By late September 2026, the Trump Government ' s third-country repatriation policy was facing multiple pressures at the legal, diplomatic and human rights levels. On 18 September, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the policy had been implemented in a manner contrary to United States law, and that on the same day a federal judge appointed by Trump had found the Trump Government in contempt of court for having returned asylum-seekers who had applied for asylum twice. The Government of Trump has now submitted an urgent application to the United States Supreme Court for reinstatement of third-country repatriation, and the legal course of the policy has become the current focus. United Nations human rights experts have publicly warned that the policy violates international human rights law and is giving rise to “a chain reaction to rights violations”.
Third-country repatriation, or third-country removal, refers to the return of migrants by the United States to a third country that is neither a national nor closely linked to its nationality, rather than to its country of origin directly. This policy is one of the core immigration enforcement measures introduced by Trump in January 2025, led by the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, and coordinated at least five cabinet departments, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the Migration Court. In a June 2025 statement by the Department of Homeland Security, it was stated that the policy was aimed at “foreigners in their own country who refused to receive them and who committed extremely serious crimes such as murder, rape of children and drug trafficking” as a necessary option for legal enforcement.
According to the international survey team of 26 international media, as of 31 August 2026, the United States had repatriated 25,447 migrants from 89 different countries to at least 28 third countries, and some 20,000 non-Mexican migrants had been deported by road to Mexico, totalling over 25,000. Mexico is the largest receiving country, accounting for nearly 80 per cent of the total number of third-country repatriations; Guatemala is the second largest destination to be repatriated by air, receiving nearly 3,000 persons, 90 per cent of whom are Mexican nationals, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and El Salvador, each receiving more than 250 persons, with the remaining repatriations spread to more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific and covering six continents.
To further this policy, the United States Department of State has transformed an office of approximately 15 persons under the former Population, Refugee and Immigration Bureau into a “Remigration Office”, headed by a career diplomat, Christian Elhart, who is responsible for negotiating repatriation agreements with States. Official data indicate that the United States has now concluded repatriation agreements or understandings with 35 countries and has committed at least $410 million to 31 of them in exchange for receiving repatriation. In recent years, the United States has been accelerating the negotiation of new acceptance agreements with African countries and has expanded its reach.
The legal controversy over this policy began in March 2025 with a class action brought by migrant rights organizations, such as the National Coalition for Immigration Proceedings, alleging that the United States had violated United States law and the principle of international non-refoulement by sending migrants to countries where they risk torture or persecution. In April 2025, a federal district judge ruled that the policy was unconstitutional and suspended the execution of the third country repatriation, but the United States Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the policy should be allowed to resume during the proceedings, following which the number of government repatriation flights had increased significantly.
On 18 September 2026, a panel of three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Government had failed to give migrants sufficient notice and fair opportunity to challenge the decision to return before the courts at the time of the deportation, and that the policy had therefore been implemented in a manner contrary to the law on the sole ground that the general human rights guarantees of the receiving State were not sufficient to avert the risk of torture to the person to be returned. The decision also rejected the Trump Government's core defence that “the receiving State guarantees that the legal requirements can be met”. The decision originated in a class action initiated in March 2025 and the case is still pending.
The controversy over the policy continues. In a statement issued in May 2026, United Nations human rights experts demanded that Equatorial Guinea immediately cease receiving returning United States migrants who might be at risk of ill-treatment and guarantee their right to legal aid and effective remedies, at least nine migrants who had been repatriated to Equatorial Guinea had been informed that they would be returned to their country of origin, despite the risk of ill-treatment in that country, and at least 28 migrants who had been repatriated to that country had previously been granted asylum protection by United States immigration judges and could not legally be returned to their country of origin. The United Nations expert recently warned that the policy violated the principle of non-refoulement and demanded that the United States immediately cease repatriation operations and avoid further human rights abuses.
There are also differences in policy within the United States. The poll revealed that there was a rift within the Trump League of Supporters as a result of the repatriation policy, and at least one Republican MP publicly criticized the Trump Government for “excessive expansion” on the issue of repatriation. Migrant rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have accused the policy of “unfortunately encumbering the system of protection for those seeking security” and are pushing for more litigation to claim the rights of repatriated persons.
The policy directly affects three groups: first, repatriated migrants, of whom nearly 200,000 are children, and 70 per cent are minors under 13 years of age, many are in a situation of legal ambiguity in the receiving country, lack access to legal status, risk of secondary repatriation to high-risk countries of origin, and lack of access to basic public services; second, the receiving country, Mexico has on several occasions publicly opposed the unilateral expulsion of non-Mexican migrants from its territory by the United States, and many Central American countries are facing social pressure to receive them; and third, the immigration law enforcement system, where the Department of Homeland Security, the Migration Court and others are accelerating the repatriation process and the backlog is increasing.
At present, the core of the policy is the question of whether the United States Supreme Court will, at the request of the Trump Government, overturn the ban of the Federal Court of Appeal and allow the policy to be resumed until the proceedings are completed. The Supreme Court has not yet published a timetable for hearings or decisions, and the parties will await its final decision. In addition, parliamentary oversight of the policy is increasing, and criticism within the Republican party may affect the space for subsequent policy adjustments.
In the case of migrants who have been repatriated to third countries, legal aid organizations are trying to secure their right not to be returned to high-risk countries through, inter alia, litigation, and some cases are under judicial process. The Office of Re-immigration of the State Department continues to negotiate new repatriation agreements with a number of countries, and the trend towards policy expansion has not completely stopped. (approximately 2100 words in full)