25,000 Third-Country Deportations: How U.S. Deals, Flights and Court Limits Work
More than 25,000 people have been deported by the Trump administration to countries that are not their own, according to a cross-border investigation published 21 September 2026.
The figure covers two streams. About 20,000 people were bussed to Mexico, according to a count by Refugees International and Human Rights First cited in the investigation. More than 5,000 others were put on flights to countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and central Asia to which they have no connection. The Guardian
The findings come from the Deportation Project, a joint investigation coordinated by Forbidden Stories. The Guardian joined 23 other media organisations in the consortium. Reporters interviewed more than 100 people affected by or involved in the U.S. drive against unauthorised immigration. They tracked more than 100 flights carrying migrants and asylum seekers to 28 different countries.
The scale of third-country removals
Third-country deportation means the removal of a migrant to a state other than their place of origin. Like a transfer agreement between governments, one country agrees to receive people who are not its citizens. Over the past year, the administration expanded its use of this tool, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority report released in February. The administration is pursuing agreements with third countries to accept U.S. deportees as part of efforts to crack down on immigration. Council on Foreign Relations
Washington has struck agreements allowing it to send migrants to at least 29 third countries, most often Mexico. Al Jazeera
The routes are global and details are often not made public. People from Peru and Colombia were sent to the Democratic Republic of the Congo under third-country arrangements. Deportations have also been carried out to Uganda and the Central African Republic.
Liberia has emerged as a recent destination. The United States sent 20 deportees to Liberia as part of a new third-country deportation deal, a deal reported to involve 1,200 migrants. AP
Mexico accounts for most cases. The flight network accounts for the rest.
Refusals, rerouting and fourth-country transfers
On 20 August, four Cubans, a Brazilian and a Cameroonian refused to disembark in Liberia and were sent to Equatorial Guinea instead.
A separate Equatorial Guinea case has drawn attention from immigration lawyers. Six people who refused to leave a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation plane were sent to Equatorial Guinea in what lawyers describe as believed to be the first U.S. deportations to a fourth country. The Guardian
For context, Donald Trump deported 1.5 million people during his first presidential term. The Guardian The current drive uses bilateral deals to move nationals of one country to the territory of another, and in some instances onward again.
Legal limits tighten
A U.S. appeals court rejected the Trump administration's policy allowing swift deportations to third countries. Reuters
An appeals panel largely upheld a February ruling in the case. The ruling allows migrants to contest deportations to countries other than their place of origin. The New York Times
In a separate constraint, a federal court ruled President Donald Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to speed deportation of people accused of being part of Tren de Aragua. The Guardian
The rulings require notice and an opportunity to challenge the destination. Summary transfer without that process is not allowed.
Deals, flights and payments
The deals involve payments. More than $32 million was sent to five countries under Trump's foreign deportation deals, according to a report highlighted by Democrats. Reuters
The United States had spent $7.2 million on third-country deportation flights as of January 2026 to at least ten countries, according to the Senate report.
The broader context here is a shift from domestic enforcement to managing migration through deals with other governments. Washington offers funds, political engagement or other considerations. Partners accept non-nationals, often with limited capacity to process asylum claims or integrate arrivals. Courts then decide whether procedural safeguards traveled with the person.
In my view, three questions will shape what comes next. First, whether the September appeals ruling survives further review and how strictly immigration authorities implement its requirement for contestability. Second, whether partner states in Africa, Latin America and central Asia sustain politically sensitive reception agreements once costs and domestic reactions become clearer. Third, whether rerouting cases like Liberia to Equatorial Guinea create a precedent for serial transfers that are harder for courts and monitors to track than initial removals. The numbers now provide a baseline. More than 25,000 third-country removals, more than 100 flights to 28 countries, agreements covering at least 29 states. What remains contested is durability, legality and diplomatic cost.
