When 'Mistakes' Serve State Interests
The Independent, citing a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, details how the IRS, with its sacred duty to protect taxpayer data, somehow managed to pass sensitive information to DHS. Curiously, this 'mistake' conveniently furnished the very details sought by immigration enforcement. One might wonder why, despite clear protocols and repeated internal warnings
according to the report, this particular 'mistake' went uncorrected for so long. CASE A: The Migrant Data 'Mistake' (2026) The framing here: A 'mistake,' a 'breach of protocols,' an 'error.' The language suggests inadvertence, incompetence, or a one-off slip-up. The IRS handed over data on 'up to 47,000 people' (The Independent). The internal report points to 'failures of internal controls.' This
narrative cushions the blow, suggesting no malicious intent, merely administrative oversight. CASE B: The 'Threat' of Whistleblowers (Early 2010s) Compare this to how confidential data—specifically, National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs—was handled when it became public via whistleblowers like Edward Snowden in 2013. The framing then wasn't about 'mistakes' but about 'treason,'
'espionage,' and 'national security threats.' The government's narrative focused on the damage done by the disclosure, not the underlying overreach. When the state's security apparatus gains unauthorized access to private data, it's a 'mistake.' When that same apparatus’s unauthorized actions are exposed, it's a 'crime.' THE FRAMING: Language as a Shield For migrants, unauthorized data sharing is