HRW condemns Trump’s third country removal immigration policy

A third-country removal transfers a person to a country that is neither their country of citizenship nor their habitual residence. This matters because the person may have no meaningful connection, support network, or established legal status there. The policy has raised concerns about what happens after arrival.

For example, ICE data recorded nearly 28,000 transfers to more than 50 third countries between January 20, 2025, and August 5, 2026. These destinations were not the people’s citizenship countries or habitual residences. The key mechanism is a removal arrangement that sends people somewhere other than their home country.

The policy remains contested. HRW condemned removals primarily involving African countries and urged the government to stop negotiating with countries linked to arbitrary detention or human rights violations. Courts have also addressed notice requirements, while the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on December 9, 2026.

The program transferred nearly 28,000 people between January 20, 2025, and August 5, 2026. They were sent to more than 50 countries that were neither their citizenship countries nor their habitual residences. The scale shows that third-country removal was not limited to a small number of cases.

Africa accounted for 536 of those transfers, according to ICE data. HRW reported that removals to Africa increased from 103 on January 20, 2025, to 536 by August 5, 2026. The figures measure people sent to African countries through the third-country program, not all removals worldwide.

These numbers are central to the dispute because the increase prompted strong criticism from HRW. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted Resolution 645, seeking to eliminate migration partnerships that risk human rights violations. Yet people continued facing possible rights violations after removal.

The article identifies several groups subjected to third-country removals. They include people entering the United States at borders, people detained after criminal offenses, and undocumented people already living in the country. This broad range matters because the policy’s stated rationale does not clearly explain how these different groups are chosen.

Executive Order 14159, signed by President Trump in January 2025, allows proceedings against people who present significant threats to national security or public safety, or who commit acts such as economic espionage. Yet the article says there is no clear methodology for applying the policy. The examples suggest that removals have extended beyond one clearly defined category.

HRW criticized this lack of clarity because people and decision-makers may not know who is at risk of removal or why. The uncertainty also affects legal challenges and accountability. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the policy on December 9, 2026.

Removal to a country with no connection to the person can leave them exposed to unfamiliar authorities and uncertain protection. The article specifically warns that people may face human rights violations after arrival. These risks matter because the destination may not be the person’s citizenship country or habitual residence, where they might otherwise have established ties.

The danger is particularly clear when a destination country uses arbitrary detention or commits other human rights violations. HRW urged the State Department not to negotiate removal policies with governments that engage in such conduct. The African Commission’s Resolution 645 also seeks to eliminate migration partnerships that risk human rights violations.

The current reality is that people continue to face these risks despite the resolution and public criticism. HRW called for stronger safeguards and urged the Department of Homeland Security to bring certain people back to the United States. The policy’s future will also be shaped by court review.

The article identifies several protections before removal. In February 2026, a Massachusetts federal district court held that people need meaningful notice before third-country removal proceedings. The First Circuit upheld that order, although the Supreme Court later stayed it. Meaningful notice is meant to give people a real opportunity to understand and respond to the proceedings.

Another protection concerns people who would likely face torture or persecution in their home countries. HRW recommended bringing third-country nationals back to the United States when they had received a deferral of removal on that basis. HRW also urged Homeland Security to comply with Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which outlines removal procedures.

These safeguards remain part of an unresolved legal dispute. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the third-country removal policy on December 9, 2026. Until then, the court’s stay and the government’s procedures remain central to the debate over lawful removal.

The Trump administration established the framework through Executive Order 14159, signed in January 2025. The order allows third-country proceedings for people described as significant threats to national security or public safety, and for acts such as economic espionage. The administration’s agencies then implement and negotiate the policy.

The Department of Homeland Security handles removal procedures and transfers. The Department of State negotiates removal policies with other governments. HRW has condemned the program, urged the State Department to avoid abusive partners, and recommended that Homeland Security return people protected from likely torture or persecution. HRW also called for compliance with Section 241 of the INA.

The courts decide whether procedures satisfy legal protections. A Massachusetts district court required meaningful notice, and the First Circuit upheld that order. The Supreme Court stayed it and will hear oral arguments on December 9, 2026. The dispute therefore involves executive action, agency conduct, advocacy, and judicial review.

A safer alternative is to avoid removal when returning someone to their home country would likely expose them to torture or persecution. The article refers to deferral of removal for people facing those dangers. That protection recognizes that a person may not be safely returned even when the government seeks to remove them.

HRW specifically recommended bringing third-country nationals back to the United States when they had received such a deferral. It also urged the Department of Homeland Security to comply with Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which outlines removal procedures. These steps provide alternatives to sending people into an unrelated country with serious rights risks.

The article does not describe a broader menu of alternatives. It does show that governments can use legal protections instead of risky third-country transfers in appropriate cases. The courts’ decisions on meaningful notice and the Supreme Court’s upcoming arguments may further define how those options operate.