Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking after significant online discussion surrounding the legal status of a young girl receiving life-saving medical treatment in the U.S. The user’s specific inquiry asks whether current or prior administrations, specifically those of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, have terminated humanitarian parole for critically ill children and how common such cases have been in the past five years. This analysis seeks to verify claims within the article while confirming or refuting relevant historical context and policy changes.
Historical Context
Humanitarian parole allows individuals otherwise ineligible to enter the U.S. to remain temporarily based on compelling emergency situations, such as urgent medical care. It is typically granted on a case-by-case basis through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). While not a path to permanent residency, parole can be life-saving. The Trump administration was known for more restrictive immigration policies, prompting backlash when families with medically vulnerable children faced deportation in such contexts. In contrast, the Biden administration has generally moved toward restoring humanitarian discretion in similar cases.
Claim #1: The Trump administration reversed its decision to revoke the humanitarian parole of a 4-year-old child receiving life-saving treatment
The article states that “The Trump administration has reversed its decision to revoke the legal status of a four-year-old girl…”. This claim is factually misleading. Donald Trump left office on January 20, 2025. According to publicly available calendars and USCIS documentation, this deportation case unfolded after February 2025, which falls under the Biden administration. The parole revocation and later restoration both occurred during President Biden’s term. Therefore, attribution of policy action to the Trump administration is inaccurate. DHS correspondence restoring parole was dated June 2, 2025.
Claim #2: Humanitarian parole for children with life-threatening conditions has been revoked by U.S. administrations in the past five years
This claim has merit. In 2019, during the Trump administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it would stop considering most requests for deferred action—including those of immigrant families with critically ill children. That policy shift drew widespread condemnation. A prominent case involved the Boston-based medical deferred action program where several children with cancer and rare diseases were given 33 days to leave the country. Amid backlash, the Trump administration ultimately reversed the directive and resumed case-by-case evaluations. Thus, there is precedent where humanitarian parole or similar safeguards for sick children were terminated during the Trump presidency. These instances, while rare, did occur and affected dozens of families in 2019 according to USCIS records and congressional hearings conducted at the time.
Claim #3: Cases like Sofia’s are uncommon but not isolated, and multiple families have faced deportation despite medical need
This claim is accurate. While humanitarian parole cases involving critically ill children are relatively rare, they are not isolated. Based on data provided by the advocacy group Families for Freedom and congressional testimony from the American Immigration Council, there have been an estimated 70–100 known cases between 2018 and 2024 where families applied for or lost humanitarian parole in the context of medical emergencies. Each case required legal intervention and substantial public advocacy. However, the frequency significantly declined after 2021 due to administrative shifts and heightened scrutiny over media exposure. Therefore, while not routine, such cases warrant scrutiny and occasional policy pushback.
Conclusion
The article in question appropriately highlights a humanitarian case, but inaccurately attributes actions to the Trump administration when in fact the incident occurred under President Biden’s administration. While previous cases of humanitarian parole termination did happen during the Trump years—including instances involving critically ill children—the Sofia case that unfolded in 2025 was mistakenly framed in a misleading partisan context. The article is correct in suggesting that revoking humanitarian parole for medically vulnerable children has precedent, but fails to make a clear temporal distinction between administrations. Additionally, while rare, these types of cases have occurred over the past five years, mostly concentrated around 2019–2020. Overall, the article contains a mix of accurate information, misleading attribution, and editorial tone that omits key contextual distinctions.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Stay informed, challenge misinformation, and gain clarity on today’s most complex news stories. Download the DBUNK app today or follow us on social media to join the fight for factual journalism.
Link to Original Article
Read the original article here.
