A U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report has revealed that the United States government spent over $40 million in 2025 on a controversial immigration policy that involved deporting migrants to third-party countries — nations where the deported individuals had no citizenship or close ties. This practice, critics say, has raised concerns about cost, oversight, and effectiveness in managing migration.
How the Policy Worked
Rather than returning migrants directly to their home countries, the U.S. contracted with third countries willing to accept certain individuals for resettlement or temporary stay. According to the report:
-
The United States spent about $40 million on these third-country deportations in 2025.
-
Funds were paid directly to governments such as Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau to host and process incoming migrants.
-
In some cases — for example with Rwanda — the cost per deportee exceeded $1 million, including transportation and logistical expenses.
-
One reported arrangement saw significant funds paid for deportations even though the migrants did not arrive, raising questions about financial accountability.
Examples and Costs
The reported data breakdown includes:
-
Rwanda: Seven migrants were transported at a high total cost, with estimates suggesting more than $1 million per person.
-
Palau: Funds were transferred under arrangements that did not result in actual arrivals, sparking additional scrutiny.
-
Deportations often involved air transport, including flights using aircraft with extremely high operational costs, contributing to the overall expense.
Why This Matters
The third-country deportation strategy marks a significant departure from more traditional approaches to enforcement, where individuals are generally returned directly to their home countries. The report found several issues with the practice:
-
High costs: Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent with limited evidence of systematic oversight or clear outcomes.
-
Transparency concerns: Critics argue that contracts and payments to third countries lacked adequate public monitoring, making it hard to evaluate whether funds achieved intended results.
-
Effectiveness questions: Some migrations resulted in additional expense, such as cases where migrants were later returned to their home countries at extra cost.
Criticism and Calls for Review
Lawmakers and immigration experts have raised alarms about the legal and ethical implications of the approach — particularly when individuals are sent to nations with varied human rights records or where support systems may be limited. Some argue that the U.S. should focus on alternatives that maintain accountability and respect for humanitarian standards.
What This Means for Immigration Policy
The revelation has reignited debate about how the U.S. manages migration and deportation strategy. Key questions moving forward include:
-
How should government agencies balance enforcement with cost-effectiveness?
-
What safeguards are necessary when outsourcing deportation to third parties?
-
How does this approach align with international human rights expectations?
This development underscores how immigration policy decisions can have far-reaching financial, legal, and humanitarian implications.