Reported by Simon Daniel Yusuph l Journalist at Weng Global
Investigation reveals expanding US third-country deportation network
The United States has deported more than 25,000 migrants to countries with which they have no previous ties under agreements reached with foreign governments, according to a new international investigation into the Trump administration’s third-country deportation programme.
The investigation, coordinated by Forbidden Stories with international media partners, found that at least 25,447 people had been deported to third countries by August 31, 2026. The arrangements reportedly involve 35 countries, while the US government has earmarked or pledged about $410 million for payments to receiving governments or United Nations agencies involved in facilitating the transfers.
The programme has drawn increasing scrutiny over transparency, the treatment of deportees and the legal procedures followed before people are sent to countries where they have no established connection.
Mexico receives the majority of deportees
According to data compiled by Forbidden Stories and its media partners, approximately 20,000 of the more than 25,000 people deported under the third-country arrangements were sent to Mexico.
The remaining deportees were dispersed among countries in Africa, Latin America and the Pacific. The investigation reported that agreements had been concluded with 35 countries, with 27 countries having received deportees by August 31 and further agreements finalised with additional states.
The arrangements differ from country to country, including provisions concerning which nationalities may be accepted and whether people with criminal convictions can be transferred.
The policy represents a significant expansion of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.
Africa becomes a major destination
The investigation has also highlighted the role of African countries in the US deportation network.
Forbidden Stories reported that 49 of Africa’s 54 countries had been approached about accepting people deported from the United States who were not citizens of those countries.
Several African states have subsequently appeared in the network of third-country arrangements.
Reports have documented deportations involving countries including Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Cameroon, the Central African Republic and others.
The issue is particularly significant for African governments because accepting foreign deportees can create legal, diplomatic, financial and humanitarian obligations for countries that may have had no previous relationship with the people being transferred.
An AFP investigation cited by Channels Television reported that Washington had used measures including visa restrictions and other diplomatic pressure in its efforts to secure cooperation from some African countries. The findings have prompted debate about the balance between US immigration priorities and the sovereignty and interests of receiving states.
US says deportations target people who cannot be returned home
The Trump administration has defended the broader deportation programme as part of its immigration enforcement agenda.
A White House spokeswoman, Lauren Bis, told The Washington Post that people sent to third countries include migrants whose home countries would not accept them, as well as people with removal orders and some individuals who had requested not to be returned to their countries of origin.
The administration’s position contrasts with criticism from immigration lawyers and human rights organisations, who argue that some deportees were transferred without adequate information about their destination or sufficient opportunity to challenge the removal.
The dispute has increasingly moved into the US courts.
Federal appeals court challenges the deportation procedure
On September 18, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the Department of Homeland Security must provide people facing third-country removal with effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture in the proposed destination.
The case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, arose from a class-action challenge to DHS policies introduced in 2025.
The court partly rejected the government’s challenge but upheld the central requirement that migrants must receive appropriate notice and an opportunity to contest third-country removal on fear-of-persecution or fear-of-torture grounds.
The court’s decision is significant because it addresses the procedures that must be followed when the government seeks to send a person to a country that was not identified as the destination during earlier immigration proceedings.
The ruling did not invalidate every aspect of third-country removals. The court vacated certain declarations concerning the statutory sequencing of removal destinations while otherwise affirming the lower court’s judgment concerning notice and opportunities to raise fear-based claims.
Concerns over legal protection
One of the central concerns surrounding third-country deportations is what happens when a person has previously been protected from removal to their home country because of a risk of persecution or torture.
The First Circuit’s decision specifically addressed this issue.
The court found that the applicable legal framework requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity for affected migrants to raise claims that removal to the proposed third country could expose them to persecution or torture.
The court record also discusses the possibility of chain refoulement, in which a person sent to one country is subsequently transferred or deported onward to another country where they may face the danger that had previously prevented their direct removal.
The ruling cited an example involving a migrant who had been protected from removal to Guatemala but was instead transferred to Mexico and subsequently deported by Mexico to Guatemala.
Such cases have intensified questions about whether diplomatic assurances from receiving countries are sufficient to guarantee protection after deportation.
How the agreements operate
The international investigation found that the arrangements have been negotiated through a relatively opaque diplomatic process.
The Washington Post reported that the US State Department created an Office of Remigration to handle negotiations with governments willing to accept deportees who are not their nationals. Christian Ehrhardt, a State Department official, was appointed to lead the initiative.
The office has reportedly engaged governments across Africa and other regions as Washington seeks additional destinations for people subject to removal orders.
The financial dimension is also significant.
The Forbidden Stories investigation found that the US administration had earmarked approximately $410 million for payments to receiving countries or United Nations agencies connected with the arrangements.
The existence and precise terms of individual agreements vary, however, and not every financial arrangement has been publicly disclosed in detail.
Human impact remains a major concern
Accounts collected by international journalists have raised concerns about the experiences of people after arriving in countries with which they have no previous connection.
The Washington Post reported on the case of an Iranian Christian deported to Panama, one of hundreds transferred there shortly after Trump’s return to office. The broader investigation found that many people sent to third countries had no prior connection to their destination.
Other investigations have documented migrants arriving in African countries where they lacked established support networks, familiarity with the local environment or clear information about their legal status.
ABC News has also reported on migrants transferred to African countries who described uncertainty over their legal status and living conditions after deportation.
These accounts do not establish that every person transferred under the programme has experienced the same conditions. However, they illustrate the wider concerns being raised about what happens after deportation when the destination country is not the person’s country of origin.
Why the issue matters for Africa
The expansion of third-country deportations has implications beyond US immigration policy.
For African governments, agreements to accept foreign deportees can affect immigration systems, detention capacity, diplomatic relations and domestic public opinion.
Receiving countries may also face questions over whether they have sufficient legal mechanisms and resources to process people who arrive without established connections to the country.
The issue also places African states in a complicated position between cooperation with Washington and their own domestic and international obligations.
For the United States, meanwhile, third-country agreements provide an additional mechanism for carrying out removals when direct deportation to a person’s home country is difficult or legally restricted.
The growing number of arrangements therefore represents not simply an immigration enforcement development but an emerging area of US foreign policy involving African, Latin American and other governments.
What happens next
The legal future of the programme remains unsettled following the First Circuit’s September 18 ruling.
The Trump administration can continue pursuing further legal challenges, while lower courts will have to apply the appellate court’s findings to the procedures governing third-country removals.
The court’s ruling means that, under the legal framework addressed in the case, affected migrants must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise relevant fears of persecution or torture before being transferred to a third country.
At the same time, the diplomatic network surrounding third-country deportations remains active, with the US continuing to negotiate arrangements with foreign governments.
The international investigation is likely to intensify scrutiny of the financial terms, diplomatic negotiations, treatment of deportees and safeguards available to people sent to countries where they have no previous ties.
For African countries involved in the arrangements, the issue will remain closely connected to questions of sovereignty, humanitarian responsibility, bilateral relations with Washington and the management of foreign nationals transferred into their territories.
The wider picture
The more than 25,000 third-country deportations documented since the beginning of the second Trump administration represent a major development in US immigration enforcement.
The numbers alone, however, do not tell the entire story.
The central questions now concern how the agreements are negotiated, how much receiving governments are paid, what legal protections deportees receive, whether they are informed of their destination in advance, and what happens if they are subsequently transferred elsewhere.
Those questions are increasingly being examined by courts, journalists, lawyers and human rights organisations.
For readers in Africa, the developments are particularly important because several African governments are now part of a system that determines where people removed from the United States will live and what legal protections they will receive.
As the US courts continue to examine the programme and Washington pursues additional agreements, the legal and diplomatic consequences of third-country deportation are likely to remain an important international issue.
Weng Global – stories beyond borders
Sources
- Forbidden Stories and international media partners — investigation into US third-country deportation agreements.
- Reuters — reporting on the US appeals court ruling concerning third-country deportations.
- The Washington Post — investigation into the US third-country deportation programme and its financing.
- The Guardian — reporting and investigation into third-country deportation arrangements.
- Associated Press/ABC News — reporting on migrants transferred to third countries.
- US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, September 18, 2026.
- Channels Television — report based on the Forbidden Stories investigation and AFP reporting.
