Trump administration plans immigrant flights to Libya as its deportation agenda grows
Having already sent nearly 300 immigrants — who've been framed as hardened criminals despite many of them appearing to have no criminal record whatsoever — to El Salvador's brutal CECOT prison, the administration is planning to expand its deportations to Libya, NBC News reported. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that imminent deportation flights to Libya, or any other third country, without due process would violate his temporary restraining order.
It's noteworthy that top Libyan officials denied that any arrangement is in place to accept immigrants from the United States, though the country's provisional government suggested that 'some parallel parties that are not subject to legitimacy' could be involved.
At the moment, Libya is effectively divided into two factions that are fighting for control of the country, which has been wrought by war and strife after the U.S.-backed coup that dislodged Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. Libya's treatment of immigrants has been decried by human rights activists, and, given the dehumanizing things Trump has said to malign immigrants — such as his claim that they are 'poisoning the blood' of the U.S. — it's fair to wonder whether the administration sees Libya's brutality as a benefit in this case.
And the same goes for Rwanda, whose foreign minister recently confirmed that his government was in 'early talks' with the Trump administration about accepting immigrants. As multiple critics of such a deal recently explained to NPR, Rwanda is also plagued by human rights abuses:
Even without the expense, critics say Rwanda's abysmal rights record under President Paul Kagame means it's no place to resettle people.
'Rwanda under the long-ruling Kagame dictatorship is simply not a safe country, it's a totalitarian police state by any standard,' said Jeffrey Smith, founder of pro-democracy nonprofit Vanguard Africa.
Michela Wrong, a journalist and author of a book on Rwanda, also said the country is not a suitable place to send deportees.
'This is a country where the elections are routinely rigged, where opposition activists disappear and are found murdered…where opposition leaders aren't allowed to run in the elections, journalists are jailed or end up fleeing the country,' she said.
The Trump administration could easily look to Britain — which previously attempted a deportation arrangement with Rwanda that has widely been considered an expensive failure — for reasons why this might be a bad idea. But the administration's multimillion-dollar prison deal with El Salvador already proves that it's willing to waste money on cruel stunts.
It's worth noting that Trump doesn't appear to carry high regard for African nations. As you may remember, he labeled them as 'shithole countries,' along with El Salvador and Haiti, during an Oval Office meeting back in 2018. He has offered no mea culpa for those bigoted remarks, so the fact he essentially wants to dump immigrants in these same places — and potentially even U.S. citizens — suggests he is seeking to punish his party's perceived enemies and effectively threatening anyone who might defy his warped, authoritarian perception of law and order.
It certainly seems to set up a perverse reward structure for other countries. Why shore up your human rights abuses to get on America's good side — as countries have historically had to do — when you can just tailor your brutality so it aligns with the Trump administration's mission?
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Laura Loomer Blasts Return of FDA Vaccine Chief She Helped Force Out
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. Laura Loomer has reacted with anger after a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine chief she criticized returned to the agency. Writing on X, formerly Twitter, the conservative commentator slammed President Donald Trump's administration for rehiring Dr. Vinay Prasad two weeks after he resigned from his role leading the FDA's vaccines and gene therapy division. Why It Matters Loomer is an influential figure in right-wing circles. She was present alongside Trump on the 2024 campaign trail, and she has been tied to his decision to fire National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and other aides, although the president has denied that she was the reason for the sackings. Prasad used to work for the University of California, San Francisco. He has also previously worked at the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Laura Loomer outside the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Laura Loomer outside the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images What To Know Prasad, a physician who was first appointed to the role in May, left the FDA on July 30 following pressure from Loomer and other political influencers. Prasad had faced backlash over the agency's handling of a gene therapy linked to the deaths of two teenagers and his decision not to approve certain drugs. Loomer had also repeatedly claimed Prasad was liberal and said he was anti-Trump. "How did this Trump-hating Bernie [Sanders] Bro get into the Trump admin???" Loomer posted on X in July. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary had defended Prasad, who was a critic of vaccine and mask mandates, prior to his resignation. After it was reported he would return, writing on X, Loomer called the decision to rehire Prasad "egregious." She also indicated she would launch critiques of other figures, saying she "will be ramping up my exposés of officials within the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA so the American people can see more of the pay for play rot themselves and how rabid Trump haters continue to be hired in the Trump administration." NEW: In another egregious personnel decision under the Trump administration, it is now being reported that longtime progressive Marxist Vinay Prasad who referred to President Trump's supporters as criminals and compared them to drug addicts after saying he stabbed a Trump voodoo… — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 9, 2025 What People Are Saying Department Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Reuters: "At the FDA's request, Dr. Vinay Prasad is resuming leadership of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research." When he resigned, Prasad said he "did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the FDA" and had "decided to return to California and spend more time with his family." What Happens Next As Trump's presidency continues, it is likely that there will be further personnel changes in government departments.
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ukraine Reacts to Reports Trump May Invite Zelensky to Alaska Talks
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. A senior Ukrainian official said it would be "the right thing to do" for U.S. President Donald Trump to invite Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelensky to next week's planned Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, urging that no talks on ending the war take place without Kyiv at the table. Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told Newsweek on Sunday that bringing Zelensky into the discussions would align with the principle of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." His comments followed U.S. media reports that the White House is considering adding the Ukrainian leader to the meeting set for Friday, August 15, the first in-person talks between Trump and Putin since 2019. The White House is weighing up inviting Zelensky, NBC News reported late on Saturday, citing a senior administration official and three people briefed on the discussions. It is "absolutely" a possibility, and "everyone is hopeful that it would happen," the official told the outlet. Newsweek could not independently verify the report and has emailed the White House for comment. A White House official said in a statement to NBC: "The President remains open to a trilateral summit with both leaders. Right now, the White House is focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin." President Donald Trump welcomes Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in Washington, Friday, Feb. 28, 2025. President Donald Trump welcomes Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in Washington, Friday, Feb. 28, 2025. AP Photo/Ben Curtis The U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement on Sunday reinforcing Kyiv's stance. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," the statement read. "We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force." Trump announced the meeting with Putin on Friday, calling it "highly anticipated." Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov confirmed the meeting, saying on Saturday that the White House and the Kremlin would be "working vigorously hard" on the summit's agenda in the next few days. The U.S. is separated from Russia by roughly 55 miles across the Bering Strait. "It does make sense if our delegation simply crosses the Bering Strait and if such an important and expected meeting between the two leaders takes place specifically in Alaska," Ushakov said. "The presidents will undoubtedly focus on discussing ways to reach a sustainable settlement to the Ukraine crisis," Ushakov added. Trump has swung from flattering the Russian leader to overtly criticizing Putin as the Kremlin held off on inking a ceasefire deal pushed by the U.S. Trump said on Friday there would be "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both." "It's not clear what exactly Trump means," Merezhko said. "If he means swapping Ukrainian territories between Russia, the aggressor, and Ukraine, the victim of the Russian aggression, then it looks like appeasement of [the] aggressor." "It is not feasible and demonstrates Trump's misunderstanding of the essence of this war and his desire to chase superficial applause," said Oleg Dunda, a Ukrainian MP and also a member of Zelensky's party. Zelensky said on Saturday "the answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine." "No one will deviate from this – and no one will be able to," Zelensky said in a post to messaging app Telegram. "Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier." Russia currently controls about a fifth of Ukrainian territory, concentrated in the east of the country and much of it captured since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbor in February 2022. The Kremlin said in fall 2022 it had annexed the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions —collectively known as the Donbas, Ukraine's industrial heartland —and the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Russia does not control all the territory in these regions, also referred to as oblasts. Moscow annexed the Crimean peninsula, to the south of mainland Ukraine, in 2014. Russia's control over any Ukrainian region is not currently internationally recognized. Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met Putin earlier this week for what Trump described as a "highly productive" meeting with the Kremlin chief. Putin proposed a ceasefire deal to Witkoff that demanded major concessions on territory in the east, particularly Donetsk, from Ukraine, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing European and Ukrainian officials. Germany's Bild newspaper reported on Saturday that Witkoff had misunderstood Russia's position on a ceasefire deal, taking Putin's demands for Ukraine to withdraw from Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as an offer for Moscow to pull troops from the two regions. European leaders offered a "counterproposal" after Putin's meeting with Witkoff, which rejected the idea that Ukraine would cede territory it still holds in Donetsk, WSJ reported. The Kremlin has so far refused to agree to a ceasefire, and denied Kyiv's repeated requests for a face-to-face meeting between Zelensky and Putin. "I don't think that Putin would refuse to attend the summit if Zelensky joins," Merezhko said. "Trump could meet first in Alaska with Putin and the next day with Putin and Zelensky." But the optimism for concrete results from the Alaska meeting seems muted in Kyiv. "I doubt that there will be substantial progress," Merezhko said. "Nothing has changed," said Dunda. Ushakov said Russia had already invited Trump to Russian territory for the "next meeting" between the two presidents.
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Even if they settle with Trump, universities have their work cut out for them
Last month, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University cut deals with the Trump administration to resolve accusations related to antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and transgender rights. The administration believes it now has a template for forcing universities to accede to its policy preferences: Make vague but sweeping allegations of discrimination; freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding; overwhelm administrators with civil rights investigations and document requests; and threaten consequences ranging from stripping universities of their right to enroll international students to revoking their tax exemptions. The means used to secure these deals amount to extortion. Over $400 million in research funding was frozen at Columbia with no due process and in violation of the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard University, which chose to litigate but is reported to be negotiating a deal, had over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts frozen and faces half a dozen civil rights investigations and threats to its international student population, tax exempt status and accreditation. Trump's tactics work because his targets cannot survive as modern research universities if they are at war with government agencies prepared to ignore legal constraints and social norms. There are ample reasons to question the sincerity of the Trump administration's commitment to combatting antisemitism, and throttling scientific research makes little sense as a response. Many of the policies agreed to in the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown and Penn are damaging and dangerous. But some of the concerns on which they are based are legitimate. American institutions of higher education should act as well as react to this crisis. The anti-Israel protests that engulfed some campuses last year brought with them a surge in antisemitism. Task force reports at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA and other elite institutions acknowledge failures to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff. At UCLA, for example, pro-Palestinian protesters barred Jewish students from crossing parts of campus, prompting a lawsuit UCLA recently settled for over $6 million and a Justice Department finding that UCLA violated civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In its settlement agreement, Columbia pledged to review its Middle East programs to ensure their educational offerings are 'comprehensive and balanced,' appoint new faculty members in related fields who 'will contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment' and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison to students on antisemitism issues. We believe the imposition of these requirements poses a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy. That said, the Trump administration's draconian demands provided at least part of the impetus for institutions to revise their policies. Harvard, for example, announced a series of initiatives to encourage respectful discourse and support research on antisemitism. Other colleges and universities are also making efforts — generally commendable, sometimes problematic — to maintain their commitments to free speech while tightening time, place and manner restrictions on protests. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration also insisted that Harvard hire an 'external party' to audit 'the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity,' and then hire faculty and admit students to achieve balance in every department, faculty and teaching unit. This demand is ill-defined, absurd and unconstitutional. But as Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has acknowledged, the university needs to do more to ensure 'a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity and academic exploration.' According to a 2023 survey, over 77 percent of Harvard's faculty identify as 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 3 percent who identify as 'conservative' or 'very conservative.' Similar if less extreme disparities exist on most elite campuses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. And as the Heterodox Academy has observed, a too-uniform political culture can give rise to 'closed-minded orthodoxies within scholarly communities.' The devil, of course, is in the details. Departments can easily rule out hiring a creationist to teach biology or a climate change denier to teach environmental studies. But what is the right mix of expertise in a history or chemistry department? And how should that be achieved without employing affirmative action, given the dearth of conservatives pursuing a Ph.D. in many fields? One thing, at least, should be clear: The answers to such questions should come from internal deliberations rather than external mandates. The most controversial aspect of the Trump administration's effort to remake higher education has been its attack on DEI programs. The Columbia settlement insists not only that the university maintain 'merit-based admission policies' and refrain from racial preferences, but also that it 'may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination,' even though the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action permits universities to consider 'an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' Universities must decide how to square this circle. Similar language forbidding racial preferences appears in the Brown settlement. That agreement also requires Brown to 'provide female student-athletes with intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms strictly separated on the basis of sex,' offer women the option of 'female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities' and 'ensure students have access to single-sex floors in on-campus housing,' with male and female defined in accordance with a Trump executive order insisting that sex is binary and immutable. These provisions go well beyond existing law and may make campuses less welcoming places for many students. That said, some DEI policies should be reconsidered. Requiring job applicants to submit diversity statements, for example, risks the imposition of ideological filters. And although concerns about transgender athletes participating in college sports have been vastly overstated, there is room for fine-tuning participation policies. Critics of the Trump administration rightly decry the bullying that is forcing universities to accept unprecedented government intrusion into university affairs. Most of that intrusion will do far more harm than good. But colleges and universities should seize the moment to preserve and promote core values while implementing reforms that are reasonable, feasible and just. Doing so may not keep the wolf away, but it might help win over a skeptical public.
