Since mid-2025, the U.S. State Department has been implementing a controversial third-country deportation program that involves sending migrants from the United States to countries where they have no prior ties. Spearheaded by the newly created Office of Remigration within the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), the initiative represents a significant shift from the United States' traditional refugee resettlement efforts toward a policy focused on expelling migrants abroad.

Christian Ehrhardt, a career diplomat with a security background, was appointed last year to lead the Office of Remigration. Since then, he has traveled extensively in Africa and Latin America negotiating agreements with foreign governments to accept deportees from the United States, even when these individuals are not citizens of those countries. As of June 2026, at least 31 nations had agreed to these arrangements, backed by approximately $410 million in U.S. funding. The financial incentives include roughly $81 million in direct payments to 13 countries, alongside sizable grants to international organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the U.N. Refugee Agency, intended to fund refugee- and infrastructure-related projects in host countries.

These deportation deals vary in terms and conditions. For example, Uganda has agreed to accept only African nationals, whereas the Democratic Republic of the Congo will not accept anyone from Africa. Countries like the Central African Republic and Eswatini have agreed to receive migrants with violent criminal records, while others restrict acceptance to nonviolent offenders. Many of these countries are governed by authoritarian regimes, raising concerns about the lack of oversight on the treatment of deportees.

Human rights advocates and immigration attorneys have criticized the program, alleging that it bypasses international protections against refoulement—the forced return of individuals to countries where they face persecution. Migrants sent under these agreements have reported harsh and inhumane conditions, including physical abuse, inadequate food, medical neglect, and restrictions on legal communication while detained in host countries. Cases have drawn attention to specific locations such as Equatorial Guinea, where deportees have been housed in a hotel reportedly controlled by political figures. While U.S. officials visiting the site described the facilities as “decent,” independent lawyers have filed complaints alleging violations of human rights.

Legal challenges have emerged within the U.S. courts, culminating recently in a federal appeals court ruling that found aspects of the third-country deportation policy unlawful on grounds that deportees were denied adequate notice and opportunity to raise claims of fear related to third countries. The administration has indicated it plans to appeal this decision.

The program was developed under the Trump administration’s second term, with Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff known for his hardline immigration stance, playing a key role in its design and implementation. Internal documents reveal efforts to circumvent statutory human rights safeguards typically attached to foreign aid by using alternative contractual mechanisms, while lawmakers and some State Department staff expressed unease with the terminology “remigration,” a word linked to far-right and white nationalist movements in Europe.

Supporters of the policy argue it provides a necessary tool to deport individuals who cannot be returned to their countries of origin due to legal protections or refusal by those countries to accept them. They also contend it deters unauthorized migration by signaling that migrants may be sent to unfamiliar nations rather than their home countries.

However, critics say the agreements have been rushed with insufficient transparency and oversight, resulting in funding flowing to repressive governments without ensuring humane treatment for deportees. Some U.S. career diplomats have resigned or requested transfers in protest of the policy shift, citing ethical concerns.

Looking ahead, the Office of Remigration continues to engage with countries at the United Nations General Assembly and elsewhere, seeking to broaden its network of agreements. Meanwhile, monitoring of conditions faced by migrants remains a concern among legal advocates and human rights groups who warn that the program undermines established refugee protections and international norms.