Did ICE use children as bait for their parents?
Executive summary
Two sharply divergent narratives surround the Jan. 20 incident in Columbia Heights, Minnesota: local school and family officials say a 5‑year‑old was led to his front door and told to knock “essentially using a 5‑year‑old as bait,” a claim repeated by multiple outlets citing the school superintendent and the family’s lawyer [1] [2] [3], while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE reject that framing, saying the child was not targeted, an officer stayed with him for his safety, and agency policy requires officers to allow parents to designate care for children [4] [5] [6].
1. The allegation: school officials, family and local witnesses say the child was used to draw others out
Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik publicly described an agent taking 5‑year‑old Liam from a vehicle, leading him to the front door and directing him to knock to see whether anyone else was inside—language repeated in reporting from The Guardian, The Washington Post, PBS, NBC and others that frames the act as “using a 5‑year‑old as bait” [1] [7] [6] [8] [2]. The family’s lawyer and the child’s mother told Spanish‑language media the scene felt intended to provoke the mother into running out for the child so she could be arrested as well, an allegation carried in national coverage [8]. Multiple local news reports note Columbia Heights officials saying this child was among several students detained in the district during a recent enforcement surge [9] [7].
2. The government response: DHS says child was not targeted and accuses father of abandonment
DHS spokespeople responded forcefully, saying ICE “did NOT target a child” and calling the claim a “horrific smear,” asserting that one ICE officer remained with the child for safety while others apprehended the father; officials also said parents are asked whether they want to be removed with children or to designate a safe person in custody decisions [5] [10] [6]. A top local ICE official accused the father of abandoning his child when he fled and defended agents’ conduct, saying they attempted to convince the mother inside the house to take custody and even assured she would not be taken into custody if she did [11] [10].
3. Policy context: what ICE says its rules require and what advocates say should happen
DHS statements point to ICE practice of prioritizing child welfare—allowing parents to choose removal with children or select a caregiver and having officers remain with children during arrests when necessary—but reporting also cites legal experts who note ICE is not required to arrest children and that policy requires time for arrangements for the child's care when parents are detained [4] [6]. Advocates and school officials counter that even if policy exists, the optics and the reported sequence—pulling a child to the door and directing a knock—amount to coercive tactics and traumatize communities, a concern emphasized by local school leaders and human‑rights advocates in coverage [1] [7].
4. What the available reporting can and cannot establish
Contemporary reporting documents the accusation consistently across local and national outlets and records both the superintendent’s and the family’s version as well as DHS’s categorical denials [1] [2] [5] [12]. None of the provided sources, however, offers independent, conclusive video or third‑party verification that unambiguously proves intent to “use” the child as bait versus a sequence interpreted by witnesses and officials that DHS disputes; the record in these pieces is contested rather than settled [6] [4].
5. Bottom line: credible, contested allegation—insufficient independent proof in reporting to declare it established
The allegation that ICE "used children as bait" in this case is backed by authoritative local voices—the school superintendent, the family and their lawyer—and widely reported [1] [2] [3], while DHS and ICE deny the conduct, invoking policy and claiming the child’s safety was the priority [5] [10] [6]. Given the consistent reporting of both claims but the absence in these sources of independent corroboration that settles intent or procedure, the responsible conclusion is that credible allegations exist and are fueling public outrage, but the available reporting does not provide definitive proof that ICE intentionally used the child as bait.