Jamaica begins receiving third-country deportees under controversial US agreement

KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — The first flight transporting third-country nationals from the United States arrived in Jamaica on Tuesday, marking the commencement of a highly scrutinized bilateral agreement that utilizes the Caribbean nation as a temporary transit hub for migrants.

These agreements, whose legality will be debated by the Supreme Court, have become increasingly common under the Trump administration, with migrants being sent to Liberia, Eswatini,
Paraguay and beyond.

The group of 22 migrants — all adults including seven women — were quickly processed on arrival at Kingston’s Norman Manley International Airport mid-afternoon Tuesday and whisked away by bus with police escort to an undisclosed location.

The media was not given access. Jamaican authorities say they are following procedures intended to ensure the arrangement’s implementation in a “safe, orderly and lawful manner.”

The flight’s arrival marks the operational beginning of a bilateral memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in June this year. Under the arrangement, non-Jamaican migrants will be flown to the Caribbean nation before being transferred to their home countries or other destinations.

While official passenger manifests and exact arrival times were closely guarded, local sources indicated the inaugural cohort consisted largely of South American nationals. The Jamaican government has previously confirmed that the program will strictly cap arrivals, accepting “a maximum of 25 persons per fortnight.”

Both the Ministry of National Security and Peace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade again sought to reassure the public about the deal’s parameters on Tuesday.

“The government reiterates that this is a transit arrangement intended to facilitate the return of Third Country Nationals to their country of origin or other receiving countries, with the support of the IOM (International Organization for Migration),” the joint statement read.

“The arrangement will not be funded by the Government of Jamaica,” the release stated, adding that “no third-country national with criminal antecedents will be permitted to transit through Jamaica.”

The ministries emphasized their commitment to transparency and international standards.

The framework of the agreement relies heavily on the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which will manage housing and logistics through its Assisted Voluntary Return program.

Public anxiety over these logistics has simmered for months. In June, the Ministry of National Security publicly dismissed “false and misleading” claims that migrants would be housed in the rural parish of St. Mary, clarifying that any housing arrangements were strictly the IOM’s responsibility.

Despite these assurances, the rollout has sparked intense political friction in Kingston. The agreement has been sharply criticized by local politicians and transparency advocates who argue that the Jamaican Parliament was entirely bypassed during negotiations and that undisclosed details remain hidden.

“Jamaicans are being asked to trust a secret document that touches their security, their communities and their public services,” argued Fitz Jackson, the opposition spokesperson on national security. Jackson previously stated that failing to table the executed MOU in Parliament is a “blatant contempt to the people of Jamaica.”

Mark Golding, Jamaica’s Opposition Leader, has repeatedly challenged the administration to explain what tangible benefits the country extracts from the arrangement.

Responding to sustained criticisms, Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith said Tuesday on X: “We have made every effort to negotiate this transit agreement with protection of Jamaica and the Jamaican people in mind.”

She added there is nothing “prejudicial” in the agreement, but the U.S. has not agreed to make it public.

The unease extends beyond the political sphere. Bishop Alvin Bailey, leader of a local evangelical alliance, has expressed deep skepticism, asking why the U.S. could not deport the individuals directly to their home countries.

“We just don’t trust what the government is saying,” Bailey said previously.