
‘All They Want Is America. All They Have Is Panama.'
The Decapolis Hotel advertises 'spacious suites & ocean views' in a business area in Panama City. The glass tower is also one of the few hotels in the city that can accommodate 299 people on short notice. When three planes carrying non-Panamanian deportees arrived in mid-February from the United States, the Decapolis redirected its guests to partner hotels and turned over its trendy lobby to armed security personnel, who ensured that no one could get in or out.
Comfortable rooms were repurposed as prison cells, with police officers stationed in the hallways to ensure that people left only for meals. Still, the migrants managed to communicate with journalists by holding written messages up to the windows. One Iranian woman wrote HELP US in lipstick on the glass.
These were the first migrants Donald Trump sent away in a third-country deportation agreement. Some had intended to apply for asylum in the United States—a right enshrined in U.S. and international law. But Trump has suspended the asylum process as part of his immigration crackdown. Many of the 299 people shipped off to Panama—some without even knowing where the planes they'd boarded were bound—now find themselves in a dangerous purgatory. Some don't feel they can return to their countries of origin, but also don't wish to stay in Panama, or don't trust that their asylum pleas will be given due consideration there.
Inconveniently, the U.S. planes arrived in Panama at a moment when the country's leader was keen on reducing immigration. President José Raúl Mulino campaigned last year on building a Trumpian border wall. But when Trump started threatening to seize the Panama Canal, Mulino sought to placate him, even if that meant putting Trump's anti-immigration agenda before his own. Mulino sought to reassure the public that the migrants' stay in Panama was essentially a long layover on the way to deportation: 'We hope to get them out of there as soon as possible.' Government officials emphasized that the migrants were ' in transit,' just like the ships passing through the Panama Canal. But Mulino has said on other occasions that international law would be respected, and that no one would be forced to return to a country where they didn't feel safe.
In mid-March, I went to Panama to find out what might become of the migrants who were still there—those who, politicians kept saying, are in transit, but who seem to have nowhere else to go.
In the early days after the planes' arrival, some of the migrants told me, staffers from the United Nations International Organization for Migration showed up at the hotel and paid each person a visit. According to those I spoke with, the IOM staffers told them that they could either fly home right away on a commercial airline or wait to be deported by the Panamanian authorities. More than half of the migrants signed repatriation documents and flew to their countries of origin, such as India and Uzbekistan.
The Panamanian authorities and the IOM called these returns ' voluntary.' 'IOM does not carry out forced returns or coerce people to voluntarily depart,' an IOM spokesperson told me. 'Our role is limited to assisting those who choose to return so they may do so safely.'
But how well the migrants understood their options is not clear. A Chinese man who identified himself as Xu told me that a woman he'd met at the hotel had texted him from the Istanbul airport. (Xu asked me to withhold his full name so Chinese officials wouldn't know his location.) She told him that she had agreed to repatriate only because she thought she had no choice. When she landed in Istanbul for a layover, she refused to board the connecting flight to China. Then she learned that the people who hadn't signed the repatriation documents had stayed in Panama. She asked Xu if he could talk with someone to arrange her return. Xu wasn't able to help her, and the last time I talked with him, he said that the woman had spent five days in the Istanbul airport before making it to another country, and that she didn't want to talk with reporters. (The IOM spokesperson declined to comment on the woman's case.)
Staff from Panama's National Refugee Office visited the Decapolis and invited the 100 or so remaining migrants to apply for asylum. But the government's public messaging had given them little reason to believe the offer was sincere. On February 19, soon after the migrants landed in Panama, Security Minister Frank Ábrego had declared at a press conference: 'At no point will Panama offer asylum to any of these people.' Hardly any of the migrants made claims at first.
Still, five women from Cameroon and one from Ghana decided to take advantage of the opportunity. 'America doesn't want us and sent us here,' one of them told me. 'Let's stay here.' Asylum decisions usually take years, but an initial decision as to whether their cases were eligible to move forward would take about two weeks from the asylum hearing, they were told. In fact, it came in two days: All six applications were refused. (The national refugee agency, known by its Spanish acronym as ONPAR, did not respond to my request for interviews or comment.)
One of the women was a 32-year-old who fled Cameroon amid fighting last November. She asked me to withhold her name so that assailants in her home country wouldn't be able to locate her. In her asylum hearing, she said that police officers had entered her house and raped her in front of her siblings, and that the police had burned her whole village. But she also said she hoped to work in Panama, because she was 'the only one able to send money to her family.' In the refusal letter, the agency argued on the basis of these words that she was an economic migrant and therefore not in need of asylum.
She and the other remaining migrants were transported from the Decapolis to a camp in San Vicente, in the Darién Gap, the same jungle many of them had crossed by foot on their journey to the United States. They spent three weeks there, amid filth and mosquitos, in unrelenting heat—and without access to lawyers or phones, according to the migrants I spoke with as well as a Human Rights Watch report. Then Panamanian officials came and told them they were free to leave.
They were given permits that allowed them to live, but not work, in Panama for 90 days. All they had to do was sign a document certifying that the Panamanian authorities had treated them well and another agreeing to the terms of the 90-day permit. According to a lawyer who has worked with this group since, some at first refused to sign—they had questions about what the permit entailed—but were pressured into doing so under threat of deportation. (Panama's security ministry declined to comment on the claim that migrants were pressured to sign.) Then they boarded buses that would take them back to Panama City.
The first two buses dropped the migrants off in the parking lot of a shopping mall late on March 8. UNICEF staffers were there waiting for the families with children, to bring them to a hotel. The rest were on their own. Some had been in touch with Caitlyn Yates, a blond, bespectacled American who'd moved to Panama as a doctoral student to study the migration of Asians and Africans through the Darién Gap to North America. When Yates found out that some of her research subjects were on their way to Panama City, she messaged the Panamanian lawyer Victor Atencio, who was also following the migrants' situation closely. Yates and Atencio arrived at the parking lot less than an hour after the migrants, ready to help.
The migrants didn't know it, but Atencio was probably the reason they'd been allowed to leave the Darién Gap. A robust, buttoned-up man of 50, he had read about the migrants in The New York Times. He'd filed a habeas corpus petition that the Panamanian government had ignored. Then he sued Panama before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, asking the court to set some 'precautionary measures': for the migrants to be set free, communication with lawyers to be allowed, and deportation to be deferred. Several legal organizations, including the Global Strategic Litigation Council, joined the suit.
The day before Panama's deadline to respond to the court, it released the migrants and gave them the 90-day permits. According to GSLC's lawyers, the Panamanian government claimed that it had not mistreated the migrants or held them incommunicado. The human-rights commission eventually declined to set the precautionary measures, but reminded Panama to follow international law.
By the time the buses arrived that March night, only a chicken joint and a McDonald's remained open in the mall's food court. Yates bought everyone a meal as Atencio called hotels in the city to find one with availability. Together, they stopped taxis one by one, until there were enough to go to the hotel in a caravan. Samin Haider, a 22-year-old Pakistani, would later describe that night to me as the first time he'd felt hope after arriving in Panama. Yates and Atencio weren't the only ones who showed the migrants kindness. There was the McDonald's cashier who offered them free ice cream, the mall employee who allowed the food court to stay open late, and the taxi drivers who didn't want to be paid.
In mid-March, I visited Hogar Luisa, a two-story house owned by a Catholic charity that Yates had approached and that now sheltered about a dozen of the migrants. Many more were sleeping at a school gym repurposed into a camp by Fe y Alegría, another Catholic charity Yates had enlisted. The migrants were finally free to come and go as they pleased, but so were reporters. They were a bit tired of us.
'Why do you ask so many questions?' a Nigerian woman asked me, laughing. 'We all have the same story.' She asked me to withhold her name out of fear of reprisals against her son, who is still in Nigeria. She said she descends from a long line of priestesses in the local religion of her home region, but she didn't want to be one herself. Instead, she married a Christian and converted to Christianity. When her grandmother, the 'priestess of the shrine,' found out, she pledged to kill her in punishment.
An Iranian woman I met had also converted to Christianity, in a Muslim country where apostasy can be punishable by death. (She asked to remain anonymous to protect her Christian relatives in Iran, and in case she is forced to return.) She'd owned a gym and was married to an electrical engineer. The police learned that the couple were hosting Christian services at their house, and so they'd fled.
A young Pakistani man named Syed Saqlain Badshah told me he'd led student protests in Parachinar in 2017. He'd been hiding from the Pakistani Taliban ever since. A woman named Dora Zhou didn't want to tell me why she and her two teenage daughters had left China. 'It's too painful,' she wrote on her phone. 'I had no choice but to leave.'
I spent perhaps the most time with a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan who asked to be identified only by her middle name, Serwarah, out of fear of retaliation against her relatives still in the country. She grew up in Maymana, a small city in Faryab province, near the country's northern border with Turkmenistan. As a girl she'd read Napoleon Hill's bootstrapping best seller from 1937, Think and Grow Rich, and she'd planned to study accounting in college and launch her own clothing brand. That was before the Taliban took over. Then those avenues all closed, and her grandmother told her that a Talib with two wives who was many decades older had requested her hand in marriage. She'd known this man all her life—he was her mother's distant cousin—and she wondered when he'd begun thinking of her that way.
To escape this marriage, Serwarah fled Afghanistan in 2021, when she was 17. She settled first in Iran. From there, she tried to cross into Turkey by foot, only to be stopped at the Turkish border and raped by a Turkish border-police officer. She was sent back to Iran. In 2023, she was accepted to Near East University, in Northern Cyprus, one of the few places in Europe where Afghan nationals can get visas on arrival. But officials at Ercan Airport refused to admit her. She decided to make her way to the United States.
From the September 2022 issue: I smuggled my laptop past the Taliban so I could write this story
Serwarah acquired a fake visa for Brazil, where she landed in November 2024, and from there she took buses, trekked the Darién Gap, and took more buses all the way to the United States. Somewhere along the way, she learned that in her absence, the Talib had requested to marry her little sister. She thought about returning and marrying him so that her sister would be spared. But her favorite uncle told her over the phone, If you come back, the Taliban will stone you to death. And he'll still marry your sister.
The night Serwarah left Afghanistan, her sister had insisted she take one thing with her: their great-grandmother's ring, a ruby surrounded by tiny Afghan emeralds. It's the only possession she has kept—she attached it to her bra strap so it wouldn't get lost or stolen and told herself she'd put it on her finger when she reached America and applied for asylum.
When I met her in Panama, Serwarah was living in a shelter, but otherwise seemed in every way like the 21-year-old she was: She spent her days texting her boyfriend, an Afghan she'd met working in a perfumery in Iran, and taking the bus to the mall to buy makeup with money her uncle sent.
The heads of the charities hosting the migrants have years of experience. Panama is, after all, home to the Darién Gap, the treacherous stretch of jungle that separates South and Central America, which thousands of migrants have crossed by foot. But the migrants sent by plane from the United States presented challenges that even these professionals had never encountered, they told me.
From the September 2024 issue: Seventy miles in hell
Father Marco Tulio Gómez, the director of Fe y Alegría, and Jorge Ayala, of Hogar Luisa, normally work alongside government agencies. Both charities reached out to officials to talk about getting work permits for the migrants, and both told me that their calls went unanswered. The Apostolic Nunciature to Panama, the Pope's diplomatic mission in the country, also tried establishing contact with the authorities to no avail. Ayala told me he thought the Panamanian government might be putting off any decisions until it knows whether the Trump administration plans to send more migrants.
Father Gómez told me he was accustomed to working with migrants who were on their way north. 'They still had a goal,' he said. Many of those flown to Panama from the United States, by contrast, seem not to fully understand that America is, for now, not an option. Ayala is still trying to get them work permits, but he told me that most of them don't really want to stay in Panama. He worried that they would try their luck again crossing the U.S. border. 'Between eyebrow and eyebrow, all they have is thoughts of going back,' Ayala said. 'All they want is America. All they have is Panama.'
The group of lawyers that joined Atencio's lawsuit went on to file another lawsuit over Panama's treatment of migrants. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights could take years to make a decision on it. The new lawsuit charges that Panama has not respected the rights of the migrants to seek asylum. Among other claims, it alleges that the Panamanian police obstructed some migrants from applying, and that those who did apply—the six women from Cameroon and Ghana—had no way to seek legal counsel, received immediate denials, and were told by Panamanian authorities not to appeal. 'Everything indicates that the process sought to discourage access to protection rather than guarantee it,' Silvia Serna, one of the lawyers on the suit, told me.
After the lawsuits were filed—the lawyers suggest because they were filed—those migrants who wished to seek asylum were better able to do so. At least three more have been denied, and no one has received a positive answer yet. But the national refugee agency has called some migrants back for interviews, suggesting that their cases may be receiving appropriate consideration.
Whether or not they can, however, very few of the migrants seem to want to apply for asylum in Panama. Ayala knows of only nine between the two shelters who have done so. Those I spoke with told me that they thought their claims would be pointless, and that anyway, they didn't want to live in Panama.
'I don't trust anyone in Panama,' Narges, a reclusive Iranian woman, said when I asked her why she didn't want to apply for asylum. (Another Christian convert, she asked me to omit her last name to protect her relatives in Iran.)
'But do you have any other place to go?' I pressed.
'I don't trust anyone in Panama,' she said again.
After the 90-day permit expires, Panama may well deport those who never sought asylum. 'The fundamental framing of this permit was as a deferred deportation,' Ian Kysel, a co-founder of the Global Strategic Litigation Council, told me. And yet, most of the people I spoke with in March either didn't understand this or had other plans they didn't share with me. When I spoke with migrants still in the shelters just this week, they told me that dozens had left since I was last there. Some, Serwarah texted me, have made it to Mexico.
The last day I went to the Fe y Alegría camp was sunny, with a nice breeze. Nigerian and Ghanaian women were braiding one another's hair under a tree, blasting Afrobeat. Eritreans and Ethiopians were playing Uno on plastic dining tables. Chinese kids had come to visit from the hotel and were running around, hiding behind some of the mattresses on the gym floor.
Serwarah wasn't there—she was staying at Hogar Luisa—but other Afghans had gathered around her closest friend in Panama, Suraiya Hussaini, a 25-year-old whose brother, Ali, had stayed behind in an ICE detention center and was now being deported to Afghanistan. As everyone around her looked forward to movie night, Suraiya looked numb. Serwarah, who heard the news from other Afghans, kept calling to ask for updates, but Suraiya had stopped answering her phone. Anxieties about deportation, which hadn't troubled Serwarah and other Afghans for a few days, had returned with vivid intensity, she later told me.
Before I left Panama, I attended one of President Mulino's Thursday press conferences in Palacio de las Garzas, the presidential office and residence. I asked him whether the migrants would be able to stay in Panama once their 90-day humanitarian permits expired in June.
'I haven't considered this,' Mulino answered. 'The idea is that they leave before.'
'And they do want to leave,' he added. 'They come from countries very, very far away.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Canceling Musk's SpaceX Contracts Could Force US Closer to Russia
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As President Donald Trump threatens to cancel SpaceX's government contracts amid a feud with Elon Musk, experts told Newsweek that the move could leave the U.S. reliant on Russia for space launches and access. "SpaceX is immensely important to U.S. national security and NASA," Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Aerospace Security Project, told Newsweek on Friday, adding that if the contracts are terminated, "NASA would again have to turn to Russia to get to and from the [International] Space Station [ISS]." Why It Matters NASA and SpaceX have built one of the most significant public-private partnerships in modern space exploration. Since 2015, SpaceX has received more than $13 billion in NASA contracts, making it one of the agency's largest private partners. SpaceX is deeply integrated into U.S. national security and the space program, with Swope telling Newsweek: "SpaceX is not like the appendix but a vital organ in everything the United States is doing in space." Musk, the SpaceX CEO and former Trump ally heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), clashed publicly with the president on Thursday in a heated exchange on social media. The dispute began over Musk's criticism of a Trump-backed spending bill and escalated into threats over federal contracts and allegations involving Trump's ties to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What To Know On Thursday, the president threatened termination of Musk's various contracts, writing in a Truth Social post: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." SpaceX holds billions of dollars in NASA contracts and plays a key role in the U.S. space program. While several experts told Newsweek they don't believe the contracts will be canceled, they raised concerns about the company's outsized influence on the industry and the critical gaps it could leave. Access To The ISS "SpaceX is immensely important to U.S. national security and NASA. SpaceX is not like the appendix, but a vital organ in everything the United States is doing in space," Swope said Friday in an emailed statement. "Ending work with SpaceX would leave a huge gap that cannot be filled with the other options available today. The biggest impacts would be to space launch and maintaining the International Space Stations. NASA would again have to turn to Russia to get to and from the space station." In 2014, SpaceX was selected to provide crew launch services to the ISS through the development of Crew Dragon, a capsule that transports astronauts to and from the ISS, and its operational missions. NASA has no other way to independently get to and from the ISS without SpaceX. As a result of this and other measures, Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA's Ames Research Center, the first Mars program director and the founder of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, told Newsweek that he doesn't believe Trump's threats will be realized, saying: "There is no alternative to the F9-Dragon combination at present. "He would be stranding astronauts on the ISS unless he wants to go hat in hand to the Russians and try to get more Soyuz flight," in reference to the spacecraft that provides crewed transport to the ISS. Russia, formerly part of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. have long been in a space race. Russia is actively developing its own space station, known as the Russian Orbital Service Station (ROSS), to succeed the ISS, which is set to retire in 2030. Construction on the proposed project is set to begin in 2027. Laura Forczyk, founder of space consulting firm Astralytical, told Newsweek that while it's possible the U.S. may negotiate a contract with Russia to launch astronauts to the ISS, "the current geopolitical climate would make that difficult." Tensions between Washington and Moscow remain high as ceasefire talks for the Russia-Ukraine war have stalled, with the last round of negotiations lasting just 90 minutes with little progress. Adding to the tension, Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of Russia's State Duma Committee on International Affairs, told the state-run outlet TASS on Friday that while he doesn't believe Musk will need political asylum, "if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it." Stateside, space experts largely agree that Musk essentially has a "monopoly" on the industry, responsible for key people movement and launching "more than 90 percent of the U.S. satellites into space," Darrell West, a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation in the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Newsweek. While companies like Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Boeing are also involved in spaceflight, they don't operate at the same capacity as SpaceX or hold the same number and type of government contracts. Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the University of Mississippi's Center for Air and Space Law, told Newsweek in an email: "Certainly, there are other launch service providers but SpaceX remains dominant and the time it would take to replace all services would delay many important missions and strategic plans, including the proposed Golden Dome." She added that "U.S. reliance on SpaceX is not borne of favoritism but of necessity and efficiency." Aspects Of The Space Program Space research and exploration go beyond science. They are central to U.S. national security. The Department of Defense holds multiple contracts to launch satellites used for GPS, intelligence gathering and military coordination. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union fiercely competed for dominance in space, viewing it as a critical domain of defense. "Space is important as an end in itself in terms of exploring and gaining new knowledge. But it also is taking on a defense role, because space is getting militarized. There are both offensive and defensive weapons that could be put into space," West said. "There's a lot riding on this relationship. People are worried if there is a major war, adversaries could shoot down our satellites and destroy our GPS systems and mobile communications." Beyond high-profile rocket launches and missions to the ISS, the U.S. space program encompasses a wide range of activities, including deploying space-based science observatories, launching lunar landers and preparing crewed and uncrewed missions to the moon and other planets, among other initiatives. What Happens Next When Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment on Friday, it was referred to NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens' statement, which was emailed to Newsweek. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space," Stevens said. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met." Given the volatile nature of their feud, it remains unclear whether Trump will attempt to cancel existing contracts or limit future deals, or whether Musk could pull SpaceX out of its government commitments altogether.