The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Fed policy decision generates most governor dissents since 1993
The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady on Wednesday generated the largest number of dissenting votes by governors in over three decades. Most Fed policymakers remain cautious amid uncertainty about impact of tariffs. Dissents tend to increase during times of uncertain economic conditions. The last time a governor dissented was at the meeting last September, when Michelle Bowman wanted a smaller rate cut than her colleagues favored. The latest dissents were not a surprise, as both Waller and Bowman had signaled ahead of the policy meeting their openness to easing rates. But most Fed policymakers have taken a wait-and-see approach to the economic and monetary policy outlook, with many worried Trump’s tariffs will drive up price pressures over time, which argues against easing policy. The dissenting votes on the FOMC are uncommon. Until Wednesday, no Fed meeting this year generated formal opposition, with only two dissents occurring in 2024 and none in 2023. The votes are mostly notable for showing the breadth of debate among central bankers, and Fed officials have said they are a sign that policymakers are not mired in groupthink.
Summary
Companies Waller, Bowman wanted US central bank to cut rates
Most Fed policymakers remain cautious amid uncertainty about impact of tariffs
Trump has repeatedly demanded that Fed cut rates immediately
July 30 (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady following the end of a two-day policy meeting on Wednesday generated the largest number of dissenting votes by governors at the U.S. central bank in just over three decades.
Governor Christopher Waller and Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman cast votes against the decision to hold the central bank’s benchmark overnight interest rate unchanged in the 4.25%-4.50% range, preferring instead to reduce it by a quarter percentage point.
Sign up here.
That marked the first time two members of the Washington-based Board of Governors formally dissented on a decision by the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee since December 1993, according to data from the St. Louis Fed.
Any level of formal opposition by Fed governors is relatively rare, and most FOMC dissenting votes stem from disagreements held by regional Fed bank presidents. The last time a governor dissented was at the meeting last September , when Bowman wanted a smaller rate cut than her colleagues favored. The last time two regional Fed presidents voted against the FOMC consensus was in October 2019.
Broadly speaking, dissenting votes on the FOMC are uncommon. Until Wednesday, no Fed meeting this year generated formal opposition, with only two dissents occurring in 2024 and none in 2023.
The latest dissents were not a surprise, as both Waller and Bowman had signaled ahead of the policy meeting their openness to easing rates. In a speech on July 17, Waller justified his desire to lower short-term borrowing costs when he said “the economy is still growing, but its momentum has slowed significantly, and the risks to the FOMC’s employment mandate have increased.”
Bowman, in remarks on June 23, brushed off worries that President Donald Trump’s import tariffs would drive up inflation and said as long as inflation pressures remained contained, she believed then that “it was time to consider” lowering rates at the July 29-30 meeting.
Trump has excoriated Fed Chair Jerome Powell for failing to heed the White House’s demands that interest rates be cut immediately. Both Waller and Bowman were appointed to the Fed’s board by the current president.
DIVIDED VIEWS
In contrast to Waller and Bowman, most Fed policymakers have taken a wait-and-see approach to the economic and monetary policy outlook. While inflation pressures have eased, many officials are worried Trump’s tariffs will drive up price pressures over time, which argues against easing policy.
Speaking in a press conference following the Fed meeting, Powell took the dissenting votes in stride.
“This was quite a good meeting all around the table,” Powell said. “What you want from everybody, and also from a dissenter, is a clear explanation of what your thinking is and what are the arguments you’re making,” and “we had that today.”
The central bank chief declined to say if the dissenters had nudged him toward supporting easier policy when officials next meet, saying “we haven’t made any decisions about September. We’ll be monitoring all the incoming data and asking ourselves whether the federal funds rate is in the right place.”
Waller, who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Powell when the Fed chief’s term expires next May, has contended in a series of public remarks that any rise in inflation due to tariffs will be a one-time hit that can be ignored by central bankers. He’s become increasingly worried that the job market is stalling out and wants the Fed to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Powell noted Waller’s argument may have some merit. “A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a one-time shift in the price level, but it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed.”
Dissenting votes on the Fed’s policy-setting committee are mostly notable for showing the breadth of debate among central bankers, and Fed officials have said they are a sign that policymakers are not mired in groupthink, as some critics contend. Dissents also tend to increase during challenging and uncertain points for the economy.
Reporting by Michael S. Derby; Editing by Paul Simao and Andrea Ricci
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally. He has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, two sub-Saharan African nations. Critics have countered that it’s not clear if the men were deported to their home countries or if they were released years earlier. The deportations have not previously been reported, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries since Trump took office on January 20. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since January 20, but has said it is looking into the matter. It has also said that the men deported to South. Sudan and South Sudan were “the worst of the worst and included people of child sex abuse and murder,” according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security. The five men sent to E Swatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS.
Item 1 of 3 A Lao man deported from the U.S. holds up his non-national ID card – a document that defines his legal status in the country he left behind decades ago, and to which he has now returned, in Vientiane, Laos, July 31, 2025. REUTERS/Phoonsab Thevongsa
Summary Trump administration seeks to deport more migrants to third countries
Critics ask why migrants can’t be deported home instead
Trump tactic stokes fear amid push for mass deportations
WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) – The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won’t accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks.
President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini , formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations.
Sign up here.
Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people “so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back.” Critics have countered that it’s not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel.
Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys.
After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported.
DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya.
“If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz , Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,” McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador’s maximum-security prison and a detention center in the subtropical Florida Everglades.
FAR FROM HOME
DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries.
The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were “the worst of the worst” and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. “American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone,” Jackson said in a statement.
The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam’s foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters.
The government of Mexico did not comment.
The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting.
Eswatini’s government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration.
‘A VERY RANDOM OUTCOME’
The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court.
Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to “self deport” to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with.
“This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you’re going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam,” said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.
Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours.
While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica.
The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country’s CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month.
More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former President Joe Biden.
The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance.
“Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens,” said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations.
The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004.
When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed.
“If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico,” Sheinbaum said at the time.
His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn’t understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home.
“Mexico never rejected my brother,” Gutierrez said.
‘USING US AS A PAWN’
Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can’t easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public.
“The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration.
The Trump administration in July pressed other African nations to take migrants and has asked the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others.
Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are “impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.”
Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born.
For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was “using us as a pawn?”
His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of.
He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations.
The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, “taking it day by day.”
Reporting by Kristina Cooke in San Francisco and Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Brendan O’Boyle and Lizbeth Diaz in Mexico City, Marc Frank in Havana, Phuong Nguyen and Khanh Vu in Hanoi, Panu Wongcha-um in Bangkok, Kirsty Neeham in Sydney; Editing by Mary Milliken and Claudia Parsons
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab
Share X
Link Purchase Licensing Rights
Praise Trump and speak simply: How the South Korean team negotiated its trade deal
The South Korean ministers tasked with negotiating a last-ditch trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump said they role-played and solicited tips for engaging with the unpredictable leader. Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan: Call Trump a “great person” and speak as simply as possible. The stakes were particularly high for South Korea, a major export-driven economy, and Kim and other members of the delegation have only been on the job for a few weeks after President Lee Jae Myung won a snap election. The two sides went back and forth on the amount of the investment fund, which was eventually settled at $350 billion.
SEOUL, July 31 (Reuters) – The South Korean ministers tasked with negotiating a last-ditch trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump said that to prepare they role-played and solicited tips for engaging with the unpredictable leader.
Among the advice they received? Call Trump a “great person” and speak as simply as possible, Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan told reporters in Washington after the deal was announced on Wednesday.
Sign up here.
The stakes were particularly high for South Korea, a major export-driven economy, and Kim and other members of the delegation have only been on the job for a few weeks after President Lee Jae Myung won a snap election in June.
Kim called Trump a “master of negotiations” and said each of the team, which included Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol and Minister for Trade Yeo Han-koo, took turns role-playing as the U.S. president to prepare.
“We tried to talk like President Trump, and President Trump’s way of talking is very terse and straightforward,” Kim said. “We prepared a lot of scenarios on our own on how to answer this or that question.”
Koo said the team only knew for sure they would be meeting Trump when they saw it on social media.
The meeting itself went for about half an hour and the two sides went back and forth on the amount of the investment fund, which was eventually settled at $350 billion, Koo said.
“We collected a lot of negotiation strategies used by our counterparts in advance and thought a lot about how to respond, so the negotiation was very smooth,” he said.
Yeo quoted Trump as saying his personal involvement is rare in dealing with officials who are not heads of state, and means “he respects South Korea very much and attaches great importance to South Korea.”
Earlier in the talks the U.S. had pressed South Korea to lift restrictions on imports derived from cattle older than 30 months, but Yeo helped defuse that by showing the Americans a photo of massive protests that occurred years ago over concerns about mad cow disease.
“I think it helped them to understand the situation in Korea,” Kim said.
Reporting by Joyce Lee and Josh Smith; Additional reporting by Ju-min Park; Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Stephen Coates
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab
Epstein accuser Giuffre’s family urges Trump to keep Maxwell in prison
Virginia Giuffre’s family urges President Donald Trump not to grant clemency to Ghislaine Maxwell. British socialite serving a 20-year prison sentence for helping Epstein abuse underage girls. Family also said it was “shocking” to hear Trump say Epstein had poached Giuffsre from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. Trump has said he has not thought about whether to pardon Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021. The family’s statement comes as Trump has faced pressure to make public documents from the federal investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, and his longtime girlfriend Maxwell. “The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislain Maxwell any leniency,” Giuff re’s family said in the statement. “Maxwell destroyed many young lives,” the family said, referring to Maxwell’s criminal actions. “It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal action,” the statement said.
Summary Giuffre’s family urges no clemency for Maxwell after DOJ meeting
Trump under pressure to release documents from Epstein probe
White House says Trump kicked ‘creep’ Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago
NEW YORK, July 31 (Reuters) – The family of deceased Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre is urging President Donald Trump not to grant clemency to Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite serving a 20-year prison sentence for helping Epstein abuse underage girls.
Giuffre’s family also said it was “shocking” to hear Trump say earlier this week that Epstein had poached Giuffre from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, where she worked at the spa in 2000. The family said Trump’s comment raised questions about whether Trump was aware of Epstein’s sexual abuse at the time.
Sign up here.
Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing.
Giuffre has said she was a victim of Epstein’s sex trafficking from 2000 to 2002, starting when she was 16. She died by suicide in April at age 41.
The family’s statement comes as Trump has faced pressure to make public documents from the federal investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, and his longtime girlfriend Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, last week met with Maxwell to see if she had any information about others who had committed crimes. Maxwell’s lawyer David Markus has called on Trump to grant her relief , but Trump has said he has not thought about whether to pardon her.
“The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency,” Giuffre’s family said in the statement. “Maxwell destroyed many young lives.”
A senior Trump administration official said no leniency for Maxwell was being given or discussed. “That’s just false,” the official said.
Markus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
‘HE STOLE HER’
Trump and Epstein socialized in the 1990s and 2000s, before what Trump has called a falling out.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday, Trump said he told Epstein to “stay the hell out” of Mar-a-Lago after finding out Epstein was poaching Trump’s workers, including Giuffre.
“He stole her,” Trump said.
In their statement, Giuffre’s family said Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago in 2000. The family said that was years before Epstein and Trump had their falling out, pointing to a 2002 New York magazine article , opens new tab in which Trump was quoted calling Epstein a “terrific guy” who liked women “on the younger side.”
“It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal actions,” Giuffre’s family said, referring to Trump’s Air Force One comments.
Asked by a reporter on Thursday if he knew why Epstein was taking his employees, Trump said he did not.
“I didn’t really know really why, but I said if he’s taking anybody from Mar-a-Lago, if he’s hiring or whatever he’s doing, I didn’t like it and we threw him out,” Trump said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement earlier on Thursday that Trump had been responding to a reporter’s question about Giuffre and did not bring her up.
“President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees,” Leavitt said.
At Maxwell’s trial in 2021, Juan Alessi, the former manager of Epstein’s Palm Beach home, testified that he drove with Maxwell to meet Giuffre at nearby Mar-a-Lago. He said he then saw Giuffre at Epstein’s home for the first time that evening, and saw her at the home many times thereafter.
Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Daniel Wallis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab
Share X
Link Purchase Licensing Rights
Trump signals openness to $500 million settlement with Harvard
Harvard sued the administration this year to have billions of dollars of frozen federal funds restored. Trump is at odds with Harvard and other universities over pro-Palestinian protests. The New York Times reported on Monday that the Ivy League institution was open to spending up to that amount to settle the dispute.
WASHINGTON, July 30 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signaled a willingness on Wednesday to settle for $500 million a legal fight with Harvard University over $2.5 billion in funding his administration canceled over accusations it allowed antisemitism and promoted diversity policies.
“Well it’s a lot of money,” Trump told reporters when asked at the White House if $500 million would be enough to make a deal.
Sign up here.
The New York Times reported on Monday that the Ivy League institution was open to spending up to that amount to settle the dispute.
“We’re negotiating with Harvard now. They would like to settle, so we’ll see what happens” Trump said.
Harvard sued the administration this year to have billions of dollars of frozen federal funds restored. Trump is at odds with Harvard and other universities over pro-Palestinian protests and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Reporting by Nandita Bose, Jeff Mason and Maiya Keidan; Editing by Caitlin Webber and Howard Goller
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab