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!

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.