Lead
On Feb. 16, 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Australia will not repatriate citizens who traveled to support the Islamic State, after a recent attempt by 34 Australians to leave the Al-Roj detention camp in northeastern Syria was blocked. The group, described in reporting as 11 families of women and children, were stopped in Damascus when Syrian authorities said departure procedures were incomplete. Canberra reiterated it will monitor returns and prosecute any criminal conduct by returnees. Humanitarian organisations and UN experts say thousands remain in dire conditions in Syrian camps and have urged more repatriations.
Key Takeaways
- Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Feb. 16, 2026, that Australia “will not repatriate” people who went to Syria to support Islamic State.
- Thirty-four Australians—reported as women and children in 11 families—were turned back by Syrian authorities after leaving Al-Roj for Damascus.
- Camp director Hakmiyeh Ibrahim told reporters the departures were organised by relatives who travelled from Australia to accompany returnees.
- Australia previously repatriated groups from Syrian camps in 2019 and 2022; two women and four children returned independently via Lebanon last year.
- Save the Children and Amnesty International warn of systematic rights abuses in camps; Save the Children lost a 2023 court challenge to compel repatriation.
- The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in 2024 and the displacement of Kurdish-led SDF control have increased uncertainty for detainees.
- The UN expert group and UN agencies have urged over 50 countries to repatriate, rehabilitate and reintegrate foreign nationals from Syrian detention camps.
- The US said it transferred more than 5,700 adult male ISIS fighters from Syria to Iraqi custody this week, a move the UN experts criticised.
Background
The detention camps in northeastern Syria hold thousands of foreign nationals and Syrians connected to ISIS after the group’s territorial defeat more than five years ago. Camps such as Al-Roj and Al-Hol have become long-term internment sites where many residents are women and children, some reportedly trafficked or born under ISIS control. Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) operated many of these camps with international support; changes on the ground since 2024, including the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, have shifted authority and increased insecurity around camp management and detainee protection.
International responses have been uneven. A number of Western governments have been reluctant to repatriate citizens over national-security concerns and public opposition, while other states have initiated limited returns under strict screening. Human-rights organisations have repeatedly documented torture, gender-based violence and other abuses inside the camps and pressed sending states to repatriate children in particular. Legal complexity—citizenship revocations, criminal investigation needs and differing domestic laws—has complicated repatriation efforts.
Main Event
According to reporting, 11 families left the Al-Roj camp and travelled to Damascus with the declared aim of returning to Australia; they were reportedly accompanied by family members who had travelled from Australia to arrange departures. Syrian officials contacted the group in Damascus and said their paperwork or departure procedures were not complete, preventing onward travel. Camp director Hakmiyeh Ibrahim confirmed to news outlets that the departures had been organised by relatives rather than by an official foreign-state repatriation programme.
Prime Minister Albanese responded bluntly to questions about government involvement, saying Canberra “won’t repatriate” those who went overseas to support Islamic State and adding a warning—communicated to families in the camps—that choices to travel there carry consequences. An Australian government spokesperson reiterated to CNN that Australia “is not and will not repatriate people from Syria” while saying security agencies are monitoring developments and that anyone returning who has committed crimes would face prosecution.
Humanitarian groups and some legal advocates disputed that approach on child-protection grounds. Save the Children argued the children among the cohort merit urgent return and rehabilitation; the group reminded the government that it previously sought judicial compulsion in 2023 and did not prevail. UN experts and agencies have likewise called for expanded returns accompanied by accountability measures in line with international law.
Analysis & Implications
The Australian government’s stance highlights a broader tension between security policy and humanitarian obligations. From a security perspective, governments cite the difficulty of verifying individual histories, assessing radicalisation risks and ensuring robust de-radicalisation and prosecution frameworks at home. Politically, domestic opposition to bringing back suspected ISIS affiliates remains high and can deter governments from taking broader repatriation steps, especially in election-sensitive climates.
From a humanitarian and legal angle, prolonged detention in camps presents acute risks to children’s wellbeing and development and raises questions about state responsibility for nationals abroad. International law and human-rights bodies emphasise the duty to protect children and ensure due process; prolonged outsourcing of detention to insecure or opaque facilities can expose states to reputational and legal scrutiny. The 2023 court challenge in Australia underscores how judicial routes have so far failed to compel repatriation despite rights-based arguments.
Regionally, the collapse of central Syrian authority in 2024 and the subsequent realignment of control in northern Syria have reduced predictability for both camp residents and states considering repatriation. Transfers of large numbers of adult fighters to Iraq remove some detainees from Syrian camps but have drawn UN criticism over due process and detention conditions. Longer term, sporadic returns, unsupervised escapes, or mass relocations by Syrian authorities could create security and humanitarian spillovers for neighbouring states and international organisations.
Comparison & Data
| Year / Event | Description |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Australia repatriated groups of women and children from Syrian camps (government actions reported). |
| 2022 | Another tranche of repatriations from Syrian camps to Australia was reported. |
| 2025 | Two Australian women and four children returned independently via Lebanon. |
| 2026 (Feb.) | Thirty-four Australians were blocked in Damascus after leaving Al-Roj; Canberra says it will not repatriate them. |
The table collates reported milestones in Australia’s engagement with Syrians held in camps. Public reporting confirms repatriation events in 2019 and 2022 but provides limited official detail on screening procedures or numbers made public in those operations. Independent returns, such as the 2025 Lebanon case, illustrate that some individuals attempt travel outside formal government programmes.
Reactions & Quotes
Government response framed the matter primarily as a security decision and a rule-of-law issue.
“We are not and will not repatriate people from Syria,”
Australian government spokesperson (statement to CNN)
Humanitarian organisations highlighted children’s needs and international obligations.
“These innocent children have already lost years of their childhood, and deserve the chance to rebuild their lives in safety at home,”
Mat Tinkler, CEO Save the Children Australia (statement)
UN experts and international agencies have appealed for collective action while seeking accountability measures.
“Over 50 countries should urgently repatriate, rehabilitate and reintegrate foreign nationals from detention,”
UN expert group (public appeal)
Unconfirmed
- It is not independently verified whether all 34 individuals had completed any formal repatriation paperwork before departing Al-Roj; Syrian officials stated procedures were incomplete.
- Reports indicate relatives flew from Australia to assist departures, but the precise role and logistics of those relatives remain unconfirmed.
- The timeline and conditions under which another departure attempt might be permitted by Syrian authorities are unclear.
- Comprehensive, case-by-case security assessments for the blocked individuals have not been publicly released.
Bottom Line
Australia’s public refusal to repatriate this group crystallises a wider policy dilemma faced by Western states: balancing national-security risk management with humanitarian and child-protection responsibilities. The Feb. 2026 episode—34 Australians turned back in Damascus—may harden domestic political resistance to large-scale returns while intensifying pressure from rights groups and UN bodies.
Key watch points are whether Canberra’s stance shifts in response to further escapes or court challenges, how Syrian authorities handle camp populations amid changing control on the ground, and whether multilateral mechanisms can be scaled up to coordinate safe, accountable returns that address both justice and rehabilitation. For now, the lives of the children in those camps remain the most acute humanitarian concern.
Sources
- CNN (international news report)
- Associated Press (news agency reporting referenced)
- ABC (Australian national broadcaster)
- Save the Children Australia (NGO statement)
- Amnesty International (NGO human-rights reporting)
- Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights / UN expert group (UN experts’ statements)
- UNHCR (UN refugee agency reporting)