Staying with Homeland Security, THE NEW YORK TIMES notes, "The Department of Homeland Security’s funding has lapsed and lawmakers
are deadlocked over a proposal to restore it, with Democrats seeking
restrictions on the federal agents carrying out President Trump’s
immigration crackdown." Brittney Melton (NPR) adds, "The agency shut down after lawmakers failed to meet a Friday deadline to
fund DHS and its workforce of over 260,000 people. The funding lapse
points to a greater issue: Congress's consistent failure to do its job
on time." Sahil Kapur, Scott Wong, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V (NBC NEWS) explain that the Democrats and the White House continue to debate what's needed before funding can be approved, "The two sides have continued to trade offers, signaling some hope for an agreement. But it remains unclear which Democratic demands the White House will agree to and Congress left Washington on Thursday without a deal.
ED O'KEEFE: We turn now to House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who joins us this morning from New York City. Leader Jeffries, thank you for being here.
DEMOCRATIC LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Good morning. Great to be with you.
ED O'KEEFE: So as this shutdown continues, I want to remind our viewers what it is, exactly, congressional Democrats are seeking to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. You want immigration agents to show IDs, to wear body cameras, take off their masks, stop racial profiling and seek judicial warrants to enter private property. Talks between the White House and congressional Democrats are continuing. Are you willing to compromise, to let any of these go, to get the government reopened?
REP. JEFFRIES: Well, our value proposition is simple, taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people, not brutalize or kill them, as we horrifically saw in Minneapolis with the cold blooded killings of Rene Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. We know, and the American people clearly know, that ICE is totally out of control and they need to be reined in. Because the American people deserve immigration enforcement that is fair, that is just, and that is humane. And so, we need dramatic change at ICE, including, but not limited to, the types of things that you laid out before any DHS funding bill moves forward.
ED O'KEEFE: With the exception of some flexibility on body cameras, because they're starting to spend some money to get those out there, some Republicans have rejected this list of policy reform proposals. You guys still seem miles apart. So when, conceivably, will we see this resolved? And again, I ask you, if- are there any of these points that you're willing to let go in order to get the government reopened?
REP. JEFFRIES: Well, we're willing to have a good faith conversation about everything, but fundamentally we need change that is dramatic, that is bold, that is meaningful and that is transformational. And these are common sense things. For instance, judicial warrants should be required before ICE agents can storm private property or rip everyday Americans out of their homes. We need to make sure that there are actual independent investigations, so that if state and local laws are violated, in many cases, violently violated, that state and local authorities have the ability to criminally investigate and criminally prosecute anyone who has violated the law. Because we cannot trust Kristi Noem or Pam Bondi to conduct an independent investigation. We believe that sensitive locations should be off limits, sensitive locations like houses of worship, schools, hospitals or polling sites, and that fundamentally ICE should be targeting violent felons who are here unlawfully, as opposed to violently targeting law abiding immigrant families, which is completely inconsistent with what Donald Trump promised the American people he would do.
ED O'KEEFE: Right. And we, of course, this past week reported that
about 14% of those detained had violent criminal records. About 60% of
them were wanted on criminal records overall. But it was that 14%,
violent criminals. Again, I just- it sounds like this is going to go on a
while, because Tom Homan wasn't terribly flexible on anything,
especially on the issue of warrants and masks. You're not ceding any
ground. So there's a few things coming up here. For example, State of
the Union is scheduled for a week from Tuesday. Should it be held if the
Department of Homeland Security is shut down?
REP. JEFFRIES: Well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. It is certainly my hope--
ED O'KEEFE: --Sounds like you're going to get to it, though. I mean--
REP. JEFFRIES:--we can come to a resolution in advance of it. Well,
here's the thing, the administration and Republicans have made a clear
decision that they would rather shut down FEMA, shut down the Coast
Guard and shut down TSA, than enact the type of dramatic reforms
necessary so that ICE and other DHS law enforcement agencies are
conducting themselves like every other law enforcement professional in
the country. For instance, police officers don't use masks. County
Sheriffs don't use masks. State troopers don't use masks. Why is it that
ICE agents who are untrained, are being unleashed on American
communities with this type of lawlessness, violence and brutality.
Unacceptable, unconscionable, and it's un-American.
When an
immigration agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in the leg last month in
Minneapolis, touching off hours of tense protests, the Trump
administration rushed to sell a version of events that demonized the
wounded man and defended the agent.
About
two hours after the gunfire, a Department of Homeland Security
spokeswoman claimed that three people had attacked an agent with a broom
and snow shovel. She said the agent “fired a defensive shot to defend
his life” as he was “being ambushed.” The next day, Kristi Noem, the
homeland security secretary, accused the men of trying to kill the
agent.
But the federal government’s account soon shifted. And by Friday, it had fully unraveled.
When
assault charges were filed days after the shooting against Mr.
Sosa-Celis and one of the other men, Alfredo A. Aljorna, officials
changed their narrative, saying it was not three people who attacked the
agent, but two. Several other details revealed in court records also
differed from the original account.
Then
on Thursday, the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota asked a judge to
drop the case, saying that “newly discovered evidence in this matter is
materially inconsistent with the allegations.” On Friday, the acting
director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, said two
agents had been placed on leave for providing accounts that appeared to
conflict with video footage of what happened. Those agents, he said,
could eventually face termination and prosecution.
[. . .]
The
collapse of the government’s narrative, which came just as the
administration was ending its more than two-month surge of immigration
agents to Minnesota, was the latest instance of the Department of
Homeland Security providing an account of a shooting that later proved
questionable or outright wrong. For many, especially those already
skeptical of the Trump administration’s deportation agenda, the repeated
emergence of evidence that undermines official accounts has cast doubt
on almost anything the government says about immigration enforcement.
This is absolutely egregious. Two men were accosted by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and one took a bullet to the
leg. Then the federal government called them murderers and hit them
with heavy charges, all for ICE’s own head to admit that his agents
appear to have been lying under oath—a crime that this administration doesn’t seem to take very seriously.
This
shooting happened one week after Renee Good was killed, and just over a
week before Alex Pretti was killed. The Trump administration lied to us
about both of those events, as well. Only time will tell just how many more of these ICE shootings were offensive rather than defensive.
On HBO's LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER last night, John addressed the lies of Homeland Security.
Students in more than three dozen states
have walked out of class to protest the Trump administration’s
deportation tactics in recent weeks, a wave of defiant demonstrations
that continues as some officials have vowed to crack down.
Teenagers
in Utah carried backpacks and bullhorns as they walked out of eight
schools in Salt Lake County. In Maine, students in mittens convened on a
bridge over the Kennebec River. Scores of students were seen stopping highway traffic
in Maryland. Classmates at a high school in Sunnyside, Wash., lined a
parking lot carrying hand-drawn posters. “We are skipping our lesson to
teach you one,” read one.
But in Texas, where more than half of all
public school students are Hispanic, Republican leaders have tried
teaching a very different lesson of their own, threatening students,
teachers and school districts with severe consequences for taking part
in demonstrations.
Gov. Greg Abbott of
Texas has suggested that state funding could be stripped from school
districts and that students who are disorderly during protests should be
arrested. The Texas Education Agency has warned that districts found to
have facilitated walkouts could be taken over by the state.
“Schools and staff who allow this behavior should be treated as co-conspirators,” Mr. Abbott said in a social media post last week, which focused on one walkout in Kyle, Texas, outside of Austin.
Yet
despite the threats from state officials — and the pleas to students
from many school administrators — the protests over immigration
enforcement did not stop.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatening to take away state funding from
high schools with students who participate in protests is a restriction
of the First Amendment.
In response to high school students protesting Immigration and
Customs Enforcement on Jan. 30, Abbott argued walkouts are disruptive
and lead to criminal chaos, and the schools allowing this behavior
should be treated as co-conspirators.
But what is so criminal about student walkouts?
This type of political demonstration has been conducted by students
since 1766. The Great Butter Rebellion at Harvard University, where
students protested poor food quality, is considered the first student
protest in the United States.
As Seguin High sophomore Janelle walked to the corner of Silo and
Eden roads in Arlington, a green shirt with a Mexican flag stitched on
the back draped over her shoulders.
Worry, anger and fear all washed over her as she stood next to
classmates and wondered what the consequences would be for walking out
of school to protest recent deportations and deadly shootings related to
immigration enforcement. Then she remembered her grandmother, who
inspired her to attend Thursday’s protest in the first place.
“She came here as an immigrant,” Janelle said. “So I feel like I
should be out here and show her that I can do it, and I can protect
people.”
Janelle was one of many in Arlington and Mansfield who participated
in walkouts this week to protest against the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Caitlin Leggett (KTXS) reports, "Students from Abilene High School walked out of class and marched to
Abilene City Hall around noon Thursday, staging a student-led protest
centered on concerns about immigration enforcement and what they
described as recent actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." KTAB/KRBC offer a photo essay here. CNN notes, "More than 100 Dripping Springs High School students walked out of
class and marched Tuesday to protest Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, but some participants left the demonstration with traffic
citations. Students carried signs and chanted as they left campus.
One student, asked what they decided to put on their sign, said, 'We
are skipping our lessons to teach you one. ICE out'." Jacob Daniels (KRISTV) adds, "Students at multiple Corpus Christi Independent School District campuses
walked out of classes Thursday afternoon, carrying signs and chanting
in what many described as a powerful statement. The demonstration
sparked debate among community members about student safety and
supervision during the protest." Arthur Clayborn (KLTV) notes, "Kilgore High School students walked out
of classes Thursday morning to protest deportations by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, or ICE, with organizers saying recent family
separations in their community motivated the demonstration. Student
organizer Kemuel Ondinyo said he was inspired to act after watching
similar protests at other Texas schools and witnessing deportations
affecting people in his community." Bianca Seward (HOUSTON PUBLIC MEDIA) notes,
"More than 50 students from the Houston Academy for International
Studies walked out of school Tuesday protesting Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) operations in the United States. The protest, which
students said they started planning last week, started just after noon.
While chanting 'ICE off our streets, ICE off our streets,' several
students said they were there to call attention to the treatment of
immigrants under the Trump administration."
And on Friday, walk outs continued. Priscilla Rice (KERA) reports,
"Young North Texans continue to protest the federal government’s
anti-immigration policies by walking out of class. More than 200
students walked out of Grand Prairie High School just after 11 a.m. on
Friday. Students told KERA stronger U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement measures have affected not only their community, but
communities nationwide." WBAP notes, "Several dozen students walked out of the Dallas Uplift Williams
Prepatory School Friday morning, hiking into Dallas to protest ICE
immigration activities at the American Airlines Center. Waving flags
from several nations, students say they are protesting immigration and
other federal agent violence, illegal arrests, and illegal deportations
of their teachers and neighbors who have been here for years." Daniel Perreault (KVUE) adds,
"Students at multiple Austin ISD schools walked out of class during the
school day once again on Friday to protest. Students from three Austin
high schools walked out around 1:30 p.m. and then marched to Austin
City Hall." And Matt Mitchell (HOODLINE) notes,
"More than a hundred McNeil High School students walked out of class in
Round Rock on Friday afternoon, marching off campus to the corner of
McNeil Drive and Parmer Lane to protest recent actions by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The midday demonstration kicked off
shortly after 2 p.m., part of a wave of student-led protests that has
rolled across Central Texas since late January."
On Friday thousands of high school students walked out of Los
Angeles-area schools to protest ICE’s Gestapo tactics, participating in
another national “day of action.” Those who gathered outside the federal
jail in downtown Los Angeles heroically stood up against an attack with
gas and batons by federal agents.
Helicopter video by local television stations show demonstrators
standing their ground near the U.S. Metropolitan Detention Center, many
obviously teenagers, some shoving back and throwing objects at the
federal thugs in self-defense.
[. . .]
In a related retaliatory action, Ricardo Lopez, a history teacher at the
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Charter Synergy Quantum
Academy in South Los Angeles, was fired for opening a locked gate to
allow students, who were then risking injury by climbing over gates and
fences, to join the walkout, a move school administrators labeled
insubordination. Already almost a thousand signatures have been
collected demanding Lopez’s reinstatement. To date the United Teachers
of Los Angeles (UTLA) bureaucracy has issued no statement in support of
the victimized teacher.
A group of singers gathered in downtown Indianapolis Sunday night to protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The demonstration, which was organized by Indy Singing Resistance,
was held at Monument Circle at 6 p.m. Instead of chanting, protestors
used their signing voices to express themselves.
In a release sent ahead of the protest, Singing Resistance indicated
that a small group of people would lead all who show up for the event.
Those leaders taught demonstrators the songs they planned to sing during
the protest upon their arrival at the event. No singing experience was
required for protest attendees.
In Tennessee, WCYB reports, "Despite rainy conditions,
protesters took to the streets in Johnson City on today to rally against
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the region,
saying they are concerned about what they describe as an increased ICE
presence spreading across Northeast Tennessee. Community members
gathered holding signs and chanting, saying they would not stay silent
against what they described as growing enforcement efforts by ICE.
Pandora Burns a protestor said, 'I mean they don't stop deporting people
in the rain either so'."
Meanwhile unhinged Pam Bondi sent out a letter on Saturday announcing that all the Epstein files had been released.
The Epstein Class. A group Chump's protecting. His friends.
Remember the ones that would be hurt by the release of the Epstein
files? He yelled that at Marjorie Taylor Greene, remember? Christopher Lamb (CNN) reports:
Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser to US President Donald Trump,
discussed opposition strategies with convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein against Pope Francis, with Bannon saying he hoped to “take down”
the pontiff, according to newly released files from the US Department
of Justice.
Messages
sent between the pair in 2019, released in the massive document dump
last month, reveal Bannon courted the late financier in his attempts to
undermine the former pontiff after leaving the first Trump
administration.
Bannon
had been highly critical of Francis whom he saw as an opponent to his
“sovereigntist” vision, a brand of nationalist populism which swept
through Europe in 2018 and 2019. The released documents from the DOJ
appear to show that Epstein had been helping Bannon to build his movement.
“Will take down (Pope) Francis,” Bannon wrote to Epstein in June 2019. “The Clintons, Xi, Francis, EU – come on brother.”
Pope
Francis was the people's pope so it's only natural that a disgusting
creep like Steve Bannon would want to take him "down." The Epstein
Class is being made uncomfortable and a few are having to find the exit
door. Claire Zillman (FORBES) notes:
On Thursday, Goldman Sachs said general counsel Kathryn Ruemmler will leave the bank
in June after the documents showed she stayed in close contact with
Epstein until 2019, at one point calling him “Uncle Jeffrey” as she
thanked him for high-end gifts. And on Friday, Dubai-based logistics
group DP World named a new chair and new CEO, signaling the departure of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem
whose emails with Epstein included references to sexual experiences.
Both ousters followed earlier resignations in the U.K. public sector,
namely those of former U.S. ambassador Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords and Morgan McSweeney, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff who’d advised on Mandelson’s appointment.
Following an exodus of talent who have left the Wasserman Group talent agency after emails between founder Casey Wasserman and Jeffrey Epstein associate
Ghislaine Maxwell were revealed in the Justice Department's latest
tranche of documents, pressure for the founder to step down came to a
boiling point. On Friday, Wasserman announced that he was selling the
company as he had become a "distraction" to the business he founded 24
years ago.
The latest releases also placed a shadow over the previous accounts
given by allies of President Trump — from Commerce Secretary Howard
Lutnick to Elon Musk — regarding their dealings with Epstein.
There
is no suggestion of criminality around either Lutnick or Musk, but the
latest batch of emails contradicted Lutnick’s earlier assertions of when
he had cut off contact with Epstein and called into question Musk’s
previously emphatic insistence that he “refused” to visit the disgraced
financier’s Caribbean island.
In
one newly released email, the entrepreneur asks Epstein which day or
night might feature the wildest party on the island. It’s unclear if
Musk actually visited.
Beyond all of that, there is the broader fear and anger raised by the nature of the Epstein story.
Specifically,
it stokes the sense of a wealthy and powerful elite hovering above the
rest of society, forming a chummy circle of mutual protection, and
remaining out of reach of the laws and ethical standards to which
everyone else is subject.
At
a time when anti-elitist populism is already one of the strongest
animating political forces in the United States — and in many other
parts of the world — the Epstein story is rocket fuel.
A
Donald Trump insider has been revealed to have been in "regular
contact" with the late child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, including in
one email that says "miss u," according to the latest DOJ release.
CBS
News reported on the Epstein files release on Saturday in an article
called, "Trump insider Tom Barrack kept in regular contact with Jeffrey
Epstein for years, files show." Barrack is also an administration
ambassador to Turkey.
"President
Trump's longtime confidant Thomas Barrack, now serving as U.S.
ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, was in regular, close
contact with Jeffrey Epstein for years after Epstein's 2008 conviction
for soliciting a minor, a CBS News analysis of over 100 texts and email
exchanges from the newly released Justice Department documents shows,"
according to CBS.
The
outlet further reported, "The correspondence places Barrack, a
globe-trotting billionaire, among a circle of wealthy and influential
figures who maintained social contact with Epstein even as his criminal
history became widely known. Their relationship continued even after
Barrack became a prolific fundraiser for Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign, and
later, led his inaugural committee and became a frequent presence in the
White House."
According to an FBI document released by the DOJ, the agency received a tip
in June of 2021 from an individual whose name has been redacted, but is
described as an alleged “victim,” a former member of the Sinaloa Cartel, and a close confidant of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
According
to the document, the individual was formally interviewed by an FBI
agent, and accused Trump of being aware of and having funded “underage
sex parties at the Donald Trump Golf course.”
That
individual went on to claim that they had “recordings of Trump, Epstein
and Maxwell discussing marketing strategies for high profile sex
parties,” according to the FBI official who drafted the document, their
name also redacted. The individual claimed that in one of the
recordings, Trump can be heard stating “he was aware of the underage sex
parties.”
Let's wind down with this from Senator Alex Padilla's office:
Padilla and Wyden sound alarm that IRS errors improperly exposed private taxpayer information to ICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla
(D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration
Subcommittee, and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate
Finance Committee, demanded answers and accountability from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) after the agency admitted in a court filing that
the flawed system it adopted to transfer people’s home addresses to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) potentially led to thousands
of records being shared improperly in violation of taxpayer privacy
laws. In a new letter
to Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent and Homeland Security
Secretary Kristi Noem, the Senators also raised grave concerns that the
automated system the Trump Administration created to transfer taxpayer
data to ICE may have misidentified a large but unknown number of
taxpayers — possibly including American citizens — in response to ICE
inquiries, potentially exposing them to immigration enforcement actions
at a time when serious questions are being raised about how such actions
are being carried out.
“The IRS failed to properly verify that the information it disclosed
to ICE belonged to the correct taxpayers. Instead, it used a faulty,
automated verification system to identify the taxpayers whose
information it thought it could disclose under the terms of the agency’s
data-sharing agreement, which it reached last year with the Department
of Homeland Security,” wrote the Senators. “… The IRS
now admits that this system led to exactly the kinds of grave mistakes
our taxpayer privacy laws were designed to prevent, and that Congress as
well as IRS employees previously warned could happen under this
data-sharing agreement.”
Senators Padilla, Wyden, and additional Senate Democrats warned early last year that the data-sharing agreement between the IRS and ICE would result in serious errors and violate taxpayer privacy. They demanded details about the status and potential misuse of the data sharing program as recently as January 30 of this year.
“The risk to innocent people was entirely predictable once taxpayer data was used for immigration enforcement,” continued the Senators.
“Because the administration ignored the warnings, we now face the
extraordinarily troubling likelihood that in some significant, unknown
number of cases, the IRS not only provided return information to ICE in
violation of strict taxpayer privacy laws, but it also provided
information about the wrong taxpayers. Those individuals may have been
injured by ICE, improperly detained or imprisoned, or improperly
deported.”
In their letter, the Senators called for explanations of exactly how
many taxpayer records were shared improperly, who was responsible and
what accountability measures will be taken, whether anyone has been
wrongly detained or deported based on shared data, and what steps the
Trump Administration is taking to notify taxpayers whose information was
improperly disclosed. The letter was also signed by Senators Catherine
Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Adam
Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Last spring, Senators Padilla, Wyden, and Cortez Masto condemned the IRS’
plan to provide sensitive taxpayer information to the Department of
Homeland Security to locate suspected undocumented immigrants. The
Senators also led a March 2025 letter to IRS and DHS leadership raising the alarm on reports that DHS and the Department of Government Efficiency illegally requested sensitive taxpayer information from the IRS.
Full text of today’s letter is available here and below:
Dear Acting Commissioner Bessent and Secretary Noem:
We write with alarm following up on our January 29, 2026, letter
to Acting Commissioner Bessent regarding the IRS’s disclosure of 47,289
taxpayers’ return information (including “last known addresses”) to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Validating our
fears expressed in that letter, an IRS court filing made on February 11,
2026, confirms that thousands of these disclosures may have been
improper.
The government has argued that it was permitted to disclose tax
return information with respect to specific taxpayers who were under
active investigation by ICE. That premise is subject to litigation, and
ICE’s initial claim that it had more than a million active
investigations underway is absurd. Furthermore, the IRS failed to
properly verify that the information it disclosed to ICE belonged to the
correct taxpayers. Instead, it used a faulty, automated verification
system to identify the taxpayers whose information it thought it could
disclose under the terms of the agency’s data-sharing agreement, which
it reached last year with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This agreement was signed by Secretaries Bessent and Noem. The IRS now
admits that this system led to exactly the kinds of grave mistakes our
taxpayer privacy laws were designed to prevent, and that Congress as
well as IRS employees previously warned could happen under this
data-sharing agreement.
Because it is common for multiple taxpayers to have similar or
identical names and because not all ethnic groups follow the same naming
conventions, the IRS needs more than an individual’s first and last
name to ensure it does not disclose information about the wrong taxpayer
in violation of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6103.
In its recent court filing, the IRS admits it provided return
information, including the taxpayers’ “last known addresses” (which may
be current addresses unknown to ICE), even in many cases where ICE’s
request for taxpayer information included a name but not a complete or
accurate address.
As an example, if ICE requested the last known address of “John
Doe” at “Unknown Address, 99999” the IRS’s automated system would
disclose the last known address for a person named John Doe to ICE. This
is because the IRS system only looked to see if the address field in
ICE requests was or was not populated, not whether it was populated with
an address that matched IRS records.
The IRS estimates that up to five percent of its 47,289
disclosures to ICE may have involved insufficient address data. In other
words, thousands of taxpayers’ information may have been disclosed in
violation of section 6103, including those who are not targets of
immigration investigations.
The risk to innocent people was entirely predictable once
taxpayer data was used for immigration enforcement. Because the
administration ignored the warnings, we now face the extraordinarily
troubling likelihood that in some significant, unknown number of cases,
the IRS not only provided return information to ICE in violation of
strict taxpayer privacy laws, but it also provided information about the
wrong taxpayers. Those individuals may have been injured by ICE,
improperly detained or imprisoned, or improperly deported.
That would be an unimaginable nightmare for those wrongly
targeted people and their families. Conditions in ICE facilities are
horrific, and 32 people died in ICE custody last year, meeting the
record last reached in 2004, and another 8 have died this year alone.
The Trump administration has deported people to foreign torture prisons,
third countries they have no ties to, or back to their home countries,
despite having pending asylum claims. Exposing people to such risk
because of an improper sharing of tax information is unconscionable.
As noted in our prior letter, penalties for 6103 violations are
severe. IRC section 7213 requires responsible employees to be
terminated, and IRC section 7431 allows a taxpayer to bring a civil
lawsuit for damages.
Injured taxpayers will not know they can sue until the government
informs them of their rights. The government is required by section
7431 to inform the victims when a person is criminally charged with a
violation of section 6103 or when the IRS proposes an adverse action
against an employee.
Accordingly, please respond no later than March 15 to the following questions:
1. Exactly how many taxpayers’ return information was disclosed
in circumstances that the IRS now considers improper or potentially
improper?
a. How and when did you find out about the inappropriate disclosures?
b. Who at the IRS first became aware that the inappropriate disclosures were made?
2. Which officials are responsible for approving, executing, and
supervising the disclosures now considered to be improper or potentially
improper?
3. Has any IRS or DHS employee been investigated, charged,
disciplined, placed on administrative leave, or otherwise held
accountable in connection with any improper disclosures?
a. If not, explain why not.
b. If so, please identify the employee and describe the accountability measure taken.
4. Have DHS or ICE accessed, reviewed, relied upon, copied, or
further disseminated the affected data before remediation efforts began?
5. What specific steps have DHS or ICE taken to prevent further disclosure or dissemination of the data?
6. What specific steps are DHS and ICE taking to dispose of data improperly disclosed by the IRS?
7. Have any of the 47,289 taxpayers whose information the IRS provided to ICE been questioned, arrested, detained, or deported?
a. If so, how many are among the subset of individuals whose information the IRS shared improperly with ICE?
b. What steps are the IRS and DHS taking to make this determination?
c. What plan has the IRS and DHS put in place to remedy any detainments or deportations made in error?
8. Have any affected taxpayers been notified that their information has been improperly disclosed?
a. If not, when will the notification occur?
b. If the IRS has concluded that such notice is not required, provide the legal basis for that determination.
We look forward to your prompt and complete response.
