At least 16 countries have now accepted deportees from the United States under the Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy, a practice that a federal judge declared unlawful in an 81-page ruling issued February 25, 2026. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found that the policy violates federal immigration law and due process rights, ruling that migrants were not given notice of which country they would be sent to or any meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. But that ruling did not hold for long. On March 16, 2026, the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Murphy’s block in a 2-1 decision, allowing deportations to third countries to continue.
The scope of these arrangements is far broader than most Americans realize. Countries spanning four continents, from Rwanda and South Sudan in Africa to Kosovo and Poland in Europe to El Salvador and Panama in Latin America, have struck deals with the U.S. government, some in exchange for millions of dollars in direct payments. As of January 2026, the administration has spent over $40 million on third-country deportations, with $32 million paid directly to five countries as incentive packages. This article breaks down which countries are involved, what the financial arrangements look like, what the courts have actually ruled at every level, and what it all means for the people being deported.
Table of Contents
- Which Countries Were Recruited to Accept U.S. Deportees and What Did the Judges Rule?
- How Much Money Has the U.S. Spent Paying Countries to Take Deportees?
- What Happened to People Deported to Countries the U.S. Itself Considers Unsafe?
- How Third-Country Deportations Compare to Traditional Removal
- Why the Appeals Court Reversal Changes Everything
- The El Salvador CECOT Connection
- What Comes Next for Third-Country Deportations
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
Which Countries Were Recruited to Accept U.S. Deportees and What Did the Judges Rule?
The full list of countries that have accepted third-country deportees from the United States now includes Cameroon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uzbekistan. The practice started with transfers of Asian and African asylum seekers to Panama and Costa Rica, along with Venezuelans sent to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison. It expanded rapidly from there. Rwanda became the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal when it signed an agreement in August 2025. Each arrangement appears to operate under its own terms, and many of the specific details have not been publicly disclosed. The judicial response has been layered and contradictory. judge Murphy’s district court ruling was unequivocal.
He questioned the government’s assurances from receiving countries, asking pointedly, “Whom do they cover? What do they cover? Why has the Government deemed them credible?” He concluded, “It’s not fine, nor is it legal.” Murphy paused his ruling for 15 days to allow the administration to appeal, which it did. The First Circuit then sided with the government, with Judges Jeffrey R. Howard, a George W. Bush appointee, and Seth Aframe, a Biden appointee, forming the majority. Judge Lara Montecalvo, also a Biden appointee, dissented. Even before the First Circuit ruling, the supreme court had weighed in. By a 6-3 vote in 2025, the Court allowed the administration to resume third-country deportations while legal challenges proceeded. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, wrote in dissent that the Court was “rewarding lawlessness” and that “the government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone, anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.”.
How Much Money Has the U.S. Spent Paying Countries to Take Deportees?
The financial architecture of these deals is staggering. As of January 2026, the trump administration had spent over $40 million on third-country deportations. Of that total, $32 million was paid directly to five countries: Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau. These are not reimbursements for services rendered in the traditional diplomatic sense. They are cash incentives paid to sovereign nations to accept people who have no connection to those countries. The Eswatini deal is the most transparent example of how these arrangements work. The small southern African nation agreed to accept 160 deportees in exchange for $5.1 million, earmarked for “border and migration capacity.” That works out to roughly $31,875 per person.
The agreement is valid for one year and is renewable. However, it is worth noting that what “border and migration capacity” actually means for the deportees once they arrive in Eswatini remains unclear. There are no publicly available details about housing, work authorization, legal status, or long-term plans for people deposited in a country where they have no family, no community, and no legal standing. The lack of transparency extends across almost every deal. The arrangement with Cameroon, under which at least 17 men and women had been deported as of mid-February 2026, operates under undisclosed terms. The public does not know how much was paid, what conditions were promised, or what oversight exists. This opacity is precisely what troubled Judge Murphy, who pressed the government on the credibility of its assurances and received answers he found insufficient.
What Happened to People Deported to Countries the U.S. Itself Considers Unsafe?
Perhaps the most troubling element of the third-country deportation policy involves South Sudan. The U.S. State Department’s own security assessment considers South Sudan too dangerous for all but its most critical personnel. The country has been mired in civil conflict, famine, and humanitarian crisis for years. Yet six people were deported there by the U.S. government. This is not a hypothetical concern about potential future harm.
The State Department maintains travel advisories specifically to warn Americans about conditions in these countries. When the government simultaneously tells its own employees not to go somewhere and sends deportees there, the contradiction is difficult to reconcile. Judge Murphy’s ruling addressed this kind of disconnect directly, questioning whether the government had made any credible assessment of conditions awaiting deportees in receiving countries. The Cameroon deportations raise similar questions, though less extreme. At least 17 people were sent there under terms that remain secret. Cameroon has faced its own internal conflicts, particularly in its Anglophone regions, and human rights organizations have documented abuses by security forces. For deportees who may have fled persecution in their home countries and ended up in the U.S. asylum system, being sent to a third country with its own security problems could amount to a second displacement with no legal recourse.
How Third-Country Deportations Compare to Traditional Removal
Traditional deportation under U.S. immigration law involves removing someone to their country of origin or, in some cases, a country where they have citizenship or legal residency. The process includes immigration court hearings, the right to an attorney (though not a government-provided one), and the ability to apply for asylum or other forms of relief. It is slow, backlogged, and imperfect, but it contains procedural guardrails. Third-country deportation bypasses nearly all of those guardrails. Under the current policy, a person can be removed not to their home country but to a nation they have never visited, where they know no one, do not speak the language, and have no legal status.
Judge Murphy’s ruling found that migrants were not told which country they would be sent to, let alone given a chance to argue against it. The tradeoff the administration has made is speed and volume over individual due process. Supporters argue that the immigration system is so overwhelmed that extraordinary measures are warranted. Critics, including multiple federal judges, argue that speed cannot come at the expense of constitutional rights. The financial comparison is also notable. Traditional deportation flights to home countries cost the government money, but they do not require paying a receiving nation tens of millions of dollars in incentives. The $40 million-plus spent so far on third-country deals represents a new category of immigration expenditure, one that effectively creates a market for human transfers between sovereign nations.
Why the Appeals Court Reversal Changes Everything
The First Circuit’s 2-1 decision to overturn Judge Murphy’s block is the most consequential development in this legal saga since the Supreme Court’s 2025 intervention. With Murphy’s injunction lifted, the administration now has appellate court backing to continue and potentially expand third-country deportations. The composition of the majority is significant: Judge Aframe, a Biden appointee, joined the Bush-appointed Judge Howard, making it harder to frame the decision as purely partisan. However, a warning for anyone tracking this issue: the legal fight is far from over. Judge Montecalvo’s dissent keeps the constitutional arguments alive, and additional challenges are working through other circuits. The Supreme Court’s earlier 6-3 ruling was procedural, allowing deportations to continue during litigation rather than ruling on the merits.
A full merits decision from the high court could still go either way, though the current Court’s composition makes a broad ruling against executive immigration authority unlikely. The practical limitation of any judicial ruling in this space is enforcement. Even when Judge Murphy’s order was in effect, the administration moved quickly to complete deportations before blocks could take hold. The 15-day pause Murphy built into his ruling was meant to allow orderly appellate review, but it also gave the government a window to act. For individuals caught in the system during these legal transitions, the timing of a court order can mean the difference between staying in the U.S. and being on a plane to a country they have never seen.
The El Salvador CECOT Connection
One of the most high-profile elements of the third-country deportation program has been the transfer of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, a sprawling mega-facility built by President Nayib Bukele as part of his crackdown on gang violence. The U.S. sent detainees there under a bilateral agreement, with El Salvador receiving a share of the $32 million in direct payments to participating countries.
CECOT has drawn international condemnation from human rights organizations for its conditions and the lack of due process afforded to its inmates. Sending foreign nationals who have not been convicted of crimes in El Salvador to a facility designed for gang members raises distinct legal and ethical questions. It also illustrates the breadth of what “third-country deportation” actually means in practice: it is not simply relocation, but in some cases, incarceration in a foreign prison system.
What Comes Next for Third-Country Deportations
With the First Circuit ruling in hand and over $40 million already spent, the third-country deportation apparatus is likely to expand rather than contract. The administration has steadily added new countries to its list, moving from initial agreements with Latin American nations to deals across Africa, Europe, and Central Asia. The progression from 3 countries to 16 happened in less than a year.
There is no indication that recruitment has stopped. The ultimate resolution will likely come from the Supreme Court in a merits ruling, which could take another year or more. In the meantime, the program operates in a legal gray zone where appellate courts have permitted it to continue but the underlying constitutional questions remain unresolved. For the people being deported, the legal nuances matter less than the reality: they can be sent, with little or no notice, to a country they have no connection to, with no clear path to legal status or return.
Conclusion
The third-country deportation program represents one of the most significant expansions of executive immigration power in modern U.S. history. At least 16 countries have accepted deportees, the government has spent over $40 million funding the arrangements, and the courts have issued contradictory rulings that have left the program operational despite serious legal questions. Judge Murphy’s finding that the policy is unlawful has been overturned at the appellate level, but the constitutional issues he identified, particularly the absence of notice and due process, have not been resolved on the merits.
For anyone following this issue, the key takeaway is that the legal landscape is still shifting. The Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the merits, additional challenges are pending, and the program continues to grow. The financial costs, the diplomatic arrangements, and the human consequences are all escalating simultaneously. Whether the courts ultimately constrain this practice or allow it to become a permanent feature of U.S. immigration enforcement will be one of the defining legal questions of this era.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a third-country deportation?
A third-country deportation is when the U.S. government removes someone not to their home country but to a different nation entirely, one where they may have no ties, no legal status, and no prior connection. This is distinct from traditional deportation, which sends individuals to their country of citizenship or origin.
How many countries have agreed to accept U.S. deportees?
As of early 2026, at least 16 countries have accepted third-country deportees, including nations in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Central Asia. The list includes Cameroon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uzbekistan.
How much has the U.S. government spent on third-country deportations?
Over $40 million as of January 2026. Of that amount, $32 million was paid directly to five countries: Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau. Eswatini, for example, received $5.1 million to accept 160 deportees.
Did the courts rule third-country deportations illegal?
A federal district judge ruled the policy unlawful in February 2026, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in March 2026, allowing deportations to continue. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the program to proceed during litigation by a 6-3 vote. A final merits ruling from the Supreme Court is still pending.
Can deportees challenge being sent to a third country?
Judge Murphy’s ruling found that deportees were not given notice of which country they would be sent to or a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. While the ruling was overturned on appeal, the due process concerns remain central to ongoing litigation.
Is it legal to deport people to countries the U.S. considers unsafe?
This is one of the unresolved legal questions. The U.S. State Department considers South Sudan too dangerous for all but its most essential personnel, yet six people were deported there. Judge Murphy specifically questioned the credibility of government assurances about conditions in receiving countries.