The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been pushing to restore a policy that sends undocumented migrants to nations that are neither their home countries nor the United States. On Aug. 23, 2025, an ICE flight lifted off from King County International Airport – also called Boeing Field – bound for destinations in Africa, sparking fresh legal battles.
Since the start of the Trump administration, more than 25,000 individuals have been displaced through what officials label third-country deportations. The practice relies on agreements with at least 35 foreign governments, many of which appear on the State Department’s “Level 4 Do Not Travel” list for extreme risk. A Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority report quoted a former Trump official saying, “The point is to scare people,” adding that the threat of being dropped in places like Palau or Eswatini is meant to intimidate.
How the removal scheme evolved under the Trump administration
Historically, the U.S. employed third-country transfers only as a last resort for asylum seekers who could not safely return home but also failed to meet standard asylum criteria. Those early deals required host nations to guarantee that deportees would not be sent back to their countries of origin. The current approach, however, treats the agreements as transactional exchanges – aid or cash in return for accepting migrants, regardless of the host country’s human-rights record.
Documents leaked online reveal that the administration has inked contracts worth millions with little-known firms to manage the logistics. Lawfare’s managing editor, Tyler McBrien, noted that the secretive nature of these contracts often skirts the Case-Zablocki Act which mandates public disclosure of international agreements. The Intercept’s Nick Turse has described the network as a “global gulag,” emphasizing the danger faced by people sent to places such as Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic.
Legal pushback and the Supreme Court’s looming decision
In early 2025, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the third-country scheme, prompting DHS to schedule a flight that still departed for Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic despite an emergency court motion. It remains unclear who was on that aircraft or whether the move violated the court order.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the administration would take the dispute to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a petition asking the Court to freeze the lower-court injunction, arguing that the order caused “substantial logistical problems,” forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 criminal-convicted migrants, and increased diplomatic strain.
Meanwhile, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit ruled that migrants were not receiving adequate notice before being sent to unfamiliar nations. Judge Seth Aframe wrote that a meaningful opportunity to contest the destination is essential for protecting individuals from potential persecution.
The Supreme Court granted a temporary stay on June 23, 2025, allowing the government to continue removals while it considers the case. The justices will hear oral arguments in December, and the three Democratic members – Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson – indicated they would have denied the administration’s request, suggesting a possible hold on the program.
The hidden economy behind deportations
Lawfare, in partnership with SITU Research and The Intercept, released the investigative series “Deportation, Inc.” to map the profit-driven ecosystem that underpins immigration enforcement. The first episode, released last December, exposed how private contractors profit from detainee housing. The second episode, published today, turns the spotlight on the airfare network that ferries migrants between detention centers and foreign destinations.
Human Rights First estimates that about 25,000 people have already been moved under this system. The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel argues that third-country removal is an “essential public safety tool” when a migrant’s home country refuses entry, the United States cannot retain them, and logistical obstacles make direct repatriation impossible.
Critics contend that the policy is a modern iteration of the post-9/11 security framework that fused immigration with national security, enabling broad executive discretion and reduced transparency. Secretary of State Marco Rubio once remarked that the United States is “working with other countries to say ‘We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries.’” Such language underscores the stark dehumanization embedded in the program.
As the Supreme Court prepares to rule, advocacy groups like Third Country Deportation Watch and the Berkeley Human Rights Center continue to demand full disclosure of the bilateral agreements and a halt to what they describe as a “hidden immigration enforcement economy.”
