Kristi Noem’s Feds Allegedly Threatened Migrant Children With Dog and Stun Gun

A new and scandalous allegation is now at the center of a court fight in Washington, D.C.: attorneys say federal agents used fear, threats, and misinformation to pressure unaccompanied migrant children into giving up their right to remain in the United States by signing “voluntary return” paperwork. The claim appears in a motion filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as part of a class-action case involving Guatemalan minors and a wider challenge to how the government handles unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries. The filing alleges children were confronted while still in Customs and Border Protection custody, before they could reach lawyers or relatives, and were told that refusing to sign could lead to harsh consequences.

The motion stems from ongoing litigation involving unaccompanied Guatemalan minors and challenges the legality of a policy allowing Customs and Border Protection to present voluntary departure paperwork to children while still in border custody. Under longstanding federal protections, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries are generally transferred to shelters overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they can access legal services and appear before an immigration judge. Attorneys argue the new practice circumvents those protections by pressuring children to make life-altering decisions in a custodial setting without adequate safeguards or judicial oversight.

According to sworn declarations cited in the filing, one Guatemalan boy was allegedly confronted by agents who “shouted, cursed, and threatened [him] with a dog and a stun gun” if he refused to sign the paperwork. The motion states that he was told he could face prolonged detention if he did not agree to return to his home country. Lawyers contend that the child was not allowed to consult family members before signing. Other declarations describe minors who allegedly signed documents they did not fully understand, in some cases due to language barriers or fear of retaliation. Attorneys say at least 13 children have been identified as having signed under what they characterize as coercive circumstances.

The legal filing further alleges that the advisal form presented to children contains language designed to discourage them from seeking a hearing before an immigration judge. The document reportedly states: «If you choose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicate a fear of returning to your country you can expect the following: you will be detained in the custody of the United States Government for a prolonged period of time.» Critics argue that such language, when delivered to minors in custody, can be perceived as a threat rather than a neutral explanation of legal consequences. The motion asks the court to expand existing protections and block the practice while litigation continues.

Customs and Border Protection has defended the advisal process. In a public statement, a CBP spokesperson said: «The advisal document provided to unaccompanied children explains options available under the Immigration and Nationality Act on their path forward. CBP's duty is to follow the law and protect children. Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential.

It ensures they understand their rights and options – and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.» Homeland Security officials have not publicly addressed the specific allegations involving the dog and stun gun described in the court filing.

The controversy unfolds as President Donald Trump faces declining approval numbers on immigration enforcement tactics. Recent polling has shown that while immigration remains a central issue for many voters, a majority now say enforcement measures have gone too far. In one recent survey, 58 percent of respondents said Trump has gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants, and 62 percent opposed aggressive enforcement tactics.

During a recent address, Trump reiterated his administration's stance, declaring that «the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.» As the federal court considers whether the alleged actions violated existing injunctions and child protection laws, the case has intensified debate over the limits of enforcement and the treatment of vulnerable minors in custody.

Created by humans, assisted by AI.