Inside the Secret Deals Driving Deportations to Non-Native Countries

In June, a U.S. diplomat named Christian Ehrhardt quietly arrived in West Africa. He visited government officials in Ivory Coast, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Togo, and Gabon. Ehrhardt, a career State Department employee with a background in embassy security, now leads the Office of Remigration. His task is to convince African leaders to accept migrants deported from the U.S. even if they are not citizens of the receiving country.

This initiative is part of the second Trump administration’s approach to immigration, focusing on ‘third-country’ deportation deals. These deals have led to agreements with 31 countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, resulting in substantial financial incentives. As of June, the U.S. committed $410 million to facilitate these agreements.

The administration negotiated arrangements to expel migrants to places where they have no previous connection. Examples include sending migrants from China, Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan to Costa Rica, while others were sent to Eswatini from Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and Jamaica.

Stephen Miller, known for his stringent stance on immigration, oversees these efforts. He has been able to push key appointments at the State Department to realize more deportations. Ehrhardt is perceived as a White House envoy, enjoying significant influence and a warm reception during foreign meetings.

The deals, partly overseen by the Office of Remigration within the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), mark a shift from the U.S.’s traditional refugee policy. This office, consisting of about 15 employees, represents a departure from prior practices focused on resettling refugees.

The arrangements vary in conditions and payments. For instance, some countries, like Uganda, will only accept African nationals, while others, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, refuse any African nationals. Some deals permit the deportation of violent criminals, while others require the deportees to be nonviolent offenders.

The U.S. has pledged grants to international organizations to assist with these deportations, although these entities aren’t directly involved in the deals. The Trump administration’s approach has met legal challenges, and some deportees have reported abuse in the receiving countries.

Critics argue that these deals are a way to bypass legal safeguards, allowing deportees to be sent to countries where they may face persecution. A federal appeals court recently deemed the policy unlawful, citing insufficient notice and the inability to raise fear-based claims.

The policy also has detractors within the State Department. Some officials have resigned over the term ‘remigration’ due to its associations with white nationalist movements. The State Department’s shift from resettling refugees to deporting them has led to internal objections.

Proponents claim the policy is necessary for removing difficult-to-deport migrants, but critics see it as a legal loophole. The deportations continue amidst political rhetoric and legal challenges as the administration projects a strong stance on immigration.

The ongoing efforts involve international negotiations and significant funding shifts. These deals often bypass traditional foreign assistance safeguards, raising ethical and legal questions about the treatment of deportees.