Key Takeaways
- Former U.S. detainee Heang “Greg” Rom was imprisoned in Eswatini after a mistaken deportation to a country where he had no ties.
- The Trump administration expanded “third‑country removals,” sending migrants to nations with little oversight and documented human‑rights concerns.
- Agreements with at least 27 countries have resulted in costly, often $400,000‑plus per detainee, and many deportees face indefinite confinement.
- Human‑rights groups label the practice “enforced disappearances” and warn it undermines U.S. credibility and legal standards.
- Recent court rulings challenge the legality of these removals, yet the administration continues to pursue the policy.
A Mis‑Directed Deportation
Heang “Greg” Rom believed he was being transferred to another detention center when he saw “Eswatini” on his paperwork last fall. Instead, the 43‑year‑old Cambodian refugee was placed on a plane and held for months in a maximum‑security prison in the African kingdom. He entered the facility without legal status, facing no formal charges and lacking any realistic means to contest his confinement.
The Broader Policy Shift
Rom’s experience is part of a larger shift in U.S. deportation policy under the Trump administration. Over the past year, the government has aggressively used “third‑country removals,” a tactic that ships migrants to nations where they have no personal, familial, or cultural connections. Critics argue that this outsources detention to foreign governments that often have histories of human‑rights abuses, minimal oversight, and ambiguous legal protections.
Expanding Agreements with High‑Risk Nations
Since January 2025, the administration has formalized agreements with more than two dozen countries—most of them in Africa and Latin America—under which migrants can be detained in hotels, shelters, or prisons. These contracts are sometimes worth millions of dollars and involve per‑detainee costs that exceed $400,000, as illustrated by Rom’s placement in Eswatini’s Matsapha Correctional Centre, where only 19 individuals have been held.
Legal and Human‑Rights Challenges Human Rights Watch has condemned the policy as “enforced disappearances,” emphasizing that the United States is deporting people to jurisdictions where they may endure arbitrary detention, torture, or persecution. Legal scholars note that while U.S. law permits removal to any country, such transfers are rarely used because of diplomatic sensitivities and the risk of sending individuals to places where they lack citizenship or protection.
Costly Contracts and Questionable Benefits
A 2025 agreement with Eswatini allowed the United States to send up to 160 people there for a $5.1 million contract, yet the actual number of detainees has been far lower, driving the per‑person expense above $400,000. Senator Jeanne Shaheen has labeled these arrangements “wasteful, cruel, and damaging to U.S. credibility abroad.” Former DHS official George Fishman argues that the policy serves as a deterrent, creating fear among undocumented migrants about the prospect of indefinite foreign incarceration.
Recent Legal Setbacks and Ongoing Appeals
In February, a Massachusetts federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden ruled the third‑country removal policy illegal. The following month, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed that decision while the case proceeds on appeal. Consequently, the administration can continue the program while legal challenges wind through the courts.
Patterns and Perceived Coercion Lawyers representing detainees observe a disturbing pattern: migrants from Latin America are often placed in African facilities, whereas African nationals may be sent to Central American or Caribbean destinations. This “extra‑hemispheric deportation” forces individuals to choose between two undesirable outcomes—returning to a home country that may persecute them or remaining in foreign detention with limited legal recourse.
A Survivor’s Return to Cambodia
After months of confinement in Eswatini, Rom was finally able to contact Cambodian officials through his lawyer and secure his release. He arrived back in Phnom Penh on March 26, only to find himself isolated in a new country and fearful of stepping outside his temporary shelter. His mother, who remains in her 70s, and his daughter in Pennsylvania await his uncertain future.
Conclusion
The story of Heang “Greg” Rom illuminates a controversial and costly chapter of U.S. immigration enforcement. By leveraging third‑country removals, the administration has outsourced detention to foreign governments, raised serious human‑rights concerns, and incurred exorbitant expenses per detainee. While legal challenges seek to curtail the practice, the policy continues to be employed, leaving migrants like Rom caught in a precarious limbo between enforcement and survival.
Broader Implications
The expansion of third‑country deportations reflects a strategic shift toward deterrence through fear, but it also raises profound questions about U.S. commitment to international law and the moral cost of outsourcing human‑rights violations. As more countries are drawn into these agreements, the risk of further abuse grows, underscoring the urgency of transparent oversight, robust legal safeguards, and a re‑evaluation of policies that place vulnerable individuals in perilous conditions abroad.