UN experts warn Trump's deportations risk torture while Europe embraces a similar path
WASHINGTON, DC: Twenty-four independent human rights experts advising the United Nations have warned the Trump administration over its expanding policy of sending migrants to countries where they have no prior ties, saying the arrangements can expose people to torture, persecution, trafficking and enforced disappearance.
The experts have urged Washington and the governments involved to halt transfers they say could violate international human-rights protections.
But the warning comes with a striking parallel: five European governments are pursuing their own network of “return hubs” outside the European Union, while Brussels has adopted rules allowing certain migrants facing return to be transferred to third countries under specified safeguards.
Italy has already established a similar arrangement with Albania.
Trump's deportation network expands overseas
Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has reached agreements with 35 countries to accept migrants removed from the United States.
An international investigation coordinated by Forbidden Stories found that at least 25,447 people had been transferred to 28 countries through August 31.
About 20,000 were sent to Mexico, while others went to destinations across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and elsewhere.
The investigation identified cases involving people who had no previous connection to their destination.
Among those reported were an Iranian woman who had sought protection in the US after opposing the Iranian government and a homosexual Ghanaian man who had fled after being targeted because of his sexuality.
The UN-linked experts said migrants could be particularly vulnerable after arriving in countries where they have no family, legal or social ties.
They cited concerns including inadequate asylum systems, detention, and onward removal to places where individuals could face serious harm.
Court fight puts removals under scrutiny
The dispute has also moved through US courts.
A federal appeals court ruled on September 18 that migrants facing third-country removal must receive adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise objections, particularly when they fear persecution or torture in the proposed destination.
The legal issue centers partly on non-refoulement, the principle that people should not be transferred to a country where they face serious risks such as persecution or torture.
The Trump administration has argued that third-country agreements provide a way to carry out final removal orders when migrants cannot be returned directly to their countries of origin.
The investigation also found that Washington had pledged at least $410 million connected to the arrangements.
State Department records showed funding involving foreign governments as well as the International Organization for Migration and UNHCR.
UNHCR said it was not a party to the deportation agreements, while IOM said its involvement was intended to provide assistance and improve conditions for affected migrants.
Europe moves toward return hubs
The US policy is now facing an international comparison that complicates the criticism.
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands are developing their own plans for “return hubs” outside the European Union for migrants without legal residency.
The five governments said they aim to reach an agreement with a non-EU partner country, with the first facilities expected to become operational by 2027.
The European model is not identical to Washington’s system.
It concerns migrants who have no legal right to remain in an EU member state and are subject to return procedures, while US arrangements involve people removed from American territory under bilateral agreements.
Italy offers Europe's test case
Italy has already established facilities in Albania under a 2023 agreement allowing Italian authorities to operate repatriation and detention centers there.
The arrangement has faced legal challenges over asylum and detention protections.
In April, an advocate general at the Court of Justice of the European Union said the Italy-Albania arrangement could be compatible with EU law if migrants’ rights were fully protected.
The opinion was not binding.
It specifically cited access to legal counsel, language assistance, family contact, healthcare and judicial review as required safeguards.
The comparison has drawn its own warnings from European rights officials.
The Council of Europe has raised concerns about safeguards surrounding the proposed return hubs, meaning the debate over third-country removals now extends beyond Trump's immigration policy.
What this means for Americans
The immediate US question is how far Washington can use foreign governments to carry out removal orders while maintaining protections for migrants who could face serious harm after transfer.
The emerging European model shows that third-country returns are not solely an American policy debate.
But the legal structures, eligibility rules and safeguards differ, leaving each system subject to its own domestic and international requirements.
