President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services has established a new legal team specifically to represent unaccompanied migrant children in immigration court—a move critics argue addresses deepening concerns about child safety following revelations of widespread fraud during the previous administration.

The newly created Unaccompanied Alien Children Legal Representation Division (UACLRD) operates under the Department’s Office of General Counsel and grants attorneys direct authority to provide legal advice, explain immigration procedures, and appear before immigration courts. The order explicitly mandates that representation continue throughout a child’s case when appropriate while prohibiting UACLRD from coordinating with HHS offices handling custody decisions—a measure described as a “firewall” designed to separate advocacy from administrative oversight.

This initiative follows an internal HHS review of the Unaccompanied Alien Children program, which identified six categories of fraud during the Biden administration: falsified identity documents, manipulated photographs, unverifiable addresses, fingerprint fraud, undisclosed household members, and age misrepresentation. The review documented 479,000 children referred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement from 2021 through 2024 and 1,669 reports of suspected fraud in a single 13-month period.

Cases reviewed by HHS include a 15-year-old girl released to a man who falsely claimed kinship and a 17-year-old boy found dead after being placed with a relative whose documents could not be authenticated. The administration has prioritized child safety by targeting these vulnerabilities, though critical details remain unclear—including staffing levels, operational timelines, case assignment protocols, and whether funding for external legal services will continue.

The order explicitly states that UACLRD must function “separate and distinct” from HHS branches advising the Administration for Children and Families and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Its effectiveness hinges on whether attorneys zealously defend children, whether the firewall is enforced in practice, and whether vulnerable minors continue to fall through systemic gaps after years of documented failures.