The short version
- Human Rights Watch claims over 500 migrants have been sent to African countries since early 2025, arguing these transfers exploit suffering to deter migration and violate nonrefoulement principles.
- The Department of Homeland Security maintains that third-country removals are essential for removing dangerous individuals from US streets and relies on diplomatic assurances regarding the safety of deportees.
- Interviews with migrants reveal accounts of abusive treatment during transit, arbitrary detention in host countries, and subsequent forced returns to nations where they face persecution or torture.
A new report by Human Rights Watch challenges the legality and humanitarian impact of United States immigration enforcement actions that involve transferring migrants to African nations where they do not hold citizenship. The advocacy organization argues that this practice, which has accelerated since Donald Trump resumed the presidency in 2025, exploits human suffering as a deterrent strategy and violates international law. According to US data cited by the group, more than 500 individuals have been sent to these third-party countries during this period, raising significant concerns about their safety and legal protections once they leave American custody.
The core of the controversy centers on the principle of nonrefoulement, which prohibits sending individuals to places where they face threats to their life, freedom, or risk of torture. Human Rights Watch contends that many deportees have no practical option but to return to their countries of origin, regardless of the dangers they may encounter there. The group highlights cases in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and Ghana, where migrants were reportedly sent back to their home nations despite known risks. In some instances, individuals who had been granted protection in the United States based on fears of persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity were transferred to African states that criminalize same-sex relations.
Testimonies collected by researchers paint a grim picture of the conditions surrounding these transfers. Interviews with 24 third-country nationals across six nations—including Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and South Sudan—revealed accounts of abusive treatment during deportation flights. Migrants described being chained for extended periods, often around 18 hours, without knowledge of their final destination. They also reported being denied access to essential medications and insufficient food or water during transit. These conditions, the report suggests, are part of an opaque policy framework that some deals remain secret, further complicating oversight and accountability.
Once arriving in these African nations, many deportees face arbitrary detention and ill-treatment. Human Rights Watch notes that individuals sent to Eswatini, Ghana, and South Sudan were detained without due process. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a US lawyer informed researchers that of 15 people deported from Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador in April, none remained in the country by late September. Eleven of these individuals had returned to their home countries, raising questions about whether those returns were truly voluntary given the uncertainty and pressure they faced while in transit.
The United States government defends its actions through the Department of Homeland Security, which characterizes third-country removals as an essential tool for public safety. Officials state that these measures allow authorities to remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens from American streets. In a statement, DHS emphasized that Immigration and Customs Enforcement receives diplomatic assurances from destination countries guaranteeing the safety of those being removed. The agency further clarified that once an individual is no longer in ICE custody, the department assumes no further responsibility for their welfare or legal status.
Despite official assurances, evidence suggests that host countries may not always adhere to these agreements. Equatorial Guinea, which received 65 deportees, quickly sent at least two individuals back to their home countries. Similarly, Eswatini, which welcomed 32 people from the US, announced that three individuals from Yemen, Belize, and Laos had voluntarily departed for their home nations. While Eswatini stated its commitment to respecting the rights and dignity of third-country nationals, Human Rights Watch argues that the overall pattern indicates a systemic disregard for international human rights standards.
The personal stakes are high for those caught in this system. A Nigerian man deported from the US to Ghana and then secretly transferred to Togo expressed deep fears about returning to Nigeria, where his association with a separatist activist group could lead to arrest and torture. His case illustrates the potential consequences of being moved between jurisdictions without adequate legal recourse or protection. The report also notes that Burundi recently announced it had agreed to accept migrants deported from the US, expanding the network of countries involved in these transfers.
Michael Garcia Bochenek, interim director of Human Rights Watch’s US program, described the policy as designed to cause human suffering to deter migration. He criticized the strategy of dropping people in unfamiliar locations where they have never set foot before. While none of the African countries named in the report have publicly commented on these allegations, the lack of transparency surrounding the deals facilitates a system that critics argue undermines global refugee protections. As the administration continues to prioritize immigration enforcement, the tension between national security objectives and international human rights obligations remains unresolved.
The implications of these policies extend beyond individual cases, affecting broader diplomatic relations and the credibility of US commitments to human rights. With businesses expressing concern over labor shortages due to the crackdown, and political debates intensifying around immigration reform, the methods used to enforce border policies are under increasing scrutiny. The next steps may involve further legal challenges or congressional hearings aimed at clarifying the extent of these third-country removals and ensuring compliance with both domestic and international laws.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC World↗US deportations to African countries unlawful and exploit suffering, rights group says
