Govind Tekale
US third-country deportation agreements with at least 35 nations have placed removal flights in Kingston, Georgetown, and Monrovia — carrying migrants who have never set foot in those countries. The United States has built one of the most extensive third-country removal networks in its history, routing deportees around home-country refusals to entirely unrelated destinations across the Caribbean, Central America, and West Africa.
According to a Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis from October 2026, the Trump administration has signed bilateral removal arrangements with at least 35 governments. Confirmed destination countries that have received deportation flights or signed active arrangements include Jamaica, Guyana, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Moldova, and Uzbekistan. The network also relies on four transit layover hubs — Egypt, Kuwait, Poland, and Qatar — which serve as waypoints on removal flights rather than final destinations. Migrants from Cuba, Afghanistan, and Honduras, whose home governments have historically refused or limited US deportation flights, have been among those transferred under these arrangements. Not every signatory country has yet accepted an inbound flight, and the breadth of the network continues to grow as the administration pursues additional bilateral deals.
For migrants holding “withholding of removal” orders — legal protections granted by an immigration judge on the grounds that returning home would expose them to persecution or torture — and citizens of countries such as Cuba or Afghanistan that historically refuse US deportation flights, protection from going home no longer prevents removal from the United States altogether. Under the 35+ bilateral deals, ICE can route deportees to third countries like Jamaica, Guyana, or Liberia. Under a September 2026 federal court order, however, detainees retain the right to demand a reasonable-fear screening specific to the third country before boarding any removal flight.
Six Secret Deals and Court Challenges
The MPI analysis identified a transparency gap at the center of the network: the legal texts of six bilateral agreements — including those with Mexico, Moldova, and Uzbekistan — remain completely secret. Because these texts are not published, independent legal review of whether the deals comply with the Convention Against Torture’s nonrefoulement obligations — which prohibit transferring someone to a country where they face a substantial risk of torture — cannot be conducted. That secrecy is now the focus of ongoing federal litigation challenging the legality of removals made under undisclosed terms.
Receiving nations are facing domestic pressure as well. Parliamentary and public opposition to the arrangements has emerged in Jamaica and Liberia, where legislators have raised concerns about the legal basis for accepting deportees with no prior ties to those countries. The combination of undisclosed agreement texts and political resistance in destination nations is adding uncertainty to each removal flight as courts weigh whether the network meets international humanitarian standards.
Winning protection from an immigration judge under the Convention Against Torture once stopped a deportation flight. Now it can change only the destination. US authorities acknowledged in one documented case that a Honduran man faced torture if returned home, so they flew him and 14 others to West Africa instead — relying on a diplomatic network where six of the 35 bilateral agreements have never been published for legal review.
Which countries accept third-country deportees from the US in 2026? The US has signed third-country removal agreements with at least 35 governments. Confirmed destination countries that have received flights or signed arrangements include Jamaica, Guyana, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Moldova, and Uzbekistan, while Egypt, Kuwait, Poland, and Qatar serve as transit layover hubs rather than final deportation destinations.
Federal courts are now weighing challenges to the six undisclosed agreements, focusing on whether nonrefoulement protections under the Convention Against Torture can be verified without access to the underlying diplomatic texts. The outcome of that litigation will determine whether additional receiving nations are added to the network or whether judicial oversight imposes structural limits on third-country removals.
For related context, see Karmactive’s earlier coverage and latest explainer.
