Trump Administration Moves to End Child Migrant Protections/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has filed to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement, which limits detention of migrant children. Critics say the move endangers vulnerable minors and undermines decades of legal safeguards. A court hearing is scheduled for July as legal challenges loom.
Trump Administration Seeks Flores Exit + Quick Looks
- Flores Settlement protects migrant children, limits detention to 72 hours.
- Trump administration calls it outdated, blames it for increased child migration.
- Court hearing scheduled for July 18, led by Judge Dolly Gee.
- Critics warn of humanitarian and legal crisis if settlement is dissolved.
- Flores stems from a 1980s lawsuit, prompted by child abuse in custody.
- Past attempts to end Flores failed in 2020 under Trump’s first term.
- Oversight remains on DHS and CBP, despite relaxed rules for HHS.
- Advocates cite cases of inhumane conditions, including unsafe food and cold floors.
Trump Administration Moves to End Child Migrant Protections
Deep Look
McALLEN, Texas — The Trump administration is once again targeting the Flores Settlement Agreement, a landmark legal framework that has protected the rights of immigrant children in federal custody for over three decades. In a new court motion filed Thursday, government attorneys argued that the agreement is no longer necessary and should be dissolved.
Enacted in the 1990s after the mistreatment of a young Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores, the settlement caps child detention time at 72 hours and mandates safe, sanitary conditions for minors apprehended at the U.S. border. It has since become a legal cornerstone in protecting migrant children—until now.
Labeling Flores an “intrusive regime,” the Trump administration claims that changes in immigration law and federal agency standards have rendered the agreement obsolete. The government also asserts that Flores has contributed to an increase in child migration by reducing deterrents to unlawful border crossings.
“Unlawful family migration barely existed in 1997,” attorneys wrote in their motion, adding that the agreement “has changed the immigration landscape.”
The motion comes as Trump resumes efforts from his first term to dismantle the agreement. A similar attempt in 2019 was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020.
In a joint court filing, the administration and legal advocates proposed a hearing date of July 18 before Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of California’s Central District, who has long overseen compliance with Flores.
Critics: Move Undermines Human Rights
Immigration and human rights groups swiftly condemned the proposal, warning it could lead to the indefinite detention of children in unsafe conditions.
“Children who seek refuge in our country should be met with open arms — not imprisonment, deprivation, and abuse,” said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
“This move is another lawless step toward sacrificing accountability and human decency in favor of a political agenda,” he added.
Leecia Welch, deputy legal director at Children’s Rights, echoed the concerns:
“I’ve seen children on cold concrete floors, without blankets, untreated illnesses, and separated from loved ones. The toll is unbearable,” she said Thursday.
Even under Flores, numerous reports have surfaced of substandard conditions. In one Texas facility, nearly 300 children were relocated after reports surfaced of poor food, hygiene, and overcrowding.
Oversight in Question
While the Biden administration relaxed Flores-related oversight for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after new internal guidelines were introduced, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and by extension Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—remains bound by the agreement. These agencies are often the first to encounter and detain migrant children at the border.
Court-appointed monitors have flagged compliance issues, including during the COVID-19 pandemic when children were held in unsanitary conditions or detained in hotels before being expelled.
Though CBP was set to resume its own oversight, a federal judge ruled in January 2025 that it was unprepared, extending third-party monitoring for another 18 months.
Legal and Political Implications
While the Trump administration argues the Flores framework is outdated, legal experts caution that removing it without strong alternative safeguards could open the door to widespread abuses. The case also revives broader debates about presidential authority, immigration policy, and the treatment of vulnerable populations under U.S. law.
For now, Flores remains in place—but for how much longer is up to the courts.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.