Having helped the United States in the Afghanistan War for 20 years is no longer enough to warrant special treatment under U.S. immigration laws for a family.
On August 29 local time, a U.S. repatriation flight arrived in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic. The flight included 12 Afghans, 8 Iranians, and individuals from Nepal, Nicaragua, and other countries. One of the Afghans, who was referred to by the media as “Khalil,” is particularly special: a U.S. immigration judge had previously determined that he faced the risk of persecution by the Taliban if he returned to Afghanistan. Therefore, he was granted legal protection prohibiting his repatriation to Afghanistan.
What is even more special is his family background.
According to The New York Times, Khalil’s father, brother, and sister have all worked with the US. One of his brothers served as a database administrator in the Afghan National Army, which cooperates with the US military. Another brother received training from the US and became a pilot. He died in combat against the Taliban in 2020. The Taliban later threatened this family due to their relationship with the US.
When Khalil applied for asylum, Colonel Zachary Schmidt, a U.S. soldier who supervised his brother's work during the Afghanistan War, even testified in court, proving that the threats faced by this family were real.
But none of these ultimately stopped the U.S. government from sending him away.
The reason is that the Trump administration is rapidly expanding a new mechanism for deportations—deportations to third countries.
The American judge granted Khalil a ‘withholding of removal’. This provision prevents the United States from deporting him to Afghanistan, where he might face persecution. However, it does not automatically grant him permanent residency rights, and it does not mean that the United States cannot send him to another country.
The Trump administration is making full use of this opportunity: if Afghanistan cannot be used, then they will look for third countries willing to take him in.
So, an Afghan who had no nationality of the Central African Republic, no local family connections, and possibly had never been to this country before, was sent to Bangui.
This practice is no longer an isolated case. According to statistics from Human Rights First and Refugees International, the Trump administration has sent approximately 23,000 people to countries that are not their native ones, with about 19,000 of them being sent to Mexico. Countries like Central Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, and Equatorial Guinea are becoming part of the expanding network of third-country repatriation efforts by the United States.
The Central African Republic is a country that even the United States Department of State advises its citizens not to visit. The risks in this region include armed conflict, crime, kidnapping, and terrorism. While the United States warns its citizens not to enter this area, it also sends foreigners who are protected by U.S. courts here. This is precisely the most controversial aspect of this situation.
After the fall of Kabul in 2021, the United States invested a large amount of resources in evacuating Afghan people who had previously assisted the US military. These individuals were resettled through special immigration visas and asylum provisions. This was not only an immigration policy, but it was also presented by Washington as an issue related to America’s reputation of "not abandoning wartime allies".
Five years later, this principle is being overshadowed by another set of policy logic.
The goal of the Trump administration is to maximize the ability to carry out actual deportations. If the country of origin does not accept the person, then seek a third country; if returning to a dangerous country is prohibited by law, then find another country willing to accept the person. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court also temporarily struck down a lower court order that restricted the government’s ability to quickly execute deportations to third countries, giving this policy more room for maneuver. However, no final substantive ruling was made on all related legal disputes.
Therefore, what really deserves attention in the Khalil case is not the first time the Trump administration has been tough on Afghans.
It released a more explicit signal:
When “large-scale repatriation” becomes a political goal of sufficient priority, even the historical commitments left by the U.S. during its twenty-year war may not be exceptions.
