The Trump administration’s controversial policy of deporting serious criminals to third countries is drawing criticism after reports revealed that several migrants were later sent to their home nations instead. U.S. officials have justified the removals, saying some offenders are “so uniquely barbaric” their native countries initially refused to accept them. However, a Reuters review found at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya were later repatriated to Vietnam, Laos, and Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ramped up deportations to nations like South Sudan and Eswatini, claiming the move enhances public safety by removing individuals convicted of crimes such as child sex abuse and murder. Eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Mexico, and Myanmar, were deported to South Sudan, while five were sent to Eswatini. Critics argue the U.S. failed to exhaust efforts to return them to their home countries before resorting to third-country removals, calling the practice unnecessarily harsh and arbitrary.
A Supreme Court ruling in June allowed such deportations without offering migrants a chance to contest potential harm, intensifying legal challenges. Immigrant advocates warn the policy creates fear, pushing migrants to “self deport” rather than risk being sent to unfamiliar nations.
Some deportees, like Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez—sent to South Sudan despite Mexico’s willingness to accept him—remain in custody abroad, leaving families scrambling for answers. Opponents say the approach uses vulnerable migrants “as pawns” and raises questions about U.S. compliance with international norms.
While the administration defends the policy as prioritizing community safety, lawsuits and diplomatic tensions highlight growing opposition to third-country deportations under Trump’s immigration agenda.