’s claim that transgender service members lessen the military’s lethality or readiness, though she declined to intervene until the DOD finalized their policy.
When the policy was formalized last month, she quickly ordered the government to clarify key tenets of their policy, including identifying what “mental health constraint” other than gender dysphoria that conflicts with the military’s standards of “honesty, humility, and integrity.”
She also raised doubts about the government’s claims about the exceptions to the policy, flagging on the court’s docket a recent DOD social media post that “transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”
The hearing comes amid an increasingly hostile relationship between Judge Reyes and the Department of Justice.
After Judge Reyes excoriated a DOJ lawyer last month during a hearing in the case, the Department of Justice filed a complaint with an appeals judge about what they alleged was Reyes’ “hostile and egregious misconduct.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle alleged that Reyes demonstrated a political bias, compromised the dignity of the proceedings and inappropriately questioned a DOJ attorney about his religious beliefs.
“At minimum, this matter warrants further investigation to determine whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant remedial measures,” Mizelle wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.
While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.
The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.
Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.
Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.
March 21
Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”
“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.
The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.
The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.
Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.
“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.
Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.
“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”
“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.
Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.
“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.
An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.
“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”
As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.
“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”
Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.
“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.
Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.
“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.
March 20
U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.
“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.
“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”
The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.
Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”
“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.
“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.
Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
March 13
U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.
Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”
“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”
Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.
“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”
Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.
The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.
“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.
His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”
“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.
Jan. 23
Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.
ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.
