In brief
Human Rights Watch has condemned the U.S. practice of sending deported migrants to African countries where they are not citizens, calling it unlawful and exploitative. The report details over 500 transfers since 2025, many to nations that detain or return individuals to risk of persecution. Migrants reported chained flights, lack of food and medical care, and arbitrary detentions upon arrival. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defends the moves as public safety measures, while the White House says deportees are sent only where home countries refuse them. The situation raises serious non‑refoulement concerns and draws attention to a covert policy that may contravene international human‑rights law.
Human Rights Watch has released a damning report on the United States’ decision to deport migrants to African states where they are not residents, arguing the policy violates international law and subjects deportees to further harm.
According to the watchdog, more than 500 individuals have been relocated since President Trump’s 2025 return to office. The transfers involve countries such as Eswatini, Ghana, South Sudan, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo, many of which have histories of arbitrary detention or persecution.
HRW cites widespread abuses: deportees chained together for up to 18 hours, denied essential medicine, and left hungry or thirsty during flights. Several survivors, including members of the LGBTQ community, report fears of torture when returned to nations that criminalize same‑sex relationships.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defends the practice, framing it as a public‑safety tool that removes “dangerous criminal illegal aliens” from American streets. The White House notes that individuals sent abroad are those whose home countries refuse to take them back or where court orders prohibit direct return.
In a recent statement, HRW highlighted that many punished migrants are being sent to destinations where they could be arbitrarily detained or sent home, in direct conflict with the principle of non‑refoulement. Multiple case reports demonstrate victims returning to their native nations with no guarantee of safety.
The report questions the secrecy surrounding the deals behind these flights, describing them as opaque and potentially illegal. HRW warns that such covert agreements undermine global human‑rights standards and may constitute state‑supported human‑suffering.
While African countries such as Eswatini and Burundi have responded by describing their actions as protective and voluntary, no official comment has emerged from the main recipients listed in the HRW study.
The controversy arrives amid wider scrutiny of the U.S. migration policy, with advocacy groups and international bodies calling for accountability and adherence to non‑refoulement obligations. The stakes are high: whether the U.S. can continue deportations under international scrutiny remains uncertain.
