Skip to main content

Tag: United States

Reuters: Mexican Citizen Asked to Sign Document Allowing Deportation to Libya

Reuters reported, citing relatives of a Mexican citizen, that he was asked to sign a document permitting his deportation to Libya.

Family members said they fear he may be deported from the United States to Libya after he contacted them on Tuesday from an immigration detention center in Texas, saying he was asked to sign a document authorizing his deportation to Libya.

Valentin Yah said that several other individuals of various nationalities at the Pearsall Immigration Detention Center in Texas were also ordered to sign the same document, according to two of the man’s family members.

His family, who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation, said he was begging immigration officials on Tuesday to deport him to Mexico instead — a country just about 100 miles (160 kilometers) from where he was being held.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio also hinted last week that Washington is seeking to expand the list of countries to which it deports individuals, beyond countries like El Salvador.

Rubio said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House last Wednesday: “The farther away from America, the better.”

Exclusive: Al-Zantouti: If the Deportation News Is True… Libya Will Top the Global Economic Crime Charts

Financial expert Khaled Al-Zantouti told our source in an exclusive statement: “If the news about deporting migrants with criminal records to Libya is true, it would be an economic catastrophe that could reshape Libya’s economic and financial structure, firmly placing it on the global map of economic crimes in all their forms.

He added: “Our international reputation in money laundering would be strengthened. Libya would become the international stock exchange hub for global currency trading. International mafia criminal networks would form inside Libya, exploiting our wide coasts and borders to enhance global smuggling, turning Libya into the world’s capital of (smuggling economies).

He also said: “Libya would become a global center for exchanging stolen and counterfeit currencies. It would become the undisputed capital of global oil smuggling and an international distribution hub for narcotics. Libya would replace Calabria as the base for the ‘Ndrangheta’ organization.

He continued: “We wouldn’t be surprised if we soon have a “Cosa Libya,” mirroring the “Cosa Nostra,” the infamous criminal organization that emerged in Sicily in the mid-19th century. And don’t be surprised if we one day have a “Libyan Luciano” feeding intelligence to the U.S.! On the other hand, the “supporters” might say: our balance of payments will improve significantly, jobs will be created, and Libya will become a global transit trade center!

He concluded by saying: “If true, gentlemen, this is the trade of nations — when the fools become decision-makers! (And I don’t generalize.) We pray the news is not true.

CNN: Air Deportation Plan for Migrants to Launch from “Kelly Field” to Misrata Airport

The American network CNN reported on Wednesday that the administration of President Donald Trump is moving forward with a plan to deport a group of undocumented migrants to Libya.

According to the network, citing a U.S. administration official, a C-17 military aircraft submitted a flight plan to depart from Kelly Field in San Antonio, Texas, to Misrata Airport in Libya on Wednesday. It remains unclear whether additional groups of migrants will be transferred to Libya in the future.

CNN confirmed that the White House declined to comment on the plans. When asked about it in the Oval Office, Trump said: “I don’t know anything about it, ask the Department of Homeland Security.” The U.S. State Department also refused to confirm or deny the matter, simply stating that it does not discuss the details of diplomatic communications with other countries.

CNN pointed out that the decision to deport migrants to Libya—despite the State Department’s designation of Libya as a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” country—marks a significant escalation in deportation policies, which have already faced widespread legal and human rights criticism.

While Washington continues discussions with other African countries such as Rwanda regarding similar possibilities, the network quoted a Libyan official who completely denied any discussions with the American side about receiving migrants. The official emphasized that the recent meetings held in Washington followed a publicly announced agenda and did not include this issue.

Democratic Party Member Reveals to Sada the Reasons Behind the Cancellation of Libyan Students’ Visas

Democratic Party member Ihsan Al-Khatib told our source on Monday that the reason behind the cancellation of Libyan students’ visas is the current situation in Libya, as U.S. authorities require comprehensive identity verification procedures.

Al-Khatib added that the decision to impose customs duties on several countries, including Libya, depends on the volume of exports. However, since Libya does not export manufactured goods, this decision does not have an impact, according to him.

Exclusive: Economic Analyst from New York Reveals to Sada the Reasons Behind the Decision to Impose Customs Duties on Libya

Researcher and economic analyst based in New York, Ahmed Mharem, spoke to our source on Thursday, stating that the recent economic decisions—particularly the imposition of customs duties on most countries around the world—were at some point either reversed or modified by Trump. It is clear, he said, that the matter has already sparked the beginning of trade wars in which there may be no clear winners. He believes this may mark the start of a show of strength by the U.S., demonstrating its influence over global politics and economics.

Mharem further revealed that Libya is among the countries affected by this move. He believes the U.S. has its eyes on Libya, where both regional and international powers now have presence and influence. America, he added, does not want to be left out of this scene, and sees these customs duties as a form of economic pressure. However, he does not believe such measures will last long.

Abu Snina: “On the United States Imposing Tariffs on Imports from Various Countries, Including Libya”

Written by: Economic expert Mohamed Abu Snina.

The United States of America is considered one of the largest economies dependent on the outside world. When you walk through American markets, it is rare to find a product made in America—especially consumer goods such as clothing, shoes, furniture, jewelry, technological products, and alcoholic beverages. Instead, you find all types of imported products from various countries, including European Union states, Southeast Asian nations, Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Middle Eastern countries, and even some Sub-Saharan African countries.

This means that the United States heavily relies on imports from abroad, and the trade balance is always not in its favor, even though the size of the American economy represents about 26% of the global economy. This situation is due to purely economic reasons.

Nonetheless, the United States surprised the world by imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from over 200 countries.

The overall trade surplus of countries exporting to the United States—or in other words, the trade deficit of the U.S.—is due to the comparative advantages enjoyed by these countries, resulting from the low cost and high quality of their products and their lower production costs, including cheaper labor, compared to the cost of producing alternatives within the United States.

As of early 2025, the U.S. trade deficit had reached approximately $103.5 billion (not speaking of the cumulative deficit), which raised concerns within the American administration, as the size of the deficit had reached an unprecedented level.

It is noteworthy that, in practice, to offset the U.S. trade deficit, the U.S. Treasury prints and injects an equivalent amount of dollars into global markets ($103.5 billion during 2024) as repayment of its foreign debt resulting from the trade deficit with various countries. This has been the U.S. mechanism throughout history since the dollar became the world’s reserve currency—enabling the U.S. dollar to dominate the global economy.

In other words, the United States is always in a state of deficit in dealing with the outside world so that the dominance of the dollar over the global economy can continue. The U.S. imports various goods and products from around the world and, in return, prints dollars (not backed by anything) and pays them to other countries. This means that any measures taken by the U.S. to reduce imports in an attempt to shrink the trade deficit will come at the expense of the power, position, spread, and dominance of the dollar over international payments.

This is something the American administration is currently trying to ignore, under the assumption that the global economy is still unprepared to abandon the dollar as a reserve currency or as a medium for settling international trade transactions, or to replace it with a new international currency—such as the digital yuan that China is promoting and pushing for adoption. This also applies to efforts by the BRICS group to propose a new international currency in response to the U.S. dollar, which has become a tool to politically and economically threaten nations.

From a technical economic perspective, it is unlikely that U.S. authorities are unaware that declaring a tariff war on various countries is a double-edged sword. Besides the responses of countries whose exports to the U.S. are now subject to high tariffs (in an attempt to reduce their entry into American markets—the protective effect targeted by the U.S. government), these countries will, in return, impose high tariffs on American products imported into their markets. This reduces their imports from the U.S., and consequently, the U.S.’s export revenue to these countries. Additionally, certain American industries and small economic activities—especially agriculture, which relies heavily on imported inputs—may suffer from rising costs, operational difficulties, and even shutdowns. This is the expected result of what is known as a trade war, which the current U.S. administration pays little attention to, as it focuses instead on large capital-intensive industries such as the automotive and defense sectors, and increasing the Treasury’s revenues.

The outcome of this trade war is that all parties will suffer damage without exception, although the severity will vary by country. For the United States, the expected consequences include a rise in imported goods prices in American markets, which will further fuel inflation and may push the economy into stagflation.

While these imposed tariffs may increase U.S. Treasury revenues from customs duties, they simultaneously lead to income redistribution in favor of the suppliers of these consumer goods—at the expense of American consumers’ surplus (the redistribution effect). This occurs when the tariffs are reflected in retail prices in U.S. markets, a move that may face strong opposition domestically.

This means that the U.S.’s ability to enforce its policies and dominate international trade is not unlimited. It is surrounded by a set of factors and risks that may threaten the reality and future of the U.S. economy and the dollar’s global standing.

Therefore, it is expected that the U.S. administration may backtrack on continuing this declared tariff war on the global economy, and the legislative authorities (Congress) may intervene to cancel it to prevent the U.S. economy from slipping into stagflation.

As for the expected impact on Libya—being one of the countries targeted by the U.S. tariffs on its exports to America—the main commodity Libya exports to the U.S. is crude oil. Some statistics indicate that the value of these exports was around $1.57 billion in 2024, and their relative importance does not exceed 10% of total exports in the best-case scenarios, and on average does not exceed 7% of total oil exports.

However, Libyan crude oil and gas exports will not be subject to the tariffs recently imposed by the Trump administration, as imports of oil, gas, and petroleum products were exempted from these tariffs for all countries—except those under U.S. sanctions. This reduces the importance of these measures’ impact on the Libyan economy.

In other words, given the exemption of oil exports from these tariffs and the low relative importance of Libya’s non-oil exports to the U.S. in the total exports—which may be subject to a 30% tariff—these U.S. tariffs will have negligible effects on Libya’s trade balance.

Moreover, any response by Libyan authorities—such as imposing high tariffs on U.S. imports (which constitute no more than 3% of Libya’s total imports)—will also have a minimal impact on the Libyan economy, apart from raising the prices of these products in the Libyan market.

The expected impact on the Libyan economy from the U.S. administration’s tariff measures against many countries—including the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Turkey—will be indirect. It will come from the rising prices of goods produced in those countries, which Libya regularly imports, and whose exports to the U.S. are now subject to higher tariffs. These countries may also impose tariffs on American products they import, in retaliation—such as the EU, Libya’s largest trade partner.

Additionally, Libya may face disrupted supplies of goods, affecting the local market, given the country’s heavy reliance on imports to meet domestic needs.

Another possible effect is the depreciation of the U.S. dollar in financial markets due to declining demand for American products. This would negatively impact the value of Libya’s dollar-denominated assets, including Central Bank reserves.

Expectations of a global economic recession caused by this global trade war declared by the U.S. against China and many other economies—and the return to outdated mutual protectionist policies, despite the existence of the World Trade Organization and its agreements—will lead to lower global oil demand and falling oil prices. This is the most dangerous consequence for the Libyan economy and the one that requires the most attention and response.

Exclusive: Source at the U.S.-Libya Meeting Reveals Full Details to Sada, Highlighting Exploration of Business Opportunities in Libya

Our source from within the U.S.-Libya meeting corridors revealed the details of the roundtable gathering of American and Libyan executive officials, stating that the attendees included Libyan and American political figures. However, the meeting is a regular annual event held by invitation from the National Council on U.S.-Libya Relations (NCUSLR) and the American Chamber of Commerce.

He added that the topics discussed were public affairs, general opinions, and idea exchange, emphasizing that the meeting is unrelated to matters of the Libyan state or its legislative and executive authorities. All attendees represent only themselves and their personal views and ideas.

He further stated that the main topic of discussion was the exploration of business opportunities in Libya and the enhancement of the healthcare sector in the country.

Libya Among Them: U.S. Seeks New Destinations for Deported Migrants

A report by The Wall Street Journal, citing officials say they have asked several countries in Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe

The Trump administration is pursuing agreements with several more countries to take migrants deported from the U.S., according to officials familiar with the matter. Immigration officials are seeking more destinations where they can send immigrants the U.S. wants to deport, but whose countries are slow to take them back or refuse to. Their desired model builds on a one-time deal the administration struck with Panama in February, under which they sent a planeload of over 100 migrants, mostly from the Middle East, to the Central American nation. Panama then detained the migrants and worked to send them to their home countries. The officials are in conversations with countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, but aren’t necessarily looking to sign formal agreements, the people said. What happens next to the deported migrants would depend on the specific host nation. The U.S. is agnostic, for example, whether the person would be permitted to ask for asylum or be deported to their own country, the people said. Among the countries the U.S. has asked to take the deportees are Libya, Rwanda, Benin, Eswatini, Moldova, Mongolia and Kosovo. The U.S. is hoping these nations will agree to the administration’s requests, perhaps in exchange for financial arrangements or the political benefit of helping President Trump accomplish one of his top domestic priorities. The administration is looking to certain Latin American countries to sign longer-term agreements designating them as safe places for migrants to ask for asylum instead of the U.S. Officials are close to finalizing such a deal with Honduras and are in negotiations with Costa Rica, according to a person familiar with the matter. None of the embassies for these countries immediately returned requests for comment. Stephen Miller addressing the media. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is spearheading the effort to find more countries willing to accept migrants the U.S. wants to deport.

In a statement, a State Department spokesperson didn’t address private diplomatic conversations but said “enforcing our nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States including ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal.” State is working closely with the Department of Homeland Security “to enforce the Trump Administration’s immigration policies.” The White House and Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment. The negotiations are occurring as Trump, who campaigned on launching “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country,” has been frustrated with the speed of removal flights from the U.S. His efforts have faced legal challenges, and some countries including Venezuela have resisted or slow-walked accepting deportation flights. Stephen Miller, an immigration hawk and the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, is spearheading the effort to find more countries willing to accept citizens from neither the U.S. nor the place to which they are deported. The White House’s Homeland Security Council he leads has asked State Department officials, among others, to continue negotiations so the U.S. has more places to send migrants who entered America illegally. U.S. officials said that there is pressure from senior leadership to deport more migrants in America illegally. Many of the nations under consideration for deportation agreements are countries where the U.S. government has raised serious concerns about human rights abuses, including the mistreatment of detainees and migrants, such as Libya and Rwanda. “Most of the countries that are willing to go along with this are probably going to be problematic countries,” said Ricardo Zuniga, a former senior State Department and National Security Council official focused on the Western Hemisphere under President Barack Obama. “But even they are asking ‘What’s in it for us? Who’s going to pay for it? How am I going to explain the political burden of accepting people on behalf of the United States?’”

In mid-March, Trump used wartime powers to deport over 130 alleged Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. to El Salvador. The seldom-used 18th-century Alien Enemies Act allows the president to deport foreign nationals who are deemed hostile during a time of war. A federal judge temporarily blocked its use, and later questioned whether the administration flouted his ruling, an accusation the White House denied. The alleged criminals deported under the law are among the U.S. deportees who have been locked up in a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, called the Terrorism Confinement Center and known as Cecot. During the final year of his first presidency, Trump briefly sought to strike agreements with several Central American countries to take deportees from other nations. The U.S. deported around 1,000 migrants from Honduras and El Salvador to seek asylum in Guatemala toward the start of 2020, but the Covid-19 pandemic quickly undercut that arrangement. Since then, former officials from Trump’s first term working at conservative think tanks began to develop lists of potential countries for such agreements. Some of Trump’s aides were inspired by the 2022 deal the U.K. struck with Rwanda, paying the east African country $155 million to accept migrants, primarily from the Middle East, who had reached Britain seeking asylum. The plan faced intense legal and political scrutiny. Only four people were relocated, and it was scrapped last year.