In a bold, controversial move, the Trump administration has unveiled a plan to offer $2,500 to unaccompanied migrant children (age 14 and up) to voluntarily return to their home countries — a policy opponents characterize as coercive and legally dubious. AP News

Communications about the plan were sent to immigrant shelters, giving youth just 24 hours to respond. AP News Yet crucially, the stipend would not be distributed until after an immigration judge approves the departure and the minor actually arrives in their country of origin. AP News

ICE stated that the offer will first apply to 17-year-olds, with minors from Mexico excluded. Reuters The email from DHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement explained the stipend is a “one-time resettlement support” meant as encouragement to depart. Reuters

Advocates and legal specialists reacted swiftly, warning that the program could pressure vulnerable youth into forfeiting their rights — particularly asylum claims or other protections afforded under U.S. and international law. As one immigration advocate put it, “kids need protection, not coercion.” AP News

Notably, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary injunction preventing ICE from transferring unaccompanied minors to adult detention facilities once they turn 18 — a ruling that directly challenges changes ICE was preparing to enact. The decision came just as the $2,500 program was revealed, highlighting legal tensions. Politico

Detractors also argue the policy violates due process and runs afoul of obligations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), each of which offer procedural safeguards for unaccompanied children. Critics argue that minors cannot make fully informed decisions under duress, especially when facing legal proceedings without counsel.

Supporters frame the stipend as a pragmatic tool to reduce backlog, shelter burden, and incentivize orderly departures. They emphasize that the program is optional and contingent on judicial approval. But this framing overlooks the stark power imbalance: for many minors detained far from home, the offer might appear like the only way out.

Already, ICE has pushed back on sensational labels. A spokesperson rejected the alleged “Freaky Friday” program moniker as misinformation, stating that financial assistance would only come after the child returned home, not in advance. NBC Chicago Still, legal observers warn of chilling effects: could children shy from asserting their rights for fear of being denied the payoff?

This policy represents a new frontier in immigration enforcement — one that uses financial coercion, not just detention or deportation, to prompt self-removals. The experiment may establish a precedent: the state paying migrants to leave. If so, the ramifications for due process, refugee protections, and the meaning of voluntary choice will reverberate far beyond today’s headlines.