By Anietie anii-bassey
The Trump administration spent at least $40 million over the past year to deport roughly 300 migrants to countries other than their own, dramatically expanding a controversial immigration tactic aimed at accelerating removals from the United States, according to a new report compiled by Democratic staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The report, led by committee member Jeanne Shaheen, represents the first congressional review of the administration’s agreements with so-called “third countries” — nations that agree to accept deportees who are not their citizens. Democratic lawmakers sharply criticized the policy as “costly, wasteful and poorly monitored,” warning that it operates with limited transparency and little public accountability.
The State Department, which oversees negotiations for the agreements, has defended the practice as a necessary tool in carrying out President Donald Trump’s pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and remove individuals from the country swiftly.
At a Senate hearing last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the deportations when pressed by lawmakers. “We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country,” Rubio said, framing the policy as a public safety measure.
According to the Democratic staff report, the administration made lump-sum payments ranging from $4.7 million to $7.5 million to five countries — Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini and Palau — in exchange for accepting deported migrants.
Of those countries, El Salvador received the largest number of individuals, taking in approximately 250 Venezuelan nationals in March of last year. Other nations received far fewer deportees: 29 were sent to Equatorial Guinea, while Palau has yet to receive any migrants under its agreement, according to the findings.
The agreements reviewed in the report account for only a portion of the administration’s broader efforts. Internal documents reviewed by The Associated Press indicate that 47 third-country arrangements are at various stages of negotiation. Of those, 15 have been finalized and 10 are nearing completion.
In addition, the administration has pursued separate agreements allowing certain countries to host U.S. asylum seekers while their claims are processed. Seventeen such arrangements are in discussion, nine of which have formally taken effect. Administration officials have argued that finalized agreements are not always required before transfers can occur.
Immigration advocacy groups have denounced the third-country strategy as legally dubious and morally troubling. Critics contend that the policy can leave deportees stranded in unfamiliar countries with limited resources, weak legal protections and, in some cases, troubling human rights records.
During a fact-finding visit to South Sudan, Democratic committee staff reported discovering a gated residence guarded by armed personnel where deportees were being held. Among those housed there were migrants from Vietnam and Mexico, according to the report.
Lawmakers also questioned the efficiency of the program, documenting instances in which migrants were flown to a third country only to be returned later to their nations of origin at additional U.S. expense. In several cases, the report states, individuals could have been deported directly to their home countries, potentially avoiding the cost of multiple international flights.
“In many cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their countries of origin, avoiding unnecessary flights and additional costs,” Shaheen said in a statement joined by Democratic Sens. Chris Coons, Tammy Duckworth, Tim Kaine, Jack Rosen and Chris Van Hollen.
The report further raises questions about what incentives or concessions may accompany the financial arrangements. After reaching an agreement with Washington last year, South Sudan submitted a list of requests that included U.S. support for the prosecution of an opposition leader and sanctions relief for a senior official accused of diverting more than $1 billion in public funds, according to diplomatic communications released by the State Department in January.
Democrats also scrutinized a $7.5 million payment to Equatorial Guinea, noting that it coincided with the administration’s efforts to deepen ties with the country’s vice president, Teodoro Nguema Obiang. Obiang has drawn international attention for a lavish lifestyle and has faced corruption allegations that have prompted investigations in multiple countries.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that third-country agreements provide flexibility in handling cases where deportations to migrants’ home countries are complicated by diplomatic tensions, lack of cooperation or security concerns. Critics counter that the program’s scope and cost demand far greater oversight, particularly as negotiations continue with dozens of additional nations.
With billions already allocated to immigration enforcement, Democratic lawmakers say the public deserves a clearer accounting of how third-country deportations are negotiated, monitored and evaluated — and whether the policy ultimately advances U.S. interests or simply adds another layer of expense to an already complex system.
Original article
Comments