Trump’s latest deportation scheme is almost certainly illegal

President Donald Trump is looking to additional faraway countries to deport immigrants — another escalation of his immigration crackdown.

He has already sent immigrants to an El Salvador megaprison that is notorious for human rights abuses. Those deported include Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government admits it wrongfully sent to El Salvador and has so far refused to return to the US.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that, as part of negotiations to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, Trump also pressured Ukraine to take US deportees. It has yet to do so, and it’s not clear that the proposal remains under consideration.  

The US is reportedly in talks with Rwanda to deport immigrants to the country, which has a poor record on human rights under its current president, Paul Kagame.

Now, Trump is also reportedly planning to send immigrants to Libya. The administration has not publicly described the specifics of its plans, and both of Libya’s rival governments have denied they’d agreed to accept migrants.

That’s despite Libya’s record of human rights abuses in its immigrant detention centers and exploitation of migrants by human traffickers.

For those reasons, sending immigrants to Libya would be, according to legal experts, a clear violation of US and international law.

“I have the same concerns that I think we all have about all the disappearances, which is that they’re just rounding up people kind of willy-nilly, without regard for who they are, whether they have cancer, whether they’re US citizens, whether they can’t remove them,” said Becca Heller, co-founder and director of the International Refugee Assistance Project. “They’re sending them to these black sites overseas, and then claiming that they can’t get them back.”

What we know about Trump’s plans

Trump administration officials said on Tuesday that deportation flights to Libya could begin as soon as Wednesday, multiple outlets reported. 

It’s not clear how many, what nationalities they may represent, or whether they have been afforded any kind of process to challenge their deportations in the US. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for further information on Wednesday.

Lawyers for immigrants from Laos, Vietnam, and the Philippines asked a federal judge this week to prevent their clients from being sent to Libya before they had a chance to challenge their deportations in court. The attorneys claimed that, based on what their clients had told them, the immigrants were at risk of being sent to Libya in apparent violation of an earlier court order.

US District Judge Brian Murphy ruled Wednesday that, if the media reports about the planned Libya deportations are correct, the plan “blatantly defies” the court order, which requires that immigrants be granted written notice of their deportation and a “meaningful” opportunity to appeal. 

Neither of Libya’s warring government factions appears to be in on Trump’s plans, either. Both the internationally recognized government in Libya’s capital of Tripoli and warlord Khalifa Hiftar’s authorities in the eastern part of the country denied striking any agreements with the US to accept its deportees on Wednesday. 

It’s also not clear what legal authority, if any, Trump might be invoking to deport immigrants to Libya. Federal courts have temporarily blocked the administration from invoking an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act to find people eligible for deportation without a final removal order from an immigration judge. Trump, however, has already ignored a court order and could do so again.

But even if Trump has the authority to deport certain migrants, sending them to Libya, with its horrific record of abuse, is illegal. 

Sending immigrants to Libya would violate US and international law

It’s illegal to forcibly send immigrants to places where they will face persecution and danger. Under both US and international law — including the Convention Against Torture and a 1967 protocol implementing the Refugee Convention — this is what’s called the principle of “non-refoulement.”

Sending immigrants to Libya would violate this cornerstone of human rights law because the country, a major transit hub for migrants trying to reach Europe from Africa and the Middle East, is by no means safe. The country has been embroiled in conflict since the country’s authoritarian leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed in 2011 as part of a NATO-backed revolution. 

“Libya doesn’t even have a national government,” Heller said. “It has two competing [government] entities and a very clearly documented history of torturing and abusing migrants and refugees whom it detains.”

Libya has long been part of a migrant corridor to Europe, providing access via the Mediterranean Sea. As of 2022, the United Nations estimated that there were almost 700,000 migrants stranded in Libya as Europe strengthened its border controls.

Human traffickers have subjected immigrants in Libya to beatings, rape, torture, forced labor, and extortion. Those intercepted on their way to Europe have been held in Libyan detention centers where they have suffered similar abuses.

In 2024 alone, the United Nations documented 965 migrant deaths and disappearances in Libya.

Trump tried something like this before during his first administration. He brokered what he called “safe third country” agreements under which the US could send asylum seekers to countries including Guatemala. As is the case with Libya, immigrant advocates argued at the time that none of those countries could be considered safe and that in attempting to remove immigrants to those countries, the US was violating the principle of non-refoulement. 

“They’re all just ways to have a reign of terror over migrants for an end that I don’t completely understand,” Heller said. “It doesn’t appear to have anything to do, actually, with border security or with law enforcement.”

Related articles

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”