‘Being in detention is a choice’: ICE official makes bizarre claim as federal judges slam ICE’s treatment of pregnant women

Federal judges are sounding alarm bells about the Trump administration’s treatment of pregnant and nursing detainees in ICE custody, as their own conflicting statements raise concerns about whether they are following their own policies. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, stated that “being in detention is a choice,” encouraging “all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the CBP Home App.” 

McLaughlin also claimed that “Pregnancy in ICE detention is exceedingly rare,” making up only 0.133% of all individuals in custody. She stated that pregnant women receive comprehensive care, including regular prenatal visits, mental health services, nutritional support, and 24-hour emergency care. However, federal judges are clearly pushing back, arguing that many of these women should not have been detained in the first place.

Per Politico, the core of the issue seems to be a significant lack of clarity surrounding a 2021 policy. Put in place during the Biden administration, it generally bars the detention of pregnant and nursing immigrants except in “exceptional circumstances” like national security threats. For months, ICE has been silent on whether this policy remains in force, even while its agents proved that they didn’t care. 

Pregnancies are high-risk. So the policy makes sense

A Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in August that President Trump’s Day One executive order, which aimed to maximize deportation and detention operations, had effectively revoked the policy. However, just last month, another Justice Department attorney contradicted this, asserting that the policy was still in effect and binding on ICE. 

Amidst this policy uncertainty, judges are hearing harrowing accounts of women separated from their nursing infants or held in horrifying ICE facilities while pregnant, leading to serious health risks and even miscarriages in some instances. Judges across the country have been forceful in their condemnation of these practices.

Last month, a Minnesota U.S. District Judge Michael Davis immediately ordered the release of a legally admitted Myanmar refugee. Judge Davis wrote that there is “something particularly craven about transferring a nursing refugee mother out-of-state” and lamented the “lost important bonding and nursing time with her baby” due to what he deemed an illegal detention. 

Similarly, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware in Nevada ordered the immediate release of a woman with a high-risk pregnancy. In Wisconsin, a federal judge pressed the administration for answers about why a nursing mother of a six-month-old had been detained. The Justice Department responded that the Department of Homeland Security was “unable to identify” any reason to keep her detained.

One judge noted that Trump’s executive order “contains no references to nursing mothers, let alone nursing mothers who lack any criminal history whatsoever.” She further stated, “The Court finds that the harm of separating a nursing mother and child is self-evident.” Other judges noted cases where mothers were separated from their babies, causing health issues. Another ordered the release of a pregnant woman who dropped to 90 pounds due to “dire conditions” in the facility.