The US Is Paying Foreign Governments Millions to Take People Who Have Never Set Foot There. One Man's Year in an African Prison Shows What That Actually Looks Like
Phone Chomsavanh was born in a refugee camp in Thailand, after his parents fled Laos. He came to the United States at age 7 and grew up here. He was later convicted of a crime, served his full sentence, and should have walked out of custody a free man, as US law entitles him to. Instead, in July 2025, immigration authorities put him on a military cargo plane with four other people and flew him to Eswatini, a small absolute monarchy in southern Africa where he had never been and knew no one. His lawyer says he learned about the destination only shortly before the plane landed. Chomsavanh spent more than a year in Eswatini's Matsapha Correctional Complex, a maximum-security prison, without a hearing, without formal notice of why he was there, and without a real chance to object. He was released this month, in October 2026, and immediately put on a plane again, this time toward Laos, a country he also has no real connection to.
His case is not an outlier. It is one documented example of a program that has moved more than 23,000 people to countries that are not their own since January 2025, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to foreign governments, and now sitting in front of the US Supreme Court, which will decide its legality in December. This article explains what third-country deportation is, how large it has grown, what it has cost, and what the law currently says, using Chomsavanh's case as the throughline for what the policy actually does to a person.
What "third-country deportation" actually means
Normally, when someone is ordered deported from the United States, they are sent to their own country of citizenship. Third-country deportation (also called third-country removal) is different: it sends a person to a country that is not their home country and often one they have no ties to at all, usually because their home country has refused to accept them back, or because the US government has decided it is faster to send them somewhere willing to take them rather than negotiate with the country they actually come from. The US government has signed agreements with more than 35 countries since January 2025 to accept these transfers, in exchange for direct payments in most documented cases.
The scale, in numbers
Two independent trackers, run by Human Rights First and Refugees International jointly, and reported separately by Baptist News Global using the same underlying project, give overlapping but slightly different totals depending on the exact date each data pull was made. Both point to the same order of magnitude.
Metric | Figure | As of |
People transferred to third countries | 23,000+ (per Human Rights First / Refugees International); 25,000+ (per a later Baptist News tally of the same tracker) | Aug. 15, 2026 / Sept. 21, 2026 |
Countries with transfer agreements | More than 35 agreements; at least 26-29 countries have actually received people | 2026 |
Total documented US payments | Nearly $50 million (not counting transport costs) | Sept. 2026 |
Largest single destination | Mexico, roughly 20,000 people | 2026 |
People sent to African countries specifically | 330-469 (two trackers, overlapping periods) | 2026 |
Highest payment per person documented | Rwanda: $7.5 million for 7 people, about $1.07 million each, not including transport | 2025 |
Eswatini payment | $5.1 million, for roughly 30 deportees received to date | 2025-2026 |
For context on that per-person Rwanda figure: $1.07 million is more than 24 years of median US income. These are not small administrative costs. They are the price of a diplomatic arrangement that lets the US remove someone without their home country's cooperation and, often, without the person having any way to contest where they are being sent.
Who is actually being sent, and what happens to them
According to the Human Rights First / Refugees International tracker, people deported to third countries include some with criminal convictions, like Chomsavanh, but also many whose only violation was an immigration offense. The tracker documents several specific harms:
People who had already won protection from removal to their home country by a US immigration judge, because a judge found they would likely face persecution or torture there, were nonetheless sent to African countries or Mexico, a practice advocates call "chain refoulement": passed from country to country until they land somewhere with no protection at all.
LGBTQ+ individuals have been sent to countries where their identity is criminalized, putting them at risk of severe violence.
Family separations have occurred as part of these transfers.
Some refugees were returned to places of harm within hours of arriving in the third country, per Human Rights First researcher Savi Arvey.
The State Department does not use an independent auditor for how recipient countries spend the money; it relies on the governments themselves to report back, according to the Senate findings reported by Yahoo News.
The legal fight: where the law stands right now
The core legal question is simple to state and consequential to answer: can the government deport someone to a country not named in their original removal order, without first giving them notice and a real chance to argue they would face persecution or torture there?
Date | What happened |
Early 2026 | U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy rules against the rapid third-country removal policy, finding it denies people a meaningful chance to raise fear-of-persecution claims. |
March 16, 2026 | An appeals court temporarily stays Murphy's ruling while the government appeals, allowing removals to continue in the meantime. |
September 18, 2026 | The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upholds Murphy's final judgment against the policy. |
September 23, 2026 | The same appeals court dissolves its earlier stay, meaning Murphy's block on the policy would take effect. |
September 29, 2026 | The Supreme Court, in an unsigned emergency order (Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26A406), puts Murphy's ruling on hold again, allowing removals to resume while the Court considers the case. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson say they would have denied the government's request. |
December 9, 2026 | Oral arguments scheduled at the Supreme Court on the merits (No. 26-426). |
In plain terms: as of today, third-country removals are legally allowed to continue, because the Supreme Court paused the lower court's ruling against them. But that is not a final decision. The Court will hear full arguments on December 9, 2026, and could still rule the practice illegal. Until then, the policy operates in a legal gray zone: permitted for now, under direct challenge, with three justices on record saying they would have stopped it already.
Phone Chomsavanh's story, in full
Chomsavanh's path to Eswatini illustrates exactly how this works in practice. Born in a Thai refugee camp to parents who had fled Laos, he came to the US as a young child and grew up here, by his lawyer's account. He was later convicted of a serious crime in the US and served his sentence in full. Having served that time, under ordinary circumstances he would have been released. Instead, in July 2025, he and four other people were put on a military cargo plane as part of the administration's third-country deportation program and flown to Eswatini, Africa's last absolute monarchy, a country where he had no family, no history, and no ties of any kind. His US lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, says he found out about the Eswatini destination only shortly before the flight landed.
Eswatini then held him at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, a maximum-security prison near the capital Mbabane, for more than a year. Nguyen describes the process as one with "no notice, no hearing, no chance to object," and says the program overall operates with little transparency about detention conditions once someone is transferred. He was released this month and, rather than going free, was put on a plane toward Laos, landing first in Johannesburg en route. Eswatini has received about 30 people under this program; its government did not immediately acknowledge Chomsavanh's release when asked.
His case predates the Supreme Court's September 29 order, but it shows precisely what the legal fight is actually about: not an abstract question of government authority, but whether a real person, who has already served his sentence under US law, can be held indefinitely in a foreign prison with no hearing and no say in where he ends up next.
What this means if this could affect you or someone you know
Having a final removal order does not guarantee removal to your home country. Under this program, you can legally be sent to a third country instead, including one you have never visited.
A prior grant of protection against removal to your home country may not stop a transfer to a different country. The documented "chain refoulement" cases show protection orders tied to one country have not reliably blocked removal to another.
The legal landscape is actively changing. The Supreme Court's final ruling, expected after the December 9, 2026 arguments, could significantly change what notice and hearing rights apply. If you or someone you know has a final removal order, this is a moment to talk to an immigration attorney about current rights, not to rely on older information.
If you have already served a criminal sentence, completing that sentence does not automatically mean release. As Chomsavanh's case shows, people who have fully served their time can still be transferred into third-country custody afterward.
Frequently asked questions
What is third-country deportation?
It is the practice of deporting someone to a country other than their own, usually because their home country won't accept them back or because the US has an agreement making transfer faster. The US has such agreements with more than 35 countries since January 2025.
Is third-country deportation currently legal?
It is currently allowed to continue because the Supreme Court paused a lower court ruling against it on September 29, 2026, while it considers the case on the merits. Oral arguments are set for December 9, 2026; a final ruling could still find the practice unlawful.
How much has the US paid foreign governments for this program?
Documented payments exceed $49 million, not including transport costs, spread across dozens of countries. Rwanda alone received $7.5 million for seven people, about $1.07 million each. Eswatini received $5.1 million.
What happened to Phone Chomsavanh?
A Laotian citizen who grew up in the US after being born in a refugee camp, he was not a US citizen, which is why he remained deportable after serving his sentence. He was deported to Eswatini in July 2025, held over a year in a maximum-security prison without a hearing, and released in October 2026 before being sent onward to Laos.
Can someone with a protection order against deportation to their home country still be removed to a third country?
Documented cases show this has happened, a practice human rights groups call "chain refoulement." This is part of what the Supreme Court case will determine the legality of.
This article is for information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law in this area is actively being litigated and can change quickly. If you or someone you know has a final removal order, consult a qualified immigration attorney about current rights and options.
Komentarze