A group of more than two dozen United Nations human rights experts has issued a dire warning regarding the United States’ current practice of deporting migrants to third-party countries. According to a recently released report, the strategy of sending asylum seekers and refugees to nations where they have no personal or cultural ties is creating a “cascade of human rights violations.” These experts argue that the policy is not merely a matter of border management but a dangerous shift that could result in “deadly” consequences for those caught in the system.
What happened
Since the beginning of 2025, the Trump administration has aggressively pursued a policy of removing migrants from U.S. soil by paying foreign governments to accept them. Reports indicate that the U.S. has allocated millions of dollars to secure agreements with 35 different nations, many of which are located in Africa, to take in individuals who have no prior connection to those territories.
The scale of these operations is significant. Data from advocacy groups like Refugees International and Human Rights First suggests that approximately 20,000 individuals have been transported by bus into Mexico. Additionally, more than 5,000 people have been placed on flights destined for various countries across Africa, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
In response, 24 experts advising the UN Human Rights Council, alongside a representative from the African Commission, have formally contacted both the U.S. government and the 35 participating nations. Their joint statement calls for an immediate cessation of these transfers, citing evidence that the harms associated with this scheme are no longer theoretical but are actively manifesting in the lives of displaced people.
Context
The administration has defended these actions by stating that the primary goal is the removal of criminal elements from the United States. However, investigations into the actual demographics of those being deported reveal a different reality. Many of those expelled are individuals seeking protection from persecution, such as an Iranian woman who fled her home after protesting against the regime, or a man from Ghana who was targeted by his family due to his sexual orientation.
Legal analysts point out that this “third-country” strategy appears to be a method of bypassing established domestic and international laws. Under U.S. law, authorities are generally prohibited from sending individuals directly back to a country where they face a high probability of persecution or torture. By sending migrants to a middleman nation instead, the Department of Homeland Security effectively skirts these protections. Often, once the migrants arrive in these third countries, they are eventually funneled back to the very homelands they originally fled, completing a cycle of displacement and danger.
Why it matters
The experts warn that the implications of this policy extend far beyond administrative logistics. Forcing people into unfamiliar environments where they lack support systems, legal standing, or linguistic ties makes them exceptionally vulnerable. This isolation increases the risk of human rights abuses, including trafficking, forced labor, and enforced disappearances.
Furthermore, many of the countries accepting these migrants under U.S. financial agreements are themselves grappling with internal instability, extreme poverty, or active conflict. These nations often lack the infrastructure or legal capacity to protect the rights of newly arrived migrants. The UN experts emphasized that by offloading these individuals onto less-wealthy nations, the United States is essentially shirking its international obligations.
Ultimately, the statement highlights that the lives and dignity of vulnerable populations are at stake. When migrants are sent to places where they may face further discrimination or violence, the U.S. risks becoming complicit in the very harms these individuals sought to escape. The experts conclude that the safety and rights of people fleeing life-threatening situations must take precedence over political migration strategies.