Jamaican PM Andrew Holness says deportee outcry 'almost ridiculous'

Jamaica quietly signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States on June 10, 2026 — but the public only found out when The Gleaner published a leaked US Embassy document suggesting the arrangement could involve up to 10,000 third-country nationals. The government moved swiftly to challenge that figure.

National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang confirmed the MOU at a post-Cabinet press briefing on June 17, setting the record straight: the deal caps transfers at 25 non-Jamaican, non-US nationals every two weeks, with a hard operational ceiling of 10 individuals on the island at any one time — triggering an automatic pause if that threshold is crossed. 

The US Department of Homeland Security must provide biographical, medical and criminal history documentation at least 72 hours before any transfer; Jamaica has 36 hours to respond and retains the right to refuse anyone.

The individuals in question are third-country nationals — people removed from the United States who cannot be returned to their home countries because those governments are unwilling or unable to receive them. 

Chang has been emphatic: these are not deportees in the conventional sense, and Jamaica is not a resettlement destination. Washington covers all costs, the International Organization for Migration manages onward movement, and serious offenders, unaccompanied minors and Jamaican citizens are explicitly excluded.

Prime Minister Holness, speaking on Nationwide Radio on June 22, dismissed the public outcry as 'almost ridiculous', insisting Jamaica was neither coerced nor pressured, and that the deal was negotiated across the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, National Security and the Attorney General's Office before receiving full Cabinet approval.

• MOU signed June 10, 2026; confirmed publicly by Chang on June 17, 2026 • Deal entered public view via a Gleaner-published leak of a US Embassy document, not a government announcement • Leaked document referenced up to 10,000 TCNs; government clarified the operational cap is 25 per fortnight • Hard ceiling of 10 individuals in Jamaica at any one time; automatic pause if breached • 72-hour advance documentation requirement; Jamaica has 36-hour response window • Excludes serious offenders, unaccompanied minors and Jamaican nationals • US covers all costs; IOM manages onward transit • MOU received full Cabinet approval; negotiated across three ministries and the AG's Office • Holness denied coercion on June 22 Nationwide Radio interview

The MOU places Jamaica at the centre of a fast-expanding US deportation architecture that now spans most of the Caribbean Community, raising hard questions about regional sovereignty, human rights accountability and the terms on which small states engage a dominant neighbour. 

At Jamaica's agreed rate of 25 transfers per fortnight, cumulative transfers over 12 months could exceed 600 individuals — people who, in documented cases elsewhere, have had limited due process and no meaningful ties to the countries they are sent to. 

The 2025 case of Jamaican national Orville Etoria, deported by the US to Eswatini despite having no connections there and held in a maximum-security prison before diplomatic intervention secured his return, is already being cited as a benchmark for what can go wrong.

"At Jamaica's proposed rate of 25 transfers every two weeks, cumulative volume over a 12-month period could exceed 600 individuals — people who, in many documented cases, have had limited due process and no meaningful connection to the countries they are ultimately sent to."

— Caribbean360 analysis based on figures confirmed by National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang, June 17, 2026

Viewpoint: Holness has been unequivocal: Jamaica was not coerced, the MOU received full Cabinet approval after negotiation across three ministries and the Attorney General's Office, and the public alarm is 'almost ridiculous.' Chang frames the arrangement as tightly bounded — 25 individuals per fortnight, a hard cap of 10 on-island at any time, US-covered costs, IOM-managed transit, and a case-by-case Jamaican veto. Crucially, both parties can terminate without long-notice obligation. The government's position is that this is modern foreign policy, not a 1970s ideological battle.

Viewpoint: The PNP's sharpest objection is procedural: Jamaicans learned about a signed MOU through a newspaper leak, not a parliamentary statement. Donna Scott-Mottley has demanded transparency on what legal status transferees hold while in Jamaica and what concrete benefits the island receives. Mark Golding has said he would have approached signing with caution given active US court challenges to third-country removal policies.

Viewpoint: UWI Government lecturer Damion Gordon argues the arrangement offers Jamaica no perceptible security benefit while risking complicity in what he characterises as a racialised anti-immigration agenda, with many transferees having had limited due process before removal. The concern is structural: without firm guarantees on what happens to individuals who cannot be returned home — or who face persecution there — Jamaica's legal and moral exposure remains unresolved.