U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday that Guatemala and Honduras have signed new agreements with the United States to accept asylum-seekers from other countries — part of a broader Trump administration strategy to expand deportation options and reduce the number of migrants entering the U.S.
Speaking at the end of her trip through Central America, Noem described the deals as giving the U.S. more flexibility to redirect asylum-seekers to “safe third countries,” instead of granting them entry into the U.S.
“Honduras, and now Guatemala after today, will be countries that take individuals and offer them refugee status,” Noem said. “The idea has never been that the United States must be the only destination. What matters is that people fleeing danger have somewhere safe to go — and that doesn’t always have to mean here.”
She emphasized that the agreements had been under negotiation for months, with the U.S. applying diplomatic pressure to reach the deals. However, both Central American governments publicly pushed back, saying no such asylum or “safe third country” agreements were signed.
Conflicting Messages
Guatemala’s presidential communications office said the government did not sign a safe third-country agreement or any new immigration pact during Noem’s visit. Officials clarified that Guatemala may act as a temporary transit stop for migrants being repatriated to their countries of origin — not a place where they would apply for asylum.
Similarly, Honduras’ immigration director, Wilson Paz, denied signing any such agreement. The country’s foreign ministry did not immediately comment.
Secretary Noem admitted the deals were politically difficult for the governments involved, particularly because both nations face significant domestic challenges — from poverty and limited resources to concerns about appearing to assist U.S. immigration crackdowns under President Trump.
During her visit to Guatemala, Noem said she was handed a signed agreement, although the public ceremony was only for a memorandum of understanding to launch a Joint Security Program. That initiative will station U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at Guatemala City’s international airport to train local agents in identifying terrorist threats.
A Controversial History
The Trump administration previously signed similar “safe third-country” agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras during Trump’s first term. These deals allowed the U.S. to declare some asylum-seekers ineligible and redirect them to other countries deemed “safe” — despite the fact that these same nations were seeing mass emigration due to violence and poverty.
Implementation was difficult, given these countries’ limited capacity to process asylum claims and their own refugee outflows. Critics questioned how a country struggling to protect its own citizens could be considered a safe haven for others.
The U.S. has maintained a longstanding safe third-country agreement with Canada since 2002.
Recent Moves and Regional Resistance
In February, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed additional migration deals with El Salvador and Guatemala. However, Guatemala’s agreement focused on serving as a transit stop, not an asylum destination. In El Salvador’s case, the deal permitted the U.S. to transfer certain migrants directly into the country’s prison system.
Mexico, meanwhile, has rejected any formal safe third-country agreement. But President Claudia Sheinbaum said Mexico has accepted over 5,000 migrants deported by the U.S. since Trump returned to office — on humanitarian grounds, with the goal of helping them return home.
The U.S. also has small-scale arrangements with Panama and Costa Rica. So far, only a limited number of migrants have been sent to those nations — 299 to Panama and fewer than 200 to Costa Rica in February 2025.
Strategic Goals
These evolving agreements aim to give U.S. immigration authorities more deportation options, particularly when dealing with migrants from countries where direct repatriation is difficult or diplomatically strained. The Trump administration views the deals as essential to reducing migration pressure on the southern border and to limit eligibility for asylum in the United States.
Still, the apparent confusion and mixed signals from partner nations raise questions about the enforceability and transparency of these agreements — and whether they will withstand legal or political challenges at home and abroad.
