What Are Third-Country Deportations, and Why Is Trump Using Them?

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has significantly escalated the use of third-country deportations in an unprecedented expansion of a rarely used provision in U.S. immigration law. So far, nearly a dozen countries have agreed to accept U.S. deportees, often in exchange for financial compensation or under diplomatic pressure. However, critics warn that such deportations violate international human rights standards and place vulnerable migrants at risk.

What are third-country deportations? 

Third-country deportation refers to a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport migrants to countries other than their country of origin. During immigration proceedings, judges will designate a country where the migrant is supposed to be deported—usually their country of origin. If removal to the designated country is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” the INA authorizes DHS to remove a noncitizen to a third country, which may or may not be one where they hold citizenship or nationality. 

Under the Trump administration, nearly a dozen countries—Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda—have reportedly agreed to receive deportees with no existing ties to their nations. While some deportees have been confirmed to be detained in foreign prison facilities, the U.S. government lacks information on the location and condition of many others. 

Yet Trump’s use of third-country deportations marks a significant departure from that of previous administrations. “This is not a strategy that the United States government has used to any significant extent,” Yale University’s Cristina Rodríguez told the New Yorker, “especially to the extent where they’re removing people to war zones like South Sudan or Sudan, or to prisons, as they did with El Salvador.”  

Are third-country deportations legal?

While U.S. law allows third-country deportations, the specific legality of doing so without adequate safeguards or asylum protections in place is currently being challenged in U.S. courts. 

In April, U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy barred the federal government from sending migrants to third countries without first assessing potential claims under the UN Convention against Torture. He ruled that failing to give migrants a “meaningful opportunity” to raise fears of deportation violated their constitutional due process rights.

Despite the ruling, the Trump administration attempted in May to deport eight migrants of various nationalities to South Sudan—a country with which they had no connection. Plaintiffs argued that the deportations exposed them to the risk of torture or serious harm, in violation of both U.S. and international law. Murphy subsequently ruled that the deportation flight to South Sudan violated his previous order, and he ordered the flight be diverted to Djibouti. Yet in June, the Supreme Court permitted DHS to resume third-country deportations, including to South Sudan, while litigation on the matter continues.

Why is the Trump administration using third-country deportations?

The deportations are part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Officials believe the approach will discourage migration to the United States and encourage voluntary self-deportation. The administration has also argued that third-country deportations are necessary because some countries refuse to accept their citizens back after they’ve been given an official deportation order by the United States. (Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone did this during Trump’s first term.) Yet in some cases, third countries can repatriate migrants to their home countries, despite U.S. claims that origin countries refuse to accept their citizens back. 

In several cases, host countries have accepted migrants in exchange for compensation or due to political pressure. In February, Panama agreed to temporarily host some three hundred migrants after the Trump administration threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal. The next month, the United States paid El Salvador about $6 million to host 238 alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang for a year at the country’s notorious megaprison. (A New York Times investigation found little evidence of their alleged membership.) In September, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people alleged to be Venezuelan gang members from the United States, ruling that it had not met the necessary legal standards for invoking wartime powers. While compensation arrangements for Eswatini and South Sudan remain unclear, reports suggest that these countries are leveraging the agreements to try and secure diplomatic concessions from the United States. 

So far, the Trump administration has reportedly approached at least fifty-eight governments about accepting deportees. “Whether it is tariff concessions—or in the case of African countries, many of them are under the threat of being placed under a travel ban or their diplomats will be prevented from coming from the United States—these are the stakes that are all being used to get these agreements,” Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, told Politico.

Is the U.S. the only democracy that uses third-country deportations?

Other democracies, particularly in Europe and Oceania, have pursued similar arrangements largely as a deterrent to unauthorized migration. The United Kingdom (UK), for example, sought such an agreement with Rwanda in 2022, though it never went into effect due to legal challenges and public opposition. The UK is reportedly still engaged in ongoing discussions with other countries about establishing so-called return hubs for unauthorized migrants. Australia has used offshore processing and transfers more extensively as part of its deterrent policy. However, some experts say the United States stands out as one of the first democracies to operationalize third-country removals at scale as part of a broader mass deportation strategy.

The European Union (EU) has also implemented third-country agreements, though typically for recent border crossers rather than long-standing unauthorized residents. In 2016, the bloc struck a landmark deal with Turkey allowing it to return migrants who had arrived in Greece via irregular means to Turkey, therefore treating Turkey as a safe third country. In return, the EU pledged to provide Ankara with significant financial aid and accelerate visa liberalization for Turkish nationals traveling to Europe. The deal has long drawn criticism from human rights groups and legal experts concerned about the deal’s compliance with international law and the protections afforded to asylum seekers. 

Jacqueline Metzler is an editorial intern at CFR. Austin Steinhart created the map for this article.