
Here are the 3rd-countries where the Trump admin is deporting migrants
The big picture: The administration's increasing number of third-country deportation agreements showcases a dogged desire to pursue every possible avenue to fulfill Trump's promise to deport record numbers of noncitizens.
Catch up quick: The Trump administration restarted deportation flights after the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security could resume sending migrants to countries that were not their place of origin.
The decision put a lower court order that required the government to give immigrants adequate time to challenge their deportations on hold.
State of play: Border czar Tom Homan said the U.S. aims to sign third-country deportation agreements with "many countries" to support the administration's deportation plans.
The administration has either approached or plans to approach roughly 51 countries to accept non-citizen deportations from the U.S., per a June report New York Times report.
At least two of those countries, Eswatini and South Sudan in Africa, have accepted flights from the U.S. since the report came out.
The DHS did not immediately respond to Axios' Wednesday evening request for comment on how many of the countries have been approached.
Thought bubble via Axios' Dave Lawler: The administration has reportedly discussed safe third-country agreements with many countries for which the "safe" description is very much in question.
Take Libya or South Sudan, both of which have been wracked by instability and violence for years. Several other countries involved in these deals are among the poorest in the world.
The prospect of deporting migrants thousands of miles away to unfamiliar and often unstable countries has raised alarm among human rights groups, but the idea has strong support within the administration.
Here are the countries that have already accepted deportees who are not their citizens:
Eswatini
Five migrants from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen were deported to the tiny African nation of Eswatini on Tuesday, the DHS announced.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on X that the flight was carrying individuals who had been convicted of a range of crimes that included murder, homicide, and child rape.
El Salvador
The Trump administration sent at least 238 Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvadorian maximum security prison under the Alien Enemies Act in March, claiming that they were terrorists and members of a violent gang.
By the numbers: An April CBS News report found 75% of the migrants sent to the prison had no criminal record.
Mexico
Mexico has received roughly 6,000 non-Mexicans from the U.S. as of late April, per Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
Sheinbaum said the non-Mexicans her country was accepting for "humanitarian reasons" comprise a small number of the nearly 39,000 migrants the U.S. has deported to Mexico since Jan. 20.
Guatemala
Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo announced in February that his country had agreed to accept third-country nationals from the United States and would be ramping up deportation flights from the U.S. by 40%.
Arevalo told NBC News that the agreement was not supposed to provide a pathway for people to seek asylum in Guatemala. Rather, the country would serve as a pit stop in the process of sending people back to their home countries.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica accepted roughly 200 third-country nationals from two different U.S. flights through the end of February, per a May Human Rights Watch report.
On the planes were at least 81 children and two pregnant women.
What they're saying: After announcing the expulsion agreement, Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said his country was helping its "economically powerful brother to the north."
Costa Rican officials have said the U.S. will cover the costs of the deported people's stay in the country, and that the arrangement was expected to be a temporary stop in the repatriation process.
Panama
The U.S. has deported hundreds of people to Panama since February as part of a deal for the country serve as a "bridge" while the U.S. bears the financial costs, per AP.
The migrants are from countries including Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China.
Rwanda
The U.S. paid the Rwandan government $100,000 to accept an Iraqi citizen in April and agreed to take 10 more deportees, the New York Times reported.
Negotiations reached over the Iraqi citizen "proved the concept for a new removal program, according to the report.
South Sudan
The U.S. deported eight men to South Sudan in July, after a legal battle diverted their deportation flight to Djibouti for several weeks.
Some of the men deported were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam.
Kosovo
This landlocked Balkan nation in Europe agreed to host 50 noncitizen deportees from the U.S. in June.
The deal would allow noncitizens to be "temporarily relocated" before being sent back to their home country.
The intrigue: Kosovo reportedly agreed to accept the noncitizens from the U.S. in the hope that the administration will continue to lobby other nations to recognize the small country's independence.
Hashtags

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

USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.


New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
The Biden administration secretly stole your data to engineer elections and silence speech
While the Department of Government Efficiency traces the flow of dollars between government and partisan activists, the flow of data may reveal an even deeper menace. The real story of government weaponization can only be told once we reckon with the shadowy data-sharing web secretly used to manipulate elections, punish foes and silence speech — which my new book, 'They're Coming for You,' dares to expose. Without the constitutional authority to collect our financial transactions, our browsing histories or our location data, the Biden administration found a workaround. Federal agencies outsourced unconstitutional data grabs to politically aligned partners. Instead of collecting data directly, they bought or sold it from or exchanged it with nonprofits and tech companies. 5 Author Jason Chaffetz was a House Oversight Committee chairman. Reuters My book exposes three critical fronts where this abuse thrived: election interference, citizen surveillance and the erosion of free speech. The silent manipulation of voters through our data demands urgent scrutiny to protect future elections. While DOGE's budget probes grab headlines, the real scandal is deeper. A Biden executive order forced every federal agency to conduct ostensibly nonpartisan voter-registration drives. Yet the implementation often told a different story. 5 Book The Small Business Administration, for instance, diverted its limited resources toward partisan voter outreach. The agency proactively contacted states, particularly swing states like Arizona and Georgia, to request designations as voter-registration entities, though federal law requires states to make the first move under the National Voter Registration Act. Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests reveal the SBA's focus on liberal voting blocs, including promoting events likely to register Democratic-leaning voters in blue precincts. 'How many events have you run to open small businesses in non-Democratic areas?' one lawmaker asked SBA Associate Administrator for Field Operations Jennifer Kim during a 2024 hearing. Kim didn't answer directly but assured the committee politics played no role in the agency's outreach — a claim the efforts' documented partisan skew contradicts. 5 The Small Business Administration's Jennifer Kim faced questions of agency bias at a 2024 House hearing. YouTube This wasn't random. It was a calculated use of our information, supported by partisan allies, to evade transparency. The result? A voter base quietly reshaped, funded by us but hidden from view. This breach of trust — turning our data into a political tool — undermines democracy itself. My book uncovers this network, revealing how agencies and partners weaponized government services without our knowledge. Voter manipulation is just the opening salvo. The Biden administration unleashed warrantless surveillance to silence dissenters, pressuring financial institutions to flag 'suspicious' transactions and debank opposing voices. This effort ultimately targeted Christian nonprofits, gun makers, conservative protesters — even Melania and Barron Trump — closing their accounts without cause. By buying and sharing information with activist nongovernmental organizations and corporations, financial regulators dodged legal restrictions on government data collection. 5 If this data weaponization goes unchecked, Chaffetz warns, it won't end with the Biden administration. AP This financial chokehold is just the start. President Biden's administration also expanded the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance programs to collect bulk data, including phone metadata, browsing histories and emails, bypassing Congress and public transparency. This data net muzzles your voice. Social-media giants Facebook, YouTube and pre-Elon Musk Twitter faced pressure, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency flagging 859 million tweets as 'misinformation' in 2023, burying 22 million. Among those, many truthful but politically inconvenient facts were buried under labels such as 'Trends blacklist' and 'Do not amplify.' 5 A White House dissent crackdown ensnared Melania and Barron Trump. Getty Images NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index, each with documented Biden-adminsitration ties, amplified this bias by assigning conservative outlets disproportionately low reliability ratings. The Federalist, for example, received a NewsGuard failing score of 12.5 out of 100, allegedly for publishing content deemed objectionable to Democrats rather than for spreading inaccurate information. This harsh rating caused advertisers to flee, severely undercutting revenue to conservative outlets that dared tell the truth. By contrast, left-leaning sites such as NPR and The New York Times consistently received top ratings, regardless of their reporting errors, reinforcing their dominance in news visibility and funding. Artificial-intelligence tools, funded by government programs, downranked conservative narratives, ensuring they vanished from searches. YouTube even tweaked algorithms at the feds' behest. Censorship laundering through NGOs masked illegal moves, monitoring posts to crush wrongthink. The stakes couldn't be higher. If this data weaponization goes unchecked, it won't end with Democrats or the Biden administration. History has shown us the erosion of liberties for one group inevitably sets the stage for broader abuses. Today, it's conservatives being silenced; tomorrow, it might be anyone who dissents. But there's hope. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Americans of all political stripes should demand transparency and accountability from their government and its partners. Whether through boycotts, lawsuits or investigators like DOGE, there are ways to fight back. Free speech and an open exchange of ideas define our democracy. When those in power suppress dissent, they betray not just their critics but the Constitution itself. 'They're Coming for You' is a first step in exposing this corruption. But the responsibility to stop it falls on us all. Stand for truth. Demand accountability. And above all, protect the freedoms that make America a beacon of liberty. Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz is a former House Oversight Committee chairman.


The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'