Inside Noem's Explosive Plan Paying Illegal Migrants £2,400 To Self-Deport By New Year's Eve

The United States government is now offering undocumented migrants £2,400 ($3,000) to voluntarily leave the country before 31 December 2025, a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's immigration enforcement strategy.

In a policy announcement on 22 December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled a new financial incentive that triples previous payments to undocumented migrants who opt to self-deport using the DHS 'CBP Home' mobile application. DHS officials, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, have framed the incentive as a cost-saving alternative to traditional deportation, but critics argue it is a coercive tactic that exploits economic vulnerability.

A 'Holiday Season' Incentive with a Threat

Under the updated DHS initiative, eligible migrants who self-deport by 31 December 2025 through the CBP Home app will receive a £2,400 ($3,000) exit stipend plus a free flight to their home country. DHS describes the offer as a 'holiday season' incentive designed to accelerate voluntary departures and reduce the fiscal burden on taxpayers compared with traditional deportation methods, which federal officials say cost roughly £13,700 ($17,000) per individual.

'We are returning people to their families for the holidays,' Noem said in a televised interview, urging undocumented migrants to use the app and 'get home now' with financial help. Noem also warned that those who refuse the voluntary offer 'will be found, arrested, and removed' with no opportunity to return to the United States.

Broken Promises and Legal Concerns

While DHS frames the bonus as an efficient enforcement tool that respects migrant choice, rights advocates, immigration lawyers, and independent investigations paint a more complex picture.

Several migrants who participated in earlier iterations of the self-deportation programme reported that they never received the promised payments, despite meeting the advertised criteria and submitting required documentation. Bureaucratic delays, unclear eligibility requirements, and logistical issues with payment processors have left some participants uncompensated, raising questions about the programme's implementation integrity.

Legal experts have also raised concerns that offering cash incentives to undocumented migrants could create misleading expectations, particularly regarding future opportunities to return legally to the U.S. Critics argue that the policy skirts core legal frameworks governing immigration status and due process by converting deportation into a financial transaction.

A Broader Enforcement Push

The £2,400 ($3,000) self-deportation incentive must be understood within the larger context of the U.S. government's hard-line immigration policy. Since the Trump administration resumed office in January 2025, DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have deployed an array of tactics to reduce undocumented populations, including fines that can exceed £1.3 million ($1.8 million) and legal actions designed to compel voluntary departure.

Public perceptions of the self-deportation bonus are sharply divided. Supporters frame it as compassionate and practical, offering undocumented migrants a dignified exit with financial support and preserved future legal opportunities. Opponents counter that the policy exploits economic vulnerability, potentially pressures vulnerable populations to leave without legal counsel, and disguises aggressive enforcement as generosity.

Implications For Migrants And Policy

As the 31 December deadline approaches, the real measure of this policy's impact will be in its numbers and outcomes. Will the promise of £2,400 ($3,000) be enough to compel mass self-deportation? How many will receive the payments they are promised? And what legal status, if any, awaits them if they seek to return?

For migrants, the choice is stark: a relatively modest cash sum and a one-way ticket home, or the risk of forced removal with permanent bans from the United States. Whether this strategy represents a humane innovation or a coercive enforcement tactic remains an open and deeply contested question in one of the most polarising issues of contemporary US politics.