Trump administration coordinated with Iran on deportations for asylum seekers in middle of war – AP

The Trump administration discussed deporting Iranian nationals with Iranian leaders, even while the United States was at war with Iran. The talks concerned possible ways to remove people from the United States. Court documents show that officials were still exploring these options in mid-October through a third country.

The people at risk were Iranian nationals held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. At least a dozen were told they could be deported to Iran. Some were asylum applicants, meaning they had sought protection in the United States. The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund said some detainees were told removal could happen as soon as Sunday.

The case matters because Iran was described in court as a declared enemy and a country facing intense unrest. Judge Ana Reyes ordered advance notice of any deportation plans. The administration said it was carrying out lawful removal orders, but the lawsuit alleges that coordination with Iran endangered detainees and may have exposed confidential information.

Deportation is the government-ordered removal of a noncitizen from the country. It is an enforcement action, usually based on an immigration order. The person is sent to another country, often the country of citizenship. The article describes Iranian nationals held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement who faced possible removal to Iran.

Asylum is different because it is a request for protection. A person asks to remain because returning home could expose them to persecution or serious harm. If asylum is granted, the person receives protection and is not deported to that danger. If asylum is denied, the government may pursue removal, depending on the person’s legal case and other protections.

The article focuses on detainees who included asylum applicants. It reports that the government called the removals lawful orders, while their legal fund argued that returning them could endanger them. The court therefore required advance notice before any finalized removal flight.

At least a dozen Iranians held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities were reportedly notified that they could be deported to Iran. The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund provided that figure. The notifications came while the United States was conducting Operation Epic Fury and amid continuing conflict and unrest involving Iran.

The timeline was unusually short. According to the fund and the Associated Press, some detainees were told they could be deported as soon as Sunday. Some were contacted by an Iranian representative office in the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. Others were notified by Department of Homeland Security officials. None received written information about the deportation, according to the fund.

The judge handling the lawsuit imposed procedural safeguards. The administration had to give the court 24 hours’ notice of finalized removal plans and five days’ written notice before carrying out a deportation. The government said no specific deportation date had been set at the time of the court transcript.

Deporting these people to Iran could be dangerous because the article describes war, intensifying United States bombing, and widespread protests. It also reports that Iran had killed hundreds of protesters from January 2026 demonstrations. These conditions raise the possibility that returned people could face violence, persecution, imprisonment, or death.

The risk appeared especially serious for asylum applicants. They had sought protection in the United States, and some could fear the Iranian government or other consequences of returning. One detainee attempted suicide after learning that deportation to Iran was possible. The legal fund said some detainees could face the same death if returned.

Judge Ana Reyes highlighted the contradiction between sending people to a country the United States had bombed and might continue bombing, and the government’s removal plans. A Justice Department attorney said officials were executing lawful orders. The judge required advance notice and warned that ignoring her orders could lead to contempt proceedings.

A third-country deportation route means the United States would first send a person to another country instead of flying directly to the destination country. In this case, the reported plan involved sending Iranian detainees through Pakistan before reaching Iran. The article does not explain the precise travel arrangements or whether Pakistan had agreed to receive each person.

The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund said detainees were contacted by an Iranian representative office in the Pakistani Embassy in Washington about an upcoming flight to Iran through Pakistan. Some also heard from Homeland Security officials. None received written deportation information, according to the fund. The court required advance notice before any flight.

Using a transit country would not remove the central legal questions. Officials would still need to follow removal procedures and consider the danger of return. The lawsuit also alleges that the administration shared confidential asylum information with Iran and pressured detainees to return. DHS denied sharing asylum application records.

Iranian nationals are rarely deported from the United States because the two countries lack relations and people forced to return may face persecution or death. The article connects this practical difficulty with decades of hostile relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Those conditions make ordinary removal arrangements uncommon.

The reported case was unusual because the administration maintained contact with Iranian leaders about deportations. The conversations began as early as last year, before the war, and continued during the war to explore possible avenues for removal. Detainees were reportedly contacted through an Iranian representative office in the Pakistani Embassy in Washington about a flight through Pakistan.

The situation also shows why diplomatic hostility matters to immigration enforcement. The United States was bombing Iran, while the president described Iran as lawless and an enemy. Yet officials were still trying to carry out removal orders. The court case now centers on danger, advance notice, and whether confidential asylum information was shared.

Non-refoulement is a protection principle in refugee and human-rights law. It generally bars a government from sending a person to a country where the person faces persecution, torture, or another serious threat. The principle focuses on the danger created by return, not simply on whether the person has an immigration violation or a removal order.

In this case, the concern was possible deportation to Iran during war, bombing, and protests. The article reports that Iran had killed hundreds of protesters from January 2026 demonstrations. Judge Ana Reyes said people sent there could face, at minimum, a serious threat of certain death. The legal fund also said detainees were asylum applicants who could face the same death.

The article does not use the term non-refoulement, but the principle helps explain the legal dispute. The government said it was executing lawful removal orders. The lawsuit challenged the danger of return, while the judge required advance notice of flights and warned the government about contempt proceedings.