Parents who fail to pay child support will face significant penalties. The U.S. Department of State will begin revoking the passports of citizens with significant child support debts, as part of a policy the Trump administration introduced as an effort to strengthen enforcement of federal laws and compel those with overdue payments to catch up.

The measure will take effect on May 8 and, in the initial phase, will target individuals who owe $100,000 or more in overdue child support payments, according to information released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). According to figures cited by the Associated Press, approximately 2,700 passport holders would initially fall into that category.

However, the federal government confirmed that the program will be expanded to include any citizen with debts exceeding $2,500, the threshold established by a federal law passed in 1996. Until now, that provision had been applied on a limited basis and primarily affected people attempting to apply for or renew a passport.

“Under President Trump, the Department of State is using commonsense tools to support American families and strengthen compliance with U.S. laws,” the State Department said in a statement released Thursday. The agency added that the policy aims to prevent those who owe significant amounts in child support from “neglecting their legal and moral obligations to their children.”

The legislation authorizing these sanctions was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, signed by then-president Bill Clinton in 1996. The law authorizes the secretary of state to “revoke, restrict, or limit a passport” for individuals identified by the federal government as delinquent in child support payments.

Although laws vary by state, deliberate nonpayment of child support can lead to criminal consequences in certain cases, along with sanctions such as wage garnishment, license suspension, or restrictions on obtaining a passport. In countries such as Spain and Colombia, repeated failure to pay child support can constitute a crime and result in criminal penalties, in addition to civil measures such as asset seizures.

In 2005, another law lowered the threshold for enforcement from $5,000 to $2,500. Despite this, the provision had rarely been used to revoke passports that had already been issued. Generally, the penalty consisted of blocking new applications or renewals.

Under the new system, the Department of Health and Human Services will notify the State Department of all individuals with arrears exceeding $2,500. Those who already have a passport could lose it even if they are not currently involved in any immigration or consular proceedings.

The government asserts that the program has already proven to be an effective tool for recovering overdue payments. According to data from the State Department, since the policy began to be implemented more systematically in 1998, states have recovered approximately $657 million in outstanding payments. More than $156 million has reportedly been collected over the past five years through more than 24,000 one-time payments.

Officials also noted that, since the AP reported in February on plans to expand the program, “hundreds of parents took action and settled their arrears with state authorities after it became known that the Department of State would begin proactively revoking passports.”

“While we can’t confirm the causation in all of those cases, we are taking this action precisely to impel these parents to do the right thing by their children and by U.S. law,” the State Department added.

The Trump administration urged anyone with child support debts to resolve their situation as soon as possible to avoid losing access to their passport. “Any American with significant child support debt should arrange payment to the relevant state or states now to prevent passport revocation,” the agency stated.

Once revoked, the document will no longer be valid for travel, and the affected individual will not be able to obtain a new one until the outstanding payment is made and the relevant state authorities confirm that there is no longer a debt on record with HHS.

The State Department also indicated that those who are outside the United States at the time of revocation must go to a U.S. embassy or consulate to request an emergency document that will allow them to return to the country.

So far, the agency has not specified how many people might be affected when the policy is expanded to the general threshold of $2,500, although officials acknowledged that the number could rise by several thousand.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Una corte federal de apelaciones rechazó este miércoles la política impulsada por la Administración de Donald Trump que permite a agentes migratorios detener sin posibilidad de fianza a prácticamente cualquier persona indocumentada en proceso de deportación, incluso si ha vivido durante años en Estados Unidos sin antecedentes penales.

La decisión del Tribunal de Apelaciones del 11º Circuito, con sede en Atlanta y jurisdicción sobre Florida, Georgia y Alabama, representa otro revés judicial para la interpretación que el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) adoptó el año pasado sobre la ley migratoria de 1996. Bajo esa nueva interpretación, cualquier persona que hubiera ingresado al país sin autorización podía ser considerada automáticamente como “solicitante de admisión” y, por tanto, quedar sujeta a detención obligatoria mientras avanza su caso migratorio.

El fallo fue emitido por un panel dividido de tres jueces. La mayoría sostuvo que el Gobierno federal excedió el alcance de la ley al intentar aplicar de manera masiva una disposición originalmente diseñada para personas recién llegadas a la frontera.

“En pocas palabras, la redacción que el Congreso ha optado por utilizar no otorga al Poder Ejecutivo la facultad ilimitada de detener, sin posibilidad de fianza, a todo extranjero no admitido que se encuentre en el país”, escribió el juez Stanley Marcus en la opinión mayoritaria. El magistrado agregó que “en ninguna parte del texto” de la ley de 1996 “encuentra esa interpretación un fundamento sólido”.

Durante décadas, administraciones de ambos partidos interpretaron la legislación como una herramienta enfocada en personas detenidas poco después de cruzar la frontera. Quienes ya vivían dentro del país, muchas veces desde hacía años, podían solicitar una audiencia de fianza ante un juez migratorio antes de permanecer detenidos por el ICE.

Sin embargo, la reinterpretación adoptada en julio de 2025 amplió drásticamente el alcance de la medida. Desde entonces, personas con trabajos estables, familias estadounidenses y sin historial criminal podían quedar detenidas automáticamente mientras enfrentaban procesos de deportación. La política también provocó un incremento considerable en la población detenida por el ICE, y el número de personas bajo custodia migratoria superó las 70.000 a principios de este año.

La decisión del 11º Circuito se produce después de que dos tribunales de apelaciones respaldaran la política del Gobierno de Trump y otros dos la rechazaran. Un quinto tribunal terminó dividido, sin alcanzar una mayoría clara.

Esa fractura judicial aumenta la posibilidad de que la disputa llegue próximamente al Tribunal Supremo, que probablemente tendrá la última palabra sobre la legalidad de la política de detención obligatoria.

La decisión también llega después de una ola de demandas presentadas por migrantes detenidos en distintos puntos del país. Cientos de tribunales federales han fallado en contra de la interpretación impulsada por la Administración Trump, en muchos casos a través de peticiones de habeas corpus presentadas por personas que buscan recuperar su libertad mientras avanzan sus procedimientos migratorios. El Departamento de Justicia no ha hecho declaraciones sobre el fallo.

La jueza Barbara Lagoa, designada por Trump, votó en contra de la decisión de la mayoría y defendió la postura de la Administración. En su opinión disidente, argumentó que el tamaño de la población afectada refleja años de falta de aplicación estricta de la ley migratoria, no un exceso de la interpretación actual. “El hecho de que el Poder Ejecutivo no haga cumplir una ley no puede limitar su significado de manera retroactiva”, escribió Lagoa. “En todo caso, el crecimiento de la población pone de relieve las consecuencias de la falta de aplicación de la ley, más que el alcance previsto de la misma”.