Thousands of US doctors demand Trump administration immediately release migrant children

More than 3,900 medical professionals are calling on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to immediately release all children from immigration detention facilities, citing "substandard" conditions that pose severe health risks.

The letter, spearheaded by pediatricians Anita K. Patel, Ashley Marie Cozzo, and Lara Jones, includes signatures from healthcare experts across 49 states. The group warns that overcrowding, poor hygiene, and inadequate nutrition create an environment where children are uniquely susceptible to illness.

Dr. Cozzo highlighted that children have specific physiological needs that make them especially vulnerable to infectious diseases. The experts cited the case of Juan Nicolás, a 2-month-old infant who suffered from bronchitis at a detention center in Dilley, Texas, shortly before being deported.

Dr. Patel, who attended the State of the Union address as a guest of Representative Joaquin Castro, characterized the current system as the imprisonment of children in living conditions that fall below acceptable standards.

According to the San Antonio-based organization RAICES, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds between 300 and 500 children and infants in Texas facilities on any given day.

The medical community’s recent petition represents more than a humanitarian appeal; it is a calculated strategic move designed to challenge the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda through the lenses of scientific evidence and bioethics. By formally addressing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, healthcare professionals are leveraging their institutional prestige to force a political reckoning over the public health consequences of current enforcement protocols.

The decision by Representative Joaquin Castro to invite Dr. Patel to the State of the Union address signals a clear effort by congressional Democrats to capitalize on this professional dissent. This move effectively pivots the discourse from medical journals to the national stage, transforming a niche professional initiative into a high-visibility political instrument. Such optics amplify the narrative in a way that formal correspondence alone cannot, ensuring the issue remains at the forefront of the public consciousness.

This trajectory reflects a quintessential American advocacy model: the integration of technical expertise with media savvy and grassroots mobilization. By urging the public to engage directly with lawmakers, organizers are signaling that their goals extend beyond top-down policy shifts toward the cultivation of a sustainable bottom-up movement. While these efforts face significant headwinds given the administration’s uncompromising stance on immigration, they serve a vital secondary purpose. By establishing a rigorous ethical and medical record, advocates are providing the legal and rhetorical ammunition necessary for future policy debates and the inevitable litigation that follows.

While the report doesn’t explicitly mention Vietnamese households, policies regarding immigrant detention—particularly those involving children—resonate deeply within the Vietnamese-American community. Any shift toward stricter enforcement could set a precedent that impacts families currently navigating the sponsorship process or those facing legal hurdles regarding their residency status. Whether in the heart of Little Saigon or among those working in the nail salon industry, there is a shared concern that these changes could disrupt the family reunification efforts—such as F2B petitions—that have long served as a lifeline for our diaspora.