Lawsuit alleges US shared information with Iran about asylum seekers, US denies allegation
Reuters//July 8, 2026//
A lawsuit filed on July 7 alleged that President Donald Trump‘s administration illegally shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with Iran’s government, allegations the Trump administration denied.
Lawyers with the left-leaning Public Citizen Litigation Group were representing the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund in the suit.
The lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration adopted a policy last year of providing Iran “with confidential information from the immigration files of Iranians seeking asylum in the United States.”
“Many of the asylum seekers are pro-democracy protestors, members of religious minorities such as Evangelical Christians, or members of the LGBTQ community who seek refuge in the United States because of the grave dangers they face in Iran,” it added.
The policy continued despite last year’s U.S. strikes against Iran during the Israel-Iran war, Iran’s crackdown on protesters and the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran that was launched on Feb. 28, the lawsuit alleged.
“These allegations that ICE shared asylum application records with the Iranian government are FALSE,” the Department of Homeland Security, of which the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is a part, said in a statement.
“ICE is committed to ensuring that illegal aliens are informed of their right to communicate with their consular representatives.”
ICE has been the face of Trump’s immigration crackdown and deportation drive, which has been widely condemned by human rights groups as being in violation of free speech and due process rights. Rights groups also say the crackdown has created an unsafe environment in the U.S., particularly for ethnic minorities, who have raised concerns about racial profiling.
Trump casts his policies as aiming to reduce illegal immigration and improve domestic security.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
It alleged that Iranian detainees who met with an “Iranian Interest Section official” had said the official had knowledge of their immigration cases, including the details of their asylum applications.
Since there is no Iranian consulate within the United States, consular functions for Iran “were handled by the Iranian Interest Section housed within the Embassy of Pakistan,” the lawsuit said.
The suit is seeking appointment of an independent monitor to prevent any disclosures to Iran and halt any alleged information sharing with Iran’s government, according to the filing.
Related Articles
Verdicts & Settlements
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Unicycle rider dies after being hit by car
- Premises Liability – Delivery driver injured by porch decking collapse
- Premises Liability – Fall down stairs at resort results in injuries, death
- Medical Malpractice – Jurors side with doctor in suit over rescue surgery
- Workers’ Compensation- Seasonal worker paralyzed in tobacco baler accident
- Medical Malpractice- Death from cancer followed stomach pain misdiagnosis
- Workers’ Compensation – Struck in face by forklift, woman suffers brain injury
- Negligence and Tort – Group home resident falls, sustaining femur fracture
- Medical Malpractice – Nursing facility patient dies after fracturing ankle in fall
- Medical Malpractice- Patient has bladder injury during colostomy reversal
- Premises Liability- Apartment guest burned by gas grill spewing fire
Opinion Digests
- The Most Important Opinions, January-June 2026
- Criminal – Court of Appeals wrongly vacated murder conviction
- Tort – U.Va. prevails on former professor’s claims
- Constitutional – Company’s due process claim against county is dismissed
- Administrative – Plaintiffs’ effort to enjoin ITC proceeding fails
- Patent and trademark – Amazon patent infringement suit transferred to New Jersey
- Tort – Chesterfield County dismissed from wrongful death suit
- Consumer Protection – Lawsuit over kratom survives motion to dismiss
- Criminal – Defendant convicted of attempted sexual exploitation of a child
- Evidence – Motion to exclude transmission expert is rejected
- Damages – Court awards pre-judgment interest following parties’ acquiescence
- Employment – Court approves overtime wage collective action settlement







