Since early 2025, U.S. immigration authorities have arrested more than 12,000 individuals, including thousands of children and their sponsors, following leads provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), according to internal government data. This marks a significant departure from previous policies aimed at protecting unaccompanied migrant children and their families.
ORR, established in 1980 to assist refugees fleeing war and persecution, has administered care for unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border since the early 2000s. Historically, federal law has sought to place these children in the least restrictive settings possible, prioritizing rapid release to sponsors without the threat of immigration enforcement action, even if sponsors lacked legal status. A 2008 law specifically aimed to separate child welfare from immigration enforcement to avoid deterring families from coming forward.
However, the Trump administration has dramatically altered this approach. Since January 2025, ORR has reportedly shared over 460,000 investigative leads with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), identifying unaccompanied children, their sponsors—usually parents or relatives—and other household members. This policy shift has made families vulnerable to detention and deportation, according to interviews with affected families, legal advocates, and officials.
Former ORR deputy director Jen Smyers criticized the policy reversal, stating that safeguards preventing data sharing with ICE have been “completely reversed” and accused the administration of using child welfare programs as tools to increase deportations. ORR responded by stating that it does not participate in child apprehensions and deferred questions about enforcement procedures to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE. DHS confirmed that during this period, ORR provided ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations with leads aimed at locating unvetted sponsors, some with criminal histories, to protect children from potential harm.
One such case involved Aurora, a mother who entered the United States illegally two years ago and left her 6-year-old daughter with relatives in rural Mexico to avoid exposing her to the dangerous border crossing. The daughter arrived alone at the U.S. border and spent over six months in a migrant shelter before ORR approved her release to Aurora. Despite passing extensive vetting procedures, including a DNA test and background check, Aurora and her daughter were detained by ICE shortly after reunification and held at a family detention center in Dilley, Texas, for three weeks. Upon release, Aurora was fitted with an ankle monitor and required to comply with regular immigration check-ins. While detained, Aurora lost her housing and belongings, forcing the family to relocate to California. She expressed fear over the possibility of future deportation, noting the emotional distress her daughter experiences as a result of their experience in custody.
Another family’s experience highlights continued ramifications of the policy. Marleny, a Guatemalan mother working in Texas, successfully secured the release of her teenage son Victor from ORR custody after providing extensive documentation for her and her partner. However, two months later, ICE arrested Marleny and her partner in a raid connected to a criminal search warrant. The abrupt arrest, witnessed by neighbors and family members, left Victor caring for his younger sibling alone while also facing his own deportation proceedings after missing a scheduled court appearance amid the upheaval.
Legal advocates with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project have reported numerous similar cases involving the arrest of sponsors and collateral family members. The current policy has led to increased detention times for unaccompanied children, with Department of Health and Human Services data showing an increase from an average 30 days in custody in fiscal year 2024 to 194 days as of June 2026. ORR maintains that enhanced vetting processes and information sharing are intended to safeguard children from harm.
These developments reflect a significant shift in the federal government’s approach to migrant children and their families, intertwining child welfare with immigration enforcement in ways critics say risk undermining family reunification efforts and placing vulnerable households in jeopardy.