The Trump administration is reportedly exploring the possibility of deporting immigrants to several countries known for human rights concerns, signaling a potential intensification of its already stringent immigration policies. This development follows previous instances of controversial deportation practices, including the transfer of immigrants to a megaprison in El Salvador, a facility with a documented history of human rights violations. One such case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government mistakenly deported to El Salvador and has yet to return to the United States despite acknowledging the error.
Recent reports indicate that during negotiations concerning Russia’s war on Ukraine, Trump pressured Ukraine to accept US deportees. While it remains unclear whether this proposal is still under consideration, the US is also allegedly engaged in discussions with Rwanda regarding the deportation of immigrants to the country. Rwanda, under its current president, Paul Kagame, has a questionable human rights record.
Adding another layer of complexity, Trump is now reportedly considering sending immigrants to Libya. While the administration has not publicly disclosed specific details of its plans, both of Libya’s rival governments have denied reaching any agreements to accept migrants. This is particularly concerning given Libya’s documented history of human rights abuses within its immigrant detention centers and the widespread exploitation of migrants by human traffickers.
Legal experts argue that sending immigrants to Libya would constitute a clear violation of both US and international law. Becca Heller, co-founder and director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, expressed concerns about the apparent arbitrary nature of these actions, stating that individuals are being rounded up without regard for their circumstances, including their medical conditions or citizenship status, and sent to "black sites" overseas, making their return exceedingly difficult.
Reports suggest that deportation flights to Libya could commence imminently. However, crucial details such as the number of individuals involved, their nationalities, and whether they have been afforded due process to challenge their deportations remain unclear. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to requests for further information.
Attorneys representing immigrants from Laos, Vietnam, and the Philippines have sought judicial intervention to prevent their clients from being deported to Libya before they have an opportunity to challenge their deportations in court. The attorneys claim that their clients are at risk of being sent to Libya in violation of a previous court order.
US District Judge Brian Murphy has stated that if the media reports regarding the planned Libya deportations are accurate, the plan "blatantly defies" the existing court order, which mandates that immigrants receive written notice of their deportation and a "meaningful" opportunity to appeal.
Adding to the uncertainty, neither of Libya’s warring government factions appears to be aware of Trump’s plans. Both the internationally recognized government in Tripoli and the authorities loyal to warlord Khalifa Hiftar in eastern Libya have denied entering into any agreements with the US to accept deportees.
The legal basis for Trump’s authority to deport immigrants to Libya is also unclear. Federal courts have previously blocked the administration from utilizing an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, to deem individuals eligible for deportation without a final removal order from an immigration judge. Despite this, there’s precedent for Trump to disregard court orders.
Even if Trump possesses the authority to deport certain migrants, sending them to Libya, with its well-documented history of abuse, is likely illegal. Forcibly sending immigrants to locations where they face persecution and danger is a violation of both US and international law, including the Convention Against Torture and a 1967 protocol implementing the Refugee Convention, which together establish the principle of "non-refoulement."
Libya, a major transit hub for migrants attempting to reach Europe from Africa and the Middle East, is by no means a safe destination. The country has been embroiled in conflict since the overthrow and death of its former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, in 2011.
Heller emphasized the precarious situation in Libya, noting that the country lacks a unified national government and has a documented history of torturing and abusing detained migrants and refugees.
Libya has long served as a corridor for migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. As of 2022, the United Nations estimated that nearly 700,000 migrants were stranded in Libya due to heightened border controls in Europe.
Human traffickers have subjected immigrants in Libya to various forms of abuse, including beatings, rape, torture, forced labor, and extortion. Those intercepted en route to Europe have been held in Libyan detention centers where they have endured similar mistreatment.
In 2024 alone, the United Nations documented almost a thousand migrant deaths and disappearances in Libya.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has pursued similar strategies. During his first term, Trump negotiated "safe third country" agreements that allowed the US to send asylum seekers to countries such as Guatemala. However, immigrant advocates argued that these countries could not be considered safe and that attempting to remove immigrants to these locations violated the principle of non-refoulement.
Heller described these policies as a "reign of terror over migrants," questioning their connection to border security or law enforcement. She suggested that they serve an unclear purpose beyond creating a climate of fear and uncertainty for migrants.
