Discussion for 10,000 individuals to come to Jamaica was part of a separate programme not related to the Third Country National arrangement with the United States.
This was previously confirmed by National Security Minister, Dr. Horace Chang days before the Gleaner reported that Ambassador Audrey Marks had initiated the arrangement.
Checks by Nationwide News confirmed that a separate skill transfer arrangement was discussed but never finalised.
Chevon Campbell tells us more.
Under the headline ‘Off the Mark’, the Gleaner says a diplomatic note from the United States Embassy in Kingston has stated that a Cabinet minister proposed a controversial deal to Washington that would have had Jamaica ‘receive’ up to 10,000 third-country nationals, TCNs.
The note, sent to the Jamaican Government, said former Ambassador to the US and Minister without Portfolio in the Office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for Efficiency, Innovation, and Digital Transformation, Audrey Marks, made the proposal.
According to the note, shared with the Gleaner, Marks made the proposal to a US official attached to the US Department of Homeland Security during the Americas Counter Cartel Conference at the US Southern Command in Miami, Florida, on March 5, 2026.
The story naming Marks was published on Thursday.
It was used as reasoning by Opposition Leader, Mark Golding, to suggest that National Security Minister, Dr. Horace Chang may have lied to the parliament regarding the origination of the TCN deal.
But speaking with journalists two days before the article was published, Dr. Chang stated that the claim of ten thousand migrants was a conflation of two separate issues.
He was speaking at day one of the Jamaica Diaspora Conference in Montego Bay on Tuesday in response to the initial TCN reportage on Monday.
That’s two days before the Gleaner published its article suggesting Minister Marks approached the US on the issue.
Following the publication, Minister of Information, Dr. Dana Morris Dixon, had this to say.
This suggests there was no inconsistency in the government’s remarks on the issue.
