I’m thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who is at the helm of Government Curated. With his deep expertise in federal administration and sharp insights into the inner workings of government agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, Donald offers a unique perspective on the recent turbulence at the IRS, including the abrupt departure of its chief, workforce challenges, and leadership instability under the current administration. In our conversation, we explore the reasons behind sudden exits, the impact of inexperience in key roles, and the broader implications of rapid turnover and policy shifts within one of the nation’s most critical agencies.
Can you walk us through the circumstances surrounding Billy Long’s departure from the IRS just two months after his confirmation?
Certainly, Ethan. Billy Long’s exit so soon after taking the helm at the IRS caught many by surprise, but it’s emblematic of the broader chaos within the agency under the current administration. From what I’ve gathered, his departure wasn’t entirely driven by personal choice but rather a strategic pivot by the White House to reposition him as ambassador to Iceland. It seems the administration saw a different fit for him diplomatically, perhaps due to political alignments or other priorities, rather than continuing in a role that required deep tax policy expertise—which, frankly, he lacked from the start. The speed of this move, though, raises questions about whether there were underlying tensions or performance concerns that haven’t been publicly disclosed.
How do you think Long’s limited background in tax policy shaped his brief tenure as IRS commissioner?
His lack of experience in tax policy was a significant hurdle right out of the gate. Leading the IRS isn’t just about management; it’s about navigating complex fiscal regulations and understanding the nuances of enforcement and compliance. Without that foundation, Long likely struggled to gain the confidence of career IRS staff who’ve spent decades in this arena. I’ve heard through the grapevine that some internal decisions felt reactive rather than strategic, which could stem from not having a firm grasp on the agency’s core mission. It’s not just about him as an individual—it highlights a broader issue of appointing leaders to technical roles without the necessary subject matter expertise.
What’s your take on the frequent leadership changes at the IRS, with six heads in just seven months under President Trump’s administration?
This level of turnover is nothing short of staggering. When you have six different leaders in such a short span, it’s impossible to maintain continuity in strategy or operations. Each new head comes with their own priorities, and the agency ends up in a constant state of flux—unable to fully implement long-term plans. From a policy perspective, this instability disrupts everything from taxpayer services to enforcement initiatives. More critically, it erodes trust within the workforce. Employees can’t commit to a vision when they don’t know who’ll be steering the ship next month. It’s a textbook case of how leadership churn can paralyze an organization.
With Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent now acting as interim head of the IRS, what do you anticipate his approach will be during this transitional period?
Scott Bessent stepping in on an acting basis is a pragmatic move, given his position at Treasury, but it’s unlikely he’ll push for sweeping changes. Interim roles like this tend to focus on stabilization—keeping the lights on and ensuring day-to-day operations don’t falter. I suspect he’ll prioritize maintaining existing policies rather than introducing new ones, simply because his tenure is expected to be temporary. That said, his background in finance could bring a steadying hand to fiscal decisions, though I’d wager he’s more of a placeholder until a permanent commissioner is named. The bigger question is how long this interim period will last, as prolonged uncertainty only compounds the agency’s challenges.
The Trump administration has overseen a major reduction in the IRS workforce, with 25,000 employees leaving. Can you shed light on the rationale behind this downsizing?
The workforce reduction is part of a broader agenda to streamline government operations, or at least that’s the stated goal. The administration has framed it as cutting inefficiencies and reducing costs, particularly through programs like deferred resignations where employees are paid to leave over time. But digging deeper, it also aligns with a political narrative of shrinking federal bureaucracy—a long-standing priority for some factions within the administration. The challenge is that slashing 25,000 jobs at an agency like the IRS, which is already understaffed in many areas, risks undermining core functions like tax collection and audits. Public reaction has been mixed; some see it as fiscal responsibility, while others view it as gutting a vital service. Internally, morale has taken a hit, especially for those left to pick up the slack.
Billy Long took a softer stance on workforce cuts, even reversing layoffs at certain offices. What do you think influenced this shift in approach?
Long’s decision to ease up on reductions, particularly at places like the Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, likely stemmed from a combination of internal feedback and a desire to avoid further unrest within the agency. When you’re new to a role and already facing skepticism due to inexperience, the last thing you want is a full-blown revolt from the rank and file. I suspect he faced pressure from career staff and possibly even advocacy groups within the IRS who argued that certain cuts went too far, especially in areas tied to equity and oversight. It was a pragmatic move to build some goodwill, and from what I’ve heard, many employees appreciated the reprieve, even if it didn’t fully offset the broader climate of uncertainty.
Looking at the proposed 31% funding increase for the IRS Taxpayer Services division to hire 11,000 new staff, what do you make of this apparent pivot in policy?
This funding proposal is a fascinating contrast to the workforce cuts we’ve been discussing. A 31% increase for Taxpayer Services signals an acknowledgment that understaffing has real consequences—think longer wait times for taxpayers, delayed refunds, and frustrated citizens. The administration’s warning of ‘dire consequences’ without these resources suggests they’ve felt the political heat from service breakdowns. Hiring 11,000 new staff is a nearly 50% boost in that division, which could significantly improve public-facing operations if executed well. But I’m cautious—budget proposals aren’t guarantees, and implementation often lags. It’s also worth asking whether this is a genuine policy shift or a tactical move to offset criticism of earlier reductions.
What is your forecast for the future of IRS leadership and stability under the current administration?
Looking ahead, I’m not overly optimistic about stability at the IRS in the near term. The pattern of rapid turnover and politically driven appointments suggests we’ll see more of the same unless there’s a deliberate effort to prioritize long-term leadership over short-term optics. The agency desperately needs a commissioner with deep tax policy expertise and the political capital to weather inevitable storms. Without that, operational challenges will persist, and public trust in the IRS could erode further. My forecast is cautious—expect more interim leaders and policy zigzags until a clear, sustainable vision emerges, which might not happen until after the next election cycle.
