Human Rights Watch (HRW) has raised fresh alarms about a U.S. practice that sends migrants to African nations where they may face danger, alleging that the policy breaches international law and deliberately inflicts suffering to deter migration.
Background to the third‑country removals
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025, the United States has reportedly sent more than 500 people to African countries that are not their nations of citizenship. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) describes these “third‑country removals” as a public‑safety tool designed to remove the “most dangerous criminal illegal aliens” from U.S. streets. In practice, the deportees are transferred to nations such as Eswatini, Ghana, South Sudan, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and others, often without clear consent or knowledge of their destination.
Legal concerns raised by HRW
HRW’s report argues that the removals violate the principle of non‑refoulement, which prohibits sending individuals to a country where they face torture, cruel treatment, or threats to life and freedom. The group cites instances where deportees were arbitrarily detained or sent back to their home countries despite known risks of persecution. For example, in Ghana and South Sudan, detainees reportedly faced ill‑treatment while in custody.
Human impact and alleged abuses
The organization interviewed 24 third‑country nationals across six African states. Several described severe conditions during their flights, including being chained for up to 18 hours, denied essential medication, and receiving insufficient food or water. HRW also highlighted that at least a dozen LGBT individuals were sent to countries that criminalise same‑sex relations, undermining protections they had received as refugees in the United States.
International and diplomatic responses
U.S. officials have offered differing explanations for the policy. DHS claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) receives diplomatic assurances that deportees will be safe once transferred, and that ICE’s responsibility ends once the individual leaves its custody. A White House spokesperson said that those sent to third countries are either refused by their home nations or have court orders preventing their return, adding that any “illegal alien who wants to go home” would be offered a free flight and a $3,000 check.
Host nations have varied in their reactions. Eswatini, which welcomed 32 deportees, announced a commitment to respect the “rights, dignity and well‑being” of third‑country nationals. Burundi recently agreed to accept migrants deported from the U.S., while other states, such as Equatorial Guinea, have quickly forwarded some arrivals back to their countries of origin.
Key take‑aways
- Legal breach: HRW contends that the practice contravenes international non‑refoulement obligations.
- Human cost: Detainees report abuse, lack of basic necessities, and fear of persecution upon return.
- Opaque agreements: The deals facilitating these transfers are often secret, limiting oversight.
- Mixed diplomatic stance: While the U.S. cites safety assurances, recipient countries vary in their willingness to protect deportees.
Conclusion
The HRW findings underscore a growing tension between U.S. immigration enforcement and international human‑rights standards. As the United States continues to rely on third‑country removals, the lack of transparency and reported mistreatment raise serious questions about the policy’s legality and morality. Continued scrutiny from rights groups, lawmakers, and the global community will be essential to determine whether the practice can be reformed to meet both security objectives and humanitarian obligations.
