US Third-Country Deportations to Africa Unlawful, Rights Group Says

What changed

Human Rights Watch says the US has sent more than 500 migrants to African countries where they are not citizens since Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025. The group says the policy violates international law and uses the prospect of harsh treatment to deter migration; Eswatini says it received 32 people, three of whom recently left for their home countries.

Why it matters

This is not simply deportation by a longer route. People sent to Eswatini, Ghana and South Sudan were allegedly detained arbitrarily and mistreated. Others in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Ghana were reportedly sent onward to countries where they could face persecution or torture, raising the principle of nonrefoulement: governments should not send people somewhere their lives or freedom may be at serious risk.

The treatment described during some flights is stark. HRW says people were chained for about 18 hours, kept unaware of their destination, denied essential medication and often given too little food or water. At least a dozen people identifying as LGBT were reportedly sent to African countries that criminalise same-sex relationships, including some refugees who had received US protection because they faced persecution at home.

The policy also creates a sharp responsibility dispute. The Department of Homeland Security calls third-country removals an essential public-safety tool and says immigration officials receive diplomatic assurances that people will be safe. It also says its responsibility ends once someone leaves US custody. That leaves the receiving countries carrying the practical burden, while some of the agreements governing the transfers remain secret.

HRW interviewed 24 third-country nationals in six countries. The named African governments have not commented on the allegations, so the full number of people affected and the treatment of every deportee remain uncertain. But the central question is already clear: whether a government can outsource the destination of a deportation while still claiming the safeguards attached to the decision travel with the person.