Did ICE detain a 5-year-old
Executive summary
A five‑year‑old boy, identified in multiple news reports as Liam Conejo Ramos, was detained by U.S. immigration agents in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, on 20 January 2026 and transported with his father to a South Texas family detention center, according to school officials, local authorities and several national outlets [1] [2] [3]. The Department of Homeland Security and ICE confirm the child and his father are in custody but dispute aspects of how the episode unfolded, triggering competing narratives and political uproar [3] [4].
1. The core incident: what most sources report
Multiple outlets including Reuters, The Guardian, PBS and local Minnesota reporting say ICE agents detained the boy and his father as the child returned home from preschool on 20 January, producing widely circulated photographs of the child beside agents in Columbia Heights [2] [1] [5] [6]. School officials and the family’s lawyer say the child was taken to a federal facility in Dilley, Texas, with his father [1] [3] [7].
2. Two competing narratives about how the child came into custody
Columbia Heights school leaders and the family’s attorney assert agents used the five‑year‑old as “bait,” asking him to knock on the family’s door before detaining him and his father—an account that fueled local outrage and protests [8] [1]. DHS and ICE officials counter that the father fled during an attempted arrest, that officers repeatedly offered the mother the chance to take custody, and that the child remained with his father and is being “well cared for” in family detention—language intended to frame the episode as lawful and safety‑oriented [3] [4] [9].
3. The wider context: enforcement surge and prior policy changes
Reporting places the incident inside a broader Trump administration enforcement surge that sent roughly 3,000 federal officers to the Minneapolis area and has resulted in thousands of arrests, and analysts and outlets note an uptick in family detentions since the prior administration discontinued large‑scale family confinement [2] [10]. The Guardian and other analyses document that ICE booked thousands of minors into family detention in 2025, underscoring this case as one among many that have raised policy and human‑rights concerns [10].
4. Legal and logistical issues raised by the detention
Journalists and policy analysts note rules meant to reduce child separation—such as DHS’s Detained Parents Directive and the practical reality that families sent to family residential centers are often transferred to the South Texas facility in Dilley—while legal advocates argue asylum seekers should not be swiftly removed from the community and many families are pursuing challenges to transfers out of state [7] [11]. Lawmakers and advocates are calling for the child’s release and seeking oversight of conditions at the Dilley facility [3] [9].
5. Public reaction, photographic symbolism and political uses
A photograph of the child in a bunny‑hat standing next to agents has become emblematic in op‑eds and protests, prompting moral outrage in some quarters and defensive messaging from DHS and political allies who emphasize procedural justifications and child safety [6] [12] [4]. Media coverage reflects both humanitarian alarm (school officials labeling the use of a child as “bait”) and official insistence the operation followed protocols—leaving the public to weigh image, testimony and agency statements [8] [3].
6. What remains uncertain in the public record
Sources agree the child and father are in custody at a Texas family detention center and that photographs and witness accounts exist, but discrepancies remain about whether the child was deliberately used to lure others from the home or whether the father abandoned the child while fleeing; DHS disputes the “bait” claim and says officers offered alternatives, while local officials dispute that account [3] [1] [8]. Reporting does not provide an independently verified minute‑by‑minute reconstruction accepted by all parties; this gap is central to ongoing contention [3] [2].