On October 3, 2025, the Trump administration launched a sweeping new immigration enforcement operation, igniting a firestorm of controversy and legal challenges across the United States. Dubbed “Freaky Friday,” this nationwide campaign by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) specifically targets unaccompanied migrant children, some as young as 14, with internal documents hinting the age threshold could soon drop to just 10 years old, according to Migrant Insider. The operation extends not only to minors currently detained in government custody but also to those who had previously been released into U.S. communities.
The choices presented to these children are stark and, critics argue, unconscionable. As reported by Migrant Insider, minors ensnared in the dragnet face a harrowing dilemma: either sign away their legal protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), withdraw their applications for relief, and accept deportation; or face the prospect of indefinite detention, with transfer to ICE custody looming as soon as they turn 18. Alternatively, ICE is offering a cash payment of $2,500 to those willing to self-deport—a sum that, for many, feels less like a lifeline and more like a bribe.
Perhaps most chillingly, ICE has threatened to target the parents and family members of children who refuse to comply, raising the specter of family separation and further trauma. “This is state-sponsored extortion of kids,” one immigrant rights attorney told Migrant Insider. “Children are being told: either abandon your case or watch your parents get arrested.” The plan, officials admit privately, is designed to detain all “age-outs”—children who turn 18 in government custody—and block their legal pathways before they ever see a judge.
This aggressive maneuver is just the latest escalation in the Trump administration’s broader effort to maximize deportations and undermine legal safeguards for immigrants, especially the most vulnerable. For years, President Trump has railed against the TVPRA and other protections for unaccompanied minors, and now, by dangling cash incentives and threatening families, his government is accused of coercing children into relinquishing rights that Congress enacted to shield them from exploitation.
Legal service providers across the country are scrambling to respond. Advocacy groups are organizing “Know Your Rights” sessions inside detention centers, filing emergency legal forms, and meticulously documenting the coercive tactics being used by ICE in hopes of strengthening future legal challenges. “This is cruelty for cruelty’s sake,” a senior congressional aide told Migrant Insider. “Targeting children—threatening their parents—offering them cash to give up safety—this is not immigration enforcement. It’s blackmail.”
But “Freaky Friday” is only one facet of a much larger and more controversial approach to immigration enforcement that has unfolded since Trump’s return to office. According to Substack reporting, the administration has revived and expanded the use of “expedited removal” under Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This policy allows ICE to deport undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than two years without a full court hearing. Raids have become more aggressive and militarized, with ICE agents conducting “fishing expeditions” at workplaces, housing complexes, and public spaces—often targeting people based on appearance, leading to widespread allegations of racial profiling and harassment.
One recent Chicago raid, as detailed by Substack, saw ICE agents descending from helicopters, kicking down doors, deploying flash grenades, and detaining everyone in sight—documented immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and even U.S. citizens. Children were reportedly zip-tied together, separated from their parents, and loaded into U-Haul trucks. In another incident, federal agents led by the Secretary of Homeland Security used a military vehicle to blow down a front door and detain six people, including two U.S. citizens. These tactics, critics argue, evoke the kind of “your papers, please” policing more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes.
Legal experts and immigrant advocates insist that these actions represent a fundamental evisceration of due process rights for immigrants. While the law does allow for expedited removal, the Trump administration is the first to claim its maximum powers under the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), using executive discretion to detain and deport people as aggressively as possible. D.C. Federal District Court Judge Jia Cobb recently ruled that the administration’s use of expedited removal is unconstitutional, documenting a “litany of abuses” since the policy’s expansion. Cobb’s ruling described a government that treats the law as “little more than an inconvenient impediment” to its deportation goals, prioritizing speed over accuracy and fairness.
According to the court’s findings, people who have lived in the U.S. longer than two years—who are legally protected from expedited removal—are nonetheless being swept up and deported, often without the chance to prove their eligibility to remain. Immigrants are rarely informed of their rights or given time to gather evidence, consult with attorneys, or notify their families. In some cases, people have been deported within 72 hours of arrest, and even those with legal counsel have sometimes been removed before their lawyers could reach them.
The situation is particularly dire for asylum seekers. Despite government claims that anyone expressing a “credible fear” of persecution will be heard, the reality is that many never make it past the first interview with an immigration officer—who may be under pressure to expedite deportations. Even when credible fear interviews occur, they are often rushed, with little opportunity for consultation or preparation. Asylum seekers are frequently detained in harsh conditions for months, and the system is structured in a way that makes it nearly impossible for them to mount a meaningful defense.
“There is no world in which people seeking asylum will have their claims favorably resolved in a week. It just doesn’t happen,” one immigration attorney told Substack. The only time a claim is resolved that quickly, they noted, is when it is denied. Asylum seekers who pass their credible fear interviews may still spend four to six months—or longer—in detention while their cases wind through the system. For many, the conditions are so inhospitable that they eventually give up and agree to self-deport, forfeiting their legal rights in the process.
Advocacy groups have documented cases of people being deported to third-party countries, such as Costa Rica and Panama, where they face uncertain fates and, in some instances, the risk of torture. Pregnant women, families with young children, and individuals fleeing persecution have all been caught in these transfers, often with little or no opportunity to present their claims for asylum.
The administration justifies these harsh tactics by framing immigration enforcement as a civil, not criminal, matter—arguing that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to the same level of due process as citizens. However, as Judge Cobb and the Supreme Court have affirmed, the Constitution guarantees that “no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” The current system, critics say, falls far short of that standard.
As the legal battles rage on, the human toll of these policies continues to mount. Families are separated, children are traumatized, and the foundational promise of due process under the law is being tested as never before. The debate over immigration enforcement is far from settled, but one thing is clear: the choices being made today will have consequences for years to come.
In the end, the struggle over immigration policy is not just about laws and statistics—it’s about the values that define a nation, and the lives caught in the balance.
