US deportations: What 25,447 recorded third-country cases reveal
The figure comes from an international investigation. Commitments worth over $410 million are not documented spending – and a court is demanding more legal protection.
At least 25,447 people have been deported from the United States to countries whose citizenship they do not hold, between January 2025 and the end of August 2026. The figure comes from a cross-border investigation by the Deportation Project, not from a complete official US statistic. That is precisely why it needs context: around 20,000 of these transfers went to Mexico. The remaining cases are spread across numerous states and very different agreements.
A large number – with a clear origin
The investigation project, coordinated by Forbidden Stories, evaluated data from several sources, including the Third-Country Deportation Watch monitor run by Human Rights First and Refugees International, as well as further research. By 31 August, the consortium had recorded transfers to 28 third countries. The organisations are tracking a practice whose individual flights and agreements the US government often does not fully document in public. That is why “at least” matters: it is an investigated lower bound based on the available evidence, not a complete government tally.
The distribution contradicts the initial picture of a worldwide series of exclusively long-distance flights. Mexico accounts for by far the largest share of recorded cases. A transfer to a neighbouring country and a removal across continents raise different logistical, legal and human questions. Both fall under the term “third country”, provided the person concerned is not returning there as a national. The total figure allows no conclusion about the average distance or the individual safety of a deportation.
In mid-August, the tracker run by the two human rights organisations reported more than 23,000 affected people in 26 states. The higher consortium figure has a later cut-off date and draws on additional sources. Such differences are not proof of an error in either count. They show how quickly a continuously updated lower bound becomes outdated, and why the cut-off date, data basis and definition must be stated along with the number.
$410 million is not proof of spending
A second figure circulates alongside the case count: at least $410 million. After reviewing internal State Department documents, the Washington Post reported that by the end of June the government had authorised or committed funds of that magnitude for agreements with 31 countries. That is not the same as $410 million already transferred or spent. Nor would dividing that sum by 25,447 cases be a serious “price per deportation”: the period, recipient states and purpose of the funds do not fully match.
An independent, though partisan-aligned, review exists from the US Senate. In February, the Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee documented more than $32 million in direct payments to five governments for an earlier period, plus further flight costs. Their report criticises a lack of transparency and oversight. It does not prove that every later commitment was paid out. The State Department and the government defend third-country deportations as a means for cases in which countries of origin do not take people back or a return there is not possible. Critics counter that people seeking protection may have more difficulty gaining access to legal remedies and safety in a foreign country.
Court sets limits on the procedure
On 18 September, a US appeals court confirmed, in a case against the Department of Homeland Security, central requirements for such deportations. Those affected must be effectively informed of the destination country and given a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture there. The ruling concerns the procedure, not a finding that every transfer to a third country is prohibited in principle. Its further procedural effect and possible appeals must be kept in view; a ruling alone says nothing about how the authorities will handle each case in future.
For Switzerland, the case does not directly change Swiss asylum law. But it shows how little an aggregated figure without methodology reveals about individual cases. Anyone wanting to assess US practice must ask three questions separately: where were people actually taken? Which funds were committed and which were paid? Did those affected have a genuine opportunity to raise a protection risk before the transfer? Only that separation turns a spectacular number into a verifiable story.
Original sources
- Forbidden Stories: map of the Deportation Project
- Human Rights First and Refugees International: third-country tracker, as of August 2026
- US Senate: report by the Democratic committee members on costs and agreements
- US appeals court: D.V.D. v DHS, ruling of 18 September 2026
- Washington Post: investigation into internal spending and commitment documents
