At war with Iran, US still held secret talks with Tehran to deport Iranian nationals

The secret discussions concerned how to remove Iranian nationals from the United States while the two countries were at war. Officials considered sending people through an unnamed third country instead of arranging only direct returns to Iran. The talks mattered because Iran was described by the US president as an enemy, and returnees could face grave danger.

US immigration officials reportedly kept contact with Iranian authorities during the conflict. They submitted travel documents and discussed possible avenues for removal. Court filings show the government was still exploring these arrangements as recently as mid-October. Emails also reportedly documented coordination for immigration flights.

The discussions were part of a lawsuit alleging that US agencies shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with Tehran. DHS denied sharing asylum records. A judge ordered advance notice before any deportation to Iran or another country, so courts could scrutinize future plans.

Deportation through an unnamed third country means the United States would first transfer a person to another country, rather than sending that person directly to Iran. The intermediary country would become the immediate destination. The article does not name the country or specify what would happen after arrival.

This route was significant because US officials were exploring removals while the conflict with Iran continued. Immigration officials reportedly exchanged travel documents with Iranian authorities and discussed possible avenues for removal. The court filings show that a third-country arrangement was still under consideration in mid-October.

The arrangement also raised safety and legal concerns. Judge Ana Reyes questioned sending people into a region where she believed they could face a serious threat, including certain death. She ordered 24-hour notice of final plans and five days' written notice before deportation.

The reported scale was more than 100 Iranian nationals. Hundreds of emails exchanged by US immigration officials reportedly described coordination between the two governments to arrange their return. That figure shows the discussions involved a substantial group, not merely one or two individual cases.

The returns were linked to three immigration flights. The flights took place in September 2025, December 2025, and January 2026, according to the reported emails. Those communications described coordination with Iranian authorities, including the handling of travel documents and possible removal arrangements.

The reported flights are central to an ongoing lawsuit. The case alleges that US immigration agencies shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government, potentially exposing them to persecution. DHS denied sharing asylum application records with Tehran. The court also imposed notice requirements for future deportation plans.

The Justice Department’s stated legal basis was that the government was executing lawful orders of removal. Attorney Dimitar Georgiev-Remmel gave that answer during the October 15 hearing when Judge Ana Reyes questioned deportations involving Iran. The article does not identify a specific statute or court order behind those removal orders.

The exchange followed the judge’s concern about returning people to a country the president had called an enemy. Reyes questioned whether deportees could face a serious threat, including certain death. Georgiev-Remmel nonetheless defended the administration’s position by saying the government was executing lawful orders.

The court responded by imposing procedural safeguards. The government had to provide 24-hour notice of any finalized plan to deport an Iranian to Iran or another country. It also had to give five days’ written notice before carrying out such a deportation. These requirements allowed the court to review planned removals.

Iranian asylum seekers returned to Iran or another unsafe country could face persecution. The lawsuit alleges that confidential information about some asylum seekers may have been shared with the Iranian government, potentially exposing them to that danger. DHS denied sharing asylum application records with Tehran.

Judge Ana Reyes described the possible danger in stark terms. She questioned whether people sent back to Iran would face, at minimum, a serious threat of certain death. Her concern covered both direct returns to Iran and transfers to another country in the region. The article does not establish that every deportee would face the same outcome.

The risk shaped the court’s response. Reyes ordered the government to provide 24-hour notice of finalized deportation plans and five days’ written notice before a removal. Those requirements gave the court an opportunity to examine whether a proposed destination was safe and lawful.

Direct deportations to Iran have historically been rare for two main reasons identified in the article. The United States and Iran lack diplomatic relations, making official returns more difficult to arrange. The article also says people returned to Iran could face persecution, creating serious safety concerns.

The newly unsealed documents describe officials nevertheless maintaining contact with Iranian authorities. They submitted travel documents and discussed possible avenues for removal during the conflict. Emails reportedly detailed coordination for more than 100 Iranians on three immigration flights in September 2025, December 2025, and January 2026.

The Trump administration has also pursued removals to countries with limited diplomatic cooperation. The article names El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama, and says an Iranian woman was among migrants deported to the Central African Republic in June. A lawsuit and court notice requirements now surround the Iran-related plans.

Non-refoulement is a protection principle that generally bars a government from sending someone to a country where they face persecution, torture, or another serious threat. It is especially relevant to people seeking asylum. The principle focuses on the danger awaiting the person, not simply on whether authorities have issued a removal order.

In this case, the concern is that Iranian asylum seekers could be returned to Iran or another country despite possible persecution. Judge Ana Reyes questioned whether such people would face a serious threat of certain death. The lawsuit also alleges that sharing confidential information with Tehran could expose asylum seekers to persecution.

Non-refoulement can limit deportation by requiring officials to assess danger before removal. It may also require safeguards when a third country is used. The article does not name this principle directly, but its safety concerns and court-ordered notices reflect the same type of issue.