A new media storm erupted after the Los Angeles Times ran a story accusing ICE of denying medical care to a migrant child with leukemia. But according to Homeland Security, the truth is very different.
The LA Times claimed a young illegal immigrant detained at the Dilley family facility was “battling leukemia” and being denied treatment while ICE kept the family in custody during their deportation appeal. The article framed the situation as a heart-wrenching example of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tearing families apart and placing a sick child in jeopardy.
But Homeland Security officials fired back, calling the LA Times story “fake and disgusting” and stating that the child in question has not undergone chemotherapy for over a year. They also clarified that the child has received regular medical evaluations since arriving at the Dilley facility and that ICE policy strictly requires emergency and life-sustaining care for all detainees.
“At no time during detention is a detained individual denied emergency care,” the ICE statement said, pushing back against the narrative that the Trump administration was leaving a child to suffer without treatment.
The family, whose names have not been released, entered the U.S. illegally and had their asylum case rejected by an immigration judge. Rather than accepting deportation, they chose to appeal the ruling and remain in ICE custody while the case proceeds through the legal system. Under U.S. immigration law, they will stay in custody until a final decision is made on their appeal.
Critics of the LA Times story point out that the child’s leukemia appears to be under control if there has been no chemotherapy for over a year, and that “battling leukemia” is a misleading term to use in this context. The child is receiving sustaining care and has medical oversight while the family remains in the United States awaiting the conclusion of their legal process.
ICE has emphasized that the family is being provided care and basic necessities while in custody, and noted that under the laws of many countries worldwide, illegal entrants would face immediate deportation or even detention under harsher conditions, with far less access to medical care than what is provided in the United States.
The LA Times story is part of a larger trend in media coverage around immigration enforcement under President Trump’s second term. As the administration ramps up deportations and increases interior enforcement, legacy media outlets have published a steady stream of stories designed to frame ICE and DHS as cruel or inhumane, often leaning on emotionally charged cases involving children.
But Homeland Security officials maintain that the enforcement of immigration laws does not mean denying people medical care. In this case, they argue, the narrative spun by the LA Times ignores the facts, misrepresents the health status of the child, and unfairly smears ICE agents and medical professionals working at detention facilities.
While critics continue to push the narrative of a “cruel” system, the administration has insisted it will continue its enforcement efforts, arguing that immigration laws must be respected and enforced, and that processes for seeking asylum must be followed legally rather than through illegal entry.
The incident also highlights the growing mistrust between federal agencies and corporate media outlets, with Homeland Security calling out the LA Times for spreading what it described as “deliberately misleading” information that stokes public anger based on half-truths. ICE officials noted that false stories damage morale among agents who are tasked with carrying out the laws passed by Congress while ensuring detainees’ needs are met.
As the family’s case moves through the appeals process, the child will continue to receive medical care, and ICE will continue to hold the family in the Dilley facility until a final ruling is reached.
For now, the clash between the LA Times narrative and Homeland Security’s version of events is yet another reminder of how contested and emotional immigration enforcement stories have become in an era of partisan divides—and how critical it is to scrutinize what is being reported before accepting it as fact.
