What did the New York Times and ProPublica report about the 17 years of Trump returns they obtained, and why have they not published all of them?
Executive summary
The New York Times and ProPublica reported that they obtained many years of Donald Trump’s tax records and used them to reveal chronic business losses, aggressive write-offs, hundreds of millions in debt coming due, and unusually low or zero federal income tax in multiple years; both outlets published findings drawn from those records but have not released the underlying returns publicly to protect sources and for legal reasons [1] [2] [3] [4]. The records appear to have originated in unauthorized disclosures by an IRS contractor who later pleaded guilty and was sentenced, creating both journalistic and legal sensitivities around releasing the raw files [5] [6].
1. What the reporting said about the 17 years of returns the outlets obtained
The Times’ multi‑year reporting described decades-long patterns in Trump’s tax filings: large reported losses that generated vast write-offs and allowed him to avoid federal income tax in many years, a report that he paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017, and disclosures about struggling properties, audit battles and substantial debt coming due that undercut his public portrayal as uniformly successful [1] [7] [2]. ProPublica’s work supplemented that picture with property‑level documents and analysis showing inconsistencies in what was reported to local authorities versus loan servicers and contested valuations — reporting obtained in part through public records requests for property appeals [8]. TaxNotes and other contemporaneous coverage also summarized that the two organizations had material stretching across many years — often described in reporting as roughly 17 years of returns — and used them as the basis for investigative stories [4] [1].
2. How the outlets say they obtained the records and who leaked them
Reporting and later criminal filings show that the materials reached the Times and ProPublica through an IRS contractor who provided sensitive taxpayer data to both organizations between roughly 2018 and 2020, a leak prosecutors characterized as unprecedented in scope; that contractor later pled guilty and was sentenced to prison for disclosure of tax return information [5] [6]. ProPublica also obtained relevant property tax and related documents through New York’s Freedom of Information Law, which produced public filings separate from the confidential federal returns [8]. Editorial statements from the Times and contemporaneous coverage said the paper received returns from anonymous sources with “legal access” but declined to publish raw returns to protect source anonymity [9] [4].
3. Why the publications have not released all of the raw returns
Both outlets have publicly explained they will not post the original files because doing so would identify or endanger sources who provided confidential federal tax records, and because the records were received through means that implicate criminal statutes governing tax‑return confidentiality — a risk amplified after the source’s criminal prosecution [9] [5] [4]. Editors have argued they can responsibly publish the substantive findings and selected excerpts while withholding the underlying documents to preserve source safety and incentivize future whistleblowers [9]. At the same time, legal commentators and advocacy outlets contend publication itself could violate federal law and that courts might weigh privacy and enforcement interests against First Amendment protections, so the outlets face a contested legal environment if they were to post full returns [10] [11] [12].
4. Criticisms, legal context and competing viewpoints
Conservative and legal critics have argued that publishing or possessing tax returns obtained from government systems breaches taxpayer confidentiality and could be unlawful, citing federal statutes and urging enforcement; supporters of publication point to Supreme Court precedent suggesting publication of unlawfully disclosed material can be protected speech, and newsrooms defend releasing reporting derived from the records while protecting sources [10] [11] [9]. Congressional interest and litigation over presidential tax records also intersected with the reporting: lawmakers and courts have separately litigated access to presidential returns and IRS audits, underscoring that public‑interest and legal oversight claims exist alongside privacy and criminal‑law concerns [13] [1].
5. What remains unanswered or limited in public reporting
Public reporting establishes what the Times and ProPublica published about tax patterns and the existence of multi‑year records, and it documents the criminal leak; however, the outlets’ refusal to disclose the full raw returns means independent verification of every line of the underlying returns remains constrained by journalists’ summaries and excerpts, and court records or other official releases would be required to resolve remaining technical disputes about particular entries [9] [5].