Was a 5 year old arrested by an ice agent
Executive summary
A five‑year‑old Minnesota boy, identified as Liam Conejo Ramos, was taken into federal custody alongside his father during an ICE enforcement operation in Columbia Heights on Jan. 20, 2026 — images circulated showing agents standing next to the child — and officials say the child was transported to a family detention facility in Texas [1] [2] [3]. The Department of Homeland Security and ICE contend the child was not a target of the operation and say agents remained with him for his safety after his father fled, while local school officials, the family’s lawyer and community leaders say the boy was effectively detained and that ICE used him as “bait” — a direct factual dispute in contemporary reporting [4] [5] [3].
1. What happened on the driveway: custody, not criminal arrest
Multiple outlets report that ICE agents approached the family on their driveway and that both the father, identified by DHS as Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, and his five‑year‑old son were taken into custody during the operation, with photographs published showing agents beside the child [1] [2] [6]. News organizations and the Columbia Heights school district uniformly describe the child as detained or held by agents; federal officials frame the action as an arrest of the father during which an officer remained with the child for his protection, not an arrest of the child — a distinction ICE and DHS emphasize in statements [3] [5].
2. Conflicting narratives: ‘abandoned’ versus ‘used as bait’
DHS and ICE spokespersons told reporters the child was not targeted and that his father abandoned him when fleeing agents, framing the decision to detain the child as a safety measure [5] [3]. That account clashes with school district officials, the family’s attorney and multiple witnesses who say agents used the child to lure family members or that the child was held while the father was processed — language that has inflamed public outrage and prompted demands for the child’s release [4] [7] [1].
3. Where the boy is now and how officials responded
Reporting indicates the boy and his father were transported to a South Texas family detention center — a fact cited by local media and public‑radio coverage — and that lawmakers, community leaders and advocates called for the child’s release and for transparency about ICE’s tactics [3] [8]. DHS defended the operation publicly, disputing claims that the child was used as bait and insisting agents follow child‑safety protocols during enforcement actions, which underscores how federal messaging seeks to blunt criticism even as images and local testimony drive outrage [3] [2].
4. The visual record and political reverberations
Circulated photos and video of the upset child in a bunny‑ear beanie standing beside masked agents have become a focal point in coverage and protest, prompting nationwide criticism of the federal enforcement surge in Minneapolis and renewed debate over whether enforcement protocols adequately protect children [2] [9]. Political actors have used the case to advance contrasting agendas: some justify stringent enforcement, noting the father's immigration status as DHS described it, while others point to the optics and community trauma to argue for immediate policy restraints and oversight [10] [1].
5. What can be concluded from the reporting
The verified reporting establishes that the five‑year‑old was taken into ICE custody alongside his father and subsequently held in a federal family detention facility [1] [3]. Whether the child was “arrested” in the formal, criminal sense is a semantic and legal line — children are not charged as criminal suspects here — but every major news source documents that he was detained/held by ICE agents during and after the operation, while ICE insists the child was not the target and remained under an officer’s care [1] [3] [5]. The record therefore supports the factual claim that the child was taken into federal custody by ICE agents, even as causal characterizations (abandoned by the father, used as bait, targeted) remain contested across sources [4] [3].