IRS Chief Refuses to Answer Questions About Unlawful Data Sharing with Immigration Enforcement
The head of the Internal Revenue Service declined to answer questions about unlawful disclosures of taxpayer information to immigration authorities during his first congressional hearing as the agency's leader on Wednesday.
The head of the Internal Revenue Service declined to answer questions about unlawful disclosures of taxpayer information to immigration authorities during his first congressional hearing as the agency’s leader on Wednesday.
IRS CEO Frank Bisignano faced questioning from the House Ways and Means Committee about a federal judge’s recent finding that the agency broke the law by sharing confidential taxpayer data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement approximately 42,695 times, according to court records.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled last month that the IRS unlawfully shared taxpayer information of thousands of people with immigration enforcement through an agreement between ICE and the Department of Homeland Security designed to identify and deport people in the country illegally.
“Was anyone fired? Was anyone disciplined? Was anyone held accountable? Was anyone held to account?” Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., asked Bisignano during the hearing.
Bisignano cited ongoing litigation and declined to answer questions about the disclosures, adding, “I don’t want to debate the numbers.”
The data-sharing controversy stems from an agreement signed last April by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that allows ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants in the country illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records, according to congressional testimony. The deal prompted the then-acting commissioner of the IRS to resign.
Several ongoing court cases challenge the IRS-DHS agreement. Two court orders have blocked the agencies from massive transfers of taxpayer information and prevented ICE from acting on any IRS data in its possession, with those preliminary injunctions remaining in place.
Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., criticized the situation as “a catastrophic leadership failure and a huge hit on the public’s confidence in your integrity.”
Bisignano, who was named to the newly created CEO position in October while Bessent serves as acting commissioner, defended his position by noting the timeline. “Obviously all these events occurred before my tenure,” he said, while acknowledging “it was my responsibility to get it right.”
The hearing marked Bisignano’s first appearance before lawmakers since taking leadership of the IRS. In prepared remarks, he focused on the agency’s implementation of Republicans’ sweeping tax and spending law, which eliminates taxes on tips and overtime, exempts certain car loan interest, creates a deduction for older adults and launches Trump Accounts for children’s savings, according to his testimony.
Democratic lawmakers also questioned Bisignano about the IRS’ recent decision to cut union contracts with its workers during the hearing. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., argued that “by terminating the union contract it makes it easier to take apart the IRS.”
Bisignano, who also serves as Social Security Administration commissioner and is the son of a former Treasury Department worker, defended the decision. “Federal employees under statute have greater benefits than any union in the world can provide for their people,” he said. “They’re losing nothing.”
The controversy over taxpayer data sharing highlights tensions between the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities and taxpayer privacy protections. Immigration and border security represent major components of President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The hearing occurred as the 2026 tax season proceeds in full swing, with Bisignano facing scrutiny over both the agency’s operational changes and the ongoing legal challenges surrounding the data-sharing practices that preceded his tenure.
The IRS has not announced any disciplinary actions or accountability measures related to the unlawful disclosures that the federal judge identified in her ruling last month.