Extended Interview: Homeland Security's James Percival on third-country deportations
In a Nutshell
The Trump administration has expanded third-country deportations to remove criminal non-citizens when their home countries refuse repatriation, using diplomatic agreements with nations like Ghana to bypass Supreme Court limits on indefinite detention. The policy targets individuals ordered removed by immigration judges—including those with withholding of removal—who cannot be returned home, with officials claiming this addresses a public safety gap that previous administrations neglected. Critics allege Ghana and other third countries are violating non-refoulement assurances by returning deportees to their home countries, though the government maintains these claims are based on unverified allegations and emphasizes that immigration judges' removal orders must be enforced regardless of criminal history severity.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
The US deports people to third countries when their home country refuses to accept them back, particularly in cases involving serious criminals. Countries have no obligation to take their nationals back, and some nations are notorious for refusing to accept criminals. Another scenario involves immigration judges granting country-specific relief, ordering removal from the United States but prohibiting return to the individual's home country.
The law directs authorities to find alternative countries for these individuals, though historically this has been difficult diplomatically. Without successful third-country placement, people ordered removed were typically released into communities due to Supreme Court precedent prohibiting indefinite detention. ICE agents have encountered cases like a child rapist from Laos whose government refused repatriation, resulting in release with no further action.
While previous administrations conducted third-country removals, these were typically done in small numbers described as "onesies and twosies" rather than systematically. It was not uncommon to find individuals who had committed murder or rape who were not considered priorities for finding third countries. The current administration has significantly expanded the program, prioritizing public safety concerns and compliance with congressional directives.
The relevant statute provides a flowchart-like process for country selection, directing authorities to choose alternative countries when home country removal is not possible.
Notice procedures vary depending on circumstances. When diplomatic assurances are obtained—credible government promises that individuals will not face persecution or torture consistent with international law—the State Department may determine these are credible, allowing different procedures than cases without such assurances.
Notice is primarily intended to allow individuals to raise fear claims. In cases with credible diplomatic assurances, the same procedures may not apply. Individuals are not always told their destination in advance due to complex logistical planning involving country agreements, manifest creation, and travel documents.
Individuals ordered removed by immigration judges can depart voluntarily at any time and are legally required to do so. The US government offers a free flight home and $3,000 payment to encourage voluntary departure. Those who decline and end up in ICE detention do not get to choose their destination country. The difficulty of securing third-country acceptance means destinations are determined by available diplomatic arrangements rather than individual preference.
Third countries like Ghana promise to honor non-refoulement principles, prohibiting return of individuals to places where they would face persecution or torture. However, individuals always retain the option to return to their home country voluntarily. Ghana and other countries are entitled to apply their own procedures to determine fear claims, and regime changes or other developments may affect the viability of previously granted withholding of removal.
The US government trusts diplomatic assurances that third countries will honor non-refoulement principles, with State Department credibility determinations required before relying on such assurances. Countries making representations to the US government face consequences for failing to honor them.
Multiple legal complaints have been filed alleging that individuals sent to Ghana were subsequently returned to home countries despite withholding of removal orders. A DOJ lawyer acknowledged to a federal judge in September 2025 that based on plaintiff's allegations, Ghana appeared to be violating assurances given to the US government.
The government maintains that statements based on plaintiff's allegations do not represent official agreement with those allegations. Officials emphasize that many fear claims are fraudulent and that individuals sometimes consent to return home without truthfully reporting this consent.
Ghana has publicly stated that individuals are processed and sent to their countries of origin. In one documented flight, nearly every person was returned to their home country within days of arrival in Ghana, despite US withholding of removal orders based on findings that persecution or torture was more likely than not.
Sierra Leone provides arriving individuals with pamphlets stating it serves as a "temporary transit location while arrangements are made to return you to your country of origin."
A case was presented involving an individual sent to Ghana who was subsequently returned to Mali, where he had withholding of removal. DHS bag tags and medication documentation listed "destination Mali" rather than Ghana, suggesting possible US government awareness of the final destination. Officials responded that they were not aware of such coordination and that third countries are entitled to apply their own procedures under international law.
Third-country removals disproportionately involve violent criminals for two reasons: countries are particularly reluctant to accept violent criminals back, and individuals sometimes receive withholding of removal for serious crimes. The administration emphasizes that these efforts address public safety threats that previous administrations failed to address, preventing potential crimes against American communities.
Point two is people will sometimes get what's called withholding of removal. That type of relief because they are statutorily ineligible for asylum. What creates that ineligibility in many cases is significant criminal conduct. So that's what's so horrible about this problem before the Trump administration fixed it is you had a population of people ordered removed by an immigration judge who is disproportionately criminal who has no right to be in this country and who as a judge said should leave and it was just neglected and these people would go back. You can look at the cases posted on Twitter. A lot of these people reoffended and hurt Americans because people were not doing their job and enforcing the immigration laws as written. This is a huge victory by President Trump and his administration. Falling violent crime rates in this country. It's not a coincidence. The leadership in getting dangerous, criminal, illegal aliens out of this country who no other administration could figure out how to remove is a huge victory for the president.
Americans are asking for that. Americans are voting for violent offenders to be deported. The man mentioned who was sent to Ghana and then back to Mali is also in favor of that. He said, "I'm glad the Trump administration is deporting violent offenders. They should be doing that. But me, man, I have no criminal record. I have a US citizen wife. I have US citizen children. I've been working here 25 years. I've been paying taxes. Why are you deporting me?"
Every illegal alien gets a day in front of an immigration judge. If they want to stay in the United States, they have to get what's called asylum. If they don't get asylum, if they get something like the withholding relief, they are ordered removed from the country. The way the withholding of removal statute works is it's a country selection provision. It basically says when you remove them, remove them somewhere else. People who have an order of removal and that type of relief are absolutely on notice that they are in the country illegally and that they could be removed at any time and that they will have to be removed to a third country.
We've done something that nobody's ever done before, which is incredibly generous, which is we've offered everybody a free flight home and $3,000. When people have a form of immigration relief that says, "I can be removed at any time, and it's absolutely going to be to a third country, and then we offer them $3,000 in a flight home, and they don't take it," people are on notice that they could be removed to a third country. If they really don't want that to happen, they should take up the very generous offer.
We've released a lot of information about this. The general counsel can't make those sorts of commitments, but there's been pretty transparent about the level of criminality in a lot of these cases. Based on an internal DHS document that was accessed in the Trump administration's first year in office for this second term, less than 14% of people detained by ICE had a violent criminal record. Less than 14%.
One of the tricks that people do is they use this violent crime label. It's an incredibly misleading label. There are many horrible crimes that people do not classify as violent crimes. Child pornography not consuming is but watching it is not considered a violent crime. Trafficking and heroin not considered a violent crime. So anytime anybody ever feeds a violent crime stat like that, they are absolutely cooking the books to erase the significant criminality and public safety threat that is being looked at in that population.
People are suggesting that people who watch child pornography and people who sell heroin aren't people that should be removed from the country because they're not quote unquote violent criminals. It's one of the most ridiculous things ever heard. Let's talk about the two crimes that are heard most, murder and rape. Based on this internal DHS document in Trump's first year, 5% of those detained were accused or convicted of homicide. 1.4% were accused or convicted of sexual assault. Together that's 2%.
Isn't it wonderful that we're getting those people out of the country? Should that be the limit of who has to follow the law? Just rapists and murderers have to follow the law? The point is taken. But 2% murder and rapists. This is what is kept hearing. This is who's being deported. But that's 2%. What about everybody else? Well, again, everyone has to follow the law. It is not an excuse to say, "I'm not going to follow the law because I haven't raped or killed anybody." There are a lot of other very serious crimes. One of the things about people who commit less significant crimes is they often commit more significant crimes. As someone who has an obligation to protect the American people, anyone who could commit a crime who is not supposed to be in this country should be out of this country because every illegal alien crime is a preventable crime.
We're not saying someone commits a misdemeanor, why take the chance that they won't then. What is being said is that we have laws. Congress passes those laws. We just enforce them. This obsession with whether somebody has committed a sufficient crime, an immigration judge has ordered us to remove someone. We're following an order from an immigration judge. The desire to sort of split hairs on when we should follow the law and not follow the law is absurd. But it gets even more absurd when people start coming up with these violent crime stats that exclude horrible crimes like watching child pornography and dealing in significant drugs.
Let's not say violent versus any criminal record. One example investigated was one deportation flight to Ghana and it was found that more than 60% of the people on that flight had no criminal record. None. The manifest wasn't available, so there's no additional context available. What would be said is again, people are ordered removed by an immigration judge. We follow those orders. When traffic violations were counted on that flight, so people who had no criminal record or who had a traffic violation, it was more than 80% of that flight. The reason this is important is because the American people want to know. They want to know who's being deported on these flights. A lot of people with very significant crimes are being removed from this country. People should be very happy about that. But we do have laws and there are some people who've committed lesser crimes who are being removed. But all of them have committed the legal violation of being in this country illegally. And it's Congress who makes the laws.
What reporting also reveals though is that a lot of these people are nurses. They're moms. They're Uber drivers. They're people with no criminal record who have paid taxes for years who have been here for a couple decades who have US citizen children and spouses. Does that surprise? Is that the intention? Is that part of what this administration is trying to do? Remove these folks? This administration is following the law that Congress has passed. There are a lot of people in this population that we talk about who've committed very serious crimes. People should be very happy with President Trump for getting these serious criminals out of the country. A lot of these serious criminals fell into this third country removal population where no other president has figured out how to get these people out of the country and people should be very happy about this. But to suggest that therefore we have to show that 100% of the removed population was a serious criminal, that's not what the law says.
The public is not demanding that. They just want to know. People continue to hear murder and rapist, but a little more nuance is sort of required for the public to make up their opinion on who these folks are that are being deported. The law-abiding folks who in reporting is more than half. You're suggesting that people who are in this country illegally are law abiding. Let's say don't have a criminal record outside of an immigration offense, maybe overstaying a tourist visa. If you are in this country illegally, it is virtually impossible for you to live in this country and not commit additional legal violations because working without authorization, identity theft. There's a lot of illegality that goes on when you are breaking the law. The characterization of someone who is in this country illegally and breaking our laws as quote unquote law-abiding is fundamentally inaccurate and unfair.
If you enter the country illegally, that's a crime. If you overstay a visa, that is not a crime. It's a legal violation, but it's not a crime. But the point is, once you don't have authorization to be here, in order to live here, you generally have to commit a variety of other crimes. If you look at all the fraud work that this administration has been doing, it shows if you're going to make a living here without having the legal right to be here, without having the right to work, without having all these other things, there's a lot of accompanying illegality that goes on. The characterization of somebody who has been breaking the law for 20 years as quote unquote law-abiding is just wrong and unfair.
Whether a person has committed a crime or not, does the US Constitution guarantee everyone due process? One of the things that really gets confused in this due process conversation is people treat the term due process as a noun. But due is an adjective and process is a noun. Meaning whatever process you are due. To ask the question, is an illegal alien entitled to due process? That question actually doesn't make any sense because everyone is entitled to due process but your status can affect the type of process that you are due again because due is an adjective and process is a noun. So you look at expedited removal as a classic example. Some illegal aliens are subject to a very expedited removal process that doesn't involve an immigration judge. It typically does not involve review by an article 3 court. The Supreme Court has signed off on this and that's a perfect example. Would that process be adequate for a US citizen? Probably not. But they are due a different process because of their different status.
If someone is detained, do they have the right to go in front of a judge and argue their case that maybe being sent to XYZ country would put them in danger before they are deported? If you are in a regular immigration proceeding, then you absolutely have your day in court with the judge. If you're in expedited removal, there's a more expedited process to make that determination that doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge. When you look at third country removal, this is someone who has already been in front of an immigration judge. And then we're at the post immigration judge stage and we're making a country selection. And there we treat that country selection process as more sort of more analogous to the procedures that we apply in expedited removal, which is why we've won in the Supreme Court on this three separate times. For somebody who has withholding of removal and they're detained and they're being prepared to be deported to a third country, should they have the right to go in front of a judge and say, "Hey, look, this third country, I could be in danger if I'm deported here?" The procedures on this are public. They're not hiding them. They've released them, and they've put them in front of the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court has given an emergency stay three separate times in the litigation.
In all cases, are they entitled to go in front of an immigration judge? There are many situations in the law like expedited removal where you don't go in front of an immigration judge. There's some other process. And because due process very much depends on the facts and circumstances, it is thought it satisfies due process. Does it involve an immigration judge in 100% of cases? No. But that's not unique to third country removal. That's how the immigration system works in general. There are some circumstances where you get in front of an immigration judge. There are some circumstances where you don't. The nuance is helpful because people don't realize that there are different procedures for different folks depending on their status. There are just there are so many situations across the legal system where due process does not mean going in front of a judge. It's a flexible test. It depends on the facts and circumstances. There's a Supreme Court case called Matthews v. Eldridge where you do the sort of balancing tests to figure out the procedures that are appropriate under a particular circumstance. When people suggest that there's something wrong with the third country removal process because it doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge in every case, that just doesn't make any sense because we've had expedited removal since 1996. And that doesn't involve going in front of an immigration judge.
The first circuit court of appeals ruled that these third country deportations should be stayed because these folks are not getting due process. And how long did that last? The Supreme Court stayed them. There'll be arguments in December and then a decision in the new year. But a federal court in our country argued that these folks should have due process. There are a lot of federal courts that say a lot of things. The one listened to is the US Supreme Court, which has ruled for us three times on this.
Will the US continue to deport folks to Ghana? Honestly, I actually don't know what the current circumstance is with the Ghana agreement, so I just can't speak to that one way or the other. Knowing what you know now, do you think the US should continue to trust Ghana and their assurances that they won't send people to places where they have a withholding of removal? I'll resist the suggestion that I have to take everything you've said here your word for it. So again, we follow the procedures. We get assurances. I just don't know the status of the Ghana agreement because there are a lot of these agreements and I'm not tracking all of them specifically, but I have confidence in our legal process and I know the State Department's handling a lot of that and that's out of your sphere.
You've talked a little bit about the self-deporting, that folks can leave on their own accord if they'd like and you've made that very clear on social media and elsewhere. Is part of the strategy here, with sending people to Central African Republic to places that are obviously very dangerous according to State Department rankings to encourage people to self-deport? You don't self-deport, you could end up in one of these countries. Half of what you said is true. It is absolutely our strategy to encourage people to self-deport. That's why we're offering incentives. But the suggestion that third country removals are some sort of punishment to get people to self-deport, that would be pushed back on. But absolutely, it's our strategy to get people to self-deport, that's what we want. That's why we're offering a payment and a free flight. When you're deciding who to deport, is there any consideration, separate from status about folks who have US citizen families who have paid taxes, who don't have violent criminal record? Is any of that taken into consideration? Every officer uses their own enforcement discretion, but what would be said in general is if you think there's some reason you should stay in this country, an immigration judge is the person you should present that information to and maybe you're eligible for some form of relief. But once a judge orders you to leave the country, ICE is just carrying out the law as passed by Congress.
How do you think we'll look back on this time in history? I think it's been made very clear. We will look at a problem that was significant that was causing Americans to be victimized by criminals because we couldn't figure out how to get people out of this country. And we will say that President Trump finally fixed a huge problem in our immigration system. A lot of Americans don't understand this third country removal thing. They think we're just choosing to send somebody somewhere else for no reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a serious problem we've had with a population who's been ordered removed where nobody had the willpower to deal with it even though some of these people were rapists and murderers. And President Trump came along and we decided we were going to fix this problem. And by the way, Secretary Rubio deserves a ton of credit for this. It is so difficult to get a country to accept people who are not their own, especially serious criminals. It requires a lot of capital. It requires a lot of diplomatic efforts and it's a problem that no secretary of state before ever fixed.
A little bit different, but I remember when the Obama administration was doing this for Guantanamo Bay detainees and it was a huge diplomatic effort getting all these countries to agree to accept people from Guantanamo. But that's another issue. But I was asking you how we'll look back on this time in history and so you're saying that President Trump has achieved this great thing has made our country safer. Is there anything kind of anything else you want to say on that in terms of like will we feel pride like what will we feel when we think back on this time in history? I think we will look at this as a time when we made the country safer. I think that you know one of the things about making the country safer is nobody knows about the crimes that never happened. But when I wake up every day and do this job, I know that there are crimes that are not happening because of the job that we're doing. And that's a hard thing to measure because the crimes aren't happening. So you don't see it. But I absolutely believe with all of my heart that these third country removals have stopped crimes from happening and kept Americans safer. And that is our fundamental obligation at the Department of Homeland Security. And unlike members of the public, you see the profiles of these folks are being deported. Absolutely.
I've been following your Twitter and I actually can't remember the what's it called? Deportation daily or something? Daily Deportee. I've been reading about all the profiles on that. And I caught something else on your Twitter that I wanted to ask you about. You tweeted recently about how much joy these deportations bring. And I wonder if there's any part of you that feels compassion for folks who don't have a violent criminal record, who are being separated from their families, parents who are being deported and their US citizen children growing up without them. Well, so number one, the people I have the most compassion for are the American victims who we're protecting. What would be said more broadly though is justice is about doing things that might be unpleasant to protect people. Nobody always feels good about dispensing justice, but strong leaders have the stomach to dispense justice to protect people. And so we always have compassion, but our fundamental compassion is to the victims.
What does the American public not understand about this issue? I think not to repeat myself, but I think the American public doesn't understand that people are being sent to third countries because they can't be sent to their home country. It's a population that's been ordered removed and it's a population that disproportionately involves serious criminals. And so, you ask yourself, am I happy that this person is being sent to live in Equatorial Guinea? Well, the question is, do you want them living next door or do you want them living in Equatorial Guinea? As the Department of Homeland Security, our obligation is to Americans. It's to keep Americans safe and tolerating having criminals live in the United States who have no right to be here merely because there's sort of a lack of bureaucratic inertia to get the necessary agreements with foreign countries to get these dangerous people out of our country. I'm very excited about that. I think one other thing people don't understand is this there's this ticking time clock that you can't keep someone detained forever.
There's a Supreme Court case called Zadvydas which basically says we have six months to detain somebody to remove them and then there's this standard it's very long and convoluted but it's like significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The immigration law it's called slurf. But basically you have to make some showing that you actually have imminent plans to remove the alien or the Supreme Court says they have to be released. And so you run into problems when you have somebody who's like I said a rapist or a murderer and you're having trouble finding a country. At some point a judge is going to order that person back on the street. But if you can find a country for them and get them out of here, then they can't hurt people.
Who are some of the folks that you all have deported recently? I've covered some of them in my daily deport series on my Twitter. The ones that stand out, there a couple things that stand out. There was one individual, I think he was from Myanmar, who had
The administration has successfully removed foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes when their home countries refuse repatriation. One case involved a Myanmar national who raped a seven-year-old child repeatedly over an eight-year period. Despite a removal order, Myanmar refused to accept him, and previous administrations released him into the community. Within three months of taking office, the Trump administration arrested and removed him from the country.
Foreign nationals can only be held in jail until they complete their criminal sentences. ICE cannot indefinitely detain individuals after their sentence ends, even when they pose ongoing threats to public safety. The administration argues that individuals convicted of raping seven-year-olds should not be returned to American communities when their home countries refuse repatriation.
Another case involved a Laotian national who shot and killed a German tourist during a robbery attempt. Like the Myanmar case, Laos refused to accept him after he served his sentence. Previous administrations released him into the community rather than pursuing alternative removal options.
ICE officers have long been aware of these dangerous individuals through routine check-ins. Officers encountered people convicted of rape and murder during regular supervision appointments but were powerless to act because previous administrations would not prioritize third-country removals. Local ICE personnel lacked authority to contact foreign governments directly, and Washington showed no interest in solving these cases.
Once the Trump administration established third-country removal procedures, ICE officers could immediately identify and locate previously released criminal non-citizens. The administration removed multiple individuals with serious criminal convictions by May of the same year, including those already living freely in American communities.
This policy differs from arrangements where individuals recently crossing from Mexico could be quickly returned across the border. The third-country removals involve long-term residents with serious criminal convictions who completed their sentences but cannot be repatriated to their home countries.
ICE field officers maintain detailed knowledge of these cases through routine check-ins. When third-country removal became available, officers immediately identified specific individuals they had been monitoring, including the Myanmar national convicted of repeated child rape over eight years. This demonstrates that the problem was solvable but unaddressed by previous administrations.
The administration views these removals as a significant achievement in protecting American communities. The policy demonstrates that third-country removals can address cases where home countries refuse repatriation, and the administration argues this approach has contributed to observed reductions in violent crime.
Keep 60 Minutes in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
