The Trump administration has defended its policy of deporting serious criminals to third countries, arguing that some individuals are so dangerous that their home nations refuse to accept them. However, a review of recent cases reveals that at least five men initially threatened with third-country deportation were ultimately sent back to their native countries within weeks. This raises questions about the administration’s claims and whether alternative solutions were pursued before resorting to such measures.
President Donald Trump has made mass deportations a cornerstone of his immigration policy, targeting millions of undocumented immigrants. His administration has intensified efforts to remove convicted criminals to third countries, including South Sudan and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). While immigrants with criminal convictions typically serve U.S. prison sentences before deportation, some of those sent to these African nations had been released years earlier. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has justified the practice by stating it applies to individuals whose crimes are so extreme that their home countries refuse repatriation.
Critics, however, argue that there is little evidence the U.S. made serious attempts to return these individuals to their home countries before opting for third-party deportations. Reuters found that in May, at least five men—two from Vietnam, two from Laos, and one from Mexico—were threatened with deportation to Libya before ultimately being sent to their home nations after a judge blocked the move. Attorneys and family members confirmed the cases, which had not been previously reported.
DHS did not comment on these specific removals, leaving unclear whether the men’s home countries initially refused to accept them or why Libya was chosen as an alternative. Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin maintained that third-country deportations are reserved for cases where home countries are unwilling to cooperate but provided no details on efforts to repatriate the five men before the Libya threat. The lack of transparency has fueled accusations that the administration’s approach is unnecessarily harsh and lacks proper justification.
