Why We Fact-Checked This
CNN’s article reporting on the U.S. government’s new “self-deportation” program sparked numerous questions from readers, especially surrounding the idea of how “voluntary” this departure is when the alternative includes arrest, fines, and permanent immigration bans. DBUNK was asked to investigate whether migrants truly consent freely to leaving—or if the process essentially functions under coercion disguised as choice.
Understanding the Bigger Picture
Voluntary departure—or “self-deportation”—has been floated in U.S. immigration discussions for decades. First proposed seriously during the early 2000s, the idea gained traction politically as a cost-saving alternative to mandatory deportation. Under the Biden administration, the CBP One app was launched to streamline asylum applications. Now, rebranded as “CBP Home,” it’s central to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to encourage voluntary exits of undocumented migrants through incentives like stipends and airline tickets. The CNN report highlights the first flight using this method, carrying 64 migrants to Honduras and Colombia.
Claim #1: Migrants are “voluntarily” signing up for deportation through the CBP Home App
The article repeatedly uses terms like “voluntarily chose to self-deport” and references how migrants used the app to make an “independent decision.” However, the language used by DHS itself suggests the choice may not be entirely free of pressure. Secretary Kristi Noem was quoted saying: “If you don’t [use the app], you will be subjected to fines, arrest, deportation and will never be allowed to return.” While technically true that migrants are signing up on their own, the presence of significant threats tied to inaction complicates the idea of genuine free will. According to the American Immigration Council, legal frameworks consider decisions coerced if they are made under threat of punishment. Therefore, while CNN quotes officials correctly, the article lacks full context on how coercive the environment is, skewing the perception of voluntariness.
Claim #2: Each participating migrant received a $1,000 stipend, including children
CNN states that “each one was given $1,000, including the children,” citing Honduran officials. This statement requires clarification. According to the official DHS press release from May 5, 2025, the stipend is given to each undocumented immigrant returning voluntarily, paid after completion of the process. The DHS does not specify if the same stipend applies to dependent children, especially those born in the U.S. who, legally, are citizens. There is insufficient evidence that each child received $1,000 independently. Most cash incentive programs apply to the adult head of household. Without government transparency on this specific point, we rate this claim as lacking critical context.
Claim #3: U.S.-born children were sent to Honduras under self-deportation flights
This part of the article is accurate and aligns with known immigration practices. CNN notes that four children born in the U.S. departed as part of the flight, stating it was a family decision to avoid separation. Under the law, U.S.-born children are citizens by birthright, but DHS does not prevent families from taking their minor children with them voluntarily. The Migration Policy Institute confirms that families frequently opt to stay together rather than leave children behind in foster care. While emotionally complex, the facts are correctly stated and in line with current DHS protocol.
Claim #4: The initiative was designed to reduce average deportation costs over $17,000 per case
DHS claimed this program reduces deportation costs, citing estimates that each standard deportation costs over $17,000. That number matches data from the Bipartisan Policy Center and DHS internal audits, which account for detainment, legal processing, transportation, and administrative overhead. By allowing migrants to waive protracted removal procedures, the agency cuts significant costs. This claim is factual; however, CNN didn’t provide sourcing for this figure or explain how comprehensive the DHS’s cost analysis was. Including that context would have strengthened reporting accuracy.
Final Verdict on the Article’s Accuracy and Bias
CNN’s report correctly relays many factual elements about DHS’s new self-deportation initiative, including the stipend, the first flight, and the use of the CBP Home app. However, the portrayal of the program as wholly “voluntary” fails to address the significant coercive measures acknowledged by DHS itself. This lack of context can mislead readers into believing participants are acting out of pure choice, rather than choosing among unattractive options under the threat of detention. While the article does not distribute false information outright, it presents a sanitized version of key dynamics—particularly around consent and pressure. The tone remains neutral, but the omission of opposing legal or human rights perspectives reveals an implicit institutional bias favoring DHS’s framing.
Take the Next Step: Arm Yourself Against Misinformation
If you’re tired of misleading headlines and lacking context, download the DBUNK app for transparent news you can trust. You can also follow us on social media to submit your own fact-check requests directly and stay ahead of breaking news without the spin.
Read the original article here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/americas/first-us-self-deportation-flight-honduras-intl-latam
