(MIAMI, FLORIDA) — A federal lawsuit filed in Miami accuses the IRS and the Treasury Department of leaking confidential tax returns tied to Donald Trump, his children, and The Trump Organization, setting up a major fight over privacy rules and federal data safeguards.
Section 1: Overview of the lawsuit
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization sued the IRS and the U.S. Treasury on January 29, 2026. The case was filed in federal court in Miami, Florida.
The plaintiffs are seeking $10 billion in damages. At its core, the complaint says confidential tax returns and “return information” were disclosed without authorization.
“Return information” generally refers to tax-related details the government holds about a taxpayer, not just the return itself. Tax-return confidentiality matters because most taxpayers—famous or not—typically expect that information given to the government for tax administration will not be shared broadly.
Federal agencies also rely on public trust. If people believe their financial details can leak, compliance and cooperation can suffer.
| Entity | Role | Relation to case |
|---|---|---|
| Donald Trump | Plaintiff | Alleges unauthorized disclosure of confidential tax returns and return information |
| Donald Trump Jr. | Plaintiff | Joins claims of unlawful disclosure and resulting harms |
| Eric Trump | Plaintiff | Joins claims of unlawful disclosure and resulting harms |
| The Trump Organization | Plaintiff | Claims business and reputational harm from alleged disclosures |
| IRS | Defendant | Accused of failing to prevent unauthorized disclosures |
| U.S. Treasury | Defendant | Accused alongside the IRS of confidentiality failures |
Section 2: Allegations and claimed harms from the leaks
Between 2018–2020, the lawsuit alleges, confidential tax returns and return information linked to the plaintiffs reached outside parties and were then published. The complaint points to outlets including The New York Times and ProPublica.
It is a key line in the case: the plaintiffs say the disclosures were unauthorized, and that federal confidentiality obligations were not met. Those are allegations in the civil complaint, not a final finding by a court.
The harms claimed are wide-ranging. The plaintiffs say the disclosures caused reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, and damage to business reputations.
They also claim the reporting portrayed them “in a false light” and harmed public standing. Fault is a central theme: the filing alleges the IRS and the Treasury Department “knowingly—or at the very least negligently or with gross negligence—failed to establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards.”
Put simply, the plaintiffs argue the agencies did not have strong enough rules, systems, or on-the-ground security to keep return information from leaving approved channels.
⚠️ Note the time window of the alleged leaks (2018–2020) and that the lawsuit seeks $10 billion in damages.
Section 3: Background on the leak and involved individuals
Charles Littlejohn sits at the center of the known criminal case tied to the tax disclosures. Littlejohn worked as an IRS contractor, and Booz Allen Hamilton is tied to that contractor role.
In 2023, Littlejohn pleaded guilty to disclosing Trump’s tax records and tax information involving thousands of high-net-worth individuals. He was sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison.
That criminal outcome matters because it establishes at least one admitted pathway by which protected tax information left government control. A key distinction helps readers track what is proven versus what is disputed.
Littlejohn’s guilty plea and sentence are established facts from the criminal case. The new Miami civil suit goes further by arguing the IRS and the Treasury Department bear responsibility for the alleged failures that allowed disclosures to happen.
Contracting consequences have also entered the picture. The Treasury reportedly withdrew all contracts with Booz Allen earlier this week over security failures. That is context, not a finding in the Miami civil case.
Still, it shows how tax-information incidents can ripple into procurement decisions.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018–2020 | Alleged leak window described in the civil complaint |
| 2023 | Charles Littlejohn pleads guilty in a criminal case tied to disclosures |
| 2024 | Littlejohn sentenced to five years; IRS issues an apology to affected taxpayers |
| January 29, 2026 | Trump and co-plaintiffs file suit in federal court in Miami |
Section 4: IRS/Treasury responses and related context
In 2024, the IRS apologized to Trump and other affected taxpayers. Ken Griffin was among those referenced as a victim, and Griffin later dropped his suit after the apology.
That earlier episode is relevant because it shows how these cases can shift after agency statements, even without a full trial on damages. The IRS also cited “substantial investments” in data security.
Agencies commonly point to technical upgrades, monitoring, and tighter access controls after incidents. Readers should separate that general claim—an effort to improve systems—from the specific legal question in Miami, which is whether the plaintiffs can show unlawful disclosure and resulting damages attributable to agency actions or failures.
Neither the IRS nor the Treasury Department has publicly commented on the new lawsuit. In many federal civil cases, early silence is routine while agency lawyers evaluate claims and decide how to respond in court.
A lack of comment does not resolve the merits either way.
Section 5: Related Trump legal actions around the same period
Other Trump litigation provides context for how multiple civil matters can run at once. Earlier this month, Trump filed a $5 billion suit against JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon. The bank denied the suit had merit.
A separate track involves The New York Times. Trump refiled a defamation case against the paper after a judge rejected an initial 85-page version for being overly long.
These parallel matters do not decide the IRS and Treasury Department tax-confidentiality dispute. Yet they help explain the broader setting.
Public figures and large organizations often use civil suits to contest reputational harm claims, seek damages, and push back on narratives, even as each case follows its own facts and legal standards.
Section 6: What the filing implies for future proceedings
After a federal complaint is filed, early steps usually include serving the defendants and waiting for formal responses. The IRS and the Treasury Department may file motions that challenge the case at the outset.
Those motions can argue, among other points, that the complaint fails to state a legally valid claim or that certain claims are limited by sovereign-immunity rules that often apply when suing the federal government.
If the case proceeds beyond early motions, discovery may follow. Discovery is the evidence-gathering phase and can include document requests, sworn testimony, and technical inquiries into who accessed return information, when access occurred, and which safeguards were in place.
Courts assessing claimed harms in data-disclosure cases often look for causation. That means examining whether the alleged leak can be tied to a specific disclosure and whether the claimed financial or reputational losses can be linked to it.
Damages also tend to be contested, especially when plaintiffs seek large sums like $10 billion. Beyond the parties, the dispute puts a spotlight on government confidentiality practices.
High-profile tax cases can test whether internal controls work under pressure and scrutiny. They also raise a broader question: what accountability looks like when protected tax information escapes secure systems.
Readers who want to track the matter typically watch the federal docket for filings, rulings, and scheduling orders. Public statements, if they come, can also shape how the case is framed in the public eye.
💡 Monitor for any agency statements or court filings that update the case trajectory.
This article discusses a civil lawsuit and government data-security practices. The information is intended for informed readers and should not be construed as legal advice.
Consult a qualified attorney for case-specific guidance.
