Why the U.S. Stays Out of the UN's Global Migration Deal

The United States will not participate in the International Migration Review Forum, according to the State Department. This marks the latest chapter in a pattern stretching back nearly a decade: the U.S. rejecting the UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration—the international agreement most other countries have signed to coordinate migration policy.

The compact is now undergoing its second major review cycle. Regional assessments wrapped up in Latin America and the Caribbean in March 2024, and member states submitted their written feedback by the deadline. The framework uses standardized measurement tools to help countries track progress on migration goals.

How We Got Here

The U.S. position on this issue flipped in 2017. Four years earlier, the Obama administration had backed the idea of a global migration agreement. All 193 UN member states, including the United States, initially committed to the project in 2016.

Then the Trump administration withdrew from the negotiations, citing sovereignty concerns—the argument that binding international agreements could limit American border control authority. The administration called the compact "pro-migration" and warned it would undermine U.S. interests. When the Global Compact was finalized in 2018, 192 countries signed it. Only the United States held back. Hungary later joined the U.S. in declining to participate.

The UN Secretary-General expressed disappointment, but the compact moved forward without American involvement.

What the Framework Actually Does

The International Migration Review Forum is the structured mechanism countries use to check progress on meeting the Global Compact's 23 goals. These goals cover practical migration issues: data collection, border management, worker integration, and the procedures for returning people to their home countries.

The review process runs on a cycle independent of U.S. participation. Member states submit regular reports measuring how well they're meeting those goals against a set of agreed-upon indicators—think of it as a standardized report card that lets countries compare notes on what's working.

The U.S. Alternative

Rather than sign the Global Compact, the United States has pursued bilateral deals—agreements directly between the U.S. and another country. A 2019 declaration between the U.S. and Mexico, for example, commits both nations to regional cooperation on Central American development and migration management, sidestepping a broader multilateral framework.

At the same time, the U.S. enforces traditional border controls. In fiscal year 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered over 450,000 people attempting to cross the Mexico border illegally. The UN framework exists partly to address these pressures through coordinated international effort.

Where the Tension Lies

The choice between bilateral and multilateral approaches reflects a real tradeoff. Bilateral agreements allow the U.S. to tailor terms to its specific interests and politics—security concerns, economic aims, regional stability—without negotiating within a larger consensus-building process. But bilateral agreements also create blind spots. When migration flows cross several borders or when humanitarian crises require rapid coordination across many countries, a patchwork of two-country deals leaves gaps.

The Global Compact partners are building coordinated approaches over time as the review process generates updated guidance and refined implementation methods. The U.S. is pursuing its own path in parallel.

What Comes Next

The American opposition to migration frameworks appears unlikely to shift soon, regardless of which party holds the White House. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have prioritized border sovereignty in their rhetoric and policy. The State Department's rejection of the review forum extends that concern beyond the original compact to the ongoing assessment process itself.

This means the international migration framework will continue to operate without U.S. data, insights, and coordination—a limitation for countries trying to understand global migration patterns. At the same time, the U.S. will continue relying on bilateral agreements and its own enforcement apparatus.

The practical outcomes—how effectively each approach manages migration flows, protects migrants' rights, and addresses the root causes of displacement—will ultimately reveal whether this split strategy works. The review process will also keep evolving, potentially creating fresh pressure for American engagement or reinforcing the current divide.