The Trump administration’s immigration policies have come under scrutiny due to the substantial costs associated with deporting migrants to third countries. A recent report by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicates that a minimum of $40 million was allocated to deport approximately 300 migrants to nations other than their countries of origin. This strategy is part of a broader effort to expedite the removal of immigrants from the United States, a key objective for former President Donald Trump.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, leading the committee’s investigation, described the third-country deportation policy as “costly, wasteful, and poorly monitored.” The report urges for more rigorous oversight of a program that operates with minimal transparency. The State Department, responsible for negotiating these deportation arrangements, has defended the strategy, asserting it is essential to Trump’s approach toward illegal immigration. In a recent Senate hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country.”
The report marks the first congressional examination of these deportation agreements and reveals that the administration has made lump sum payments ranging from $4.7 million to $7.5 million to five countries, including Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau, for accepting deported migrants. While El Salvador accepted approximately 250 Venezuelan nationals last March, the numbers for other countries were notably lower, with only 29 individuals sent to Equatorial Guinea and none to Palau.
Internal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal that the administration is negotiating 47 third-country agreements, with 15 finalized and 10 nearing completion. Additionally, there are 17 agreements under negotiation for countries that would accept U.S. asylum applicants while their claims are processed. The administration maintains that these arrangements do not require formal completion before individuals can be transferred.
Immigration rights organizations have condemned the third-country strategy, describing it as a dangerous approach that undermines due process protections. Critics argue that it risks leaving deportees in nations with poor human rights records and systemic corruption. Evidence of these risks surfaced during a Democratic committee staff trip to South Sudan, where they discovered a fortified compound detaining deportees from various countries, including Vietnam and Mexico.
The report also highlights instances where migrants were deported to third countries only for the U.S. to subsequently fund their return to their home nations. Senator Shaheen criticized this practice, stating, “In many cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their countries of origin, avoiding unnecessary flights and additional costs.”
Concerns persist regarding the benefits these countries might receive for accepting third-country nationals. Following a previous agreement, South Sudan presented a list of demands to Washington, including U.S. support for prosecuting an opposition figure and sanctions relief for a high-ranking official accused of misappropriating over $1 billion in government funds.
Shaheen has also raised alarms over a $7.5 million transfer to Equatorial Guinea, coinciding with the administration’s attempts to build relations with Vice President Teodoro “Teddy” Nguema Obiang, a leader facing corruption allegations and known for his extravagant lifestyle, which has attracted scrutiny from international law enforcement agencies.
As the debate over immigration policy continues, the implications of these third-country deportations raise important questions about the effectiveness and ethical considerations of the U.S. approach to immigration enforcement.
