American Oversight Seeks Access to Secretive IRS-ICE Agreement That Could Jeopardize Sensitive Taxpayer Data of Millions

This week, nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight filed a new reply in its motion to intervene and unseal a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and related documents between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Implementing the MOU could jeopardize the confidentiality of sensitive information for millions of taxpayers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in his official capacity, is the named defendant in this case.

Minutes after American Oversight’s initial May 1 filing, the court ordered the government to file a redacted version of a brief that it first filed under seal. In this new filing, American Oversight points out that the federal government has more than once shifted its views on what exactly requires redaction, and that the administration has not met its burden for demonstrating that records in the case should be kept from the public.

“The federal government is dragging its feet and wasting the court’s valuable time as it tries to hide from public view this unprecedented agreement between the IRS and ICE, which could jeopardize the sensitive taxpayer information of millions,” said American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu. “At the very least, this agreement could result in many people cutting off communication with the government entirely, which in turn could skew future censuses and affect the country’s representation in Congress. With the potential to do such tangible harm, all in the name of partisan, political goals, these documents should immediately be brought to light and shared with the very taxpayers whose sensitive personal information is at risk.”

Public Citizen filed the underlying case on behalf of Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and Immigrant Solidarity DuPage to prevent the IRS from engaging in the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information for immigration enforcement purposes.

Background

American Oversight’s motion notes that the government filed a redacted version of the MOU to support its response to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which was filed on April 7, 2025. During a preliminary injunction hearing on April 16, the government apparently provided an unredacted MOU to the court and the plaintiffs under a protective order arranged in open court. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a supplemental memorandum on April 23, with both redacted and sealed versions.

On April 28, the government filed its response to that supplemental memorandum entirely under seal, with the contested MOU likely included as an attachment. The court granted the government’s motion to seal without providing any analysis of whether such comprehensive sealing was appropriate under legal standards that favor public access to court proceedings.