Lawsuit filed in Los Angeles alleges Trump immigration agencies shared confidential asylum information with Iran

A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles alleges that immigration agencies in the Trump administration illegally shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the government of Iran. The complaint, as described in court filings reported by multiple outlets, says the disclosures were part of a coordinated effort to identify people in U.S. custody who had sought asylum and to pressure them to return to Iran.

According to the lawsuit allegations reported by ABC News and others, federal regulations enacted in the late 1990s include confidentiality protections that restrict the U.S. government from sharing information that could reveal whether an individual applied for asylum. The plaintiffs argue that those limits were designed to protect lives and that the administration’s alleged conduct set those safeguards aside.

The complaint depicts a broader pattern in which U.S. officials allegedly worked with Iranian counterparts to determine the identities of Iranians held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The aim, according to the allegations, was not only identification but also leveraging Iranian government pressure to influence decisions about return, according to the reporting.

The lawsuit also cites reported recordkeeping and detention statistics concerning Iranian detainees. ABC News reported that public records obtained by the National Iranian American Council show roughly 600 Iranians were put in immigration detention last year. The complaint and accompanying reporting frame the case as a departure from decades of U.S. practice toward Iranian dissidents and asylum-seekers, though the lawsuit’s claims are contested and have not been resolved in court.

Plaintiffs are identified in reporting as the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund, which alleged the government’s sharing of information violated national immigration regulations. The lawsuit seeks legal relief, and the filing is expected to trigger court review of whether the alleged disclosures occurred and, if so, whether they violated confidentiality statutes and related administrative rules.

The case arrives as the administration continues to emphasize enforcement and limits on asylum access and as federal courts regularly adjudicate disputes over asylum processing, detention, and information-handling practices. If the allegations are upheld, the practical effect would be a heightened legal risk for agencies involved in asylum adjudication and custody management, and additional constraints on how information can be shared across borders during enforcement operations.

Under U.S. law and longstanding procedural safeguards, the government’s asylum-confidentiality rules are intended to prevent harm to applicants and to preserve the integrity of the asylum process. The next steps in the lawsuit depend on the court’s handling of motions to dismiss or other early litigation filings, and on whether the government provides declarations or records addressing the alleged information-sharing arrangements.