On May 12, 2025, a federal district court allowed an unprecedented information-sharing agreement between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to take effect. This marks the first time the IRS has formally agreed to provide taxpayer information to ICE under a memorandum of understanding.
This development comes at a time where there’s been a radical transformation of immigration enforcement in the United States. Over the past several months, the Trump administration has delegated civil immigration 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 U.S. Postal Service, and the IRS—as part of an aggressive agenda to increase enforcement levels up to the point where it might be possible to deport one million immigrants per year. Now, beyond its manpower, the Trump administration is set to use the IRS’s data too.
ICE’s Efforts to Access Tax Data
Reports surfaced earlier this year that ICE sought home addresses from the IRS for 700,000 people, but the request was initially rejected. Later reporting indicated that ICE was working on an agreement to locate up to 7 million taxpayers. Before they entered a formal agreement, several nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit to prevent this information sharing from advancing.
In March, a district court denied an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order relying on the government attorneys’ assurances that the IRS would comply fully with the taxpayer confidentiality protections under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The judge stated she would presume the IRS “will follow Section 6103 to the letter.”
Agreement Relies on Confidentiality Exception under Section 6103(i)(2)
During the litigation, the IRS and ICE entered a formal memorandum of understanding establishing the contours of an agreement to share taxpayer information. While taxpayer information is generally protected from disclosure, 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 some taxpayer information—including name, address, and taxpayer identification number—for use in a non-tax criminal investigation or proceeding. While the MOU generally permits requests under other criminal statutes, it specifically highlights 8 U.S.C. section 1253(a)(1) as a key focus for ICE. That statute makes it a federal crime for a noncitizen to willfully fail or refuse to leave the United States within 90 days after receiving a final order of removal.
To obtain this information under the statute, ICE must first submit a written request to the IRS that includes specific details: the taxpayer’s name, address, tax year in question, the criminal statute being investigated, and an explanation of why the information is relevant to the investigation. Once ICE provides this information, the IRS will check whether the address ICE submitted matches the last known address in its records. If there is no match, the IRS will respond with “no match.” If the addresses align, the IRS will confirm and disclose the last known address. As of this writing, the agreement is limited to people ICE identifies as having a final order of removal.
Court Ruling Allows Data Sharing to Proceed
In mid-April, the district court judge heard arguments for a preliminary injunction, which would pause the implementation of the MOU while the underlying legality of the agreement could be determined. The plaintiffs argued that ICE did not intend to use the agreement to seek information relevant to a criminal investigation, but to access information under the “guise” of section 6103(i)(2) for an unlawful purpose—mainly to locate noncitizens for civil immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs also emphasized that the IRS had a long-standing practice of not sharing information with immigration authorities.
However, the district court rejected their arguments. The judge determined that any previous policy guidance or public statements from the IRS did not categorically bar such an agreement and that the only change was that the Trump administration had merely decided to use the statutory exception. In addition, she ruled section 6103(i)(2)’s text is clear: if a valid written request meets the statutory requirements, the IRS must share address information.
“As long as the agency has a name and address,” the court noted, “it can request confirmation from the IRS to assist in a criminal investigation, and the IRS must comply.” In other words, whether ICE ever intends to file charges under 8 U.S.C. section 1253(a)(1) is irrelevant, what matters is the claim of a criminal investigation.
Agreement Blurs Distinction Between Criminal and Civil Immigration Enforcement
This agreement represents a continuing trend that blurs the lines between civil immigration enforcement and criminal investigations. Although ICE relies on a narrow confidentiality exception intended for criminal matters, the MOU’s first recital makes it clear that the agreement was entered into in furtherance of President Trump’s January 20 executive order directing the Departments of Homeland Security and State to take “immediate steps” to identify, exclude, or remove noncitizens unlawfully present in the United States.
ICE has increasingly leveraged criminal statutes to advance civil immigration goals. In March, ICE used a federal anti-harboring statute to obtain a warrant to search the apartment of two Columbia students—one was a green card holder and the other was an international student—based on mischaracterizations of their status and the law. Similarly, ICE has invoked criminal statutes that make it unlawful to employ undocumented immigrants to target several businesses, using the investigation to enforce civil immigration law against the employees.
In California, a U.S. attorney is touting a new taskforce made up of ICE, DEA, FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol agents. The agents scan a criminal database daily to identify arrested noncitizens in local jurisdictions the Department of Justice can federally prosecute for unlawful reentry after having been ordered removed. This effort is explicitly aimed at circumventing sanctuary policies that restrict local and state officials from cooperating with nonbinding voluntary civil immigration detainer requests, because those jurisdictions honor criminal judicial warrants.
What’s Next?
So far, it is unclear whether any taxpayer information has been shared under the agreement. But the effects are already being felt. Immigrant communities report heightened fear and confusion around interacting with the IRS. Anecdotal reporting indicates that this fear has resulted in a decline in tax filings—an outcome that undermines voluntary compliance with the tax system.
On May 21, the plaintiff’s appealed the judge’s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. While the legal challenge to the agreement is ongoing, the agreement reflects a broader trend of federal agencies exploiting legal loopholes to advance civil immigration enforcement. The precedent it sets could have lasting consequences not only for the IRS’s integrity but for the public’s trust in how the federal government collects and uses personal data.
FILED UNDER: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
