IRS Privacy Chief Resigns After DOGE Pushes Illegal Data Sharing with ICE

Key points

• Kathleen Walters, IRS chief privacy officer, resigned in March 2025 after learning that acting commissioner Melanie Krause attempted to share taxpayer data with DHS without legal authority.
• DOGE operative Gavin Kliger arrived at the IRS in February 2025 without proper vetting, demanding immediate access to systems and bypassing standard security audits and ethics training.
• Kliger demanded the firing of 6,700 probationary workers using false performance justifications, leading to the termination of IRS human resources head Traci DiMartini when she refused to sign the dishonest email.
• A federal judge ruled that the IRS violated the Internal Revenue Code approximately 42,695 times by disclosing last known addresses of undocumented workers to ICE, contradicting previous court testimony.
• The Washington Post reported in February 2026 that the IRS had shared tax data of 47,000 undocumented workers with DHS, confirming the illegal data transfer.

Background

This story follows earlier coverage of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its impact on federal agencies. Previous reports, including a September 2026 Washington Post piece and a Fox News interview, detailed the cultural clash between DOGE’s rapid, tech-driven approach and traditional government norms. The archive also notes a 2026 documentary and memoirs from former DOGE insiders, such as Tyler Hassen, which debate the organization’s effectiveness and internal dysfunction. The current report adds specific legal and ethical violations at the IRS, highlighting the consequences of DOGE’s aggressive tactics on data privacy and civil service integrity.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian presents a critical view of DOGE, emphasizing the chaotic and potentially illegal actions of operatives like Gavin Kliger and the resignation of IRS officials who resisted data sharing. It highlights the disregard for legal and ethical protocols, with quotes from IRS staff describing DOGE members as 'blockers' to be eliminated. In contrast, Fox News features Tyler Hassen, a former DOGE official, who defends the organization as a necessary reform effort, arguing that DOGE targeted inefficiency and lack of accountability rather than indiscriminate cuts. Hassen claims to have respected career civil servants and faced media hostility, portraying DOGE as a patriotic effort to address national debt. The Washington Post includes a reader letter criticizing Hassen’s memoir for pointing to minor errors as evidence of dysfunction while ignoring DOGE’s own internal issues. These perspectives highlight a divide between those who view DOGE as a disruptive but necessary reform and those who see it as a chaotic and potentially illegal operation.

Why it matters

The story underscores the tension between executive branch initiatives and legal constraints on federal data privacy. The attempted sharing of taxpayer data with DHS for immigration enforcement raises significant legal and ethical concerns, potentially violating the Internal Revenue Code and harming the trust of undocumented workers who use the IRS system. The resignation of key IRS officials and the subsequent legal rulings highlight the risks of bypassing standard procedures and the potential for abuse of power. This case may set a precedent for how executive agencies interact with data privacy laws and the limits of executive authority in reshaping federal operations.

What to watch

The federal judge’s ruling on the IRS’s violation of the Internal Revenue Code may lead to further legal challenges and potential reforms in data sharing protocols between agencies. The resignation of Kathleen Walters and Melanie Krause may prompt investigations into the circumstances of their departures and the legality of the data sharing. The ongoing debate between DOGE supporters and critics, as seen in the Fox News and Washington Post perspectives, may continue to shape public opinion and policy discussions on government efficiency and data privacy. Future developments may include legislative responses to the judge’s ruling and potential changes in how executive agencies handle sensitive data.