The Trump Administration Plans To Deport Iranians Amid Deadly Crackdown in Iran
With thousands of people dead in Iran, the Trump administration still plans to go ahead with a deportation flight as early as this weekend.
President Donald Trump has threatened war with Iran if the government harms its own people. But he's also planning to hand over Iranians, some of whom may face the death penalty, to that government. On Thursday, the nonprofit National Iranian American Council warned that it had learned about a planned deportation flight to Iran. On Friday, a lawyer for two gay Iranians set to be deported confirmed the story to MS NOW and CNN.
"The same administration that promised Iranians that 'help is on the way' amid a deadly crackdown is now forcibly sending Iranians back into danger," National Iranian American Council President Jamal Abdi said in a press release. "Words of solidarity against violence and repression ring especially hollow when you're rounding those same people up and forcing them on planes to deliver them back into the hands of their oppressors."
On January 8 and 9, massive unrest broke out inside Iran, followed by a bloody government crackdown. The Human Rights Activists News Agency, a nonprofit in Virginia that has been tracking the violence, has confirmed over 5,000 deaths and 26,000 arrests. While the uprising seems to have died down, the country is reportedly under unofficial martial law and a telecommunications blackout. Last year, before the unrest began, the Iranian government executed at least 975 people.
The Iranian government is guilty of "the complete destruction of the country and the use of violence at levels never seen before," Trump told Politico last week, adding that Iran "is the worst place to live anywhere in the world because of poor leadership."
But as early as Sunday, the Trump administration plans to fly 40 Iranians back to the country, immigration lawyer Bekah Wolf and other sources confirmed to MS NOW and CNN. Two of Wolf's clients are a gay couple who fled their country in 2021 after being indicted for homosexuality. The couple showed up at the U.S. border and claimed asylum in early 2025, just before Trump's inauguration; they fear execution if they are returned to Iran.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Iranian foreign ministry did not respond to Reason's requests for comment.*
The deportation flight this weekend would be the third deportation flight sent by the Trump administration to Iran. The administration sent two deportation flights, each carrying 55 people, to Iran last September and December. The flights included Iranians who are gay and some who converted to Christianity, both of which are illegal in Iran. Two of the Christian deportees were later summoned for questioning by Iranian intelligence, the BBC reports.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told The New York Times in November that the administration was deporting "terrorists, human smugglers and suspected foreign agents." Meanwhile, Iranian diplomat Abolfazl Mehrabadi told the Times that the deportees were coming back to Iran voluntarily. "Iran's government does not like to see any Iranian in detention or lost in a third country, and they face no problems returning," he said.
The deportees themselves clearly feel differently. In July 2025, pastor Ara Torosian filmed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dragging away a Christian Iranian while his wife had a panic attack. The man was later deported to a third country, but his wife was granted U.S. asylum, according to the BBC. Another Christian Iranian who was set to be deported to Iran via Turkey managed to escape the Turkish airport during his layover and is now in hiding.
Mehrdad Dalir, one of the deportees on the September flight, told the Times that he "did everything in my power to stop them, but the ICE officials didn't care. They told me, 'You are either getting on the plane on your own, or we will tie you and send you back.'"
*UPDATE: After this article was published, the Department of Homeland Security responded to Reason's request for comment, saying it could neither confirm nor deny the planned deportation flight due to "operational security."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Are they here illegally? Then they should be deported. Give each of them an M4 and a case of ammo if it'll make you feel better.
40 of them. Here illegally. Apparently no gay friendly countries closer.
https://ktvz.com/politics/cnn-us-politics/2026/01/23/us-expected-to-deport-dozens-of-iranians-as-trump-threatens-regime-over-crackdown/
Deportations occurring due to known sleeper cells from Iran in country.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/us-iran-conflict-terrorism-threats
Remember when Iran put a bounty on trump?
sleeper cells
OK, here me out; appropriate pics posted to illegallesbianiranianrefugees.com with all revenues paying down the debt or for healthcare or whatever... and they can stay.
If you'll excuse me, I've got some extreme vetting to do.
Only if they’re lipstick Iranian lesbians.
They should arrive in Iran about the time the US starts bombing Iranian civilians to 'save the people' there.
Never change jewfree.
Never change, JFucked.
The Iranian people would love it if we give them air support. But you wouldn’t. Losing that regime would mean a lot more unmurdered Jews in the world, right JewFree?
If Iranians are here illegally, deport them. What does it matter if Iran is in a state of rebellion?
Oh. Appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy). Got it.
Appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy). Got it.
+1
Ctrl+f 'Christian': 5 results.
Ctrl+f 'gay': 4 results.
They keep saying 'Christian' and 'gay' like even under no-shit US law for no-shit citizens we're *supposed* to give these people special consideration based on their religious affiliation or sexual orientation.
I guess those "abstract social constructs" weren't really so abstract after all.
And it’s not an appeal to emotion. It’s a discussion of foreseeable harm. Policy analysis includes consequences by definition. Pretending otherwise is just a way to avoid responsibility.
Whether someone is undocumented doesn’t erase the U.S. obligation not to knowingly send people into danger. That’s not emotional reasoning — it’s basic human rights law.
It is illegal to deport someone to a place that they have a reasonable fear of persecution of violence. But MAGAs only care about being as cruel as possible, not the law.
They need to go back to replace the recently dead.
If they have final deportation order, I’m sorry, they have to go. They should be deported to another country.
The decision to deny asylum is from dhs or DOJ. I know you think Trump is dr doom, but when Iranians are ordered deported, they almost certainly did not pass background checks or red flags went up.
You’re telling me there are only 50 illegal Iranians in this country? Come on. Iran wants Trump and Americans dead. Do you think Korea doesn’t thoroughly vet NK defectors before they disembark from the plane?
A final removal order doesn’t override non-refoulement. DHS and DOJ are legally barred from deporting someone to a country where they face persecution or torture, regardless of status. ‘Deport them somewhere else’ isn’t a policy unless there’s a lawful third country willing to accept them.
And denial of asylum does not imply someone is dangerous — it often reflects procedural hurdles, timing issues, or narrow statutory criteria. You’re assuming ‘red flags’ where the law does not.
We need to withdraw from that convention. Maybe two-thirds of all the countries in the world, certainly all Muslim countries, threaten "a reasonable fear of persecution or violence", especially compared to North America. We can't be open to unlimited refugees from all of them. The 1951 convention was written for a very different world.
"...It is illegal to deport someone to a place that they have a reasonable fear of persecution of violence..."
No, it isn't shiforbrains.
"...But MAGAs only care about being as cruel as possible, not the law..."
No, shitforbrains, TDS-addled steaming piles of lying lefty shit only care about their obsession.
Fuck off and die, 混蛋.
You didn’t actually dispute the legal point — you just yelled ‘no’ and started name-calling. Non-refoulement is real law, whether you’re aware of it or not.
It IS illegal to deport people to a place where they face persecution. Screaming doesn’t change that.
So send them to somewhere in Europe or the Middle East. It doesn’t have to be here.
No legal argument was offered in the first place. Just Tony’s retarded ravings.
Hey, they don’t have to go home, but they can’t stay here
That slogan isn’t a policy. If they can’t go ‘home’ without facing persecution, then by law they can stay here.
Nope. They can be removed to another safe country. What should have happened in the first place Osment that they would reside in the nearest safe country. Asylum seekers have no right to forum shop.
It’s telling that you and others here (especially Sevo) insist immigration law be enforced to the letter when it’s about exclusion, yet dismiss or ignore the parts of that same law that protect people from persecution. Why do you think that is?
We want to get rid of the dangerous ones that are likely sleepers and/or criminals.
Welcomed back-home to their [Na]tional So[zi]alist Utopia.
"Iran has a, mixed, centrally planned economy with a large public (government-owned) sector."
Gosh. Maybe the US should have some sort of vetting system that only invites Non-[Na][zi]'s in to begin with. Oh yeah; It does. Apparently these subjects failed that test.
You’re arguing that people escaping an authoritarian regime are guilty of that regime. That’s not policy analysis — it’s just prejudice dressed up as economics.
How do you think the authoritarian regime got there? A mars invasion?
No, it’s not. They do send sleepers here.
The MAGA ghouls on this site are salivating at the thought of more dead brown people.
Why Reason chooses not to institute moderation system I will never understand. The comments section could serve as a platform for people with Classically Liberal views to converse; instead it's a cesspool of far right basement dwellers.
It really is a stain on the site and the Foundation.
As are you, shitstain. Please make your family proud; fuck off and die.
"The MAGA ghouls on this site are salivating at the thought of more dead brown people..."
The TDS-addled lying piles of steaming shit (BenF, for example) are lying piles of TDS-addled steaming shit.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
No, it’s you leftist faggots that come in here and start problems. And we’re sick of your shit.
You may fuck off now.
"...The comments section could serve as a platform for people with Classically Liberal views to converse..."
How would TDS-addled slimy piles of lying lefty shit like you ever know, fuckwit?
Maybe because censorship is against everything libertarians stand for. Also, they saw the damage that did in burying valid information about covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, etc.
Reason has never had a problem with it as long as it is done by MUH PRIVATE PLATFORMZ!!!
Are they illegal? Fuck you Reason.
Probably not—but even if they are, that shouldn’t be dispositive. Law enforcement necessarily involves discretion, especially when the law in question criminalizes peaceful conduct like moving from one place to another.
Someone who has lived here for a meaningful period of time and committed no violent crimes should not be expelled over a minor administrative violation—one that functions more like a civil infraction than a serious offense.
Unauthorized immigration is fundamentally a low-level processing issue that gets inflated into a “national crisis” by people driven more by fear of certain immigrant groups than by any coherent assessment of harm.
And from a genuinely classical liberal perspective, there’s nothing incoherent about admiring people who navigate around a bloated, draconian bureaucracy designed by elites to restrict where ordinary people are allowed to live and work.
"...Someone who has lived here for a meaningful period of time and committed no violent crimes should not be expelled over a minor administrative violation—one that functions more like a civil infraction than a serious offense..."
Please give them room in your abode, or fuck off and die. They are welcome to return legally after successful application; I resent paying the costs for them to be here illegally.
“Small government” arguments get very thin when they end with banishment over paperwork violations.
If you think expulsion is proportionate for peaceful conduct, make the case—don’t outsource it to rage.
Also, your “if you care about the human rights of foreigners so much why don’t you host them?” argument is tired and weak.
It’s a classic and lazy fallacy.
What you’re doing is the “personalization / tu quoque + false dilemma” combo, often phrased as “If you support X, you must personally bear 100% of the cost of X.” It’s the same move as:
• “You oppose the death penalty? Then you should personally house murderers.”
• “You support public schools? Why don’t you personally teach every child.”
• “You support roads? Why don’t you pave one yourself.”
That’s the “why don’t you house them” fallacy—confusing a policy position with a demand for personal charity.
It doesn’t address whether the policy itself is justified.
You’re a mentally ill lightweight boot licker, Sevo.
Well, since the US is literal fascism and it's not Jews committing the violence in Iran they should be better off their than here, right?
Iran's ruling regime has a tag and it says "Made in the USA".
WellRedMan.
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
It was. By the democrat Carter administration.
Doesn't the political left (and Reason.com) insist there's a deadly government crackdown here?
They should not be sent to Iran, but that doesn't mean they get to live here. They already passed through Mexico and could have applied for asylum there. Or in any of the dozens of other countries they passed on their way!
Their application should have been immediately rejected on that basis, and told to go back to Mexico and apply. In fact, they could still apply there if they want to avoid going back to Iran.