The Trump administration has initiated a campaign to eliminate “data silos” within agencies, which is framed as a move toward modernization and efficiency.
In March 2025, a Presidential Order was issued to promote information sharing both within the agency and across governmental bodies. It mandated that federal organizations ensure “free access” to state data generated by federally funded programs. Following this, data concerning food stamps and Medicaid recipients came under scrutiny. This led to a lawsuit aimed at protecting individuals from a culture of fear that might deter eligible citizens from applying for necessary benefits.
However, just recently, we witnessed another IRS Commissioner being removed; this marks a notable sixth exit since January. The timing was particularly striking as it coincided with a dispute over data sharing between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security. The process raised concerns when it became apparent that the addresses of about 40,000 taxpayers could be documented.
This situation indicates the creation of a surveillance infrastructure that might undermine legal protections and individuals’ rights. It’s crucial to understand that, once these data silos are dismantled, they may never be reinstated. The capability to monitor, target, and punish individuals could potentially be utilized by any future administration—perhaps even one led by a Democrat using such data for purposes like tracking gun ownership by cross-referencing with medical records.
Those who favor the current focus on immigration enforcement might want a system that is both precise and operates within legal bounds. Yet, the administration seems to be targeting broad groups in an effort to catch a few.
IRS officials have expressed concern about potentially violating federal laws that restrict the sharing of taxpayer information, which is generally reserved for designated criminal cases. A former IRS lawyer criticized the notion of sharing addresses for 7.3 million taxpayers, calling it a “fantasy” to believe that ICE could legitimately have real investigations concerning that many individuals.
The process itself lacks efficiency. Merging datasets, which were originally designed for different uses, requires a careful approach that seems to be inadequately addressed. There’s a significant risk of errors. For instance, recent mass immigration enforcement operations have reportedly led to the wrongful detention of innocent Americans in Los Angeles.
This data collection exposes unsuspecting individuals to undue government scrutiny and anxiety—reminiscent of tactics used during the Nixon era when there were efforts to weaponize the IRS against political opponents. That historical episode spurred Congress to protect tax return confidentiality. The creation of a data silo was intended to uphold democratic principles, keeping tax information separate from political agendas.
However, much like Nixon, Trump has shown a desire to use government resources against perceived adversaries. Previously, he sought investigations into Hillary Clinton, and now he’s shifting focus to issues like Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
In the 1970s, both Republicans and Democrats laid down safeguards against the type of punitive data sharing seen during Nixon’s time. Today, it’s important for us to speak out against these contemporary data-sharing initiatives. Unfortunately, Congress appears unable to resist Trump’s more extreme demands, and it seems the President is cycling through IRS leadership until he finds someone compliant.
For the moment, the courts may be the last bastion against this encroachment. They need to scrutinize the motives behind such data collection—not as a quest for efficiency, but as a significant enhancement of the federal government’s surveillance capabilities over citizens.
