In a move that has stirred both praise and controversy, Belize has signed a “safe third country” agreement with the United States, marking a significant development in the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to reshape U.S. immigration policy. The agreement, formalized on October 20, 2025, would allow asylum seekers currently in the United States to be transferred to Belize, where they could pursue their asylum claims instead of returning to their home countries. However, the deal’s implementation remains contingent on ratification by Belize’s Senate, and fierce debate has erupted over its implications for national sovereignty, security, and humanitarian responsibility.
According to AP, the agreement is part of President Donald Trump’s broader crackdown on illegal immigration, a campaign promise that has seen a dramatic uptick in deportations and arrests since his return to office. The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs lauded the Belize agreement in a social media post, calling it “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”
The specifics of the agreement, as outlined by both governments, include a set of strict safeguards meant to address concerns about Belize’s ability to manage an influx of asylum seekers. Belize’s government retains an absolute veto over who can be transferred, imposes restrictions on eligible nationalities, caps the number of transferees, and requires comprehensive security screenings. As the Belizean Ministry of Foreign Affairs put it on social media, “The agreement gives Belize full authority to approve or reject transfers, limits eligibility to specific nationalities, and ensures comprehensive background checks, among other measures.”
Prime Minister John Antonio Briceño emphasized that Belize would prefer to accept migrants from Central America, rather than opening its doors to the entire world. He described the arrangement as “more like a job programme, whereby people with certain qualifications can come to Belize” and “participate meaningfully in our economy,” according to BBC. Belize, with a population of just over 417,000, has long prided itself on its humanitarian principles, but government officials have stressed that compassion must be balanced with national interests and practical limitations.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis Fonseca, addressing Belize’s House of Representatives, sought to dispel misinformation about the agreement. “There is much speculation and misinformation about what a safe third country agreement is,” Fonseca said. “The agreement we are finalizing contains multiple safeguards to protect the interests and security of Belize.” He further explained that the agreement would include “an unqualified veto over who is transferred to Belize, restrictions on the nationalities eligible for transfer, a cap on the number of transferees per year, and considerations of criminal records and professional skills.” Fonseca noted that the deal, if ratified, would initially run for two years, with either party able to suspend or terminate it with written notice.
The government has also underscored that any implementation would be gradual and strictly controlled. Fonseca assured lawmakers that “the agreement will only be activated once an implementation plan and operating procedures are fully developed. Then and only then, if necessary, will the agreement even be used.” Belize’s longstanding commitment to international law and humanitarian principles was reiterated, but officials were quick to add that no person deemed a public safety or national security threat would be permitted entry.
For its part, the U.S. government has pursued similar agreements with other countries in recent years, including Paraguay, Guatemala, Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan. Earlier in 2025, Panama and Costa Rica accepted U.S. flights of deportees, particularly from Asian nations, though those arrangements stopped short of being labeled “safe third country” agreements. The Trump administration’s approach, according to Daily Caller News Foundation, is designed to expand the network of countries willing to process asylum claims, thereby reducing the incentive for migrants to seek protection in the United States.
Since the start of Trump’s second term, the numbers have been striking: over half a million illegal migrants have been deported, and approximately 485,000 have been arrested by federal immigration officials. Facing the prospect of forced removal and, in some cases, financial incentives offered by the U.S. government, more than two million migrants have chosen to voluntarily depart, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
However, the Belize agreement has not been universally welcomed. Opposition politicians in Belize have voiced strong reservations, highlighting worries about transparency, financial burdens, and the potential for the country to become a “dumping ground” for migrants unwanted elsewhere. Tracy Taegar Panton, a prominent opposition leader, described the deal as a “decision of profound national consequence” that was “announced with little government transparency.” In a public statement, she warned, “This agreement, by its very nature, could reshape Belize’s immigration and asylum systems, impose new financial burdens on taxpayers, and raise serious questions about national sovereignty and security.”
Panton’s concerns were echoed by others in Belize’s political sphere, who argued that the nation lacks the institutional capacity, financial resources, and technical systems to effectively manage the complex responsibilities the agreement would entail. “While Belize must continue to play its part in promoting regional cooperation on migration and humanitarian issues, the reality is that our nation lacks the institutional capacity, financial resources, and technical systems to effectively manage the complex responsibilities that such an agreement would entail,” Panton said Monday, as quoted by Daily Caller News Foundation.
Human rights groups in the U.S. and abroad have also voiced apprehension, warning that such agreements risk sending vulnerable migrants to countries where they may face harm or insufficient protections. These criticisms are not new; similar policies under Trump’s first term and by some European governments have drawn sharp rebukes from advocacy organizations, who argue that rerouting asylum seekers undermines the spirit of international refugee protections.
Belize’s government, for its part, has attempted to reassure the public that the agreement is rooted in established international law and best practices. Fonseca pointed to the preamble of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, noting, “A safe third country agreement can be a perfectly legal tool to share responsibilities relating to refugee obligations.” He added that Belize has a “strong track record in managing asylum systems,” referencing past amnesty programs and the country’s reputation as a leader on migration and refugee issues.
Notably, the agreement also provides for potential financial and technical assistance from the United States to help Belize strengthen its migration and asylum management system. This support, officials hope, will help address some of the concerns about capacity and resource limitations.
As the debate continues, the fate of the agreement rests with Belize’s Senate, which must ratify the deal before it can take effect. In the meantime, both governments are working to finalize implementation plans and operating procedures, with Belize insisting that its sovereignty, security, and humanitarian values remain paramount in any future actions.
As the world watches, Belize stands at a crossroads—balancing its international commitments, national interests, and the realities of a shifting global migration landscape.
