The United Nations projects that the global population will hit 9.7 billion by 2050, which will probably fundamentally increase international migration pressures. Estimates suggest up to 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by 2050 due to ecological threats, conflicts, extreme weather, and natural disasters. As stated in the World Bank’s Groundswell report, 216 million people could be forced to move internally by 2050 across six world regions.
Debates around the concept of climate refugees are actively ongoing in the European Parliament. The problem is that there is as yet no clear definition of a “climate refugee,” nor are climate refugees covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
In the last half-century, waves of immigrants have generated calls for aggressive deportation in many Western countries.
Current situation in Western Europe
Whether Syrians entering Germany, Africans crossing the Mediterranean into Italy and France, or people crossing the Channel into the United Kingdom unlawfully, the list is already long.
Over the past five years, the number of new migrants entering the European Union (EU) has steadily declined by 24%, down to 4.5 million people in 2024. Strikingly, only a tiny minority, 361,000 people, received protected status, the lowest figure in six years.
By contrast, there is a deportation surge, with 155,000 migrants deported in 2025, the highest number since the start of the decade. The highest hit were Turks, with over 13,000 people deported, followed by Georgians, Syrians and Albanians. The European countries most actively engaged in actual deporting are Germany (30,000 actual deportations), France (15,000) and Sweden (over 11,000); followed by Spain and the Netherlands with the highest number of deportation orders issued (but not all implemented).
The Situation in the United States
The United States, from its very foundation as a nation, is a country made up of immigrants. Notwithstanding, immigration and deportation of migrants have been high on the political agenda for many years, for successive administrations and Congress.
It has been among President Trump’s highest priorities, apparently even to the point of his administration deporting people to Iran, a country whose nuclear facilities the U.S. was bombing in June 2025.
And the extent of this outreach has even legal immigrants now fearing the U.S executive branch immigration policies. Indeed, the Trump administration’s focus on immigration enforcement is reflected in the sharp expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in 2025.
By December, the detained population had risen by roughly 75% to more than 68,400 people. Congress also approved $45 billion to expand detention capacity, increasing the number of active facilities to more than 210 and pushing deportations above 440,000 for the fiscal year.
Expansion of the New Deportation Policy — Without Regard to National Origin
Since February 2025, the United States has significantly expanded the practice of deporting people to countries they are not from and have no connection to.
Although this practice is not new, and other countries such as the United Kingdom have engaged in similar efforts, the Trump administration is doing so in ways and numbers that are increasingly discriminatory and violate fundamental rights. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that around 15,000 people were removed to third countries in 2025 alone, often finding themselves arbitrarily detained in the country of destination.
The tempo is accelerating: as of June 2026, new agreements had been “concluded” with more than 30 countries for the removal of “third country nationals”— deportees from the United States who are not their nationals.
In short, more than a dozen countries have agreed to accept such deportees, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) reports that the administration has already reached some form of deportation agreement with 27 countries and has reached out to 54 additional countries to build a worldwide deportation network.
Further, MPI estimates that the country’s unauthorized immigrant population reached a new peak of 15.8 million as of mid-2024, after holding steady at around 11 million throughout the 2010s, which provides a basis for those arguing the situation has become out of control.
The Trump administration has drawn on what was once considered an obscure legal provision (Section 241(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), 8 U.S. Code § 1231(b)(1)(C)(iv)), to expand it as the basis for its global system of third-country deportations — raising issues of human rights, international responsibility, and the ethics of outsourcing migration control to governments willing to accept cash for people.
Why Countries Participate: Money, Diplomacy, and Leverage
At least 35 countries have signed third-country transfer agreements with the U.S.
Some countries are described below, along with personal stories of individuals deported, to provide insight into policy choices from the perspective of a country that chooses to participate and the perspective of people deported to lands they do not come from.
Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea’s acceptance of deportees appears to have been motivated primarily by financial incentives, reported as a lump-sum payment between $4.7 million and $7.5 million. Accepting deportees was probably framed domestically as a gesture of goodwill toward Washington, potentially reducing pressure from the U.S.
A personal story: A man born in Egypt, now 30 years old, who came to the U.S. at age 4, was imprisoned for three months in Equatorial Guinea after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported him in April 2026, without notice or a chance to explain his fears of deportation to Egypt.
Rwanda
For accepting deportees, Rwanda received total lump-sum payments ranging from $4.7 million to $7.5 million. Since the country has aggressively pursued foreign investment and development assistance, accepting deportees could be part of a broader national strategy of presenting itself as a responsible global actor willing to help manage international migration.
Cooperation with the United States may also have been seen as a way to strengthen bilateral relations. Rwanda has historically sought strong ties with Western governments, both for economic reasons and for political legitimacy. Rwanda has previously entered into migration-related agreements with other countries, including arrangements with Israel in the mid-2010s, and later with the United Kingdom; the latter agreement was canceled, and a lawsuit followed.
In short, Rwanda’s willingness to accept deportees from the United States fits within a pattern of using migration agreements to secure financial and diplomatic benefits.
No personal stories yet. The Rwandan Government made a public statement, as individual statements were not provided: “Regardless of their specific needs, all of these individuals will receive appropriate support and protection from the Rwandan government.”
El Salvador
El Salvador is the recipient of the largest documented number of third-country deportees, accepting about 250 Venezuelan nationals with no ties to the country. It also reportedly received a lump-sum payment in a range similar to those provided to other participating governments.
The Salvadoran government likely saw the arrangement as a way to strengthen financial and diplomatic ties with Washington and gain favorable treatment on issues such as development assistance and security cooperation. It may also have calculated that accepting a relatively small number of non-national deportees would generate little domestic backlash.
A personal story: Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a 20-year-old Venezuelan, allegedly crossed into the U.S. from Mexico without permission when he was 17; after President Donald Trump deemed him an “alien enemy” in March 2026, he was sent by the U.S. government to the El Salvador prison known as CECOT.
Eswatini
A small monarchy in southern Africa, Eswatini reportedly received a lump-sum payment of between $4.7 million and $7.5 million — a significant inflow for its small, aid-dependent economy.
Cooperation with the United States on deportations was seen as a way to strengthen bilateral ties and secure future benefits. Because the number of deportees was likely to be small, the government did not expect significant domestic opposition.
A personal story: Roberto Mosquera, born in Cuba, arrived in the U.S. when he was 12. Now 59 years old, Roberto was deported more than a year ago to Eswatini’s maximum-security prison, where he remains.
Mexico
The largest recipient of third-country deportees from the United States in 2025, according to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Mexico has long had a complex and often compliant relationship with the United States.
A personal story: Arturo, a 64-year-old who declined to give his last name because of his vulnerable situation, said he lived in Florida for 45 years and had agreed to go to Mexico to avoid going back to Cuba after ICE arrested him in Florida. He said he has sciatica that causes him a lot of pain, high blood pressure, epilepsy, and chronic asthma.
South Sudan
The CFR has identified that South Sudan agreed to accept deportees with no ties to its territory. South Sudan remains an active conflict zone, while Uganda hosts one of the world’s largest refugee populations and faces serious internal political challenges. Sending migrants to such fragile states risks exposing them to violence, exploitation, or indefinite detention.
A personal story: Tuan Phan, a Vietnamese national, was deported to South Sudan by the Trump administration and was later repatriated to Vietnam after spending more than a year in detention.
The Intended or Implied Objective of U.S. Policy
Third-country deportations are a fraction of overall U.S. removals, compared to the administration’s stated goal of one million annual deportations.
That said, two underlying purposes are at work: increasing deportation numbers and deterring migration to the U.S. by creating uncertainty and fear.
Federal courts have been dealing with these deportation practices, with some seeking to limit the administration’s authority to deport people to countries with which they had no previous ties, only to be reversed by the Supreme Court.
Specifically, in 2025, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to swiftly deport foreigners to countries where they have no previous ties, lifting an order from a federal judge who had restricted deportations to those countries.
Then, in February 2026, another District judge considering revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of some 350,000 Haitians ruled that the Trump administration’s policy of deporting immigrants to “third countries” to which they have no ties is unlawful and must be set aside, citing U.S. obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.
Notwithstanding, the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2026, in Mullin v. Doe, paused rulings by the lower federal courts that had barred the Trump administration from ending the designations under the program.
Related Articles
Here is a list of articles selected by our Editorial Board that have gained significant interest from the public:
- Playbook to Help Fight Disinformation on Migrants
- Even Legal Immigrants Fear U.S. Executive Branch Policies and Actions
- How a Framework Convention Could Address Climate and Socio-Economic Displacement
- Is It Time to Recognize Climate Refugees?
- Migration Policy in Europe: Greece and Spain Take Divergent Paths
The U.S. Needs to Review and Revise its Deportation Approach
For now, the Trump administration’s third-country deportations may not be held unlawful, and arguably, it may be strategically clever and diplomatically effective.
Such third-country deportations, however, raise, at the very least, a question of what is right and whether the U.S. government has a moral obligation not to deport people to places that are not safe for them or are not connected to their lives.
By sending migrants to countries that were not their own, the administration has created a complex and costly system of global removals relying on financial incentives and opaque negotiations. Even on practical grounds, major questions remain about the program’s effectiveness, sufficient oversight, and impact on long-term U.S. interests.
One Aspect of a Growing Immigration Crisis Virtually Everywhere
Deporting people to third countries with which they have no connection is unacceptable and should be understood as a violation of basic human rights.
Third-country deportations are deeply troubling, but they are only one part of a much broader set of problems and policy choices facing countries in both the Global North and the Global South. Pressures caused by large-scale migration — driven by political instability, conflict, climate change, economic hardship, intolerable living conditions, and poverty — are likely to intensify in the years ahead.
Sadly, there are no ready answers or agreement on how to do better.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of impakter.com
