With the goal of strengthening the immigration policies of President Donald Trump's administration and simultaneously streamlining the deportation process for undocumented immigrants, a federal judge ruled in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which puts thousands of immigrants at risk of returning to their countries.
Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed by President Donald Trump, dismissed claims by immigrant rights organizations that the data sharing violated tax privacy regulations. Thus, by upholding the agreement, her ruling represents a victory for the Republican administration's immigration policy.
Trump's immigration plan emphasizes the importance of strengthening collaboration between immigration agencies and tax authorities to facilitate the rapid deportation of undocumented immigrants.
According to officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, this information sharing between the two agencies would help protect American citizens from dangerous individuals who entered the United States through various means without proper authorization from authorities.
The federal judge determined that the Trump administration meticulously structured the agreement to adhere as closely as possible to U.S. law, despite several IRS officials' disagreement over alleged legal violations. The decision is based on an examination of the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the IRS and DHS, which states that data will be exchanged only for criminal investigation purposes.
Immigrant advocates argue that this agreement violates taxpayer confidentiality. This is even more problematic considering that, for many years, undocumented immigrants were encouraged to register with the IRS and comply with their tax obligations, under the promise that their personal information would not be used for deportation.
According to these organizations, the transfer of information not only threatens immigrants' confidentiality, but could, in the future, discourage undocumented immigrants from fulfilling their tax obligations for fear of being recognized and expelled.
Since Trump took office, various initiatives have been brought before U.S. federal courts, which have not been without debate among immigration experts, as well as within American society itself.
In May 2025, the Trump administration suggested discontinuing habeas corpus, which would allow for the possibility of arrests without trial. This idea has been strongly criticized by lawyers and legislators, given that habeas corpus is a fundamental constitutional right, which has only been restricted in exceptional circumstances such as armed conflicts.
The initiative has sparked unrest and alarm regarding respect for human rights and the independence of institutions.
The Trump administration also attempted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to force Venezuelan citizens to leave U.S. territory as quickly as possible, arguing that many of them are linked to terrorist organizations like the notorious Tren de Aragua.
However, federal courts in New York and Texas have countered these initiatives, arguing that they lack legal and constitutional grounds for such a rule to be implemented in peacetime. The Supreme Court also took action, provisionally authorizing deportations, although making it conditional on those arrested being able to appeal their deportation before the competent courts.
The United States government also asked the Supreme Court to overturn the court order preventing the revocation of the humanitarian parole promoted by former President Joe Biden, which benefited 530.000 Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians.
The measure allowing these nationals to legally enter the United States was approved by Biden in late 2022 for Venezuelans and then extended to others in January 2023 as an alternative to curb the flow of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. In March of this year, Trump attempted to annul this program, but federal judge Indira Talwani prevented it, arguing that the migrant cases should be evaluated separately if their status was to be revoked.
Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, rejected the measure, arguing that the judge misinterpreted the law and that the executive branch's powers over immigration are now being hindered. Human rights groups have warned of severe consequences for the immigrants involved if the parole is revoked.
