911 calls from ICE detention center underscore concerns about conditions, advocates say
Texas State Troopers secure the area after dispersing a crowd protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the South Texas Family Residential Center on January 28, 2026 in Dilley, Texas. (Joel Angel Juarez/Getty Images)
(DILLEY, Texas) — Emergency calls that were placed in recent months from a South Texas family detention center and obtained by ABC News reveal a series of medical emergencies involving pregnant women and young children that advocates say underscore their concerns about the sprawling ICE facility.
The 911 audio calls from Frio County, dating from October 2025 through February 2026, document medical staff at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley requesting ambulances for migrant detainees experiencing seizures, fainting and respiratory distress.
In one call from January, a staff member requested assistance for a 17-month-old child.
“I’m calling for a little kid going through respiratory distress,” the caller told dispatchers.
In other calls, medical staff asked for ambulances for a 6-year-old boy with lethargy and a high fever, a 14-month-old in respiratory distress, and a 22-month-old with a fever and low oxygen levels.
“We need an ambulance,” one caller said. “We have a child with a high fever.”
Immigrant advocates, medical professionals and lawmakers have raised concerns in recent weeks about conditions at the South Texas facility.
ABC News recently interviewed a couple who said their 1-year-old daughter contracted COVID-19 and RSV during their 60-day detention. The family alleges medical staff at Dilley dismissed their daughter’s symptoms.
U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, who visited 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos while he was detained with his father at Dilley, also recently raised concerns about a 2-month-old infant before the child’s release. After Castro’s statements, detention center staffers made several calls to Frio County regarding the infant.
“Hi, I’m calling about a child that is at the detention center, a baby that is very sick, and I want to know if you guys can go do a child wellness check,” one caller said.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security, which operates the nation’s migrant detention centers, disputed allegations made by detained families and advocates about Dilley. In a statement, DHS said that detainees have “ongoing access to on-site medical professionals, including physicians, pediatricians, nurses, and mental health care providers.”
“The truth is this facility provided proper medical care for all detainees including access to a pediatrician,” Deputy Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said. “The fact is being in detention is a choice. We encourage all parents to take control of their departure by using the CBP Home app and receiving a free flight home and $2,600.
The 911 records also detail emergencies involving pregnant detainees. One call reports a woman experiencing a seizure, while another describes a woman three months pregnant who had lost consciousness.
“She is non-responsive. They found her on the ground,” a staff member told the dispatcher.
“We have a middle-aged woman pregnant and she’s seizing,” a medical staffer said in another call.
As of last month, there were about 1,400 people being held at Dilley, including children and parents, according to RAICES, an immigrant legal advocacy group. The facility was closed during the Biden administration and reopened last year as the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement measures increased.
Dr. Anita Patel, a board-certified pediatrician who recently sent a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem calling for the release of all children at Dilley, said detained families “are not receiving the standard of care.”
“What is clearly evident is they have no ability to recognize potentially lethal or emergent situations, and they have no clinical acumen to say when something is a medical emergency,” Dr. Patel said of the calls.
“What I am hearing from families and what we are witnessing is a human rights catastrophe,” she told ABC News. “They don’t have access to medical care, they don’t have access to appropriate nutrition; all of these standard humanitarian policies stated by the U.N. all the way down to laws are not being followed.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News regarding the 911 calls.
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.
In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
Nurses hold signs during a strike over contract negotiations on January 11, 2022. (Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The largest nurses’ strike in New York City history began Monday morning after the nurses’ union and hospitals officials failed to reach a tentative settlement.
Nearly 15,000 nurses at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Morningside and West, Montefiore and NewYork-Presbyterian walked of the job, according to the New York State Nursing Association (NYSNA), the union representing the nurses.
“Unfortunately, greedy hospital executives have decided to put profits above safe patient care and force nurses out on strike when we would rather be at the bedsides of our patients,” Nancy Hagans, NYSNA’s president, said in a statement early Monday. “Hospital management refuses to address our most important issues — patient and nurse safety.”
Strike lines began at 6 a.m. ET on Monday at Mount Sinai, with 7 a.m. ET lines forming at Montefiore Bronx locations and NewYork-Presbyterian locations, according to NYSNA.
“Unfortunately, NYSNA decided to move forward with its strike while refusing to move on from its extreme economic demands, which we cannot agree to, but we are ready with 1,400 qualified and specialized nurses — and prepared to continue to provide safe patient care for as long as this strike lasts,” a Mount Sinai spokesperson said in a statement.
Mount Sinai said many of the nurses had already been integrated into units across their hospitals. The health system added that all hospitals and emergency departments will remain open, and most appointments are expected to proceed as originally scheduled.
In a letter to employees, Mount Sinai said its Clinical Command Center was helping hospitals determine which patients can be safely discharged, as well transferring patients between hospitals and rescheduling appointments, an employee with knowledge of the matter told ABC News.
The letter also stated that officials had discussed with the NYSNA the financial pressures facing health care and that Mount Sinai has a fixed budget that could be used for pay increases and benefits or to operate amidst a strike, according to the employee.
The NYSNA said it is calling for an agreement that includes pay hikes, improving safe staffing levels, full health care coverage and pensions, and workplace protections against violence. The union further said hospitals have threatened to cut health care benefits for frontline nurses and to roll back safe staffing standards that were won by nurses in a strike two years ago.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency Friday in anticipation of a possible strike and appealed to the hospitals and nurses’ union to hammer out a last-minute deal, saying that a strike “could jeopardize the lives of thousands of New Yorkers and patients.”
“I’m strongly encouraging everyone to stay at the table, both sides, management and the nurses, until this is resolved,” Hochul said.
Several New York politicians, including Mayor Zohran Mamdani, have come out in support of the striking nurses. Mamdani on Monday called their fight a battle for dignity, fairness and the future of the city’s health care system and who benefits from it.
“There is no shortage of wealth in the health care industry,” Mamdani said. “The CEO of Montefiore made more than $16 million last year. The CEO of NewYork-Presbyterian made $26 million. But too many nurses can’t make ends meet.”
Mamdani also said nurses are not asking for millions, but for “pensions to be safeguarded, to be protected in their own workplace, and to receive the pay and health benefits they deserve.”
The mayor said the city is working to protect both patients and health care workers during the strike. He urged hospital executives and union leaders to return to the bargaining table immediately.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James also released a statement in support of the nurses, saying they often have to choose between patient well-being and their own well-being.
“As our state faces a historic flu surge, our communities are counting on New York’s hospitals for high-quality, reliable frontline care,” Jame said.Meanwhile, hospital management is threatening nurses’ health benefits, rolling back hard-won staffing protections, and doing too little to address workplace violence. I am proud to stand with New York’s nurses in calling on hospitals throughout this city to put patients over profits and ensure safe workplaces for our frontline health care workers.”
Hospital officials said they are prepared to continue offering care despite any pending work interruptions. They added that patients should not avoid or delay seeking help for any medical emergencies.
The NYSNA said during an video conference update Sunday morning that there was been no movement in the labor talks with the five hospitals.
The nurses’ contract, reached in 2023 after a three-day strike, expired on Dec. 31.
“We continue to bargain in good faith in the hopes of reaching an agreement that is fair, reasonable, and responsible,” a spokesperson for the Mount Sinai Healthcare system said in a statement on Saturday. “While we know a strike can be disruptive, we are prepared for a strike that could last an indefinite amount of time and have taken every step to best support our patients and employees in the event NYSNA forces our nurses to walk away from the bedside for the second time in three years.”
“NYSNA leadership’s reckless and irresponsible demands totaling $3.6 billion, including a nearly 40% wage increase, and taking issue with our reasonable measures like rolling out panic buttons for frontline staff in the Emergency Department, clearly put patients at risk,” Joe Solmonese, senior vice president of strategic communications for Montefiore Einstein hospital, said in a statement.
“We are preparing for what we anticipate could be a multi-week strike, and are resolute in devoting whatever resources are necessary to safe and seamless care for our community,” the statement continued.
The impasse between the NYSNA and management of the private New York City hospitals continued even as the union announced tentative settlements last week that diverted strikes at four so-called safety-net hospitals in the New York City area.
Nurses at three major Northwell Health hospitals on New York’s Long Island reached a tentative contract agreement on Thursday and called off a strike, according to the NYSNA. Nurses at Brooklyn Hospital Center and Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, and those who work for the BronxCare Health System, also rescinded strike notices when they reached a tentative contract, the NYSNA said.
“That leaves New York City’s wealthiest hospitals as the outliers who have refused to settle fair contracts that protect patients and nurses,” the NYSNA’s Hagans said in a video statement on Saturday.
“Instead of guaranteeing health care for nurses, these wealthy hospitals are pushing to cut health care benefits for nurses who put their own health on the line to care for New Yorkers during this historic flu surge, the COVID-19 pandemic and everyday injuries and hospital violence,” Hagans added.
Hagans pointed to a police-involved shooting last week at a Brooklyn hospital as the latest example of the violence hospital workers face.
On Thursday, a 62-year-old former NYPD officer, allegedly wielding a sharp object, was fatally shot by New York City police officers at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. The man, according to police, was shot after he allegedly barricaded himself in a room with an adult patient and a hospital security worker and threatened to hurt himself and others.
The NYSNA on Monday said those who need health care should still be able to get it.
“We want to be absolutely clear: If you are sick, please do not delay getting medical care, regardless of whether we are on strike,” the union said. “We invite you to come join us on the strike line after you’ve gotten the care you need. We are out here so we can provide better patient care to you!”
ABC News’ Rhiannon Ally, Ahmad Hemingway and Darren Reynolds contributed to this report.
Waymo vehicle near Union Square, San Francisco, California, January 22, 2026. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
(SANTA MONICA, Calif.) — Federal officials opened an investigation after a Waymo self-driving vehicle struck a child near an elementary school in California, resulting in minor injuries.
The incident occurred on Jan. 23 in Santa Monica, within two blocks of an elementary school during school drop-off hours, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The vehicle was being operated by its automated driving system and there was no safety operator in it at the time, according to the agency.
The child “ran across the street from behind a double parked SUV towards the school and was struck by the Waymo AV,” the NHTSA said in a statement.
Other children and a crossing guard were in the area at the time, as well as several double-parked vehicles, the agency said.
“Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle,” Waymo said in a statement, adding that the autonomous driver “braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made.”
After the vehicle made contact, the child stood up and walked to the sidewalk, according to Waymo. The company said it called 911 and the vehicle “remained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene.”
Waymo reported that the child, whose age was not released, sustained minor injuries, according to the NHTSA.
Waymo said it reported the incident to the NHTSA the day it occurred and will “cooperate fully with them throughout the process of its investigation.”
The investigation will look into whether the self-driving vehicle “exercised appropriate caution given, among other things, its proximity to the elementary school during drop off hours, and the presence of young pedestrians and other potential vulnerable road users,” the NHTSA said.
Waymo and the NHTSA did not release any details on where the vehicle was traveling and if it had any passengers at the time of the collision.
