The federal workforce got smaller, but that does not tell us how many employees were fired. Pew’s analysis of government data found a net decline of nearly 238,000 workers in federal employment in 2026. That measures the workforce’s change, not the number of involuntary cuts. The distinction matters when assessing staffing reductions—and when interpreting a Kalshi market asking how many government employees will be cut before the start of 2026.
The underlying data show why those measures differ. 348,219 left federal employment during the year, but that total includes quits, retirements, layoffs and other departures. At the same time, 116,912 started federal work. A net decline subtracts hires from departures; neither the net change nor the gross number leaving is a count of people fired. Pew’s analysis covers most, but not all civilian federal employment, and transfers and dataset limits mean some figures may not align precisely. These qualifications matter when comparing workforce change with a contract threshold.
Kalshi divides the question into thresholds. Traders currently assign a 21% chance to more than one hundred thousand employees being cut. The price was recorded as of 2:55 p.m. ET on Sept. 28. The corresponding probabilities are 14% for more than one hundred fifty thousand and 9% for more than two hundred thousand. These figures describe what traders currently believe, not an objective probability or a verified count. The contract reports no trading over the last day: 0 contracts traded over the last day. The market’s quoted probabilities do not, by themselves, explain whether departures must be involuntary or how the contract defines a cut.
One category of federal departures followed the administration’s deferred-resignation offer. Nearly 140,000 employees accepted it, and the offer included pay and benefits through September. Those departures help explain why a decline in headcount cannot automatically be described as firings. Fortune reported that the Government Accountability Office attributed administrative-leave costs to the program, while also noting caveats about data accuracy. The reported cost was $6.7 billion. A program cost is separate from a count of employees involuntarily dismissed; it does not answer how many people were fired.
Government employment also involves more than departures. The reported data show both people leaving federal employment and people starting work, while Pew notes limits in coverage and measurement. The available figures therefore do not give a direct count of involuntary separations. The Kalshi contracts pose a related but distinct question through thresholds for the number of employees cut. Their prices show traders’ current beliefs, but the market seed does not specify what kinds of departures qualify. The headcount decline, total departures and contract thresholds should not be treated as interchangeable measures. The reported workforce change is a net figure; it does not establish how many federal employees were actually fired.
