Parents seeking to reunite with their children who crossed the U.S. border alone are now facing a new and controversial hurdle: mandatory in-person interviews where federal immigration officers may be present and, in some cases, conduct questioning. This policy, issued by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) on July 9, 2025, has sparked alarm among legal advocates and families alike, as reports emerge of parents being arrested during these interviews while their children remain in government custody.
According to a policy memo obtained by The Associated Press, the directive requires sponsors—usually parents or legal guardians—of unaccompanied minors to appear in person for identification verification. Previously, sponsors could submit identity documents online, a process that many found less intimidating and more accessible. Now, the stakes are higher, with the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal law enforcement agencies at these interviews. The memo explicitly states that these agencies may be present "to meet their own mission objectives, which may include interviewing sponsors."
The stated goal, as the ORR explained in a statement, is to ensure that every child is released to a stable and safe environment and that all sponsors are fully vetted. "The goal is to ensure that every child is released to a stable and safe environment and fully vetted sponsors by ensuring the potential sponsor is the same individual submitting supporting documentation, including valid ID," the agency said. They added that they communicate "clearly and proactively" with parents, informing them that they may be interviewed by ICE or other law enforcement officials, and that parents can decline to be interviewed by ICE without it affecting the decision to release their children.
But the reality on the ground feels very different to many families and their advocates. Neha Desai, managing director of human rights at the National Center for Youth Law, told The Associated Press that the change provides ICE with a "built-in opportunity" to arrest parents—something she says has already happened. "We know of sponsors who are deeply, deeply fearful because of this interview, but some are still willing to go forward given their determination to get their children out of custody," Desai said. She also noted that the interviews are unlikely to yield new information, since vetting already included home studies and background checks conducted by ORR staff, not immigration enforcement.
Mary Miller Flowers, director of policy and legislative affairs for the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, recounted a particularly troubling case: "I knew of a case in which immigration officers arrested the father of a child under the age of 12 who had shown up for an identification check. As a result, mom is terrified of coming forward. And so, this child is stuck."
Legal advocacy groups have reported that some parents have indeed been arrested during these interviews, leaving their children in U.S. custody. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has neither confirmed nor denied these arrests, instead referring in a statement to the Biden administration’s earlier struggles to properly vet and monitor homes where children were placed.
The ORR has also recently allowed ICE to interview children while they are at government-run shelters—a change that took effect on July 2, 2025, according to a separate directive obtained by The Associated Press. The agency insists that it provides legal counsel to children and that its staff do not participate in law enforcement interviews. However, child legal advocates say they often receive as little as one hour’s notice of these interviews, and children frequently do not understand the purpose of the interview or are misled by officers. Miller Flowers raised a pointed concern: "If we don’t understand what the interview is for or where the information is going, are we really consenting to this process?"
Jennifer Podkul, chief of global policy at Kids in Need of Defense, criticized the process further, saying that some officers lack language skills, trauma-informed interviewing techniques, and knowledge of the reunification process. "It seems like it’s designed just to cast the net wider on immigration enforcement against adults," she said.
The July changes are just the latest in a series of steps by the Trump administration to ramp up vetting of parents seeking to reunite with their children. These measures now include fingerprinting of sponsors and any other adults living in the home, requirements for identification or proof of income that only those legally present in the U.S. can provide, DNA testing, and home visits by immigration officers.
The impact on children has been profound. The average length of stay for children released from government custody was 171 days in July 2025, according to custody data analyzed by Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice. That figure is down from a peak of 217 days in April but still far above the 37 days recorded in January, when President Trump took office. Approximately 2,000 unaccompanied children were in government custody in July 2025.
Aber attributes the longer custody times to the policy changes, observing that "the agency’s mission has been conflated and entangled. It seems ORR’s mission has been somewhat compromised in that they are now doing more on the immigration enforcement side, and they’re not an immigration enforcement entity."
The ORR maintains that its core mission is to ensure the safety and well-being of children, but the increased involvement of federal law enforcement has blurred those lines. Human rights advocates argue that the conflation of child welfare and immigration enforcement has created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among sponsors. Many parents are terrified that coming forward could result in their arrest, but the desire to be reunited with their children often outweighs that fear.
Tricia McLaughlin, a Homeland Security spokesperson, declined to address reports of arrests or the specifics of the new policy. Instead, she emphasized the department’s commitment to protecting children who were released under the Biden administration.
The debate over these policies is deeply polarized. Supporters of the stricter vetting measures argue that they are necessary to ensure that children are not released into unsafe situations or trafficked. They point to past failures in vetting and monitoring as justification for the new requirements. Critics, however, contend that the policies are punitive, deter families from coming forward, and ultimately harm children by prolonging their stays in government custody.
As the situation continues to evolve, families remain caught in the middle—facing tough choices and uncertain futures. The tension between child welfare and immigration enforcement is unlikely to abate any time soon, and the stories of those affected will continue to shape the national conversation.
For now, one thing is clear: the process of reuniting families at the border has become more fraught than ever, with high stakes and no easy answers in sight.
