Key Takeaways
- Journalists played a key role in bringing the stories of people affected by family separation to the attention of the public and government officials. ProPublica posted audio clips of crying children, for example, and many media outlets distributed photographs of Border Patrol agents separating babies and young children from their parents.
- The Trump administration sought to rely on the media’s coverage of family separation in order to deter migrants from crossing the border.
- Agency officials often scrambled to control the narrative on family separations and discredit media reporting on the issue.
Thousands of families experienced serious trauma from the zero-tolerance policy. The practice of separating children from parents at the U.S.-Mexico border came to light through extensive reporting from journalists like Lomi Kriel, of the Houston Chronicle, who first reported on proposals to categorically separate families in November 2017. Similarly, family separation ended as a categorical practice just two days after ProPublica posted audio of crying children in a detention facility. Their reporting relied extensively on the work of immigration lawyers, case workers, and advocates to document potential policy changes and identify families that had been separated.
High-Profile Incidents
Many documents in this tranche of records describe a handful of specific incidents that were either already high-profile or that agency officials feared would attract attention. On July 5, 2018, over two weeks after the end of categorical family separation, Border Patrol separated a father from his 2-year-old daughter, despite the father presenting a birth certificate to prove their relationship. The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) represented the father and issued a press release calling for the family’s reunification.
On July 13, Chief Richard Hudson, an official in the U.S. Border Patrol, emailed his colleagues in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to alert them of a situation that was, he wrote, “likely to come to the forefront of the media/NGOs.” Hudson claimed that a father “admitted to retrieving a fraudulent document from a smuggler in Guatemala.” However, he also noted that the “Guatemalan Consulate provided an affidavit confirming the birth information of both subjects” and that the father’s lawyer indicated that the allegation of a fraudulent birth certificate was a misunderstanding “due to a language barrier (Mam dialect).” (Mam is a Mayan language and not a dialect.) Neither of those facts was included in CBP’s public statement, which instead emphasized that the father “admitted that the child he was traveling with was actually his niece and that he had retrieved a fraudulent document from a smuggler in Guatemala in order to support his claim.”
The father had assistance through TCRP, which included those important details in a press release. Chief Hudson’s prediction of media interest proved correct: by 9 PM, at least eight media outlets had initiated inquiries. CBP’s statement about this case was quoted by multiple news outlets.
A DNA test soon confirmed the father’s paternity, and CBP reunited father and daughter on August 3, 2018. On August 4, a CNN reporter asked CBP for an update on “the father that some weeks back you all said admitted his daughter was his niece.” Despite confirmation from both the Guatemalan embassy and DNA confirmation—and having already reunited the family—CBP’s response was to double down, saying, “the agents interviewed the adult and he had documents that looked to be fraudulent then he claimed he was actually the uncle and the child’s mother was in Georgia.” The CBP Commissioner at the time, Kevin McAleenan, approved a draft statement for release to the media “if we are certain the doc was fraudulent.” (The draft statement was redacted from the FOIA production.) The final version released to the press did not repeat allegations of fraud, and instead noted that CBP is motivated by “concern, first and foremost [for] the welfare of the child.”
Another situation prompting significant press interest and high-level DHS concern was a mother separated from several children, including one with Down syndrome. Border Patrol separated the family on June 3, 2018, and the story was reported shortly before President Trump ordered an end to categorical family separation. CBP’s public affairs team said the “separation did happen, but not as a result of Zero Tolerance,” saying the mother was held as a material witness in the prosecution of the smuggler who helped her cross the border.
Commissioner McAleenan emailed colleagues: “We need a statement explaining and to scramble to fix this ASAP.”
MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
We need a statement explaining and to scramble to fix this ASAP.
CBP officials then explored options to secure the mother’s rapid release or to place the children with another relative. During the period of separation, officials reported that “the parents communicated with the children via Skype,” the mother was released in the United States on August 16, and the family reunited on August 18. Following the reunification, the CBP public affairs office noted that this was a “good news story for us” and that CBP was “coordinating with . . . some of the Tier 1 outlets to make sure we get a statement on this.” The high-level attention on the case and the relatively speedy family reunification in the United States was likely a result of press scrutiny.
Proactive Engagement with Journalists to Further Goal of Deterrence
Prior to launching the zero-tolerance policy, DHS officials hoped that publicizing mass prosecutions and family separation would incite fear among prospective border crossers and advance the administration’s goals of deterring migration. A 2021 report by the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice found that during the policy’s planning stages, officials thought that even if not all parents could be criminally prosecuted, just the increase in prosecutions would trigger media coverage and have a deterrent effect. Just weeks before launching the policy, Border Patrol Chief Brian Hastings noted that “after the first month or two, all entries of family units would drop and case load would drastically diminish based upon the fear of consequence/social media.”
The FOIA records in this tranche demonstrate that officials were responsive to journalists, including proactively reaching out to reporters who had not requested comment. For example, DHS officials scrambled to address a tweet from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.
Responding to Negative Press
Officials were highly sensitive to negative press about family separation. The FOIA records include dozens of instances of agencies preparing statements and talking points in response to inquiries from journalists. Tyler Houlton, then the acting press secretary at DHS, wrote to his colleagues on March 16, 2018, that the Washington Post’s “third editorial wasn’t enough . . . so they are preparing round four. Jonathan is going to call the editor off the record.” Jonathan Hoffman responded: “We really need to hit back w something more.”
Houlton, Tyler
Today’s third editorial wasn’t enough for the Post so they are preparing round four. Jonathon is going to call the editor off the record.
Hoffman, Jonathon
I appreciate the acknowledgement of our sarcasm but your cutting it still hurts. Appreciate the clearing on the main comment?
Are there any legal concerns w the last sentence? We really need to hit back w something more.
Officials consistently contended that family separation was justified—and even in the best interests of the child—while contesting individual narratives of parents who were distressed after being separated from their children.
On June 13, 2018, CNN published a story by Ed Lavandera, Jason Morris, and Darran Simon about a Honduran woman who appeared in federal court on immigration charges on June 12, 2018. The article drew extensively on the experience of federal public defenders who had observed hundreds of separations. CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan reached out to his colleagues in public affairs:
Senior CBP leadership followed up to indicate that they did not believe this had occurred, and that CBP “would not have separated due to the child most being of tender age” (emphasis in original). After what it called due diligence, CBP reported that, based on their records, definitely no mothers were separated from tender-age children.
But CBP records show that a Honduran family with a child listed as age “0” was separated on the relevant date, June 12, 2018, in the relevant Border Patrol sector, Rio Grande Valley (RGV):
The records also show that at least 16 children were separated before their first birthday and at least 22 were separated between their first and second birthdays.
On June 17, 2018, three days before President Trump ordered an end to categorical family separation, The New York Times published an article by Miriam Jordan about family separations highlighting a Guatemalan mother separated from her 8-year-old son on May 26, 2018, in Texas. DHS Chief of Staff Chad Wolf emailed other key DHS officials:
Wolf, Chad
Team – we are in a never ending news cycle where one-off stories, like this one, will dominate the news, be mentioned in hearing after hearing and drive bad public policy. I believe we need a dedicated group that responds to the actual stories as well as start addressing larger, systemic issues.
Tom Homan, then acting director of ICE, noted that the story “[didn’t] sound accurate at all,” though he did not contest any of the details. CBP records show that, as reported, an 8-year-old Guatemalan child was separated on May 26 in a Border Patrol sector in Texas.
Within a few hours, the heads of ICE, USCIS, and CBP indicated that they were ready “to dual-hat on truth patrol and related duties” and were preparing a team “for responding to inaccurate reporting.”
Journalists played a critical role in exposing the significant harms of family separation, including those that occurred before and after the zero-tolerance policy was in effect. Journalists often worked closely with public defenders and immigration attorneys, who could help highlight the tragedies their clients suffered. These joint efforts played a critical role in mounting the public pressure that led to the end of categorical family separation.
