On April 21, 2026, a powerful critique of the United States adoption system resurfaced in public discourse, reigniting debate about its historical foundations and contemporary practices. The Nation published an article titled “We Need to Tear Down the Adoption Industry,” asserting that adoption as practiced in the U.S. Is deeply intertwined with racism, imperialism, colonialism, and instances of child abduction. The piece opens with a harrowing account from September 5, 2019, in rural Afghanistan, where a U.S. Military operation reportedly resulted in the disappearance of a 40-day-old infant during an attack on a civilian home. According to the girl who lost her sister, the child was taken amid the chaos and later entered the U.S. Adoption system—a narrative presented as emblematic of broader systemic issues.
The article argues that such cases are not isolated anomalies but reflect a pattern in which children from marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, are removed from their families and cultures under the guise of humanitarian intervention. It contends that the U.S. Adoption industry has historically benefited from geopolitical instability, military interventions, and economic inequality, facilitating the transfer of children across borders with insufficient oversight. Critics cited in the piece describe this dynamic as a form of “child-saving imperialism,” where Western nations position themselves as rescuers while disregarding the rights and voices of birth families and communities of origin.
To understand the scope of these practices, verified data on U.S. Adoption trends provides essential context. According to the National Council For Adoption’s (NCFA) “Adoption by the Numbers” report for 2021 and 2022, private domestic adoptions, inter-country adoptions, and foster care adoptions collectively accounted for tens of thousands of placements annually. In 2021, there were approximately 140,000 private domestic adoptions and 5,000 inter-country adoptions in the United States. By 2022, private domestic adoptions rose to nearly 150,000, while inter-country adoptions declined to around 3,000—a shift attributed to changing international policies, increased scrutiny, and diplomatic tensions affecting adoption agreements with countries such as China, Russia, and Guatemala.
These statistics, while indicating a decline in international adoptions over the past decade, do not negate concerns about ethical lapses in the system’s history. The NCFA report emphasizes that its data focuses on legal, regulated processes and does not address historical or alleged illicit practices. Nevertheless, scholars and advocates cited in The Nation’s piece argue that even contemporary private adoption markets in the U.S. Can perpetuate inequities, particularly when financial incentives, lack of uniform state regulation, and unequal access to legal representation influence outcomes. They point to instances where birth parents—often low-income or from minority backgrounds—may perceive pressured to relinquish parental rights due to limited support systems, while prospective adoptive parents, frequently wealthier and predominantly white, navigate a costly and competitive marketplace.
The ethical dimensions of adoption have long been scrutinized by international bodies. The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, ratified by the United States in 2008, established safeguards to prevent child trafficking, ensure informed consent, and prioritize the child’s best interests. Despite these measures, reports from the U.S. Department of State and non-governmental organizations have documented cases where procedural violations occurred, including falsified documents, undisclosed financial payments, and inadequate efforts to preserve family ties before pursuing adoption. The State Department’s 2022 Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption noted that while compliance has improved, challenges remain in monitoring private adoption agencies and ensuring transparency in cross-border cases.
Domestically, the private adoption sector operates under a patchwork of state laws, with minimal federal oversight. Unlike foster care adoptions, which involve public agencies and court supervision, private adoptions are typically facilitated by attorneys, agencies, or intermediaries, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and profit-driven motives. A 2023 investigation by TIME magazine into America’s private-adoption industry highlighted how some law firms and agencies market adoption services aggressively, often targeting vulnerable pregnant individuals through online advertising and counseling centers. The report noted that while many practitioners adhere to ethical standards, the lack of uniform licensing requirements and fee disclosure rules allows for significant variation in practices across states.
These structural concerns are compounded by historical legacies. Scholars such as Joshua Mast, referenced in The Nation’s article, have traced the evolution of U.S. Adoption policies to periods of indigenous child removal, slavery-era practices that denied Black families parental rights, and post-World War II initiatives that encouraged the adoption of European war orphans while excluding children of color. More recently, critics have linked fluctuations in international adoption volumes to U.S. Foreign policy decisions—such as military engagements or sanctions—that destabilize regions and increase the perceived availability of children for adoption, even when family reunification or community-based care might be preferable.
In response to these critiques, some reform advocates call for a fundamental shift toward strengthening family preservation programs, expanding access to poverty alleviation, healthcare, and childcare services, and investing in community-based alternatives to adoption. They argue that resources currently funneled into adoption facilitation could be redirected to support kinship care, guardianship arrangements, and reunification efforts—particularly in cases where economic hardship, rather than abuse or neglect, is the primary factor behind relinquishment proposals. Others emphasize the need for greater transparency in adoption fees, stricter accreditation of agencies, and expanded post-adoption support for both birth and adoptive families to address long-term identity, trauma, and cultural connection issues.
As of April 2026, no federal legislation has been introduced to overhaul the private adoption sector, though several states have enacted reforms aimed at increasing accountability. For example, Colorado and California have implemented stricter licensing requirements for adoption agencies and mandated disclosure of fees to prospective parents. At the federal level, the Department of Health and Human Services continues to administer the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), which collects data on foster care adoptions but does not comprehensively track private or inter-country cases. Advocates urge the expansion of such systems to include all adoption types for better oversight.
The conversation around adoption ethics remains active in academic, legal, and advocacy circles. Upcoming discussions are expected at the 2026 National Conference on Child Welfare, scheduled for October in Washington, D.C., where policymakers, practitioners, and individuals with lived experience will examine reforms to adoption practices. The U.S. State Department is set to release its 2023 Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption later in 2026, which will provide updated statistics and compliance assessments. These events offer opportunities to evaluate progress toward more equitable and transparent systems.
For readers seeking to engage with this complex issue, verified information can be accessed through official channels. The National Council For Adoption provides annual data reports on its website, while the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs maintains detailed guidance on intercountry adoption procedures. Academic research on adoption history and policy is available through university presses and journals such as the Journal of Child and Family Studies. Those interested in advocacy or reform efforts may consult organizations like the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute or the National Association of Social Workers, which have published position papers on ethical adoption practices.
As the nation reflects on the implications of its adoption policies, the central question persists: how can a system intended to provide loving homes for children also reckon with its role in perpetuating historical injustices? Answering this requires not only acknowledging past harms but also building safeguards that prioritize family integrity, cultural continuity, and informed consent—ensuring that adoption, when it occurs, serves the child’s best interests above all else.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives and experiences in the comments below. If you found this analysis informative, please consider sharing it with others who may benefit from a deeper understanding of adoption’s societal impact.
Keep reading