The Brief

The Trump administration would require U.S. taxpayers to disclose their citizenship and work authorization status to the IRS as part of a proposed change to the annual tax form that nearly all workers file each year.

Administration officials argue the new requirement will help the federal government stop immigrants lacking permanent legal status from collecting federal benefits they are not eligible for, potentially saving taxpayers up to $2 billion. But taxpayer and privacy advocates say the data could be used to help find and deport those people.

“It could be used as an immigration enforcement tool and that is probably the reason why they are doing this,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

Most Americans will see it as a new checkbox that gives the government even more information on taxpayers. But those living in the country illegally face a more complicated choice: Declare on a tax return that they are not authorized to live in the U.S. or lie on the return, which is a felony. Some may stop filing their taxes altogether.

(

The Associated Press

)

“It’s dragging the IRS into this administration’s immigration policies,” said Nina Olson, executive director for the Center for Taxpayer Rights.

The IRS posted its draft 1040 form for 2026 in late August. It includes the question, “At the time you file your return, are you, and your spouse if filing jointly, a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work in the U.S.?” There are “Yes” or “No” checkboxes for both the filer and their spouse. A draft of a second form, known as Schedule 3-A used to claim refundable tax credits, asks a similar question.

The questions are not optional. Every tax filer must certify under penalty of law their immigration or citizenship status to the IRS to file their return.

The Treasury Department says the new question is meant to keep immigrants lacking permanent legal status from taking advantage of refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit. These are credits for which low- and middle income workers and families may qualify that often result in a refund back to the taxpayer.

In a statement, a Treasury Department official said the information will be “subject to a variety of privacy, disclosure and other legal protections.” The statement did not say whether the information will be shared with immigration enforcement agencies.

Despite not being authorized to live and work in the U.S., immigrants that do not have permanent legal status do pay taxes. A 2024 report by the National Taxpayer Advocate found 3.8 million tax returns where a taxpayer used an Individual Tax Identification Number, or ITIN. While an ITIN can be issued for a variety of purposes, undocumented workers who cannot obtain a Social Security number are among those who use them.

IRS data show that taxpayers who filed those nearly 4 million returns paid $14.4 billion in income taxes and $6.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

A valid Social Security Number, not an ITIN, is required to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The IRS checks Social Security Numbers against Social Security Administration records for each claim of the EITC.

Because of this process, Olson said she believes the new proposal is unnecessary.

“Your citizenship or residency status is not information the IRS needs to process a return. It’s not even information the IRS needs to process these tax credits,” she said. “The IRS already has Social Security data on taxpayers, as well as ITIN information. It already has what it needs to process a return.”

Immigrants lacking permanent legal status are generally not eligible for federal benefits after Congress overhauled federal welfare programs in the mid-1990s. A tax filer needs to be a U.S. citizen or a green card holder to claim the EITC or CTC, with some limited exceptions.

But some immigrants in the U.S. who presently qualify for some of these credits would not under the new policy. This would include people covered under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, those with temporary protected status and temporary workers in the country under H1-B visas.

The Trump administration argues in its proposal that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the law that governs who is eligible for benefit programs, should be applied to refundable tax credits as well. The research paper published this week estimates that 671,000 people, including 309,000 children, will lose the Earned Income Tax Credit under this policy. Another roughly 1.1 million people, including 574,000 children, will lose the Additional Child Tax Credit.

Most of the children that would lose eligibility to these credits are U.S. citizens, according to these researchers at Boston University, Columbia University and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, because one or more of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.

The Trump administration has tried to use the IRS to implement its immigration policies before. Last year, the Treasury Department agreed to share confidential taxpayer information of immigrants with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of identifying and deporting people.

The data-sharing agreement was halted by a federal judge, which found that it violated federal taxpayer privacy laws, and the halt remains in effect as the case works its way through the courts. However, before it was stopped, it was found that the IRS had already turned over the addresses of 47,000 people to ICE.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled what is likely one of the last large climate announcements of his tenure: California will move forward with linking its decade-old carbon market with a newly formed market in Washington state, aiming to merge it with the market California already shares with Quebec.

Newsom said California was “choosing certainty, partnership, and clean energy” amid a stream of federal climate policy rollbacks.

But the announcement didn’t distract environmental advocates from the sting of a challenging year back home for the so-called “cap-and-invest” program. As Newsom leaves his post, many policy and climate experts say the adjustments to the program put California’s climate goals further out of reach. The program provides billions of dollars in funding for climate and other programs.

Yet with little talk of climate policy in the governor's race, Californians are largely left guessing about how Steve Hilton or Xavier Becerra would handle the program or California’s broader climate ambitions. The Becerra campaign did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment. Hilton told CalMatters he would move to suspend the carbon market — which he called “a disaster of a program” — entirely.

Twenty years ago, lawmakers made California the first state to mandate broad cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with AB 32, the landmark carbon emissions reduction law, which authorized the subsequent creation of a market. The law requires the program to be as cost-effective as possible while maximizing benefits to the state’s economy.

Whoever wins in November can appoint a handful of new members to the California Air Resources Board, which has to finish writing the linkage rules and will propose the budget that leans on carbon market revenue. The next governor will also help decide how aggressively California leads on climate, after a year of mixed signals about where the program is headed.

“It's really set up the politics of these issues to get worse and not better over time, and that is the problem that is being tossed like a live grenade into the lap of the next governor,” said Danny Cullenward, an economist who sits on an advisory committee focused on the carbon market.

A question of climate leadership

In May, a process to reauthorize the keystone climate program ended with a controversial agreement that the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects will roughly halve annual auction revenue, offering about $2 billion less in funding for priority environmental programs while opening a separate pool of free permits for polluters that pledge to invest in decarbonization, valued at as much as $4 billion.

Oil companies fought the initial cap-and-invest reauthorization proposal, arguing it would encourage companies to leave the state or further increase fuel prices. The California Air Resources Board, which manages the program, said the increased allowances it eventually approved were meant to balance affordability and economic uncertainty alongside emissions targets. In an email, a board spokesperson said the new incentives would not have any impact on the market’s auction revenue. (The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents refiners in the state, declined an interview for this story.)

The concern comes as California prepares to elect its next governor and nears its own 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, on its way to zeroing out emissions by 2045.

“This is not a question anymore of whether or not we'll reach the target. This is a guarantee that we won't,” said Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for Communities for a Better Environment who previously co-chaired an environmental justice committee that advised regulators on the state’s program.

State officials have long framed cap-and-invest as a backstop, keeping the state on track for its climate targets by ratcheting down the emissions limit even if other programs fall short. Advocates worry the changes will have a chilling effect rather than signal the market’s long-term strength, just as California loses ground to federal rollbacks.

“It is going to become very difficult for us to say we are a climate leader when we are visibly missing our targets,” Cullenward said.

Others remain more optimistic. Cap-and-invest is one tool in California’s toolbox, even if this year dulled it. Meredith Fowlie, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said the program is not optimal but has done the basics of its job: sending a price signal to drive down emissions while raising revenues for important programs.

Linking with Washington’s market will strengthen California’s program overall, air board Chair Lauren Sanchez wrote to Newsom in September. In addition to creating a larger market with more credits available to industries in both states, the link is expected to raise carbon credit prices in California, where recent auctions have yielded prices at state minimums. A connected market could also lower prices in Washington, making the state’s more stringent program less lucrative. Low prices reduce the program’s revenues and starve polluting industries’ incentive to invest in lowering emissions.

Regulators have not yet established a rulemaking timeline for the linkage process, a spokesperson for the board told CalMatters, but the board expects the joint market to begin operating next year.

Chloe Ames, policy adviser at NextGen Policy, an organization founded by former gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, called linkage a strong step forward. The group is disappointed by the other changes made to cap-and-invest this year, she said, and will keep urging the legislature to adjust the industry incentives and California’s next governor to take climate seriously.

“It's been more challenging for us to say that we're a climate leader, and that's why we need to step up,” Ames said. “In this work, what are you going to do other than to be hopeful?”

Kicking the can

Since the market began, revenue has funded a wide range of priorities, including job training, clean energy and affordable housing. Managing those investments, alongside costs to Californians and emissions cuts, has been a balancing act — one the next governor will inherit, Fowlie said. “Some of those objectives are potentially in tension,” she said. “A sole focus on designing the program to meet our greenhouse gas reductions misses this really important larger picture that this program is about more than that.”

The legislature approved the program’s reauthorization and the state’s air regulators lay out its rules, but a governor has influence over how that process plays out and can exert his own priorities, Cullenward said.

Beyond the carbon market, governors have wider latitude: Newsom has used his executive authority on wildfires, water shortages and clean energy.

In the governor’s race, neither candidate has centered climate in his campaign. In their one debate, both candidates steered a question about climate change’s impacts toward affordability concerns, offering little detail on the actual climate policies they favor.

“I think it's fair to say that climate probably isn't the top priority of either one,” said Barry Vesser, the chief operating officer at the Climate Center, a California environmental group that opposed this year’s changes to the carbon market.

Becerra’s campaign website emphasizes affordability in climate policy. He has faced criticism for defending Chevron and for accepting large oil and gas donations. As attorney general, though, he defended the state’s carbon program in court, arguing that “carbon pollution knows no borders” and promising that California would fight the first Trump administration’s rollbacks.

Hilton has rallied against California’s Democratic establishment, and he told CalMatters he would aim to de-bloat the bureaucracy guiding the state’s climate policies. He likened the market’s recent programmatic changes to “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” Hilton, who considers himself an environmentalist, has argued for redirecting resources from current climate programs and wildfire mitigation toward management of the state’s natural lands. He also wants to rework renewable incentives to create “a level playing field” for technologies like rooftop solar, hydropower and geothermal energy. His strategy, he claims, will reduce economic burdens for Californians while exceeding the state’s climate targets.

The relative lack of attention to climate policy is a missed opportunity, according to Valenzuela and Vesser. They see a chance for the next governor to more directly and publicly connect climate programs to affordability, a key concern for likely voters and an issue on which Becerra and Hilton agree.

Ultimately, the race’s rhetoric has advocates like Valenzuela “freaked out.” She points to a “huge chasm” between present reality and the policies that would put California on the right track. The state has little time left for the aggressive action its climate ambitions require, she and other advocates say, and it’s time to start dealing in reality.

“There's not many more governors left we can kick the can to before that bill comes due,” Cullenward said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.