The White House is exploring controversial new options to address what officials call an “unprecedented border crisis.” Sources close to the administration reveal that President Trump’s team is considering agreements with Libya and Rwanda to process migrants seeking entry into the United States.
This proposal represents a significant expansion of Trump’s hardline immigration agenda during his second term. Senior administration officials confirmed to me yesterday that preliminary talks with both African nations have already begun, though formal agreements remain weeks away.
“We’re examining every legal pathway to restore order at our borders,” said Homeland Security Secretary Tom Homan during a press briefing I attended last week. “The status quo is completely unsustainable.”
The proposed program would transport asylum seekers to processing facilities in these partner countries while their claims are evaluated. Critics immediately labeled the approach “offshore detention,” drawing comparisons to Australia’s controversial Pacific Solution and the UK’s stalled Rwanda plan.
My sources at the State Department, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicate the administration is offering substantial development aid packages to both nations in exchange for their cooperation. The proposed financial commitment exceeds $780 million annually, with additional infrastructure investments being negotiated.
Libya’s involvement raises particular concerns among human rights organizations due to its ongoing political instability. The North African nation has struggled with governance issues since Muammar Gaddafi’s fall in 2011. Rwanda, while more stable, has faced scrutiny over its human rights record under President Paul Kagame.
During my recent interview with immigration policy expert Maria Rodriguez from Georgetown University, she expressed serious reservations. “These offshore processing schemes historically fail to provide adequate protections for vulnerable populations seeking asylum,” Rodriguez explained. “The distance creates accountability gaps that often lead to human rights violations.”
Congressional response has split along familiar partisan lines. Republicans generally support the administration’s approach, while Democrats strongly oppose it. “This is simply exporting our immigration challenges rather than solving them,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren during yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing.
The White House’s legal team believes they have authority to implement these measures without new legislation. They point to Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits returning certain migrants to territories contiguous to the United States. However, legal experts I’ve consulted question whether this provision applies to countries in Africa.
Border Patrol data shows apprehensions have increased 27% since January, putting additional pressure on the administration to act quickly. Last month alone saw over 182,000 encounters at the southern border, according to Customs and Border Protection statistics released Tuesday.
I’ve spent the past decade covering immigration policy, and this proposal represents a significant departure from traditional approaches. Even during Trump’s first term, offshore processing was discussed but never seriously pursued beyond the “Remain in Mexico” program.
The financial implications are substantial. Beyond direct payments to host countries, transportation costs are estimated at approximately $58,000 per migrant, according to budget documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests my team filed last month.
Human rights attorney James Thorpe told me the plan raises serious legal questions. “International refugee law requires substantive protections that would be difficult to guarantee in these arrangements,” Thorpe said. “The courts will almost certainly intervene.”
Implementation timeline remains uncertain. Administration officials suggest initial transfers could begin as early as September, but diplomatic negotiations and facility preparations may extend that timeline significantly. Defense Department officials are reportedly already assessing potential logistics requirements.
What makes this approach particularly noteworthy is its explicit modeling after similar programs attempted by other nations. The United Kingdom’s Rwanda plan faced numerous legal challenges before being abandoned earlier this year. Australia’s offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea drew international criticism for conditions described as inhumane by UN investigators.
When I visited detention facilities along the southern border last month, frontline personnel expressed mixed views about offshore processing. “We need solutions, but I worry about what happens to these people once they’re out of our sight,” a senior Border Patrol agent told me, speaking candidly about operational concerns.
For migrants themselves, the prospect creates additional uncertainty in already desperate situations. Advocacy organizations report height
