The International Organization for Migration (IOM)'s work in countries that receive third-country nationals - people who are removed from a country of residence to a country other than their own country of nationality - focuses on safeguarding the health, safety, dignity and well-being of the people impacted. Our support begins only after they arrive in a receiving country, only at the request of the receiving government, and only where essential safeguards are in place.
The circumstances that send people to third countries are not new, and not confined to any one government. States in different regions have pursued or considered similar approaches for years, and IOM's position is the same wherever these approaches arise. Migration policy, including decisions on removal, is the sovereign responsibility of states. Our support is part of our long history of providing essential assistance to migrants who find themselves stranded or in situations of extreme vulnerability - whether that vulnerability arises from conflict, disaster, or a government's policy decision. This is central to our mandate: to assist people to meet their basic needs at the most vulnerable time of their lives. We have done this for adults and children who face all manner of challenges.
The people IOM assists in the context of third-country removals receive basic services: health care, counselling, protection screening, and clear, accurate, neutral and complete information about the options available to them. Where someone asks us to help them return to their country of origin, or to another country where they have the legal right to stay, we do so only after individualized counselling and protection screening, and only where the decision is made freely, voluntarily and on the basis of informed consent.
Most recently, public reporting indicates that since the beginning of 2025, tens of thousands of people have been removed from the United States to third countries. IOM's engagement in this context depends entirely on being asked by the receiving government, and on safeguards being in place. Where we have been asked and those conditions exist, we have supported roughly 800 people, providing health care, counselling, and protection screening; about 300 later chose voluntary return. The gap between that number and the tens of thousands removed is not a measure of IOM's effort - it reflects how few governments have invited us in or met the conditions we require. Most people removed have received no support of any kind.
We are fully aware that states sometimes use international aid to advance their national priorities, and that funding for this work typically comes from the governments involved in the removals themselves. Accepting that funding does not mean accepting direction: IOM retains full control over how assistance is delivered, who delivers it, and on what terms, and we have walked away from funding where a government would not accept those terms. Every decision to engage rests on one question - whether our engagement will improve conditions for the people affected, measured against the realistic alternative of no assistance at all - not on the source of the funds. This is consistent with the humanitarian principles of impartiality and independence that govern all our work. Accepting funding to help people is not an endorsement of the policy that put them in need of help.
Before IOM agrees to work in any country, we assess whether receiving governments are prepared to commit to putting essential safeguards in place, including legal stay arrangements, freedom of movement, and access to international protection. We assess risks precisely so we can decide whether those risks can be adequately addressed. Where those conditions could not be met, we have declined to engage, or we have put limits on what we do, irrespective of the funding and relationship consequences. Removals to these countries still take place without our engagement, but as a result migrants are more likely to be detained on arrival, or deported to their country of origin without the safeguards we would otherwise secure.
IOM does not engage in forced movements or detention anywhere. We play no role in any country's decision to admit or remove people, and we do not determine migration policy for any country.
Some argue that IOM's engagement enables the policies of removal to third countries. It does not. Our engagement means that people who have already been removed are met with health care, counselling, and someone who can explain their options, instead of nothing. The people we assist tell us this themselves.
The choice in front of us is not between removal and no removal - that decision has already been made by others before we are ever contacted. The choice is between a person facing that situation with health care, information, and a protection screening, or facing it with none of those things. We know which of those outcomes we would choose for someone we cared about.
IOM stepping back would not stop these removals. And those who argue we should withhold basic assistance to make a policy point are asking IOM to ignore the ordeal faced by extremely vulnerable individuals. We will not do that. IOM will not leave people to face impossible circumstances alone.
