DHS Reveals Shocking Abuse of Migrant Children During Biden Era
The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged Thursday that under the Biden administration, some unaccompanied migrant children were placed with sponsors who later impregnated them.
In other cases, minors who arrived at the border without parents were released to adults with serious criminal histories, including possession of child pornography or involvement in forced labor, the department said, the Washington Times reported.
Hundreds of thousands of these unaccompanied children entered the U.S. during a surge at the southern border. The administration, overwhelmed by the volume, expedited their release from overcrowded and unsafe detention facilities. Officials now acknowledge that this action put some children in unsafe situations.
“Children’s safety and security is non-negotiable,” said Laszlo Baksay, a spokesperson at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “The previous administration’s failure to implement meaningful safeguards has allowed vulnerable kids to fall into the hands of criminals.”
Homeland Security Investigations, a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has spent recent months conducting welfare checks on unaccompanied migrant children. The findings released Thursday stem from that ongoing effort, the Times reported.
Investigators found some children living in conditions described as “neglect,” while others had been placed with sponsors who had criminal histories, including charges for assault, drug trafficking, prostitution, and attempted murder.
ICE identified the fathers as the “alleged sponsors” in what they called the “most disturbing cases,” revealing that some of the girls were pregnant.
Unaccompanied migrant children have long presented complex challenges for the U.S. immigration system, with risks and responsibilities at every stage of the process.
These minors often endure harrowing journeys to reach the U.S. border. Once in custody, they are intended to be placed with vetted sponsors who can care for them while they pursue legal immigration status, the Times report noted further.
Under the Biden administration, the number of sponsor placements surged, at times exceeding 18,000 per month, making it difficult for the government to thoroughly vet each sponsor under protocols originally established during the Trump administration.
In response, the Department of Health and Human Services relaxed some of those requirements. However, analysts say the changes led to more unsafe and potentially harmful placements.
Federal watchdogs have previously reported that the government lost contact with tens of thousands of children and failed to adequately monitor hundreds of thousands more.
The Trump administration pledged to locate missing children, but conducting effective welfare checks has remained a persistent challenge, said the Times.
Jarrod Sadulski, a child trafficking expert who has testified before Congress, said investigators made 100,000 welfare check attempts but were able to locate only about 5,000 children—a success rate of just 5%.
Among the cases reviewed, more than two dozen showed potential signs of human trafficking, said the outlet.
Sadulski also noted that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to respond to over 65,000 calls to its abuse hotline for unaccompanied alien children.
Meanwhile, border czar Tom Homan shared some tragic news when he spoke at the Republican National Lawyers Association’s annual policy conference last month.
He told the story of ICE agents who recently rescued a pregnant 14-year-old girl who had been trafficked.
“We just found one two days ago. A 14-year-old little girl. Living with two adult males. Who trafficked her,” he said.
“We found her, she’s pregnant. From trafficking being forced into prostitution. 14 years old. We are taking care of her. Both physically and mentally,” Homan said.
“Despite what the media says, we are not heartless. We care about these kids. I am a father,” he said.
“That s**t (human trafficking) is happening every day. We are going to put an end to it. Everything we can do,” he said.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
