Introduction
This article from The Guardian was flagged for fact-checking due to its emotionally charged report on a four-year-old girl, Sofia, whose humanitarian parole was briefly revoked before reportedly being reinstated by the Trump administration. A user asked whether this kind of termination of humanitarian parole—particularly for life-saving medical treatment—has precedent and how common such cases are. We examined the historical record and assessed the factual accuracy and fairness of the article’s claims.
Historical Context
Humanitarian parole is a discretionary immigration option the U.S. government offers to allow individuals in urgent need—often for medical or humanitarian reasons—to temporarily stay in the country even if they do not meet standard immigration criteria. It has been used in limited, often life-dependent scenarios, such as critically ill children or refugees escaping warzones. The policy has been shaped by both Republican and Democratic administrations, but in 2019, the Trump administration controversially ended a program allowing critically ill children to remain in the U.S. for medical care, prompting public outcry and resulting in reinstatements shortly afterward.
Claim #1: The Trump administration revoked the humanitarian parole of a four-year-old girl receiving life-saving treatment
This claim is true. According to verified reporting, Sofia and her family were granted humanitarian parole after arriving in 2023. In April 2025, the Department of Homeland Security sent the family a letter rescinding their parole and instructing them to leave the U.S. The article accurately cites this action, in line with previous instances where humanitarian parole was similarly revoked during the Trump administration. DHS confirmed similar rescissions for critical medical cases in past years, including 2019.
Source: New York Times
Claim #2: This kind of deportation order is a rare but recurring issue under the Trump administration
This claim is mostly true. While the article presents this as a significant anomaly, similar controversies occurred during Trump’s 2019 term when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) informed multiple medically dependent families that their humanitarian parole status would not be renewed. Public pressure led to policy reversals in several of those cases. However, comprehensive public records on the exact frequency of such revocations remain limited, making it difficult to determine how widespread the practice was between 2020 and 2025.
Source: Reuters
Claim #3: Public pressure and lawmaker involvement reversed the parole termination in this case
This claim is accurate. Public records confirm that Democratic lawmakers, including both California Senators, sent formal letters to DHS urging them to renew the family’s humanitarian parole. The original article attributes the decision reversal to this response, accurately reflecting the published letter and its timeline. Additionally, multiple media reports confirm that the Trump administration has reversed such decisions under similar pressure in the past.
Source: LA Times
Conclusion
The Guardian’s article is factually accurate and consistent with known precedents under both current and past administrations. It correctly identifies the use and termination of humanitarian parole and the political and public pressure that influenced its reinstatement in past and present scenarios. Though emotionally framed, the article does not distort or exaggerate the facts. DHS has previously taken similar actions in denying humanitarian parole for children with severe illnesses, although such cases are infrequent and often reversed under significant scrutiny.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Navigating headlines like this can be emotional and confusing. DBUNK takes the guesswork out of the news. Download the DBUNK app today to get real-time fact-checks and tools to verify stories yourself.
Link to Original Article
Read the Original Guardian Article Here
