Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why
America's third-country deportation program

America's third-country deportation program

Rule Changes
By Newzino Staff |

The Trump administration's deals with African nations to accept foreign nationals expelled from the United States

February 4th, 2026: Eswatini High Court Dismisses Constitutional Challenge

Overview

The United States has historically deported people to their countries of origin. Now it's paying African nations to accept deportees who have no connection to those countries whatsoever. Under agreements reached since July 2025, Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda, and Ghana have collectively agreed to accept hundreds of third-country deportees in exchange for millions of dollars in U.S. payments.

On February 4, 2026, Eswatini's High Court upheld the country's $5.1 million deal with Washington, dismissing a legal challenge that argued the secretive agreement violated constitutional requirements for parliamentary approval. The ruling establishes a binding framework for deportation cooperation and leaves core constitutional questions—whether executive agreements affecting human rights can bypass legislative oversight—unresolved.

Key Indicators

15+
Deportees sent to Eswatini
Third-country nationals transferred to Eswatini since July 2025, from Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Yemen, and Jamaica
$5.1M
U.S. payment to Eswatini
For accepting up to 160 deportees and building 'border and migration management capacity'
5+
African nations with agreements
Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda, and Ghana have signed deportation deals
160
Maximum deportees under Eswatini deal
The cap established in the U.S.-Eswatini memorandum of understanding

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand

(1905-1982) · Cold War · philosophy

Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.

"The spectacle of governments auctioning human beings like commodities—while draped in the language of sovereignty and law—reveals the inevitable corruption when states claim ownership over individuals. These are not contracts between free men, but transactions between jailers bargaining over their prisoners, proving once again that when rights become privileges dispensable by bureaucratic whim, every person becomes potential merchandise in the marketplace of political expediency."

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Sign Up

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

King Mswati III
King Mswati III
Absolute monarch of Eswatini (Overseeing implementation of deportation agreement)
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
President of the United States (Directing expansion of third-country deportation program)
Abigail Jackson
Abigail Jackson
White House spokesperson (Active)

Organizations Involved

Eswatini Litigation Centre
Eswatini Litigation Centre
Human rights legal organization
Status: Legal challenge dismissed by High Court

A public interest law organization that filed the constitutional challenge to Eswatini's deportation agreement with the United States.

Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch
International Human Rights Organization
Status: Monitoring and documenting deportation program

International organization that has documented conditions facing deportees and criticized U.S. agreements with countries it says have repressive governments.

Timeline

  1. Eswatini High Court Dismisses Constitutional Challenge

    Legal

    Three-judge panel rules that petitioners lacked direct interest to challenge the agreement, leaving core constitutional questions about parliamentary oversight unresolved.

  2. Eswatini Confirms Receipt of $5.1 Million

    Financial

    Eswatini government publicly acknowledges receiving millions of dollars from the United States under the deportation agreement.

  3. Ten More Deportees Arrive in Eswatini

    Deportation

    A second deportation flight brings 10 additional third-country nationals to Eswatini, bringing the total to 15.

  4. Human Rights Watch Publishes Report on African Deportation Deals

    Investigation

    Report details agreements with multiple African nations and raises concerns about sending deportees to countries with poor human rights records.

  5. Human Rights Groups File Court Challenge in Eswatini

    Legal

    The Eswatini Litigation Centre and allies file an urgent application arguing the deportation agreement is unconstitutional because it bypassed parliament.

  6. Rwanda Signs Agreement to Accept 250 Deportees

    Agreement

    Rwanda becomes the third African nation to sign a deportation deal, agreeing to accept up to 250 deportees in exchange for approximately $7.5 million.

  7. Eswatini Confirms Deportees Held in Solitary Confinement

    Conditions

    Government spokesperson confirms the five deportees will remain in solitary confinement for an undetermined period, citing security concerns.

  8. First Third-Country Deportees Arrive in Eswatini

    Deportation

    Five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen become the first deportees sent to Eswatini under the new agreement. They are placed in solitary confinement.

  9. Trump Administration Imposes Travel Ban on 19 Countries

    Policy

    The administration warns that additional countries could be added to the ban if they refuse to accept deportees.

Scenarios

1

Third-Country Deportations Become Standard U.S. Policy

Discussed by: Council on Foreign Relations, American Immigration Council analysis

If legal challenges continue to fail and receiving countries remain cooperative, third-country deportations could become a normalized tool in U.S. immigration enforcement. The administration has already signaled it may add countries to the travel ban to pressure cooperation. With five African nations now participating, the infrastructure exists for significant expansion beyond the current hundreds of deportees.

2

International or Domestic Courts Block the Program

Discussed by: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Southern Africa Litigation Centre

Human rights organizations argue the deportations violate international law prohibiting removal to countries where individuals face persecution or torture. A successful legal challenge—whether in U.S. federal courts, receiving countries' courts, or international bodies—could halt or significantly constrain the program. The Eswatini ruling, however, suggests domestic courts in receiving countries may decline to intervene.

3

Political Pressure Forces African Partners to Exit Agreements

Discussed by: BBC Africa, Al Jazeera analysts

Domestic opposition in participating African countries could force governments to withdraw from agreements. In Eswatini, pro-democracy activists have linked the deportation deal to broader criticisms of the monarchy. If political costs outweigh financial benefits, some nations may not renew or may exit their agreements when terms expire.

4

Deportees Face Serious Harm, Triggering International Incident

Discussed by: Refugee advocacy organizations, Lawfare legal analysis

U.S. law prohibits deportation to countries where individuals will face persecution or torture. If deportees experience documented serious harm—violence, indefinite detention, or onward deportation to dangerous countries—it could trigger litigation in U.S. courts and diplomatic consequences. The use of solitary confinement in Eswatini has already drawn condemnation.

Historical Context

Australia's Pacific Solution (2001-Present)

September 2001 - Present

What Happened

Australia began sending asylum seekers who arrived by boat to detention facilities on the Pacific island nation of Nauru. The government paid Nauru an initial $20 million to accept up to 800 people. Since 2013, over 3,000 people were subjected to offshore detention, with 14 dying in custody and many suffering documented psychological harm.

Outcome

Short Term

Maritime arrivals dropped significantly, and the policy became politically popular in Australia despite international criticism.

Long Term

The program became entrenched, surviving changes of government. In 2025, Australia committed $1.6 billion over 30 years to continue sending people to Nauru.

Why It's Relevant Today

Australia's policy demonstrates how third-country deportation arrangements, once established, tend to expand rather than contract. The long-term financial commitments and institutional infrastructure create momentum that persists across administrations.

Israel's Secret Rwanda/Uganda Agreements (2013-2018)

2013 - 2018

What Happened

Israel negotiated secret agreements with Rwanda and Uganda to accept Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers. Israel paid Rwanda $5,000 per deportee and offered asylum seekers a choice between indefinite detention or 'voluntary' departure with $3,500 in cash. Approximately 4,000 people were transferred between 2013 and 2018.

Outcome

Short Term

Thousands of asylum seekers left Israel, reducing the population the government characterized as 'infiltrators.'

Long Term

The program collapsed after investigations revealed deportees faced dangerous conditions and were often re-trafficked. Many ended up attempting dangerous Mediterranean crossings to Europe.

Why It's Relevant Today

Israel's experience shows how secretive deportation agreements can unravel when conditions facing deportees become public. British courts cited the failed Israel-Rwanda deal when ruling the UK's similar plan unlawful in 2023.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Plan (2022-2024)

April 2022 - July 2024

What Happened

The UK Conservative government signed an agreement to send asylum seekers who arrived by boat to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed and, if successful, they would remain permanently. Britain paid Rwanda £290 million before any flights departed.

Outcome

Short Term

The UK Supreme Court ruled the plan unlawful in November 2023, finding Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers.

Long Term

The Labour government, elected in 2024, cancelled the program, calling it 'the most shocking waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen.' Total costs approached £700 million with zero deportations completed.

Why It's Relevant Today

The UK experience illustrates how third-country deportation plans can fail entirely when courts intervene. Rwanda has now pivoted to accept U.S. deportees instead, suggesting receiving countries seek alternative partners when one deal collapses.

10 Sources:
+4
CNBC Africa Southern Africa Litigation Centre The Washington Post PBS NewsHour Al Jazeera Human Rights Watch Council on Foreign Relations American Immigration Council Freedom House Human Rights Law Centre