@traders @mods This one is turning out to be a tough call. According to reporting by the AP, Reuters, NBC News, and other outlets, more than 260,000 federal workers have lost their jobs through firings, buyouts, or early retirements. For instance, a Reuters tally reported approximately 260,000 federal workers had been laid off, taken buyouts, or retired early. Additionally, there are specific agency cuts, such as the United States Postal Service announcing 10,000 job cuts and the Department of Education laying off nearly 40% of its staff.
However, while 260,000 far exceeds the 10,000 threshold, it's difficult to attribute any reduction directly to the reporting requirement. While the reporting requirement is a contributing factor, we can't say to what degree.
@traders While it seems to me this should resolve YES — acknowledging the reporting requirement is responsible for at least 4% of the job losses (10K out of 260K) — I'm open to a partial resolution on this.
Please forgive my delayed response and let me know your thoughts.

@JeffBerman I don't see what people taking the buyout could possibly have to do with the reporting requirement, which is what this market is about. I am also skeptical that the actual number of federal workers who have lost their jobs is anywhere close to 260,000. For example, this Kalshi market expects that by the end of the year, the total federal job cuts for 2025 will be just 212,000, and that number has fallen precipitously over the last month in particular. This FRED series puts the number of federal job cuts so far at just 26,000. And ultimately, your clarification called for a particular source attributing at least 10,000 job losses to the reporting demand. In the absence of such a source, I don't think it's enough to simply observe that 10,000 is a small number compared to 260,000. Please resolve no.

i don't have a position here (nor particularly strong opinions about the topic), & the creator has substantial leeway in judgment calls like this, but the description does seem fairly clear on one particular point:

At least one credible news report must attribute the job losses to the reporting demand policy. Only evidence from the following organizations will be considered: [list]

what's the credible news report being cited here?

@mods i pinged the creator almost two weeks ago, still no response. Please resolve no.

@polymathematic I'm hesitant to resolve this immediately NO given that the last comment I see from the creator was leaning towards YES. (does not at all mean the mods would follow that, just raises the bar for mods stepping in imo).

I'd try pinging them some more and hope they resolve it themselves (or probably David will need to try and msg them elsewhere)

I'm leaning toward resolving this YES.

• Newsweek reported that an estimated 222,000 federal job cuts were announced in 2025, driven by DOGE’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce.

• AP News indicated that thousands of federal employees were fired in the first month of the Trump administration, with specific examples like the Department of Veterans Affairs dismissing over 1,000 employees and the Defense Department cutting 5,400 probationary workers.

• The New York Times confirmed at least 7,000 employees were fired or placed on leave from USAID alone, with additional cuts across agencies like the IRS, NIH, and CDC.

• PBS News reported that DOGE had already fired more than 30,000 federal workers by February 28, 2025.

While not exclusively the result of the reporting requirement, these figures collectively show that the job losses far exceed 10,000, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to over 200,000.

@JeffBerman Without explicit evidence that the losses were caused by the reporting requirement specifically, I would disagree with a YES resolution here. (I hold NO.)

The AI "clarification" implies this, as we read it: "At least one credible news report must attribute the job losses to the reporting demand policy." This seems like a light misrepresentation of your comment, but not an unreasonable reading: "Let's go on news reports of the cause of job losses..."

Has anybody explicitly given any number of job losses attributed to the reporting requirement?

I also note that other traders seem to agree—as far as I can tell, many of the stories you cite were released before this market closed, and yet the probability did not increase—instead it went down!

@JeffBerman where's the evidence from news sources that these cuts are related to the reporting demand? for that matter, where's the evidence that the job cuts have actually taken place? This FRED series suggests only about 15000 cuts have been made thus far. It seems like there should be at least some evidence to attribute a full 2/3 of those to the reporting demand.

EDIT to add FRED series: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001

@JeffBerman status on this? 26k cuts from Jan 2025 through April 2025 according to FRED series. any source to confirm 40% of these are due to the reporting demand?

There have been significant staff reductions, however, it's difficult to attribute these directly to the reporting requirements:

• ABC News reported over 200,000 federal workers’ roles were eliminated, with 10,000+ USAID staffers on leave, but linked these to DOGE’s overall efforts, not the reporting requirement.

• Associated Press noted 75,000 buyouts and widespread probationary employee layoffs (220,000 with less than a year of service as of March 2024) but didn’t tie these to the reporting mandate.

• CNN described arbitrary firings and the reporting email’s confusion but didn’t quantify job losses specifically from it.

• New York Times reported plans for large-scale reductions (e.g., 7,000 at USAID, 7,000 at IRS) but didn’t connect these to the reporting requirement.

• PBS mentioned over 30,000 firings and a new reporting email but didn’t claim it caused 10,000+ losses.

• NPR covered 21 DOGE resignations protesting the agency’s direction but didn’t link mass layoffs to the reporting rule.

• Fox Business estimated 100,000 layoffs or buyouts, with 216,215 announced in March 2025, but attributed these to DOGE’s broader cuts, not the reporting requirement.

How tight does the causal link have to be?

I find it difficult to believe that a non-response will be treated as an immediate resignation, but not difficult to believe that some of those who do not respond may face a hostile work environment that makes them more likely to decide to quit. Even without something that could be challenged as a hostile work environment, I expect there will be a lot of constructive dismissal going on.

@equinoxhq Fair question. Let's go on news reports of the cause of job losses from at least one of the following organizations:

• ABC

• CBS

• NBC

• PBS

• NPR

• CNN

• Fox

• MSNBC

• Associated Press

• New York Times

• Washington Examiner

• Wall Street Journal

• New York Post

• USA Today

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-probationary-federal-workers-doge-0eb7d59f42d0b07b2f7b98b044b90533

I think it's a likely yes but I can't sem to find exact numbers anywhere, especially totals.