Unseen and Unprotected: Unaccompanied Minors in U.S. Custody – Abuse, Exploitation, and the Hidden Reality of Pregnant Migrant Youth

Children do not leave home without a reason. They do not cross borders alone unless staying has become more dangerous than the journey ahead. Every child who arrives alone at a border carries a history of rupture – of violence, deprivation, abuse, persecution, or loss – that made departure a necessity rather than a choice. These children are referred to as unaccompanied minors: individuals under the age of eighteen who arrive in a country without a parent or legal guardian, or who are separated from their families during migration or through immigration enforcement (Corona Maioli et al., 2021; United Nations, 2005). Yet behind this administrative label are children who have left behind not only homes and families, but languages, communities, routines, and the only sense of belonging they have ever known – all in pursuit of safety, survival, and the possibility of a future.

Once in the United States, unaccompanied minors are placed in shelters overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). These facilities are officially intended to provide temporary care until children can be reunited with family, released to sponsors, or age out of the system at eighteen. But institutions created to protect vulnerable children can also reproduce the very harms they are meant to prevent. This contradiction is perhaps nowhere more striking than in the treatment of pregnant girls in ORR custody (Nawaz & Betancourt, 2026).

Unaccompanied minors who are pregnant and under the responsibility of the ORR are girls between the ages of 13 and 17. In about half of the cases, the pregnancy results from rape in their home country or during the migration journey (Nawaz & Betancourt, 2026). Because of their young age, these pregnancies are inherently high-risk, as their bodies are still developing (Cagli et al., 2025). These girls should therefore be cared for in facilities with appropriate medical staff and equipment capable of providing adequate support – whether to continue the pregnancy, or to safely terminate it if they choose (Betancourt, 2026).

As of July 22, 2025, the ORR’s acting director instructed agency staff to transfer “any pregnant children” in federal custody to a single group shelter in San Benito, South Texas – a state where abortion is effectively banned. The practical consequence of this policy is clear: pregnant girls in ORR custody may be compelled to carry pregnancies to term regardless of medical risk, personal circumstance, or the circumstances of conception, including sexual violence. For many, this means enduring pregnancy and childbirth while already living through trauma, profound economic precarity, and social isolation. Although framed as administrative policy, the effect is unmistakably coercive (Amiri & Ehrlich, 2026; Betancourt, 2026; Schreiber, 2026).

This situation is not unprecedented. During the current administration’s previous term, similar efforts were made to restrict abortion access for pregnant minors in federal custody. Nor would it be the first instance in which migrant women’s reproductive autonomy has been subjected to political ideology: reports in 2020 documented allegations of hysterectomies performed on migrant women without meaningful consent while in immigration detention (Ghandakly & Fabi, 2021; Lombardi, 2020; Olivared & Washington, 2020).

What is taking place constitutes a profound violation of fundamental human rights, children’s rights, and reproductive rights. If non-consensual hysterectomies deprived migrant women of the possibility of reproducing, forcing underage girls to carry pregnancies to term demonstrates another exercise of power: using state control to regulate the reproduction of an extraordinarily vulnerable population – children who are migrants, traumatized, pregnant, and alone. All of this in service of an anti-abortion political agenda imposed at the expense of bodily autonomy, dignity, and health. We wonder whether the world would respond with the same silence if these girls were not migrants.

These girls should not be left alone.

At the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, Texas, the situation has raised serious concerns regarding the treatment and safety of vulnerable migrants held within the facility. Between September and February, 11 cases of children suffering from severe respiratory difficulties and high fever were reported. Unlike the San Benito Immigration Processing Center, which primarily accommodates unaccompanied minors, Dilley also holds families, including very young children, exposing them to highly distressing conditions. This is evident in the case of Juan Nicolás, a two-month-old infant whose health rapidly deteriorated after his mother repeatedly raised concerns about his symptoms. When he was finally taken to the hospital, his condition was so severe that he required immediate helicopter transportation. However, due to unfavorable weather conditions, the transfer could not take place. Shortly afterward, Juan Nicolás and his mother were deported to Mexico (Hixenbaugh, 2026).

At Fort Bliss, in Texas, the largest immigration detention center in the U.S., reports have documented deeply troubling allegations of violence, abusive sexual contact, and neglect, including incidents involving unaccompanied minors. “Samuel,” a detained teenager, was beaten so severely by officers at Fort Bliss that he suffered injuries throughout his body, lost consciousness, and required emergency medical treatment. Despite being hospitalized as a result of the incident, Samuel later received a medical bill for the emergency care he needed. He continues to suffer from serious health consequences, including severe hearing difficulties in one ear and persistent testicular pain. Another detainee, “Edoardo,” reported being humiliated and physically assaulted after requesting access to his prescribed medication (Gassama, 2026).

These accounts also reveal broader concerns about the conditions inside Fort Bliss. Detainees have described being deprived of adequate nutrition, with reports of spoiled or inedible food contributing to hunger, illness, and significant weight loss. The facility has also faced criticism for failures in providing essential medical and mental health care, as well as basic necessities such as hygiene products, clean clothing, and appropriate living conditions. Many immigrants have reportedly been held for prolonged periods in overcrowded and freezing spaces, sometimes without sufficient food, natural light, or access to outdoor areas. In addition, restrictions on access to legal assistance have further increased the isolation and vulnerability of those detained (Figueroa, 2025; Gassama, 2026).

Creating awareness is not merely an initial step, but a fundamental prerequisite for protecting these children. This issue must be brought decisively into the public sphere on a global scale – through the work of independent journalists, the authority of established media, and the pervasive reach of social platforms, which today shape how younger generations access and interpret information. As long as such realities remain unseen, meaningful change will remain out of reach.

Education systems, from primary schools to universities, carry an equally critical responsibility. They must engage with these issues across multiple dimensions – political, social, economic, and health-related – fostering not only knowledge but critical awareness. Educating younger generations is therefore not simply about understanding the present; it is about actively shaping a future in which the injustices we now recognize in history are neither forgotten nor repeated.

Sarah Sinigaglia (she/her), MSc
Sexual Health Research Lab, Queen’s University
Padova Sex Lab, University of Padua

 

References

Amiri, B., & Ehrlich, S. (2026). Trump Considers Blocking Abortion Access for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors in Federal Custody (Again). Ms. Magazine. https://msmagazine.com/2026/04/04/trump-abortion-unaccompanied-minors-immigration-pregnant-girls-women/

Betancourt, M. (2026). Trump admin sends pregnant unaccompanied minors to Texas shelter flagged as medically inadequate. The California Report. https://www.kqed.org/news/12072843/texas-trump-immigration-pregnant-migrants-shelter

Cagli, F., Gürler, A. D., Dolanbay, M., Gülseren, V., & Cündübey, C. R. (2025). Maternal and perinatal outcomes in adolescent pregnancies: A retrospective study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 45, 101134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2025.101134

Corona Maioli, S., Bhabha, J., Wickramage, K., Wood, L. C. N., Erragne, L., Ortega García, O., Burgess, R., Digidiki, V., Aldridge, R. W., & Devakumar, D. (2021). International migration of unaccompanied minors: Trends, health risks, and legal protection. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 5(12), 882–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00194-2

Figueroa, L. (2025). Officers at Texas immigration detention facility accused of beatings and sexual abuse. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/09/texas-ice-camp-abuse-immigration

Gassama, H. (2026). Detained Immigrants Detail Physical Abuse and Inhumane Conditions at Largest Immigration Detention Center in the U.S. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/detained-immigrants-detail-physical-abuse-and-inhumane-conditions-at-largest-immigration-detention-center-in-the-u-s

Ghandakly, E. C., & Fabi, R. (2021). Sterilization in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) Detention: Ethical Failures and Systemic Injustice. American Journal of Public Health, 111(5), 832–834. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306186

Hixenbaugh, M. (2026). 911 calls capture kids burning with fever, struggling to breathe at ICE detention center. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/911-calls-kids-struggling-breathe-ice-detention-texas-immigration-rcna260595

Lombardi, A. (2020). Usa, il centro migranti degli orrori: “isterectomie forzate alle donne.” https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2020/09/15/news/usa_il_centro_migranti_degli_orrori_isterectomie_forzate_alle_donne_-267414224/

Nawaz, A., & Betancourt, M. (2026, March 13). Pregnant migrant girls held at Texas center criticized for inadequate care [PBS News]. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pregnant-migrant-girls-held-at-texas-center-criticized-for-inadequate-care

Olivared, J., & Washington, J. (2020). "He Just Empties You All Out”: Whistleblower Reports High Number of Hysterectomies at ICE Detention Facility. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2020/09/15/hysterectomies-ice-irwin-whistleblower/

Schreiber, M. (2026). US moving pregnant immigrant girls to Texas to avoid providing abortions, critics say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/01/pregnant-immigrant-children-texas-abortion

United Nations. (2005). Committee on the Rights of the Child, Thirty-ninth session, 17 May-3 June 2005. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 27(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdp021

Before You Let AI Teach You About Sex, Here’s Why Its Mistakes Matter

Introduction

“Is it normal if I don’t finish every time?” “Can someone tell if I’m faking it?” Whether or not you support AI, it can be a tempting tool when you’re searching for answers to questions too awkward to ask out loud. With apps like Snapchat implementing their own chatbots, AI is becoming an easily accessible source of sexual education for many young people wishing to maintain their anonymity (Marcantonio et al., 2024). As teens and young adults turn to the comforts of AI in place of more reliable resources, it is crucial to identify its shortcomings early on. This will create space for collaboration alongside health professionals and sex educators to ensure the information it provides is accurate, responsible, and empathetic. 

 

How Safe is It? The Benefits of Using AI for Sexual Education

On a surface-level, popular large language models (LLMs) tend to provide helpful information about clear consent cues, while also offering less consistent but still generally acceptable information on STIs (Vowels & Marcantonio, 2025; Yıldız & Söğütdelen, 2025). Those with experience using AI have reported that they value the chatbots’ lack of judgment, with some mentioning more willingness to disclose sensitive information, such as having condomless sex (Nadarzynski et al., 2021). Considering this accessibility and anonymity, who is most likely to rely on AI? Youth with immigrant, racialized, or low-income backgrounds have far less access to traditional sexual health education (Rotermann & McKay, 2024). For queer and disabled youth, typical “sex ed” is often irrelevant, and seeking out advice at home or online can be uniquely challenging (Davies et al., 2024; UBC Okanagan News, 2025). Ultimately, the greatest promise of AI in sexual education may be its ability to reach those who lack access to equitable resources.

 

Where Safety Falls Short: Concerns About AI in Sexual Education

            While AI has the potential to be a useful sexual health resource, whether it can fulfill that duty is a separate question. Even after using an LLM designed for sexual health queries, participants expressed doubt that such tools can help those experiencing sexual health anxiety about aspects of health that are stigmatized (Nadarzynski et al., 2021). LLMs also struggle to navigate nuanced sexual situations, often ignoring nonverbal cues and failing to account for silent sexual compliance and sexual regret (Vowels & Marcantonio, 2025). Concerningly, many LLMs misinterpret consent scenarios involving intoxication, often describing them as shifting from non-consensual to consensual and offering different interpretations depending on the genders of the people involved. These patterns matter, as young minds may use these tools to frame their own sexual experiences and trauma. Snapchat’s built-in chatbot, for example, has repeatedly failed to provide crisis resources (Marcantonio et al., 2025). These issues highlight how AI is ill-equipped to handle high-risk sexual questions, although it will answer them anyway.

 

So, Where Do We Go From Here?

Whether you choose to use AI to answer sexual questions in your everyday life ultimately depends on whether you’re willing to risk receiving information that may be incomplete, incorrect, or emotionally insensitive. A significant portion of sexual and reproductive health professionals express concerns about the use of LLMs for sexual advice, reflecting the broader risk they pose to some of the youngest and most vulnerable people in our society (Nadarzynski et al., 2023). If these systems are truly becoming unavoidable sources of information, then it is essential that we ensure their accuracy and their ability to handle these topics sensitively alongside information and guidance from sexual health professionals and educators.

Jessica Anderson (she/her), BA (Honours) Psychology Specialization, Year 3, Queen's University

References

Davies, A., O’Leary, S., Prioletta, J., Shay, B., Bryan, M., & Neustifter, O. (2024). Sexuality education for disabled children and Youth in Ontario, Canada: Addressing epistemic injustice through school‐based sexuality education. Children & Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12843

Marcantonio, T. L., Avery, G., Thrash, A., & Leone, R. M. (2024). Large language models in an app: Conducting a qualitative synthetic data analysis of how Snapchat’s “my ai” responds to questions about sexual consent, sexual refusals, sexual assault, and sexting. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(9), 1905–1919. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2396457

Nadarzynski, T., Lunt, A., Knights, N., Bayley, J., & Llewellyn, C. (2023). “But can chatbots understand sex?” attitudes towards artificial intelligence chatbots amongst sexual and reproductive health professionals: An exploratory mixed-methods study. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 34(11), 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/09564624231180777

Nadarzynski, T., Puentes, V., Pawlak, I., Mendes, T., Montgomery, I., Bayley, J., & Ridge, D. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to engagement with Artificial Intelligence (ai)-based Chatbots for sexual and Reproductive Health Advice: A qualitative analysis. Sexual Health, 18(5), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1071/sh21123

Rotermann, M., & McKay, A. (2024, January 17). Where do 15- to -17-year-olds in Canada get their sexual health information?. Statistics Canada. https://www.doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202400100001-eng

Vowels, L. M., & Marcantonio, T. (2025). Exploring how large language models understand sexual communication in hypothetical sexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2547814

Wellborn, P. (2025, October 6). UBCO study finds sex ed fails 2SLGBTQIA+ students. UBC’s Okanagan News. https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2025/10/06/ubco-study-finds-sex-ed-fails-2slgbtqia-students/

Yıldız, H. A., & Söğütdelen, E. (2025). Ai Chatbots as sources of STD Information: A study on reliability and readability. Journal of Medical Systems, 49(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-025-02178-z