Why the U.S. Won't Join International Talks on Migration

The United States has said no to participating in the International Migration Review Forum, a UN-led discussion about how countries should handle migration. This continues a stance the U.S. has held for over a decade — it refuses to sign on to a global migration agreement that other countries have embraced.

According to the State Department, the U.S. is sticking to its decision from 2017 to stay out of the UN's migration framework altogether. Most other countries are part of it. Only a handful, including the U.S. and Hungary, have opted out.

How We Got Here

Back in 2016, under President Obama, the United States agreed with the rest of the UN — all 193 countries — to work on creating a migration pact. The idea was to help countries manage migration in a consistent way.

But when the Trump administration took over in 2017, the U.S. changed course. Officials said the migration agreement gave too much weight to the interests of migrants and not enough to a country's right to control its own borders. They pulled out of the negotiations.

In the end, 192 of 193 UN countries signed on to the final agreement. The United States stayed out.

What Is This Migration Framework Actually Doing

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was adopted in 2018. It's a set of 23 goals designed to help countries handle migration in a coordinated way — things like sharing data about migration patterns, managing borders, helping migrants integrate into new countries, and handling deportations.

The International Migration Review Forum is the check-in process. Countries meet and share how well they are doing on these goals. The most recent regional review — for Latin America and the Caribbean — took place in March 2024.

The framework relies on countries reporting their data in a consistent way so that everyone can see what is actually working and what is not.

Why the U.S. Chooses to Go Its Own Way

Instead of joining the UN talks, the United States has pursued its own path. It makes agreements one-on-one with other countries, mostly with Mexico.

In 2019, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to work together on migration management and to help improve conditions in Central America so fewer people would feel the need to leave in the first place.

The U.S. also relies on traditional border enforcement. In 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported stopping over 450,000 people trying to enter the country illegally at the Mexican border.

What This Means in Practice

The U.S. approach makes sense for a few reasons. Bilateral agreements — deals between two countries — can be tailored to specific situations and concerns that matter to each country. A global framework has to work for everyone, which means compromises on all sides.

That said, the absence of the U.S. from the UN framework creates a real gap. The United States is one of the world's largest destinations for people migrating. When the U.S. does not share its migration data with the coordinated system, the other countries have an incomplete picture of migration patterns and trends across the Americas and globally.

When migration flows cross multiple borders or when crises displace large numbers of people, coordination matters. A country working alone can only do so much.

The broader context here is that the United States has faced similar tensions in other areas, from climate agreements to trade deals. The core issue is always the same: whether countries gain more by coordinating with others, or whether they protect their interests better by making their own decisions.

What Comes Next

The U.S. position on international migration frameworks looks unlikely to change in the near term. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have raised concerns about sovereignty — the idea that the U.S. should decide its own migration policy without constraints from other countries.

As the international review process continues and generates new recommendations, the framework will likely become clearer and more practical. That might create pressure for the U.S. to reconsider. But right now, there are no signs the U.S. is ready to change course.