Power Grab/Fire anyone who can stop him
The IRS agrees to share taxpayer addresses with ICE, and a court later blocks the automated exchange
The April 2025 agreement survived one legal challenge. A second court found the IRS had disclosed 47,289 addresses to ICE, most without a valid request.
What happened
On April 7, 2025, the IRS and ICE signed a memorandum of understanding letting ICE ask the IRS for the last known addresses of people it said were under criminal investigation. The crime named was staying after a removal order. The agreement relied on 26 U.S.C. §6103(i)(2). Acting commissioner Melanie Krause left over the deal.
Judge Dabney Friedrich denied an injunction against the agreement on May 12, 2025, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed on February 24, 2026. She held that if a request meets the statute’s requirements, the IRS must comply, whether or not ICE ever intends to bring charges. The agreement was the first formal IRS arrangement to share taxpayer data with immigration enforcement.
In a second case, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on November 21, 2025 blocked the IRS’s automated “Data-Exchange Procedure.” In February 2026 she found the IRS had disclosed 47,289 addresses to ICE, most without a valid request. On September 8, 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding the procedure “indisputably contravenes the requirements of section 6103.”
Who benefited
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security gained a route to the most complete address database in the federal government. The administration’s deportation drive, which had set a target of 1 million removals a year, gained the means to locate people. Treasury leadership aligned with the White House gained standing with it.
Who wanted something
Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order on removing noncitizens is cited in the agreement’s first recital. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed off over the objections of career IRS officials. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE leadership had pressed for access since February, after an initial request for 700,000 addresses was refused.
Who lost out
Immigrant taxpayers had filed returns for years under the government’s assurance that tax data would not be used for immigration enforcement. Their addresses went to ICE in 47,289 cases, most without a valid request. The public lost the confidentiality wall that underpins voluntary compliance with the tax system.
Why it matters
The agreement used an exception meant for criminal investigations to serve civil immigration enforcement at scale. The first court held the statute’s text allowed it, and a second court found the automated exchange unlawful after 47,289 addresses had already gone to ICE.
Sources U.S. District Court, D.D.C. (via CourtListener) (primary)U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (primary)FedScoopThomson Reuters Tax & Accounting