Trump's $40 Million Third-Country Deportation Plan Under Fire

Sat Feb 14 2026 01:26:35 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A recent Senate report reveals the Trump administration spent $40 million on the deportation of migrants to third countries, raising concerns about the policy's effectiveness and ethical implications.

The Trump administration's policy on third-country deportations has come under scrutiny after a Senate report disclosed that approximately $40 million was spent to deport around 300 migrants to countries like Rwanda and El Salvador. Critics, including Senate Democrats, argue that this practice is costly and poorly monitored, calling for a review of its implementation. The State Department defends the strategy as an essential part of curbing illegal immigration, but advocates warn it risks violating human rights and due process.

The Trump administration has reportedly spent around $40 million to deport approximately 300 migrants to third countries as part of a policy aimed at quickly removing immigrants from the U.S. According to a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee report led by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, this practice, classified as 'third-country deportations,' has been criticized for being 'costly, wasteful, and poorly monitored.'

While the State Department defends the policy, stating it is crucial for preventing illegal immigration, Democratic lawmakers are calling for a detailed review, noting instances where deported migrants were later sent back to their countries of origin at additional costs.

The report highlights the varied number of deportees sent to different nations, with significant amounts paid to countries like Rwanda, El Salvador, and Equatorial Guinea, raising ethical concerns regarding the treatment of those deported. Critics argue that this approach risks violating human rights and due process, stranding migrants in countries with poor human rights records.

Senator Shaheen and other Democratic colleagues have stated that 'many cases could have resulted in more direct repatriation efforts, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs.' Further investigations into the settlements paid and the expectations from recipient nations remain unresolved, particularly as some nations expressed demands for U.S. diplomatic influences in return for accepting deportees.