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

AI Charlie Kirk tributes are a new version of this old response to violent American deaths



By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton.

An AI-generated image of Charlie Kirk embracing Jesus. Another of Kirk posing with angel wings and halo. Then there’s the one of Kirk standing with George Floyd at the gates of heaven.

When prominent political or cultural figures die in the U.S., the remembrance of their life often veers into hagiography. And that’s what’s been happening since the gruesome killing of conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.

The word hagiography comes from the Christian tradition of writing about saints’ lives, but the practice often spills into secular politics and media, falling under the umbrella of what’s called, in sociology, the “sacralization of politics.” Assassinations and violent deaths, in particular, tend to be interpreted in sacred terms: The person becomes a secular martyr who made a heroic sacrifice. They are portrayed as morally righteous and spiritually pure.

This is, to some degree, a natural part of mourning. But taking a closer look at why this happens – and how the internet accelerates it – offers some important insights into politics in the U.S. today.

From presidents to protest leaders

The construction of Ronald Reagan’s post-presidential image is a prime example of this process.

After his presidency, Republican leaders steadily polished his memory into a symbol of conservative triumph, downplaying scandals such as Iran-Contra or Reagan’s early skepticism of civil rights. Today, Reagan is remembered less as a complex politician and more as a saint of free markets and patriotism.

Among liberals, Martin Luther King Jr. experienced a comparable transformation, though it took a different form. King’s critiques of capitalism, militarism and structural racism are often downplayed in most mainstream remembrances, leaving behind a softer image of peaceful dreamer. The annual holiday, scores of street re-namings and public murals honor him, but they also tame his legacy into a universally palatable story of unity.

Even more contested figures such as John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln show the same pattern. Their assassinations were followed by waves of mourning that elevated them into near-mythic status.

Decades after Kennedy’s death, his portrait hung in the homes of many American Catholics, often adjacent to religious iconography such as Virgin Mary statuettes. Lincoln, meanwhile, became a kind of civic saint: His memorial in Washington, D.C., looks like a temple, with words from his speeches etched into the walls.

Why it happens, what it means

The hagiography of public figures serves several purposes. It taps into deep human needs, helping grieving communities manage loss by providing moral clarity in the face of chaos.

It also allows political movements to consolidate power by sanctifying their leaders and discouraging dissent. And it reassures followers that their cause is righteous – even cosmic.

In a polarized environment, the elevation of a figure into a saint does more than honor the individual. It turns a political struggle into a sacred one. If you see someone as a martyr, then opposition to their movement is not merely disagreement, it is desecration. In this sense, hagiography is not simply about remembering the dead: It mobilizes the living.

But there are risks. Once someone is framed as a saint, criticism becomes taboo. The more sacralized a figure, the harder it becomes to discuss their flaws, mistakes or controversial actions. Hagiography flattens history and narrows democratic debate.

After Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, for example, public mourning in the U.K. and abroad quickly elevated her legacy into a symbol of stability and continuity, with mass tributes, viral imagery and global ceremonies transforming a complex reign into a simplified story of devotion and service.

It also fuels polarization. If one side’s leader is a martyr, then the other side must be villainous. The framing is simple but powerful.

In Kirk’s case, many of his supporters described him as a truth seeker whose death underscored a deeper moral message. At Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona, President Donald Trump called him a “martyr for American freedom.” On social media, Turning Point USA and Kirk’s official X account described him as “America’s greatest martyr to free speech.”

In doing so, they elevated his death as symbolic of larger battles over censorship. By emphasizing the fact that he died while simply speaking, they also reinforced the idea that liberals and the left are more likely to resort to violence to silence their ideological enemies, even as evidence shows otherwise.

Digital supercharge

Treating public figures like saints is not new, but the speed and scale of the process is. Over the past two decades, social media has turned hagiography from a slow cultural drift into a rapid-fire production cycle.

Memes, livestreams and hashtags now allow anyone to canonize someone they admire. When NBA Hall-of-Famer Kobe Bryant died in 2020, social media was flooded within hours with devotional images, murals and video compilations that cast him as more than an athlete: He became a spiritual icon of perseverance.

Similarly, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the “Notorious RBG” meme ecosystem instantly expanded to include digital portraits and merchandise that cast her as a saintly defender of justice.

The same dynamics surrounded Charlie Kirk. Within hours of his assassination, memes appeared of Kirk draped in an American flag, being carried by Jesus.

In the days after his death, AI-generated audio clips of Kirk styled as “sermons” began circulating online, while supporters shared Bible verses that they claimed matched the exact timing of his passing. Together, these acts cast his death in religious terms: It wasn’t just a political assassination — it was a moment of spiritual significance.

Such clips and verses spread effortlessly across social media, where narratives about public figures can solidify within hours, often before facts are confirmed, leaving little room for nuance or investigation.

Easy-to-create memes and videos also enable ordinary users to participate in a sacralization process, making it more of a grassroots effort than something that’s imposed from the top down.

In other words, digital culture transforms what was once the slow work of monuments and textbooks into a living, flexible folk religion of culture and politics.

Toward clearer politics

Hagiography will not disappear. It meets emotional and political needs too effectively. But acknowledging its patterns helps citizens and journalists resist its distortions. The task is not to deny grief or admiration but to preserve space for nuance and accountability.

In the U.S., where religion, culture and politics frequently intertwine, recognizing that sainthood in politics is always constructed — and often strategic — can better allow people to honor loss without letting mythmaking dictate the terms of public life.

  • Arthur “Art” Jipson is an Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work at the University of Dayton. For 11 years he was the Director of the Criminal Justice Studies program.

25th Anniversary Event Update

We’ve noted this in the emails members have received, but since we’ve gotten a lot of questions about it: tickets...

Chuck Schumer Flat-Out Declares He Has ‘No Faith in Donald Trump’s Judicial System’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) bluntly declared he has "no faith" in the United States judicial system under President Donald Trump.

The post Chuck Schumer Flat-Out Declares He Has ‘No Faith in Donald Trump’s Judicial System’ first appeared on Mediaite.

It’s Completely Trump’s Supreme Court Now, And He Knows It

President Trump notched a startling legal win Friday evening, as the Supreme Court gave an early stamp of approval to...

UB’s BioSCape project receives NASA award, will be subject of doc at Buffalo film festival

Multinational research effort mapped South Africa’s biodiversity from the air.