United States accused of exploiting migrant suffering with Africa deportations

Third-country deportation means removing a person to a country other than the one whose citizenship or residence connects them to the case. It differs from ordinary deportation, which sends someone back to their own country. The destination may have no family, community, or personal ties to the deportee.

The article describes US agreements with governments in Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific. These governments accept foreign nationals who cannot legally be returned to their own countries. Human Rights Watch reported interviews with people sent to Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and South Sudan.

The practice matters because an unfamiliar destination can leave people without support or clear information. Human Rights Watch also warned that sending people to countries where they face persecution or serious abuse may violate non-refoulement. Many agreements remain secret or only partly disclosed, making safeguards difficult to assess.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement data cited by Human Rights Watch indicate that more than 500 people have been deported from the United States to African countries other than their own. This is the reported Africa-specific figure since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

The wider programme is much larger. An investigation by the Forbidden Stories journalism consortium estimated in September that around 25,000 people had been deported to destinations worldwide under the third-country deportation programme. That total includes destinations beyond Africa, so it cannot be added directly to the African figure.

The numbers show a rapidly expanding system rather than isolated transfers. The administration has made agreements across Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific. The programme’s scale remains difficult to examine fully because many agreements are secret or only partly disclosed, including their conditions and incentives.

The article presents distant deportation as a deterrent. Human Rights Watch accused Washington of using remote destinations to instrumentalise migrant suffering and discourage others from coming to the United States. The policy therefore appears designed not only to remove people, but also to send a warning to potential migrants.

A US official cited by Human Rights Watch told a Senate hearing that countries such as Palau or Eswatini could be used to threaten people with being sent far away. The official reportedly said, “The point is to scare people.” Deportees may have no connection to the destination and may not even be told where they are going.

This approach has wider consequences. It makes the destination part of the punishment and raises questions about legality and humane treatment. Human Rights Watch also warned that distant transfers can breach non-refoulement when people face persecution or serious abuse after arrival.

People sent to unfamiliar countries can lose access to family, community support, and reliable information. Human Rights Watch interviewed 24 deportees sent to six African countries. Some said they were kept in chains during flights lasting up to 18 hours, while others said they were not told where they were being taken.

The risks may be especially serious for LGBTQI+ people. Human Rights Watch said Washington had deported at least a dozen LGBTQI+ people to African countries where same-sex relations are criminalised or heavily repressed. In such places, deportees may face persecution, discrimination, detention, or serious abuse because of their identity or relationships.

These consequences can turn removal into exposure to danger rather than a safe transfer. Human Rights Watch warned that sending people to countries where they face severe abuse may breach non-refoulement. Secret or partly disclosed agreements also make it harder to know what protections exist after arrival.

Non-refoulement is an international legal principle that bars states from sending people to a place where they face persecution, torture, or other severe human rights violations. It is meant to prevent governments from escaping responsibility by transferring a vulnerable person beyond their own borders.

The principle may apply to these deportations because some migrants are sent to countries where they have no ties and may face serious danger. Human Rights Watch specifically mentioned LGBTQI+ people deported to African countries where same-sex relations are criminalised or heavily repressed. The group warned that such transfers could breach the principle.

Whether a particular deportation violates non-refoulement depends on the person’s circumstances and the risks in the destination. The article says many agreements are secret or partly disclosed. That limited transparency makes it difficult to establish what protections are assessed before transfer and what conditions migrants face afterward.

The agreements create a legal and logistical route for the United States to transfer migrants who cannot legally be returned to their own countries. Governments in Africa agree to receive these foreign nationals, allowing US authorities to use a destination outside the migrant’s homeland. The programme also includes countries in Latin America and the Pacific.

The article says many agreements are secret or only partly disclosed. It is therefore unclear what conditions apply, how migrants are accepted, and what participating governments receive. Human Rights Watch interviewed people sent to six African countries. Burundi became the latest country to sign up, making it the 15th African nation involved.

African governments may face strong pressure to cooperate. An AFP investigation found reported US use of diplomatic and economic leverage, including threats of higher tariffs, visa restrictions, and cuts to development aid. Such pressure is especially significant for governments facing severe economic and humanitarian difficulties.

When return to a homeland would be unsafe, refugee and human rights principles generally require authorities to examine the person’s protection claim before removal. They should not send someone to a country where persecution, torture, or severe abuse is likely. This is the practical meaning of non-refoulement discussed in the article.

Possible alternatives include granting asylum or refugee status, allowing temporary protection, or arranging resettlement in a safe third country that agrees to receive the person with appropriate safeguards. Authorities may also provide lawful stay while protection claims are decided. The exact option depends on the person’s legal status and circumstances.

The article does not describe particular alternative procedures used by the United States. It does show why safeguards matter: some deportees had no ties to their destinations, and LGBTQI+ people were sent to countries criminalising or repressing same-sex relationships. Secret agreements can make safe planning and oversight harder.