Fact Check: Biden's administration authorized 53 researchers and student volunteers to unmasked data

Biden's Administration Authorized 53 Researchers and Student Volunteers to Access Unmasked Data

Introduction

A claim has emerged stating that the Biden administration authorized 53 researchers and student volunteers to access unmasked data, which includes personally identifiable information (PII). This assertion has sparked discussions regarding data privacy and the implications of allowing such access to sensitive information.

What We Know

1. According to a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), there were 254 users with access to masked data and 919 users with access to unmasked data, which contains PII. Among these, 53 were identified as unpaid hires, including researchers and student volunteers 1.
2. A separate source indicates that approximately 20 of these individuals were specifically categorized as researchers and student volunteers, and their access to unmasked data required executive-level approval 2.
3. Additional reports reiterate that the Biden administration's authorization included a significant number of individuals, raising concerns among some lawmakers regarding the security and management of sensitive data 59.

Analysis

The claim that 53 researchers and student volunteers were authorized to access unmasked data is supported by official documentation from TIGTA, which is a credible source given its role as an independent oversight body within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, the context of this access is critical. The report does not specify the nature of the research or the specific safeguards in place to protect the data accessed by these individuals.

1. Source Credibility: The TIGTA report is a primary source and is generally considered reliable due to its governmental oversight role. However, other sources, such as news articles and opinion pieces, may have varying levels of reliability. For example, articles from partisan websites may reflect a specific political bias, which could color the interpretation of the data access issue 579.

2. Conflicting Information: Some reports emphasize the number of individuals authorized to access unmasked data, suggesting a potential security risk, while others downplay the significance by noting that similar access was granted during previous administrations without public outcry 69. This discrepancy raises questions about the motivations behind the reporting and whether the concern is genuinely about data security or politically motivated.

3. Methodology and Evidence: The TIGTA report provides quantitative data regarding access but lacks qualitative analysis on how the data is being used or monitored. Additional information about the specific research projects these individuals are involved in, as well as the protocols for data handling, would be beneficial to fully understand the implications of this access.

4. Potential Conflicts of Interest: Some sources discussing this claim may have political agendas, particularly those that frame the issue in a way that aligns with partisan narratives. For instance, articles that emphasize outrage over the access without providing a balanced view may be attempting to sway public opinion rather than inform it 59.

Conclusion

Verdict: True

The evidence supports the claim that the Biden administration authorized 53 researchers and student volunteers to access unmasked data containing personally identifiable information. This conclusion is primarily based on the findings of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which identified these individuals among a larger group with access to sensitive data.

However, it is important to note that while the authorization is factual, the implications of this access are nuanced. The report does not detail the specific research purposes or the safeguards in place to protect the data, which raises questions about data privacy and security. Additionally, the political context surrounding this issue may influence public perception and reporting, highlighting the need for critical evaluation of the information presented.

Limitations in the available evidence include the lack of qualitative data regarding how the unmasked data is being utilized and monitored, as well as potential biases in the sources discussing this claim. Readers are encouraged to critically assess information and consider multiple perspectives when evaluating claims related to data access and privacy.

Sources

1. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. (2024). TIGTA Report
2. Lohrmann, D. (2023). Cybersecurity Needs to Stay Nonpartisan in the Age of DOGE. GovTech
3. Warren, E. (2025). Letter to Mr. Pete Hegseth. Senate.gov
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2025). White House requires immediate public access to all U.S.-funded research papers. Science.org
5. NewsBreak. (2023). Joe Biden Gave 53 Researchers, Student Volunteers Access to IRS Data. NewsBreak
6. MSN. (2023). As Media Freaks Over 1 DOGE Employee Getting IRS Access. MSN
7. TFP Wire. (2023). Democrats Cry Foul Over IRS Access to One DOGE. TFP Wire
8. MSN. (2023). As Media Freaks Over 1 DOGE Employee Getting IRS Access. MSN
9. Your News. (2025). Media Outrage Over DOGE IRS Access Contrasts With Biden Administration. Your News
10. LinkedIn. (2023). JOE BIDEN GAVE 53 RESEARCHERS, STUDENT VOLUNTEERS ACCESS TO IRS DATA. LinkedIn