Trump administration prepares to ‘incentivize' expanded migrant repatriations
The Trump administration is preparing to expand migrant repatriations using a nearly $3 billion 'America First Opportunity Fund' at the State Department — specifically to encourage more countries to take back foreign nationals now living as undocumented migrants in the US.
The fund was sparsely detailed in the Trump administration budget request earlier this month. Documents note it will be used for a wide range of 'strategic investments that make America safer,' and mention broad priorities like countering China and repatriations.
But according to a senior State Department official and an administration official, President Donald Trump's aides are eyeing at least part of the fund as a vehicle to convince more countries to take back their citizens.
That arrangement appears distinct from the State Department's existing one with El Salvador, which has reportedly been paid $6 million for one year to detain migrants, including alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele also suggested housing criminals who are US citizens in his country's prisons.
'We will ensure the funds are being effectively used to make America safer, which will include continuing to expand repatriation efforts to incentivize countries to accept their own citizens who are in America illegally,' the State Department official told Semafor.
It's not clear yet whether Congress would need to formally sign off on the fund in order for the Trump administration to use the State budget to pursue expanded repatriation, nor is it clear whether the specific incentives that would be offered would be in the form of direct monetary payments.
But Democrats are already raising questions. They're pushing the administration for more answers about the proposed fund, the idea for which is said to have originated at the Office of Management and Budget, rather than at the State Department.
'I don't know what the hell it is,' Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with control over the State Department's budget, told Semafor.
Schatz said the administration has failed to respond to numerous inquiries about the budget request in general: 'The customary way to do this is to come down to Congress and explain themselves and make an ask.'
Democrats questioned State Department officials about the administration's plans for the fund during a private briefing after the budget came out, one party aide said, but they were given few details beyond the description in the public budget request.
'For all intents and purposes, this is a slush fund,' the Democratic aide argued.
The administration official told Semafor that the goal of the fund is to be 'flexible' on all targets — from partnering with allies to repatriations — in order to make headway on Trump's priorities and his 'America First' foreign policy agenda.
By contrast, new spending for fiscal year 2024 and through March of this year at the US Agency for International Development, which the Trump administration effectively shuttered and moved under State, was $44 billion, according to the Center for Global Development.
The administration's proposed new $2.9 billion fund is also being paired with a proposed increase to the Development Finance Corporation at the State Department, which Trump's budget proposal describes as supporting 'US national security and American interests through billions in loans and guarantees.'
The fund is managed by OMB's Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the daughter-in-law of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a source familiar with her position confirmed. Her official title is associate director for intelligence and international affairs — a job that, as RealClearPolitics reported, puts her in charge of overseeing budgets for the CIA and the other 17 intelligence community agencies.
A president's budget is widely seen as aspirational, and rarely does the document get adopted by Congress in its entirety. Rather, it sets up a tug-of-war on Capitol Hill over how the government spends its money.
But in the case of the America First fund, it's easy to see how a tranche of money could get established at State to execute Trump's immigration crackdown — regardless of whether lawmakers vote to approve it under the proposed name.
The administration is already incentivizing migrants to leave the US with offers of cash and paying El Salvador to accept planeloads of deportees. It's not surprising that officials are looking at ways to expand these types of programs.
An aggressive use of State funds to fuel repatriations in particular — amid deep cuts to foreign assistance — could make things uncomfortable for Republicans as they consider how to move forward with appropriations with full control of Congress.
The other issue lawmakers may have with the America First fund: the lack of specificity, so far, of how the 'flexible' money will be used. Members of both parties typically rely on earmarks to direct money for specific purposes.
Some see the fund as a reflection of the administration's focus on economic resilience and the private sector, not just a tool for Trump's aggressive immigration policies.
Trump's business-focused foreign policy was on display last week as he toured the Gulf, announcing billions of deals in private-sector investments and weapons sales to bring the US closer to the region.
The Trump administration really wants the US foreign assistance architecture 'to be grounded in deals,' a former official said.
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a Democratic resolution that would force the administration to report to Congress about how it is complying with court orders relating to deportations.
The 'biggest winners' in Trump's budget proposal? Defense spending, border security, and veterans health care, Axios noted.
Hashtags

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


The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.


San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest
President Donald Trump's ban on travel to the United States took effect Monday. Demonstrators outside Los Angeles International Airport held signs protesting the ban affecting citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. At Miami International Airport, passengers moved steadily through an area for international arrivals. Tensions are escalating over the Trump administration's campaign of immigration enforcement. The new ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ampere Analysis Breaks Down The Threat U.S. Tariffs Would Pose To European Film & TV
Speaking at NEM in Croatia, Ampere Analysis Co-Founder Guy Bisson ran the rule over the so-called plan to save Hollywood from Jon Voight and associates, and assessed the potential impact on the European film and TV biz. 'A 120% tariff on incentives to cancel out global schemes is patently ridiculous and obviously very damaging, potentially, to the European industry,' he said. 'Tax treaties, local tax treaties in the U.S., and incentive schemes, just like we use in Europe, clearly, are the way to go if you want to re-enliven your industries.' More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Life After Peak TV: "It's A New World Order... There's A Rethink Required" - Berlin Streamer Content Spend To Top Commercial Broadcasters For First Time In 2025 - Report A draft of Voight's Make Hollywood Great Again plan, obtained by Deadline, included a mixture of production incentives and a 120% tariff on the value of a foreign incentive received. After he presented the plan to Donald Trump, the President public proposed a 100% tariff on all U.S. film imports, including productions that shoot in other countries. The NEM confab and sales market is held annually in Dubrovnik. The latest edition kicked off, Monday, with Bisson's session, which was entitled: 'Content Trends in the Era of Trump: Protectionism, Production and International Markets'. The Ampere executive set the scene by showing how the European content business has benefitted from the U.S. studios widening their production bases and streamers setting up shop in several parts of the continent, resulting in orders for thousands of hours of first-run programming. He also said international markets are key to those same U.S. giants monetizing their series and movies with, for example, 54% of the total box office for U.S. films coming from international markets, according to Ampere. Getting into the weeds on the suggested measures, he said a 120% tariff on any incentive received overseas is 'one of the most concerning aspects of the proposal, effectively closing the door on U.S. producers making use of any overseas incentive.' He went on to break down what might happen if the proposed measure were introduced with a slide that pinpointed the UK and Spain as the two biggest potential losers in Europe, given the volumes of U.S. production in both countries. 'Obviously the big European markets – the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany – are on that list, but so is Poland, for example, and Turkey, and the Scandinavian markets. They have been the [among] biggest beneficiaries of that 'runaway' production.' Speaking about the notion of tax treaties with certain countries for films substantially produced in U.S., Bisson said the idea is interesting: 'While you still have to make a majority, or spend a majority of the budget, in the U.S., you can effectively stack or double dip incentive schemes through those treaties.' He also said any re-introduction of rules that prohibit networks (and now, SVODs) fully owning shows 'would remove one of the things that's annoyed producers so much, which is streamers taking all rights in perpetuity.' Trump has said that he would meet with industry officials, and the White House said no final decisions have been made regarding the plan. Voight, Sylvester Stallone and a group that included studios and unions later wrote a letter to Trump emphasizing the need for production incentives While punchy, the NEM presentation was, thusly, analyzing what are currently theoretical scenarios. Bisson said that the best hope for the European biz is that theory never becomes practice. 'None of this is actually happening or being put in place yet, it's just a suggestion,' he said. 'Who can predict what Trump will do next. You may have heard the nickname that Trump has been given: TACO; Trump, Always Chickens Out on tariffs. That's what we can hope will happen again when it comes to our industry and the suggested protectionism being placed on film and TV.' Ted Johnson contributed to this report. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947