The incentive is being administered by the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with Health and Human Services. It is initially open to 17-year-olds and excludes minors from Mexico. Shelters housing migrant children were notified by memo that they must respond within 24 hours, and the stipend will only be provided after an immigration judge approves the departure and verifies the child’s return home.
Advocates caution the offer may exert undue pressure on vulnerable children. Some describe it as coercive, suggesting minors might abandon legitimate legal claims—such as requests for asylum—under duress. Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, called the move “a cruel tactic” that might compel children to waive protections guaranteed under U. S. law.
Legal experts emphasise that unaccompanied minors already have access to the option of voluntary departure, but it typically involves legal counsel and judicial review. The novelty lies in tying a cash incentive to that option. Critics argue that dangling money before minors, who may lack full legal understanding, distorts due process.
Concerns have been amplified by additional policy changes and legal challenges. A federal judge, Rudolph Contreras, has issued a temporary restraining order preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from moving minors into adult detention upon turning 18—a move criticised as part of a broader push to complicate their legal status and force self-deportation.
Advocacy groups argue that the stipend policy is aligned with other controversial measures such as family separations, stricter sponsor eligibility criteria, and limits on legal representation. A Guardian investigation suggests the administration has revived separation practices and misclassified children in efforts to coerce compliance.
Children’s rights groups also point to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which demands careful handling of minors who may be trafficking victims. They warn that a cash incentive risks returning children to perilous conditions without proper evaluation.
Officials defend the policy as voluntary and intentioned to empower children with choice. DHS and HHS say the stipend is conditional on judicial approval and return verification, and that it gives minors an option that “allows them to make an informed decision about their future.”
As the policy begins to take effect, immigration lawyers, child welfare advocates, and courts are preparing to test its legality and impact on the rights of minors navigating the U. S. immigration system.