Image 01 Image 03

Newest Left-Wing Hoax: Trump is Deporting U.S. Citizen Children

Newest Left-Wing Hoax: Trump is Deporting U.S. Citizen Children

“U.S. citizens are not deported. The mother chose to take the children with her.”

Democrats refuse to give up their future voters without a fight. As President Donald Trump pledged on the campaign trail, his administration has made the removal of illegal immigrants a top priority.

In response, the Left has opposed him at every turn. This opposition has placed them in the difficult position of defending the indefensible — most recently, by fighting the deportation of an alleged MS-13 gang member and protesting the arrest of a Wisconsin judge accused of helping an illegal immigrant to evade ICE.

Over the weekend, a new narrative emerged.

According to the Left, the Trump administration has started deporting babies—U.S. citizens—without due process.

The implication is clear: if they can deport U.S. citizens, what protection does anyone truly have?

On Saturday, The Washington Post breathlessly reported, “Three U.S. citizens, ages 2, 4 and 7, swiftly deported from Louisiana.” The article began:

Three U.S. citizen children from two different families were deported with their mothers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the early hours of Friday morning. One of them is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was deported without medication or the ability to contact their doctors, the family’s lawyer said.

It was an extraordinary way to frame the situation. In reality, two illegal immigrants who had given birth to so-called “anchor babies” in the U.S. were deported. They were given the choice to take their children with them or leave them in the care of U.S. citizen relatives. They chose to take their children.

But left-wing cable hosts did not allow the facts to interfere with a new opportunity to attack Trump administration officials on their Sunday morning shows.

Border Czar Tom Homan appeared on the CBS News program Face the Nation. Host Margaret Brennan told Homan, “On Friday, there were three American citizen children, born here, who were deported along with their mothers from Louisiana down to Honduras.”

Brennan cited an “advocate” who claimed that one of the children involved had stage 4 metastatic cancer and was sent back to Honduras without seeing a doctor or receiving medication. She asked Homan, “Isn’t there some basis for compassionate consideration that should have allowed for more consultation or treatment?”

Homan said he was unaware of that specific case but emphasized a key point: “U.S. citizens are not deported. The mother chose to take the children with her.” He added that having a child after entering the country illegally “is not a ‘get out of jail free card.’ It doesn’t make you immune from our laws.” [Emphasis added.]

Brennan brought up a second case involving a woman with a two-year-old child, citing a judge who reportedly said there had been “no meaningful process.” Homan responded that he was familiar with that case and asserted the woman had indeed received due process “at great taxpayer expense.”

Pressed again by Brennan on whether cases involving children should receive special consideration, Homan essentially argued that granting such exceptions would create a powerful incentive for women from around the world to come to the U.S. to exploit the system.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio faced a similar line of attack from NBC News host Kristen Welker on Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press. She also brought up the child with cancer and the two-year-old who allegedly did not receive “due process.”

“It’s raising concerns about the issue of due process — that it’s being violated,” Welker said.

She then asked, “Is everyone on U.S. soil, citizens and non-citizens, entitled to due process?”

Rubio called the Post’s headline “misleading” and explained as Homan had earlier, that the mothers were deported and opted to take their children with them.

“If those children are U.S. citizens, they can come back into the U.S. if their father or someone else wants to assume them. But ultimately who was deported were their mothers, who were here illegally. The children just went with their mothers,” he said.

He continued, “You guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed the 2-year-old and threw him on an airplane. That’s misleading. That’s just not true.”

Welker reframed her question: “Is it the U.S. policy to deport children, even U.S. citizens with their families, and I hear what you’re saying, without due process?”

Rubio replied: “No, no, no. Again, if someone is in this country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a two-year-old child and says I want to take my child with me, you have two choices. You can say, yes, of course you can take your child whether they’re a citizen or not, because it’s your child. Or you can say, yes you can go, but your child must stay behind.

“And then your headlines would read ‘U.S. holding hostage – two-year-old, four-year-old, seven-year-old – while mother deported.'”

In their eagerness to manufacture yet another controversy targeting the Trump administration, Brennan, Welker, and the writers at The Washington Post undermine their own credibility. Their effort to launch a new, unfounded narrative reveals a troubling lack of substance from Democratic Party leadership. Deception has become their currency—disseminating distortions in the hope that repetition will substitute for truth. One has to wonder: is this what a political party looks like when it’s on the verge of irrelevance or implosion?


Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn or X.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They really need to aggressively attack these “journalists” when they ask their misleading rage bait questions. Turn the tables on them. Make them defend the questions they are asking. Ask what motivates them to ask such hostile questions.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | April 30, 2025 at 3:47 pm

I believe we should treat the First Amendment vis a vis “The Press” like we do the Second Amendment.

It should by up the the individual states to process “Pen” Carry Permits or other state licensure to ensure that “The Press” follows specific and actionable rules on how they conduct themselves while exercising their 2nd 1st Amendment rights.

    Perhaps we could make “Assault Press” illegal. Definition: Those who ask misleading, disrespectful, or offensive questions in an intrusive or aggressive manner designed to embarrass the target of the question and not elicit useful or needed information.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to ztakddot. | April 30, 2025 at 4:15 pm

      The Assault Press publishes high capacity magazines!

      /ducking

      (I mean, have you seen how big a Hemmings Motor News is?!?)

        Well okay I jave another idea guaranteed to twist some panties.

        The gun grabbers frequently use the argument that the second amendment applies only to firearms available in colonial times, basically flint action muskets and pistols. I’m thinking that same logic can be applied to the first amendment. The only press protected by the first amendment is the print press printed on old style manual printing presses. According to this argument tv, radio, internet press and written press printed on other than manual printing presses would receive no such protection.

        henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | April 30, 2025 at 6:56 pm

        A more rational analogy: the fedguv has defined a special class called a “mass shooting event.” We should define a similar class for networks that push four or more hoax stories in any four week period, and subject them to special penalties.

          DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | April 30, 2025 at 10:10 pm

          Four or more hoaxes over a four week period? Totally unnecessary. In recent days I’ve heard newsreaders on TV, covering stories about the Trump administration, say single sentences that encapsulated three, four, or five untruths. (Seriously, no exaggeration.) They’re capable of reporting half a dozen hoaxes in a period of a few minutes.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | April 30, 2025 at 3:56 pm

    Do that, and we end up lkike 1960s Romania where typewriters were strictly controlled and licensed. Project that to what The State would do regarding computers.

    No thanks.

    Make the people using the pens responsible for what they do with them,

    “Freedom of the press” didn’t mean professional media, it meant all of us.

    You are, of course, joking, but as a rhetorical device this is great. Trump should propose it, just to watch them squawk.

    I usually take a slightly different approach by pointing out that if saving lives is more important than the Bill of Rights then we can prevent a lot more crime, and save a lot more lives, by treating the fourth and fifth amendments with the same contempt that we do the second.

    For instance, we could cut crime by something like 80% if we just locked up every black male from the age of 15 to 45. Of course, locking them up would itself be a crime, but think of all the crimes they couldn’t commit while locked up! The only possible answer is that the crime of locking them up would be worse than all the crimes they could possibly commit; and by the exact same token the crime of disarming people is worse than the crimes that doing so could prevent (if any, which is very dubious).

    And we could severely cut the number of mass murders by ignoring the first amendment and censoring news reports about them, thus getting rid of the copycat factor.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2025 at 1:30 am

      From 2023:
      Imagine intruding into the exercise of other rights the way government has intruded into the exercise of the right to arms. It wouldn’t be tolerated. Why is it tolerated with regard to the right to arms? I don’t demand special rights to arms, I demand the application of the same principles that apply to our other rights.

Re: He continued, “You guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed the 2-year-old and threw him on an airplane. That’s misleading. That’s just not true.”

Let’s remember when Clinton’s storm troopers kidnapped Elian Gonzalez and sent him to Communist Cuba.

    Milhouse in reply to ParkRidgeIL. | May 1, 2025 at 12:47 am

    Legally they didn’t kidnap him, they rescued him from his kidnappers. As a minor, his only surviving parent had the right to make decisions for him, and he wanted him returned; the relatives who refused to turn him over were legally kidnapping him.

    The big flaw in that was that the father was in Cuba, and therefore was unable to speak freely. It was exactly like a child smuggled over the Underground Railroad to Canada, and then the father, still on the plantation, demanded that he be returned to him to be a slave. We would obviously ignore such a demand.

destroycommunism | April 30, 2025 at 4:18 pm

the real story would be

leftist pretend to love childrens well being

the lefty hates families
they hate civilized children..as long as they arent bothered by them
they love the abortion to stop them from existing
they hate life
well, they hate YOUR life unless you are their slaves

Bucky Barkingham | April 30, 2025 at 4:22 pm

This story is a clear example of how the “independent” news media get their marching orders from the Democrats. Their news reporting is coordinated with the Dems latest attack on our immigration system and it’s enforcers.

It was either going to be “They’re splitting up families” or “Deporting kids”.

    ztakddot in reply to geronl. | April 30, 2025 at 9:23 pm

    They should have asked the media: Would you prefer if the kids had been aborted instead of repatriated.

    diver64 in reply to geronl. | May 5, 2025 at 6:16 am

    Funny that there is no call from the left to let women arrested in this country take their kids to prison with them. Isn’t that also splitting up families? Homan and Rubio were exactly correct in their response to those two leftist shills. Until we get the anchor baby thing fixed the illegal mothers had the choice to leave their children in the US and chose not to. Case closed.

BigRosieGreenbaum | April 30, 2025 at 6:38 pm

IDK, I bet plenty of parents wouldn’t mind deporting their teenagers.

The premise is so stupid that only a communist would be dumb enough to believe it. Yes, when you Deport parents, their children go with them. We’re not deporting the children, they’re just accompanying their parents. They still have their citizenship and if they want to come back later, that is their choice.

One of them is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was deported without medication or the ability to contact their doctors…

Meaning what? That they weren’t given a cell phone before being put on the aircraft or that there are no phones where they are going? They have no medicines and/or no doctors in Central or South America?

    joejoejoe in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 1, 2025 at 12:00 am

    They do Not have citizenship. Socalled birthright citizenship is a sham unconstitutional and Nonsense.

      Milhouse in reply to joejoejoe. | May 1, 2025 at 12:51 am

      That is bullshit. The constitution is very very clear, and anyone who argues against it is dishonest. Any child born in the USA and subject to our laws, any child born in the USA and capable upon adulthood of being arrested for crimes, sued for torts, and forced to appear in court to testify, and to pay taxes, is a US citizen and there is nothing you can do about it except try to amend the constitution.

      That doesn’t mean the child’s parents can’t be deported. And when they are, they will likely take the child with them, and that’s OK.

      DaveGinOly in reply to joejoejoe. | May 1, 2025 at 1:24 am

      Your reply has nothing to do with my comment. I have no idea why think it does.

They do Not have citizenship. Socalled birthright citizenship is a sham unconstitutional and Nonsense.

They do Not have citizenship. Socalled birthright citizenship is a sham unconstitutional and Nonsense. Balderdash. Poppycock

    Milhouse in reply to joejoejoe. | May 1, 2025 at 12:52 am

    And it’s still bullshit. The US constitution says you’re wrong, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

“… is this what a political party looks like when it’s on the verge of irrelevance or implosion?”

Well, they’ve looked like this for quite a while and haven’t gone away yet. Itks what they look like when they have nothing else to say, though.

By definition, if the parents are not citizens, the children are not citizens either.

yerheinous | May 2, 2025 at 7:12 am

The leftists use the media to spread their lies and propaganda, because they cannot get elected based on their absolutely insane ideology and wokism. The democratic party has invoked the ghost of Joseph Goebbels for years now, using their far left allies in the corporate media to spread their BS lies and gaslighting. The irony is, the democrats are too stupid to realize that at this point, the only people who believe their BS is the low hanging fruit that represents their ‘base’. Thus, preaching to the choir.