The federal government doesn’t track what happens to children after their parents are detained or deported, and state data varies. Independent news reports are scarce and likely undercount the issue. But there’s evidence that in many states some of the children are being placed in foster care. 

In Oregon, for example, there have been at least two cases in which children who were separated from their parents were placed into foster care by the state. Jake Sunderland, press secretary for the state Department of Human Services, said that before last fall, this “simply had never happened before.” 

Separation from a parent can be deeply traumatic for children and lead to a broad range of , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Some states have responded by updating their temporary guardianship laws to help immigrant parents better prepare care for their children in the event of their detention or deportation.

Lawmakers in New Jersey are to allow parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the event of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The proposal adds separation caused by federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason. 

Nevada and California passed similar laws last year. 

Yet some parents are hesitant to participate, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities. The hesitancy is out of fear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could access their personal information and use it to target them for detention or deportation. 

My colleagues Claudia Boyd-Barrett, Renuka Rayasam, and Amanda Seitz reported on a case in which ICE used data from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to detain parents under the impression they were reuniting with their children, highlighting the precarious situation for immigrant parents. 

Additionally, ICE detention makes it difficult to reunite parents with their children if they’ve been placed in foster care because reunification often requires court-ordered programs, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles. Nominating a guardian is one way to ease immigrants’ feelings of helplessness when facing the threat of detention or deportation, Gonzalez-Perez said.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El gobierno federal no lleva un registro de cuántos niños han ingresado a este sistema como consecuencia de operativos de control migratorio, lo que dificulta saber con qué frecuencia ocurre.

En Oregon, hasta febrero, dos niños habían sido ubicados en hogares temporales luego de ser separados de sus padres en casos de detención migratoria, según Jake Sunderland, vocero del Departamento de Servicios Humanos del estado.

“Antes del otoño de 2025, esto nunca había ocurrido”, aseguró.

Hasta mediados de febrero, casi por el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés).

El récord de 73.000 personas detenidas en enero representó un comparado con el año anterior. Según una , hasta agosto de 2025, padres de 11.000 niños con ciudadanía estadounidense habían sido detenidos desde el inicio del mandato de Trump.

El medio NOTUS que por lo menos 32 niños de padres detenidos o deportados habían sido colocados en hogares temporales en siete estados.

Sandy Santana, director ejecutivo de Children’s Rights, una organización de defensa legal, dijo que sospechan que el número real es mucho mayor.

“Ese número nos parece realmente muy bajo”, dijo.

La separación de sus padres es profundamente traumática para los niños y suele provocar , incluido el trastorno de estrés postraumático. El estrés prolongado e intenso también puede causar infecciones más frecuentes en los niños y problemas en el desarrollo. Ese “estrés tóxico” también se asocia con daños en áreas del cerebro responsables del aprendizaje y la memoria, , una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información en salud que incluye a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Durante el primer mandato de Trump, . y modificaron algunas leyes para permitir que tutores recibieran derechos parentales temporales en casos relacionados con migración. Ahora, tras el regreso de Trump al poder el año pasado, el aumento en los controles migratorios está impulsando una nueva ola de respuestas estatales.

En Nueva Jersey, legisladores están considerando un proyecto para modificar estatal que permite que los padres designen tutores temporales para casos de muerte o incapacidad. La nueva versión agregaría como otra razón válida la separación por control migratorio federal.

El año pasado, Nevada y California aprobaron leyes para proteger a las familias separadas por acciones de control migratorio. La ley de California, llamada Ley del Plan de Preparación Familiar (), permite que los padres designen tutores y compartan derechos de custodia, en lugar de que sus derechos se suspendan mientras están detenidos. Si son liberados y pueden reunirse con sus hijos, recuperan sus derechos parentales completos.

Existen importantes obstáculos legales para la reunificación familiar una vez que un niño entra bajo custodia estatal, explicó Juan Guzman, director del tribunal de menores y tutela en Alliance for Children’s Rights, una organización de defensa legal en Los Ángeles.

Si el niño es colocado en cuidado temporal y ni el padre ni la madre pueden participar en los procesos judiciales requeridos porque están detenidos o han sido deportados, es menos probable que puedan volver a reunirse con su hijo, afirmó Guzman.

Se estima que que son ciudadanos estadounidenses viven con un padre u otro familiar que no tiene estatus migratorio legal, según investigaciones de Brookings Institution, un centro de estudios en Washington, D.C. Dentro de ese grupo, 2,6 millones de niños tienen a ambos padres sin estatus legal.

Santana dijo que es probable que el número de casos de separación familiar aumente a medida que el gobierno de Trump avance con su campaña migratoria. Por lo tanto, más niños corren el riesgo de terminar en el sistema de cuidado temporal.

Las exigen que la agencia se esfuerce en facilitar la participación de los padres detenidos en los procedimientos de los tribunales de familia, de bienestar infantil o de tutela, pero Santana indicó que no está claro que el ICE esté cumpliendo con estas normas.

Los funcionarios de ICE no respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios para este artículo.

Antes de que cambiara la ley de California, la única razón por la que un padre podía compartir derechos de custodia con otro tutor era si tenía una enfermedad terminal, contó Guzman.

Ahora, si los padres preparan un plan con anticipación y designan a alguien de confianza que pueda hacerse cargo de sus hijos si llegara a ser necesario, la agencia estatal de bienestar infantil puede iniciar el proceso para entregar a los niños a esa persona sin tener que abrir un caso formal de cuidado temporal, agregó.

Si bien el año pasado los legisladores de Nevada ampliaron una ley de tutela existente para incluir la aplicación de las leyes de inmigración, la medida exige a los padres dar el paso adicional de presentar documentación notariada ante la oficina del Secretario de Estado, señaló Cristian González-Pérez, abogado de Make the Road Nevada, una organización sin fines de lucro que brinda recursos a las comunidades inmigrantes.

González-Pérez señaló que algunos inmigrantes dudan en completar formularios gubernamentales por temor a que el ICE pueda acceder a esa información y los persiga. Él les asegura a los miembros de la comunidad que los formularios estatales son confidenciales y solo pueden ser consultados por hospitales y tribunales.

El gobierno de Trump ha tomado para acceder a información sensible a través de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid, el Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS), el Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP), el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano y otras entidades.

González-Pérez y Guzmán consideran que muchos padres inmigrantes no conocen sus derechos. Designar un tutor temporal y crear un plan familiar es una forma de no sentirse impotentes, afirmó González-Pérez.

“La gente no quiere hablar de esa cuestión”, reflexionó Guzman. “Que un padre tenga que hablar con un niño sobre la posibilidad de separarse da miedo. No es algo que nadie quiera hacer”, concluyó.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The federal government doesn’t track how many children have entered foster care because of immigration enforcement actions, leaving it unclear how often it happens. In Oregon, as of February two children had been placed in foster care after being separated from their parents in immigration detention cases, according to Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Human Services.

“Before fall 2025, this simply had never happened before,” Sunderland said.

As of mid-February, nearly by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The record 73,000 people in detention in January represented an compared with one year before. According to , parents of 11,000 children who are U.S. citizens were detained from the beginning of Trump’s term through August.

The news outlet NOTUS that at least 32 children of detained or deported parents had been placed in foster care in seven states.

Sandy Santana, executive director of Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization, said he thinks the actual number is much higher.

“That, to us, seems really, really low,” he said.

Separation from a parent is deeply traumatic for children and can lead to , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Prolonged, intense stress can lead to more-frequent infections in children and developmental issues. That “toxic stress” is also associated with responsible for learning and memory, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ.

, and amended existing laws during Trump’s first term to allow guardians to be granted temporary parental rights for immigration enforcement reasons. Now the enforcement surge that began after Trump returned to office last year has prompted a new wave of state responses.

In New Jersey, lawmakers are considering to amend a state law that allows parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the cases of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The bill would add separation due to federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason.

Nevada and California passed laws last year to protect families separated by immigration enforcement actions. California’s law, called the , allows parents to nominate guardians and share custodial rights, instead of having them suspended, while they’re detained. They regain their full parental rights if they are released and are able to reunite with their children.

There are significant legal barriers to reunification once a child is placed in state custody, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles.

If a parent’s child is placed in foster care and the parent cannot participate in required court proceedings because they are in detention or have been deported, it’s less likely they will be able to reunite with their child, Guzman said.

are U.S. citizens who live with a parent or family member who does not have legal immigration status, according to research from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. Within that group, 2.6 million children have two parents lacking legal status.

Santana said he expects the number of family separation cases to grow as the Trump administration continues its immigration enforcement campaign, putting more children at risk of being placed in foster care.

the agency to make efforts to facilitate detained parents’ participation in family court, child welfare, or guardianship proceedings, but Santana said it’s uncertain whether ICE is complying with those rules.

ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

Before the change in California’s law, the only way a parent could share custodial rights with another guardian was if the parent was terminally ill, Guzman said.

If parents create a preparedness plan and identify an individual to assume guardianship of their children, the state child welfare agency can begin the process of placing the children with that individual without opening a formal foster care case, he added.

While Nevada lawmakers expanded an existing guardianship law last year to include immigration enforcement, the measure requires the parents to take the additional step of filing notarized paperwork with the secretary of state’s office, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities.

Gonzalez-Perez said some immigrants are still hesitant to fill out government forms, out of fear that ICE might access their information and target them. He reassures community members that the state forms are secure and can be accessed only by hospitals and courts.

The Trump administration has taken through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the IRS, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other entities.

Gonzalez-Perez and Guzman said that not enough immigrant parents know their rights. Nominating a temporary guardian and creating a plan for their families is one way they can prevent feelings of helplessness, Gonzalez-Perez said.

“Folks don’t want to talk about it, right?” Guzman said. “The parent having to speak to a child about the possibility of separation, it’s scary. It’s not something anybody wants to do.”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La legislación prohibiría que los gobiernos estatales y locales obligaran a estos centros a practicar abortos. También a derivar o informar a pacientes sobre estos servicios o a explicar opciones de anticoncepción. Y permitiría que estas organizaciones demandaran a la entidad gubernamental que violara la ley.

Los legisladores de Wyoming el 4 de marzo una ley llamada Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (). Propuestas similares se presentaron este año en y . En una norma de este tipo ya fue promulgada en 2025.

La Ley CARE es una “legislación modelo” creada por la , un grupo de defensa legal cristiano conservador y antiabortista.

Una legislación similar, la , fue presentada en el Congreso el año pasado, pero no ha avanzado fuera del Comité de Energía y Comercio de la Cámara de Representantes.

El proyecto de ley de Wyoming considera que los centros de embarazo, muchos vinculados a organizaciones religiosas, necesitan protección legal porque enfrentan “ataques sin precedentes” después de que la Corte Suprema anulara Roe vs. Wade, la decisión judicial de 1973 que protegía el derecho al aborto en todo el país. Según el texto, varias legislaturas estatales han presentado proyectos de ley que de libertad de expresión y asociación de estos centros.

Sin embargo, quienes los critican afirman que los centros de crisis de embarazo se presentan falsamente ante los consumidores como clínicas médicas, aunque no están sujetos a las leyes estatales y federales que regulan los centros de salud y protegen a los pacientes.

“En todo el país, los funcionarios del gobierno apuntan cada vez más, cada vez más, contra los centros de atención para embarazadas”, argumentó Valerie Berry, directora ejecutiva de en Cheyenne, durante una audiencia en la Legislatura sobre el proyecto de ley de Wyoming. “Esta legislación no busca crear división. Busca proteger las libertades constitucionales, la libertad de expresión y la libertad de conciencia”.

Por su parte, durante la audiencia, el expresó su preocupación por otorgar a los centros de embarazo un nivel de protección que otras empresas privadas no tienen.

“Ya cuentan con medidas de protección”, reflexionó. “Lo que me preocupa es que se les otorguen medidas de protección adicionales”.

En 2022, Wellspring Health Access, la única clínica en Wyoming que realiza abortos, en un ataque intencional.

“Nosotros somos los que proporcionamos información precisa sobre salud reproductiva y por eso sufrimos las consecuencias”, dijo a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News Julie Burkhart, presidenta y fundadora de Wellspring Health Access.

, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de California en Davis, dijo que la legislación propuesta eximiría a los centros de crisis de embarazo de tener que cumplir con los estándares a los que están obligadas las organizaciones médicas. También borraría la línea entre la defensa de una causa y la práctica médica, agregó. Y agregó que iniciativas de este tipo pueden ofrecer a los republicanos un mensaje de campaña potencialmente útil de cara a las elecciones legislativas de mitad de mandato.

“El Partido Republicano necesita una estrategia de comunicación para mostrar que se preocupa por las mujeres, incluso si prohíbe el aborto y aunque no quiera destinar recursos estatales a ayudar a las personas antes y después del embarazo”, explicó Ziegler. “La estrategia consiste en delegar eso en los centros de asesoramiento sobre el embarazo, lo que, por supuesto, aumenta el incentivo para protegerlos”.

Legislación modelo

La Alliance Defending Freedom es el mismo grupo que , que desde 1973 protegía el derecho al aborto a nivel nacional. El grupo redactó la , una legislación modelo para prohibir el aborto desde las 15 semanas, que fue la base de una ley de Mississippi de 2018 que condujo al caso Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a partir de la cual la Corte Suprema anuló el fallo Roe.

La alianza dijo que sus abogados no estaban disponibles para comentar la estrategia de la organización respecto al CARE Act. En el proyecto de ley, el grupo afirmó que los esfuerzos federales, estatales y locales están apuntando contra los centros de atención del embarazo en un “claro intento de socavar y obstaculizar” su trabajo y cerrarlos.

En los últimos años, algunos han sido blanco de vandalismo y amenazas.

Pero los ataques que la legislación modelo se propone abordar principalmente son los esfuerzos legales y regulatorios de algunos estados que buscan mayor supervisión de estos centros, incluida una ley de California que exige que informen claramente a los pacientes sobre sus servicios. Esa ley fue anulada cuando la Corte Suprema falló a favor de los centros de crisis, avalando el argumento de que la norma violaba sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda.

Este año, la Corte Suprema que decidirá si los estados pueden citar a estas organizaciones para obtener información sobre donantes y datos internos.

De todos modos, es poco probable que los centros de crisis de embarazo enfrenten ese tipo de medidas regulatorias en los estados conservadores donde se está considerando esta legislación. Un legislador de Wyoming lo reconoció durante la audiencia del comité en febrero.

Diferentes servicios

En esa misma audiencia, quien encabeza el comité que patrocina el proyecto de ley, presentó la medida como “muy importante, especialmente con nuestro ‘desierto de maternidad’”, refiriéndose a la falta de acceso a servicios de atención de salud materna.

Algunos centros de crisis de embarazo pueden contar con pocos profesionales con licencia, pero son la minoría. Muchos ofrecen recursos gratuitos, como pañales, ropa para bebé y otros artículos, a veces a cambio de aceptar asesorías o clases de crianza.

Las clínicas de Planned Parenthood, en contraste, ofrecen una variedad de servicios de salud, como pruebas y tratamiento para infecciones de transmisión sexual, atención primaria y exámenes para detectar cáncer cervical. Además, están reguladas como organizaciones con licencia médica.

Desde que el fallo Roe fue anulado, el movimiento por el derecho al aborto ha enfrentado desafíos importantes. La ley de los republicanos, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, que el presidente Donald Trump promulgó el verano pasado, a proveedores de abortos. Esa medida contribuyó a que Planned Parenthood tuviera que cerrar el año pasado.

Para 2024, operaban en todo el país, según un mapa creado por investigadores de la Universidad de Georgia, en comparación con las que ofrecían abortos a finales de 2025.

, una organización de investigación afiliada a la organización contra el aborto SBA Pro-Life America, ha sugerido que los centros de embarazo podrían ayudar a llenar el vacío dejado por el cierre de clínicas de Planned Parenthood.

Ziegler aseguró que eso dejaría a las pacientes expuestas a riesgos médicos.

El creciente poder de los centros

Las iniciativas anteriores en , Colorado y Vermont para regular los centros de crisis de embarazo surgieron a raíz de la preocupación por denuncias de , y dudas sobre la .

En 2024, un en cinco estados que investigaran si los centros estaban engañando a las pacientes haciéndoles creer que su información personal estaba protegida bajo la Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), y que averiguaran  cómo estaban utilizando la información de los pacientes.

Los tribunales, incluida la Corte Suprema, han fallado con frecuencia que argumentan que estos intentos de regulación violan sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda a la libertad de expresión y la libertad religiosa.

Los centros de crisis para embarazadas también han recibido una avalancha de fondos desde que se revocó Roe.

Al menos incluidos centros de crisis de embarazo, según el Lozier Institute.

Seis estados distribuyen una parte de sus fondos federales del programa Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) —pagos en efectivo destinados a familias de bajos ingresos con niños— a centros de crisis de embarazo. Texas, Florida, Tennessee y Oklahoma han proporcionado decenas de millones de dólares para estas organizaciones.

Un análisis encontró que los centros de crisis de embarazo también recibieron entre 2017 y 2023, incluidos fondos del paquete de ayuda de 2020 promulgado como ley durante el primer mandato de Trump en medio de la pandemia de covid.

A pesar de los desafíos que enfrentan las clínicas que ofrecen abortos, Burkhart, directora del centro Wellspring en Wyoming, dijo que es importante seguir garantizando la atención a quienes la necesitan. Ella ha ayudado a abrir clínicas en zonas rurales de otros estados conservadores y ha señalado que esas clínicas siguen recibiendo pacientes.

“Eso me demuestra que, sin importar tu religión o tu partido político, hay momentos en la vida de las personas en los que necesitan atención de salud reproductiva brindada por profesionales calificados”, dijo. “Eso incluye el aborto”.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The legislation would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.

Wyoming lawmakers of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, or , on March 4. Other versions have advanced in and this year. One was in 2025. The CARE Act is “model legislation” created by the , an anti-abortion, conservative Christian legal advocacy group.

A similar proposal, the , was introduced in Congress last year but hasn’t moved out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Those preliminary numbers from the open enrollment period that ended in January are less than a third of what state officials had projected. Nevada is the third state so far to launch a public option plan, along with Colorado and Washington state. The idea is to offer lower-cost plans to consumers to expand health care access.

But researchers said plans like these are unlikely to fill the gaps left by sweeping federal changes, including the expiration of enhanced subsidies for plans bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The public option gained attention in the late 2000s when Congress considered but ultimately rejected creating a health plan funded and run by the government that would compete with private carriers in the market. The programs in Washington state, Colorado, and Nevada don’t go that far — they aren’t government-run but are private-public partnerships that compete with private insurance.

In recent years, states have considered creating public option plans to make health coverage more affordable and to reduce the number of uninsured people. Washington was the first state to launch a program, in 2021, and Colorado followed in 2023.

Washington and Colorado’s programs , including a lack of participation from clinicians, hospitals, and other care providers, as well as insurers’ rate reduction benchmarks or lower premiums compared with other plans offered on the market.

Nevada law requires that the carriers of the public option plans — Battle Born State Plans, named after a state motto — lower premium costs compared with a benchmark “silver” plan in the marketplace by 15% over the next four years.

But that amount might not make much difference to consumers with rising premium payments from the loss of the ACA’s enhanced tax credits, said Keith Mueller, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute.

“That’s not a lot of money,” Mueller said.

Three of the eight insurers on the state’s exchange, Nevada Health Link, offered the state plans during the open enrollment period.

Insurance companies plan to meet the lower premium cost requirement in Nevada by , which prompted opposition from insurance brokers in the state. In response, Nevada marketplace officials told state lawmakers in January that they will give a flat-fee reimbursement to brokers.

The public option has faced opposition among state leaders. In 2024, a state judge dismissed a lawsuit, brought by a Nevada state senator and a group that advocates for lower taxes, that challenged the public option law as unconstitutional. They have appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Federal Policy Impacts

Recent federal changes create more obstacles.

Nevada is consistently among the states with the of people who do not have health insurance coverage. Last year, in the state received the enhanced ACA tax credits, averaging $465 in savings per month, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

But the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of the year, and it that lawmakers will bring them back. Nationwide ACA enrollment has decreased by so far this year, down from record-high enrollment of 24 million last year.

About 4 million people are expected to lose health coverage from the expiration of the tax credits, according to the . An additional 3 million are because of other policy changes affecting the marketplace.

, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the changes to the ACA in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will make it more difficult for people to keep their coverage. These changes include more frequent enrollment paperwork to verify income and other personal information, a shortened enrollment window, and an end to automatic reenrollment.

In Nevada, the changes would amount to an losing coverage, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ.

“All of that makes getting coverage on Nevada Health Link harder and more expensive than it would be otherwise,” Giovannelli said.

State officials projected ahead of open enrollment that about 35,000 people would purchase the public option plans. Of the 104,000 people who had purchased a plan on the state marketplace as of mid-January, 10,762 had enrolled in one of the public option plans, according to Nevada Health Link.

Katie Charleson, communications officer for the state health exchange, said the original enrollment estimate was based on market conditions before the recent increases in customers’ premium costs. She said that the public option plans gave people facing higher costs more choices.

“We expect enrollment in Battle Born State Plans to grow over time as awareness increases and as Nevadans continue seeking quality coverage options that help reduce costs,” Charleson said.

According to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, nationally the enhanced subsidies an average of $705 annually in 2024, and enrollees would save an estimated $1,016 in premium payments on average in 2026 if the subsidies were still in place. Without the subsidies, people enrolled in the ACA marketplace could be seeing their premium costs more than double.

Insights From Washington and Colorado

Washington and Colorado are not planning to alter their programs due to the expiration of the tax credits, according to government officials in those states.

Other states that had recently considered creating public options have backtracked. Minnesota officials a public option in 2024, citing funding concerns. Proposals to create public options in Maine and New Mexico also sputtered.

Washington initially saw meager enrollment in its Cascade Select public option plans; only 1% of state marketplace enrollees chose a public option plan in 2021. But that changed after lawmakers with at least one public option plan by 2023. Last year the state reported that 94,000 customers enrolled, accounting for 30% of all customers on the state marketplace. The public option plans were the lowest-premium silver plans in 31 of Washington’s 39 counties in 2024.

found that since Colorado implemented its public option, called the Colorado Option, coverage through the ACA marketplace has become more affordable for enrollees who received subsidies but more expensive for enrollees who did not.

Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are medical inflation.

Though the insurers offering the public option did not meet the premium reduction targets, enrollment in the Colorado Option has increased every year it has been available. Last year, the state saw record enrollment in its marketplace, with purchasing a public option plan.

Giovannelli said states are continuing to try to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, even if federal changes reduce the impact of those efforts.

“States are reacting and trying to continue to do right by their residents,” Giovannelli said, “but you can’t plug all those gaps.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

After his mom finally saw a specialist in Glasgow, about an hour away, she was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, Bighorn said.

Now, 16 years after his mother’s death, Bighorn has access to regular screenings for cancer and other specialty care that she didn’t have, through a health insurance program the Fort Peck Tribes created in 2016. The program, which covers most of the costs for the roughly 1,000 tribal citizens enrolled, is among a growing number of tribally sponsored health insurance programs.

Such programs vary by tribe, but they essentially screen and enroll people living within tribal boundaries in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. They allow participating Native Americans flexibility to go to outside doctors and clinics when care through the Indian Health Service is unavailable.

“I’d be in a bind otherwise,” said Bighorn, a 65-year-old tribal game warden and member of the Dakota community.

But the Fort Peck Tribes now limit who has access to that coverage. Other tribal organizations that offer Native Americans similar coverage are struggling with rising costs, too.

The financial crunch began when congressional lawmakers allowed enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire on Dec. 31. Those tax credits, created under the Biden administration during the covid-19 pandemic, expanded subsidized health coverage for millions of people. By late 2025, ACA plans saw about 24 million enrollees, more than twice the number of pre-pandemic annual sign-ups. The cost of coverage shot up for most of those people as the expanded subsidies expired, and enrollment has dropped by , according to federal health officials.

The subsidies had also boosted tribal health insurance programs, like the one Bighorn is enrolled in. The programs pay the price of each person’s share of premiums after subsidies, and the coverage lowers patients’ treatment costs. Now that premium prices have ballooned, so have tribes’ costs.

Rae Jean Belgarde, who directs Fort Peck Tribes’ program, said the higher costs leave the tribes with one option at this point: “Start limiting who gets help.”

The tribes are helping people shift to other insurance options and, in some cases, find state programs to cover their premiums. Tribal leaders also sent a letter to Montana’s all-Republican congressional delegation asking them to support extending the subsidies.

“Our program is saving lives,” the letter read. Belgarde said she didn’t know whether the lawmakers responded.

Scrambling for Solutions

U.S. a temporary extension of the enhanced subsidies in January. But that measure . Lawmakers are scrambling for an alternative after President Donald Trump an extension if a bill reaches his desk. On Jan. 15, the president released that includes creating savings accounts for people to pay their health costs — an idea Senate Republicans as an alternative to the subsidies.

A.C. Locklear, CEO of the , a nonprofit that works to improve health in Native communities, said tribes are “looking at ways to cut back just as much as everyone else.”

Native Americans as a group continue to face disproportionately high rates of chronic diseases. Their median age at death is 14 years younger than that of white Americans.

“Reducing access to even just general primary care has a significant impact on those disparities,” Locklear said.

Tribal leaders have said letting the subsidies expire further undermines the federal government’s duty to ensure adequate care for Native Americans.

In exchange for taking tribal land through colonization, the U.S. government made long-standing promises to provide for the health and well-being of tribes. Native Americans are guaranteed free health care at clinics and hospitals operated or funded by the Indian Health Service. But that agency’s chronic underfunding has created massive blackouts in care. It sometimes pays for patients’ outside care through its Purchased/Referred Care program, but that’s limited too. Due to funding shortfalls, the agency prioritizes which treatments it will pay for.

To help fill the coverage gaps, some tribal nations have built their own health insurance programs. When tribes pay health premiums, clinics and hospitals in their areas can bill for services that might otherwise go unpaid. Some tribes have leveraged that money to expand services.

“I don’t see tribes getting rid of these programs,” Locklear said. “But it will drastically shift how much tribes can really put back in their community.”

For example, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corp., in northern Arizona within the Navajo Nation, is unique in providing comprehensive cancer treatment on a reservation, Locklear said. The corporation, he said, estimates its costs to cover patients this year are increasing by roughly 170% to nearly $38,000 per month without the enhanced subsidies.

One of the newer programs is on the Blackfeet reservation in northwestern Montana, where basic health services can be hard to find. Medical visits are often offered on a first-come, first-served basis, and services vanish when staff positions go unfilled, said Lyle Rutherford, a Blackfeet Nation council member.

“Some of it is just getting a regular eye appointment, or a primary care appointment,” Rutherford said.

The tribe has been slowly building its health insurance program since launching it in 2024. Rutherford said the enhanced subsidies made that possible. Fewer than 400 people are enrolled out of an estimated 3,000 who qualify. In January, the tribe paused the employer-sponsored coverage portion of its insurance program, which at the time included 52 people.

He said tribal leaders are seeking extra funding to keep the program afloat, and he hopes Congress finds a solution.

Lives on the Line

The impact goes beyond tribes’ insurance programs. The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based economic and social policy research nonprofit, will become uninsured in 2026 due to the higher costs. to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In 2024, the most recent year for which data for the population is available, Native American and Alaska Native people had the among major demographic groups, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

According to a CDC analysis of 2021 data from 46 maternal mortality review committees, , deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people were considered preventable. 

In response, Native organizations, the CDC, and some states are working to boost Native American participation in state maternal mortality review committees, which investigate deaths that occur during pregnancy or within a year after birth. Native organizations are also considering ways tribes could create their own committees. 

Kim Moore-Salas, of the Arizona Maternal Mortality Review Committee, said tribal sovereignty, experience, and traditional knowledge are important factors to consider in developing tribal-led committees. 

“Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward,” she said. 

In 2024, Moore-Salas, a member of the Navajo Nation, became the first Native American co-chair of Arizona’s committee. Last year, she and other Native members of the committee developed guidelines for an American Indian/Alaska Native subcommittee and reviewed its first cases. 

The National Council of Urban Indian Health is also working to increase the participation of Urban Indian health organizations in state committee processes. As of 2025, the council had connected Urban Indian health organizations to state maternal mortality review committees in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. 

Native leaders such as Moore-Salas find the efforts encouraging. 

“It shows that state and tribes can work together,” she said. 

After her stillbirth, Swaney had another complicated pregnancy. She went into labor about three months early, and doctors didn’t expect her son to survive. But he did, and Kelly Camel is now 48. He has severe cerebral palsy and profound deafness. He lives alone but has caregivers to help with cooking and other tasks, said Swaney, 73. 

He “has a good sense of humor,” she said. “He’s kind to other people. We couldn’t ask for a more complete child.”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Then 25 years old and six months pregnant, she drove herself to the emergency room in Ronan, Montana, on the Flathead Indian Reservation, where an ambulance transferred her to a larger hospital 60 miles away in Missoula. Once she arrived, the staff couldn’t detect her baby’s heartbeat. Swaney began to bleed heavily. She delivered a stillborn baby and was hospitalized for several days. At one point, doctors told her to call her family. They didn’t expect her to survive.

“It certainly changed my life — the experience — but my life has not been a bad life,” she told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Though her experiences were nearly 50 years ago, Swaney, a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said Native Americans continue to receive inadequate maternal care. The data appears to support that belief.

In 2024, the most recent year for which data for the population is available, Native American and Alaska Native people had the among major demographic groups, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In response to this disparity, Native organizations, the CDC, and some states are working to boost tribal participation in state maternal mortality review committees to better track and address pregnancy-related deaths in their communities. Native organizations are also considering ways tribes could create their own committees.

State maternal mortality review committees investigate deaths that occur during pregnancy or within a year after pregnancy, analyze data, and issue policy recommendations to lower death rates.

According to , deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people were considered preventable.

Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward.

Kim Moore-Salas

State committees have received federal money through the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which President Donald Trump signed in 2018.

But the money is scheduled to dry up on Jan. 31, when the short-term spending bill that ended the government shutdown expires.

Funding for the committees is included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2026. That bill must be approved by the House, Senate, and president to take effect.

Native American leaders said including members of their communities in maternal mortality review committee activities is an important step in addressing mortality disparities.

In 2023, tribal leaders and federal officials met to discuss four models: a mortality review committee for each tribe, a committee for each of the 12 Indian Health Service administrative regions, a national committee to review all Native American maternal deaths, and the addition of Native American subcommittees to state committees.

Whatever the model, tribal sovereignty, experience, and traditional knowledge are important factors, said Kim Moore-Salas, a co-chair of the Arizona Maternal Mortality Review Committee. She’s also the chairperson of the panel’s American Indian/Alaska Native mortality review subcommittee and a member of the Navajo Nation.

“Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward,” she said.

Mental health conditions and infection were the leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death among Native American and Alaska Native women as of 2021, according to the CDC report analyzing data from 46 states.

The CDC found an estimated 68% of pregnancy-related deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people happened within a week of delivery to a year postpartum. The majority of those happened between 43 days and a year after birth.

The federal government has a responsibility under signed treaties to provide health care to the 575 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. through the Indian Health Service. Tribal members can receive limited services at no cost, but the agency is underfunded and understaffed.

A that analyzed data from 2016 to 2020 found that approximately 75% of Native American and Alaska Native pregnant people didn’t have access to care through the Indian Health Service around the time of giving birth, meaning many likely sought care elsewhere. More than 90% of Native American and Alaska Native births occur outside of IHS facilities, . For those who did deliver at IHS facilities, a from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that 56% of labor and delivery patients received care that did not follow national clinical guidelines.

The 2024 study’s authors also found that members of the population were less likely to have stable insurance coverage and more likely to have a lapse in coverage during the period close to birth than non-Hispanic white people.

Cindy Gamble, who is Tlingit and a tribal community health consultant for the American Indian Health Commission in Washington, has been a member of the state’s maternal mortality review panel for about eight years. In the time she’s been on the state panel, she said, its composition has broadened to include more people of color and community members.

The panel also began to include suicide, overdose, and homicide deaths in its data analysis and added racism and discrimination to the risk factors considered during its case review process.

Solutions need to be tailored to the tribe’s identity and needs, Gamble said.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all,” Gamble said, “because of all the beliefs and different cultures and languages that different tribes have.”

Gamble’s tenure on the state committee is distinctive. Few states have tribal representation on maternal mortality review committees, according to the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit organization that advocates for tribal health.

The National Council of Urban Indian Health is also the participation of Urban Indian health organizations, which provide care for Native American people who live outside of reservations, in state maternal mortality review processes. As of 2025, the council had connected Urban Indian health organizations to state review committees in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

Native leaders such as Moore-Salas find the current efforts encouraging.

“It shows that state and tribes can work together,” she said.

In March 2024, Moore-Salas became the first Native American co-chair of Arizona’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee. In 2025 she and other Native American members of the committee developed guidelines for the American Indian/Alaska Native subcommittee and reviewed the group’s first cases.

The subcommittee is exploring ways to make the data collection and analysis process more culturally relevant to their population, Moore-Salas said.

But it takes time for policy changes to create widespread change in the health of a population, Gamble said. Despite efforts around the country, other factors may hinder the pace of progress. For example, maternity care deserts are growing nationally, caused by rapid hospital and labor and delivery unit closures. Health experts have raised concerns that upcoming cuts to Medicaid will hasten these closures.

Despite her experience and the ongoing crisis among Native American and Alaska Native people, Swaney hopes for change.

She had a second complicated pregnancy soon after her stillbirth. She went into labor about three months early, and the doctors said her son wouldn’t live to the next morning. But he did, and he was transferred about 525 miles away from Missoula to the nearest advanced neonatal unit, in Salt Lake City.

Her son, Kelly Camel, is now 48. He has severe cerebral palsy and profound deafness. He lives alone but has caregivers to help with cooking and other tasks, said Swaney, 73.

He “has a good sense of humor. He’s kind to other people. We couldn’t ask for a more complete child.”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Federally recognized tribes can’t directly apply for a share of the rural health fund — only states can. And states aren’t required to consider tribes’ needs. But state applications for the five-year payout show some states with significant Native American populations did so anyway.

Workforce development, technology upgrades, and traditional healing are a few of the initiatives specifically aimed at Native American communities that some states included in their applications, which were due to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 5. The fund was a late addition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in response to worries about the harm the spending reductions in Republicans’ bill would have on rural hospitals’ finances.

Some states, , Nevada, , are also considering setting aside 3% to 10% of their federal payouts to distribute among tribes. Washington proposed setting aside $20 million per year.

Federally recognized tribes have direct relationships with the U.S. government, but state governments also allocate resources to tribes and can create policies that support tribal priorities. States and tribes share concerns about the effect that the massive GOP budget bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law in July, will have on the U.S. health system. The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion and increase the number of uninsured by , according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said that states are required to develop their applications in collaboration with key stakeholders, including the state governments’ tribal affairs offices or tribal liaisons, as well as “Indian health care providers, as applicable.” But these entities do not include tribal governments or official tribal representatives.

Tribes can apply for Rural Health Transformation Fund subgrants through their states. But during a recent call with federal health officials, tribal leaders expressed frustration about being regarded as just another stakeholder in the issue rather than sovereign nations. Tribal sovereignty guides most government-to-government consultations over proposed federal actions that would have a substantial effect on tribes.

“Even in a scenario where tribal consultation is required, the quality and quantity of that tribal consultation on a state-by-state basis is all over the place,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, which advocates for tribal nations from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

Federal policy works better when tribal nations are directly eligible for funding that supports essential services in their communities, Malerba said, adding that tribal leaders are concerned that the reach of the program into their communities will vary considerably.

There are and Native American and Alaska Native people in the U.S. The population faces a lower life expectancy and when compared with other demographics. The Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans and Alaska Natives, has been by Congress.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analyzed how 12 states with significant Native American populations took tribes into account as they developed plans for the pot of federal money.

, , , and were among the states that held tribal consultations or listening sessions ahead of the Nov. 5 application deadline.

In states that did not initiate input from tribes, some Native American leaders made sure their voices were heard in other public hearings. Jerilyn Church, CEO of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, said she attended an October public meeting in South Dakota because she felt it was important for state leaders to consider how they could use the program’s resources on reservations. There are nine federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native American people make up 9% of the population.

“I felt like we needed to help be that advocate,” said Church, a citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

In the proposed initiatives included in its rural fund application, South Dakota such as improved telehealth and funding for doula programs. It also said the state will continue meeting with the Great Plains tribal health board throughout the five-year funding cycle.

In Oklahoma — where more than 14% of the population is Native American, a higher share than in most other states — tribal representatives were invited to weigh in with the rest of the public when the state was gathering information for its application, the details of which have not been publicly released.

“We’ve welcomed input from any Oklahoman,” said state health department spokesperson Erica Rankin-Riley.

North Dakota in the Rural Health Transformation Program and included initiatives such as expanding physician residency slots with tribal-specific rotations and opportunities for farm-to-table food distributions. But that would have pledged 5% of its federal allotment to tribes. There are five federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native Americans make up nearly 5% of the population.

Some states did include proposals to fund high-priority initiatives for tribes.

for the rural fund included an initiative focused on improving health among Native American communities. Its goals include investing in workforce development for tribes, better care coordination between tribes and rural hospitals, and $2.4 million annually to support Washington State University’s rural health education programs, including its Indigenous health program.

included integrating Indigenous traditional healing in Alaska Native village clinics. It would include offering traditional-healing house calls, hands-on training for healers, and traditional-medicine training for health care providers and staff, according to the application.

One of would support the state’s nine federally recognized tribes in improving health outcomes. The state estimates the initiative would require $20 million per year, or 10% of the Rural Health Transformation Program award.

Whether or not states identified funding for tribes or included tribal priorities in their proposals, tribes will be eligible to apply to their states for subgrants of the Rural Health Transformation Program money. While larger tribes that have more resources, such as grant writers and staff to implement programs, could benefit, smaller tribes may struggle to produce competitive applications.

Church said that the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board will know the fruits of its labor when states are notified of their rural health fund allotments by the end of the year.

“Hopefully the work that we did, the advocacy that we did, and the outreach,” Church said, “will result in resources getting to our tribes.”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News South Dakota correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).