The American Council of Immigration does not approve or oppose candidates for elected offices. We aim to provide an analysis of the impact of elections on the US immigration system.
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court enacted an unprecedented information sharing agreement between U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This is the first time the IRS has formally agreed to provide taxpayer information to ICE under a memorandum.
This development occurred at a time of fundamental transformation in immigration enforcement in the United States. Over the past several months, the Trump administration has delegated civil migration authority to personnel across several federal agencies not historically involved in immigration enforcement activities—including the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the US Postal Service, and the IRS—as part of an aggressive agenda to increase enforcement levels Up to the point where it might be able to deport one million migrants a year. Now, the Trump administration is set to go beyond its talent and also use IRS data.
ICE’s efforts to access tax data
Earlier this year, reports surfaced that ICE had asked for the address of the home from the 700,000 IRS, but the request was initially rejected. A later report showed ICE was working on an agreement to find up to 7 million taxpayers. Before they entered the formal agreement, several nonprofit organizations filed lawsuits to prevent this information sharing from progressing.
In March, the district court rejected an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order that relied on the assurance of government attorneys that the IRS would fully comply with taxpayer security under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The judge said it presumes that the IRS will “follow the letter according to Section 6103.”
The agreement relies on the exception of confidentiality under section 6103(i)(2).
During the lawsuit, the IRS and ICE entered into a formal understanding memorandum that establishes the contours of an agreement to share taxpayer information. Taxpayer information is generally protected from disclosure, but the MOU relies on one of 13 exceptions to bypass these safeguards.
IRC section 6103(i)(2) allows the head of a federal agency to request taxpayer information, including name, address and taxpayer identification number, for use in a non-tax criminal investigation or litigation. The MOU generally allows requests under other criminal laws, but specifically highlights 8 USC Section 1253(a)(1) as an important focus of ICE. The law makes it a federal crime for a non-citizen to knowingly fail or refuse within 90 days after receiving a final removal order.
To obtain this information under the law, ICE must first submit a written request to the IRS containing certain details. It explains the name, address, tax year in question, criminal law under investigation, and why the information is relevant to the investigation. Once the ICE provides this information, the IRS will check if the address submitted ICE matches the last known address in that record. If there is no match, the IRS responds with “No Match.” If the addresses match, the IRS will confirm and disclose the last known address. At the time of writing this article, the agreement is limited to those who identify the ice as having a final removal order.
Court decisions allow data sharing to proceed
In mid-April, a district court judge heard discussions about a preliminary injunction that would suspend the implementation of the MOU while the fundamental legality of the contract could be determined. The plaintiffs argued that ICE did not intend to use the contract to seek information relating to a criminal investigation, but argued that they would access information under the “dress” of Section 6103(i)(2) for illegal purposes. The plaintiffs also emphasized that the IRS has a long-standing practice of not sharing information with immigration authorities.
However, the district court refused to argue. The judge held that previous policy guidance or official statements from the IRS did not explicitly prohibit such agreements, and that the only change was that the Trump administration simply decided to use statutory exceptions. Furthermore, she determined that the text in Section 6103(i)(2) was clear. If a valid written request meets the statutory requirements, the IRS must share your address information.
“As long as the agency has its name and address,” the court said, “we can request confirmation from the IRS to assist in a criminal investigation, and the IRS must comply.” In other words, whether ICE intends to file fees under 8 USC section 1253(a)(1), is irrelevant, and what is important is the criminal investigation claims.
The agreement blurs the distinction between criminal immigration enforcement and civil immigration enforcement
The contract represents an ongoing trend that blurs the line between enforcement of citizen immigration and criminal investigations. While ICE relies on narrow confidentiality exceptions aimed at criminal matters, MOU’s first recital reveals that an agreement was signed to promote a January 20 executive order overseeing the January 20 executive order directing homeland security and state oversight, as it takes “immediate action” to identify, exclude or remove non-citizens who are illegally present in the United States.
ICE is increasingly utilizing criminal law to advance the goals of citizen immigration. In March, ICE obtained a warrant to use federal anti-Harbor laws to search the apartments of two Columbian students. One was a green card holder and the other was an international student. Similarly, ICE has invoked criminal laws that make it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants to implement Citizen Immigration Acts against employees using investigations.
In California, US lawyers are promoting a new task force consisting of ice, DEA, FBI, ATF and Border Patrol agents. Agents scan criminal databases daily to identify non-citizens who have been arrested in local jurisdictions where the federal government can be sued for illegal re-entry after the Department of Justice has been excluded. This initiative is expressly aimed at circumventing sanctuary policies that restrict local and state officials from cooperating with the demands of non-binding citizen immigration detainees in order for these jurisdictions to respect criminal justice warrants.
What’s next?
So far, it is unclear whether taxpayer information has been shared under the contract. However, the effect is already felt. Immigrant communities report growing fear and confusion about their interaction with the IRS. Anecdotal reports show that this fear led to a decrease in tax returns. This is a consequence of undermining voluntary compliance with the tax system.
On May 21, the plaintiff appealed the judge’s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. While legal challenges to the agreement are ongoing, the agreement reflects a broader trend in federal agencies using legal loopholes to promote enforcement of citizen immigrants. The precedent it sets could have lasting consequences not only for the integrity of the IRS, but also for the public’s trust in the way the federal government collects and uses personal data.
Submitted below: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
