That depends on the public interest. Are we talking about random John Does taxes which has a total of X dollars income/wealth?
X alone might be large enough warranting some public interest, on top of that, it isn't random Joe, it is a well known public figure, which derives its publicity in the very facts the article is investigating: his claims of personal wealth and business acumen.
Finally, that person is actually signing the tax code he is (ab?)using and he is facing a public vote on being in that position.
So, no it's not okay in every case, but this is hardly every case.
But it is still his finances as a private citizen, and not - for example - the details of some government agency. A matter being of interest to a subset of all citizens doesn’t justify its disclosure. We should either require disclosure by law (perhaps to an auditing firm instead of the public) or treat this as a purposeful and malicious leak of private, confidential information. I don’t think news media should get a pass on this.
If you say, a politician should only judged by ones public affairs and policies, and the press should not dig into private matters, I would generally agree.
But that is a major change, and to my knowledge never been the case in the US. Public figures, and once in a public office especially, have been in the news due to private information, usually more of the sexual kind, which resulted in the defenestration of said politician.
But to reiterate, the president chose to run for a public office on claims about his private finances. Those are challenged by information obtained by the press. And the press did not release the private, confidential information, but reported about information within it, pertaining to his claims.
That is bona fide, what the press is supposed to do. The person who gave the information to the press, on the other hand, likely has broken the law.
If a person has enormous debt, they are declined a security clearance. The fear is that whoever holds that debt has too much leverage over the debtor, and so could theoretically make them act however they wished.
These records reveal that Donald Trump has close to, or just over, one Billion dollars in debt for which he is personally on the hook, to unknown lenders, which are due within the next four years.
X alone might be large enough warranting some public interest, on top of that, it isn't random Joe, it is a well known public figure, which derives its publicity in the very facts the article is investigating: his claims of personal wealth and business acumen.
Finally, that person is actually signing the tax code he is (ab?)using and he is facing a public vote on being in that position.
So, no it's not okay in every case, but this is hardly every case.