How Trump’s Third-Country Deportations Impact Africa

The Trump administration has begun its controversial policy of third-country deportations, sending five non-citizen migrants, originally from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba, to Eswatini, a small Southern African nation, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration’s decision to do so earlier this month.

The deportation flight to Eswatini was confirmed on Tuesday evening by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stating the individuals had been convicted of violent crimes, including murder, assault, and robbery, and were deemed too dangerous for their home countries to accept. “This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” she said.

Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, has now joined a short list of seven countries, including Rwanda, Kosovo, El Salvador, Panama, Guatemala, Mexico, and Costa Rica, who have agreed to accept non-citizen deportees. However, the U.S. has approached or plans to approach at least 51 additional countries for similar deals, some of which are countries with partial or total bans from the United States. 

South Sudan was previously approached for a similar deportation flight earlier this month. Eight migrants were held in Djibouti for six weeks before the deportation was temporarily halted by a federal court, allowing time for asylum screenings. The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling has since overridden that delay, opening the door to resumed expulsions.

The U.S. efforts to secure third-country partners have grown significantly in scale and ambition under Trump. A March 12 cable instructed American diplomats to seek deals with 58 nations, many in Africa and Central Asia, including war-torn or authoritarian states such as Libya, Turkmenistan, and Mauritania. The goal is to create a global network of host nations willing to detain or resettle migrants expelled from the U.S., even when they have no ties to those countries.

The resumption of these deportations has intensified tensions across Africa. Last week, President Trump proposed the idea directly to the African leaders who visited him in Washington, prompting sharp divides on the continent. Nigeria and South Sudan had already objected to the scheme, citing human rights concerns and domestic political backlash. Several other African nations, including Angola, Ethiopia, Tunisia, and Togo, are currently in discussions or under pressure to accept third-country deportees in exchange for economic or diplomatic incentives.

Critics, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in the Supreme Court decision, warn that the practice violates international protections against refoulement, the forced return of individuals to countries where they risk torture or death. “What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,” she wrote.

Despite warnings from human rights organizations, the Trump administration remains undeterred. In some cases, it has paid governments to accept deportees, reportedly giving Rwanda $100,000 to take one Iraqi man, with more payments under negotiation.

The campaign has not only alarmed legal advocates and former diplomats, but it has also fractured African diplomatic unity, with some governments eager to stay in Washington’s good graces and others rejecting the plan outrightly. The divisive policy may now become a permanent fixture of Trump’s immigration agenda, especially as the administration seeks to institutionalize the practice through expanded international agreements.

Many of the countries being targeted have fragile institutions and limited capacity to absorb non-African deportees. Countries like Libya and South Sudan are dealing with conflict and internal displacement, making them unsuitable and unsafe for receiving migrants who may face torture, violence, or arbitrary detention. This directly contradicts international principles, such as non-refoulement, which prohibit transferring people to places where they face danger.

The U.S. is placing undue strain on already underfunded asylum systems by turning African nations into processing centers for deportees from across the globe. This could deepen social tensions, fuel xenophobia, and further destabilize fragile governments.

This policy risks transforming Africa into a global dumping ground for migrants other nations refuse to host, and without a coordinated response from the African Union and regional blocs, the continent may find itself on the receiving end of an unsustainable and inhumane migration strategy, one that sacrifices long-term dignity and stability for immediate diplomatic favors. Africa must assert its sovereignty, protect human rights, and refuse to be a pawn in the geopolitics of deportation.