A growing number of people protected from persecution in the United States have reportedly been deported to countries where they have no established ties. For LGBTQ+ refugees, these third-country removals can mean fresh exposure to discrimination, violence or criminalisation. The legal safeguards are meant to prevent that danger, but reports raise troubling questions about whether people get a meaningful chance to explain their fears.
The danger begins when the destination is a stranger
Being sent somewhere you’ve never called home is unsettling enough. For LGBTQ+ refugees, a third-country deportation can carry a sharper risk: the destination may criminalise same-sex relationships or be known for hostility towards LGBTQ+ people.
Reuters documented 40 cases involving people who had received protection in the United States after facing persecution linked to their sexual orientation or gender identity, then were transferred elsewhere. Some destinations criminalise same-sex relations; others have been described by the US State Department as hostile to LGBTQ+ people, Reuters reported.
The concern isn’t only where someone lands. It’s whether they’re given a fair chance to explain why that place could put them in danger.
What the law says about third-country removals
The usual approach is to send someone ordered removed to a country they designate, often their country of origin, or to another place with which they have a connection. The Congressional Research Service explains that US law allows removal to another willing country when sending the person to the designated or connected country is impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.
But the legal framework also raises questions about notice, opportunities to express fears of persecution or torture, and what protections are in place after a transfer. The Congressional Research Service has reviewed cases involving human-rights abuses, inadequate due process, life-threatening conflict and people being sent onward to countries they had fled.
That gap between a legal protection and what happens after removal is the heart of the issue. A previous decision to protect someone from persecution at home may offer little reassurance if risks in a new destination aren’t properly assessed.
Reports describe little warning and few chances to object
Human Rights Watch says its research found people sent to African countries without a meaningful chance to contest their removal or explain their fears. One interviewee reportedly learnt the destination only after boarding a plane and felt unable to object after being threatened with restraints.
The report also describes particular dangers for transgender people. If identity documents don’t reflect someone’s gender, the mismatch between their documents and presentation can create additional risks, Human Rights Watch says.
For anyone facing removal, the practical questions are stark: Where are you being sent? Can you challenge that decision? And has anyone considered the danger you may face there? The reports suggest that, in some cases, people have had little opportunity to get clear answers before the journey begins.
Ms. D.B.’s case shows what protection can mean
The National Immigration Law Center describes Ms. D.B., a transgender woman from Jamaica who received protection under the Convention Against Torture after fleeing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment and violence. She spent more than two decades in the United States before being held in immigration detention.
NILC says the government tried to send her to at least six countries with which she had no ties, including at least two where she feared similar violence. It also reports that she was detained in an all-male section and faced slurs, sexual harassment, unwanted touching and denial of medically necessary hormone treatment.
Her story makes the stakes feel painfully immediate. Protection granted years earlier can’t mean much if someone is then left facing detention conditions and possible transfer to places they fear.
Trump’s comments raise a question, not an answer
After the 2026 midterm elections, Donald Trump told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his deportation approach might have been “too tough”. He also suggested that some people who had lived and worked in the United States for years could be addressed through a deal with Democrats, according to the interview transcript published by CBS News.
The Associated Press reported that immigration enforcement continued after the election, leaving open whether Trump’s comments would lead to a change in policy. Reuters, meanwhile, cited preliminary government data indicating that more than 40,000 people had been deported to countries other than their own since Trump returned to office.
For LGBTQ+ refugees, talk of a possible rethink matters less than whether safeguards work before a plane takes off. A person’s safety can depend on being heard in time.
Every transfer should come with a meaningful chance to explain the risks waiting at the other end.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: