Is ICE kidnapping children to lure parents out
Executive summary
Reporting on a January 2026 series of Minnesota arrests shows multiple credible outlets quoting school officials and witnesses who say ICE agents detained children and in at least one case attempted to use a five‑year‑old as “bait” to draw other family members from a house [1] [2] [3]. The Department of Homeland Security and ICE deny that a child was targeted, saying an officer remained with the child after the father fled, and characterizing the child as abandoned rather than used as a lure [4] [5]. There is no evidence in the reporting provided that this is an established ICE policy or widespread, systematic practice beyond the contested Minnesota incidents [6].
1. What the reporting actually shows about the Minnesota incident
Multiple outlets — Reuters, The Guardian, The Washington Post, MPR, BBC and others — cite Columbia Heights school officials, witnesses and attorneys who say ICE detained four schoolchildren in the district and that in one case officers asked a five‑year‑old to knock on a door to see if other relatives were inside, which officials described as using the child as “bait” [1] [2] [3] [7] [8]. Photographs of the boy with a Spider‑Man backpack standing beside agents circulated widely and are reported in The New York Times and The Guardian, underscoring the visual record that prompted local outrage [9] [8].
2. How DHS and ICE are framing the same facts differently
DHS and ICE push back on the school district’s characterization, telling reporters that “ICE did NOT target a child” and that an officer remained with the child for the child’s safety after the father fled on foot, which the agency says explains why the child was present near agents [4] [5]. People and other outlets note ICE policy options, such as asking parents whether they want to be removed with their children, as context for agency practice, but that does not amount to an admission that agents used a child deliberately as bait [6].
3. Evidence gap: contested eyewitness accounts vs. agency denial
The central factual dispute — whether agents instructed the five‑year‑old to knock on a door to lure relatives — rests largely on witness statements, school officials’ assertions and photographs; ICE’s denial is an official counterclaim but the agency has not, in the reporting provided, released video or other independent documentary proof that settles the sequence of actions [1] [4]. Major outlets report both versions: allegations of “bait” from witnesses and school administrators, and DHS statements denying a targeted action and describing the scene as a parent fleeing and an officer staying with the child [1] [4] [3].
4. Is this “kidnapping children to lure parents out” as a general ICE practice?
None of the sources supplied documents a formal ICE policy of kidnapping or deliberately using children as bait to lure parents out, nor do they present investigative findings that show this happening systematically across multiple operations; the available reporting focuses on a cluster of Minnesota incidents and the dispute over that single five‑year‑old case [1] [10]. Critics and local officials treat the incident as evidence of a brutal practice and demand accountability, while DHS frames it as an isolated enforcement action complicated by a parent’s flight — the balance of the reporting supports that the claim is currently an allegation tied to specific events, not an established agency doctrine [8] [5].
5. Bottom line and limits of the record
Based on the reporting provided, it is accurate to say credible witnesses and school officials accuse ICE of using a five‑year‑old as bait in Minnesota, and multiple reputable outlets have reported those accusations alongside DHS denials [1] [2] [4]. It is not supported by these sources to assert that ICE has a documented, systematic practice of “kidnapping children to lure parents out”; independent verification — such as body‑cam footage, internal ICE admissions, or an Inspector General finding — is not present in the articles provided, and therefore the question remains contested on the facts of the Minnesota case and unresolved as a matter of broader policy [9] [6].