On February 20, approximately 7,000 probationary employees at the Internal Revenue Service received an unsigned notification indicating their terminations due to poor performance.
Legal representatives from the Trump administration affirmed that the IRS and other federal agencies were within their rights to enact mass terminations, which began following Trump’s inauguration. However, emails procured by ProPublica reveal that a senior lawyer at the IRS cautioned administration officials that the language regarding performance in the termination notices constituted a “false statement” and could be considered “fraud” if it remained in the documentation.
The emails disclosed an intense disagreement at the upper echelons of the IRS on the day the termination notice was sent. Joseph Rillotta, a prominent IRS lawyer, noted that no evaluations of the probationary employees’ performances had been considered before the decision. Rillotta advocated for the removal of the contentious language from the draft termination notice.
Rillotta warned that failure to correct the statement could lead to him reporting the issue to the IRS inspector general. Despite his warnings, the language was not amended, and the termination notices were dispatched, as confirmed by copies shared with ProPublica by some of the former employees. The letters cited employee performance, administration guidance, and current mission needs as reasons for the firings.
Contrary to these claims, many of the terminated employees had received positive evaluations, with no indication of performance issues. Following these developments, the IRS inspector general took initial steps to investigate the matter, aligning with Rillotta’s contention that the performance rationale was unfounded.
Michelle Bercovici, a lawyer for federal employees, suggested that Rillotta’s ignored warnings could potentially support legal challenges against the firings by demonstrating them as “arbitrary and capricious,” a requirement for overturning federal agency actions. Bercovici further noted that the emails might assist plaintiffs in reclaiming legal fees from the government.
Neither the Treasury Department nor the IRS provided comments in response to inquiries. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed ProPublica to a revised memorandum affirming that OPM did not instruct agencies on any specific performance-based actions regarding probationary staff.
These IRS terminations were part of broader reductions across federal agencies implemented by the Trump administration, facilitated by the Department of Government Efficiency, led by adviser Elon Musk. Legal challenges against these mass firings are ongoing, with two federal judges temporarily halting some of these actions last week.
Central to the ongoing lawsuits is the legitimacy of the performance-based rationale used for the terminations. A case in California alleges OPM orchestrated the mass firings as part of a significant employment fraud. In response, administration lawyers denied any directive from OPM to terminate probationary staff based on performance, asserting instead that agencies were simply prompted to assess their probationary workforce.
Plaintiffs expanded their lawsuit to include the Treasury Department as a defendant, claiming the terminations were yet another case of fraudulent justification. A judge recently issued a preliminary injunction against these actions, stating they were founded on falsehoods, and ordered a reinstatement of the affected employees. The Trump administration has appealed this decision.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed in Maryland by Democratic state attorneys general argues these firings were unlawful and should be reversed, a claim contested by administration lawyers who maintain that the firings were legitimate.
Documents from both lawsuits have revealed elements of the decision-making process that led to the controversial mass firings. At the IRS, the initial steps to terminate probationary employees began in early February as per an affidavit in the Maryland case.
A senior IRS personnel official, Traci DiMartini, was instructed by a high-ranking Treasury Department official to dismiss all probationary employees citing “performance” as the reason, despite DiMartini stating she had never encountered such large-scale probationary dismissals before. Additionally, the instruction was reportedly conveyed as originating from OPM, staffed by Trump appointees and members of the Department of Government Efficiency.
DiMartini’s affidavit corroborated Rillotta’s concerns, admitting no performance evaluations were conducted before the dismissals, and the IRS Mass-termination notice was drafted by OPM without input from her office. Mixtures of defiance and anonymity characterized the dispatch of these termination letters, leaving them unsigned and devoid of any official’s name.
Those interested in providing pertinent information about the IRS, DOGE, or administration’s mass firings can contact Andy Kroll via email or by Signal/WhatsApp.
