Since U.S. President Donald Trump assumed his second term in January 2025, the new US administration has adopted a tougher approach towards illegal immigrants, and has strongly pushed for the deportation of large numbers to their countries of origin, including African countries. These policies have been characterized by sharp rhetoric as well as diplomatic and economic pressure on African governments to accept deportees.
This has presented these countries with a difficult dilemma Whether to comply with American dictates or adhering to their internal interests and political and social balances. Under these pressures, the positions of African countries have varied between public rejection, cautious negotiation, and conditional acceptance, in an attempt to manage the challenges associated with the return of migrants and its economic, social, and security impacts.
Therefore, these trends embody a complex political conflict between American interests aimed at reducing internal pressure through immigration deportation policies, and the insistence of African countries on protecting the interests and sovereignty of their people, which makes the future of American-African relations on this issue fraught with challenges and tensions. Accordingly, this research paper seeks to address the policies adopted by the Trump administration in deporting illegal immigrants to African countries, and its goals based on the principle of mass deportation, The manner of policy implementation, the position of African countries in dealing with American pressure, the pressure tools practiced by the American administration to accept the conditions, in addition to the future of American-African relations in light of the new administration’s adoption of a policy of deporting immigrants to Africa.
First: The Trump administration’s policy of deporting illegal immigrants to African countries
Trump’s policy of deporting illegal immigrants in Africa focuses largely on what is known as “third country” deportation, where the US administration returns immigrants accused or convicted of crimes who are not citizens of their countries of origin to other countries on the African continent, even if they do not have ties or nationality in these countries. These immigrants are described by US officials as “violent criminals” or “barbaric monsters” whose countries of origin have refused to take them back, which prompted Trump to use these agreements to facilitate the largest deportation process in the history of the United States. Among the countries that entered into agreements to receive these migrants are Rwanda, Eswatini, South Sudan, and others[1].
This policy has sparked widespread criticism from human rights organizations and civil society in these African countries, who consider that Trump is using the continent as a “dump” to deport criminals, which threatens security and harms the reputation of these countries. Some of these agreements were made through political and economic pressure from the United States on some African governments to force them to accept these immigrants. In addition, there is considerable legal debate about the legality of these measures and their compatibility with international norms and laws, particularly the International Convention against Torture and the 1951 Refugee convention.
Second: The Trump administration’s goals are based on the principle of mass deportation of illegal immigrants to Africa
Trump’s plan to deport illegal immigrants to Africa through the principle of mass deportation aims to achieve several strategic and political goals, most of which revolve around strictly controlling illegal immigration and reducing the number of immigrants in the United States, especially those who have criminal records or whose countries of origin have refused to take them back, This policy seeks to speed up deportations through the use of “third countries.” In Africa, Trump is given the opportunity to ease the internal burden without relying on the countries of origin of immigrants. The US administration carries out immigration deportations, as it believes that some immigrants finance terrorism and must be deported to their country or a third country, as it believes that they are a source of crimes and that their presence threatens the American citizen, and that they exceed the visa period granted to them, which is considered a violation of US law[2].
The plan relies on concluding agreements with African countries such as Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan to receive these migrants, which is justified before the American public as protecting national security by removing “criminal” or “violent” elements from society. This policy also sends a political message to the American public that supports Trump that the government is taking firm measures to combat illegal immigration and associated crime moreover, the policy seeks to impose pressure on these African countries to achieve broader diplomatic and political interests by linking immigration issues and bilateral relations, by convincing or forcing African governments to cooperate through agreements to host migrant deportations, which enhances Washington’s influence on the continent[3].
It also uses a policy of firmness and exceptional legal measures, such as expanding the powers of rapid deportation, and using historical laws such as the “Foreign Enemies Act” (Alien Enemies Act) and the Insurrection Act, to enhance the state’s ability to deport large numbers quickly, which is a practical exercise of the state’s power to control internal and external security policies and the social aspect. The policy aims to send a strong deterrent message to potential immigrants that illegal immigration will be met with strict policies that amount to mass deportation, which would demand for immigrants is inaccurate (sounds like U.S. wants immigrants) to enter the United States illegally.
Third: Methods of deporting illegal immigrants to Africa
The Trump administration’s policy for deporting illegal immigrants to Africa is primarily based on the “safe third country” principle. The United States concludes agreements with African countries such as Rwanda and Eswatini to receive immigrants whom the United States cannot deport to their countries of origin due to their refusal to accept them or the potential risks they face there. These migrants are deported by plane to these countries, where African countries receive them, integrate them into society, or detain them, according to signed agreements.
The process takes place in various forms, including detaining migrants in prisons, as happened with some migrants deported to El Salvador, or integrating them into social support programs in the receiving country, as is the case in Rwanda. This step comes after the migrants are arrested inside the United States based on their criminal backgrounds or irregular legal status. The administration relies on convincing partner countries of these agreements through political and economic pressure Rapid Deportation Rules (Expedited Removal) are also used to expedite procedures, and airlifts are conducted via organized flights, often in isolation from the information or participation of full migrants, some of whom are said to be detained for periods and may be handcuffed during flights[4].
In the same context, it is said that there are efforts to promote and quickly regulate mass deportations through the use of exceptional laws such as the “Foreign Enemies Act,” which expand the powers of rapid deportation without detailed judicial review. There are also intensive legal and political moves to expand the list of countries receiving migrants in Africa, and to transform the continent into an alternative place of deportation through which internal pressures on the United States are eased by transporting migrants away.
There are other methods of deportation. Not all deportation is mandatory. There is voluntary deportation, which provides free travel tickets and financial rewards to irregular immigrants who choose to leave the United States voluntarily (estimated at $1,000). This program was proposed by the Trump administration for immigrants threatened with deportation if they are arrested for not having the documents that grant them the right to legal residency in the United States of America She announced that anyone who commits to this and reports himself to the authorities will be given a financial reward and can enter the United States later[5].
Fourth: African countries’ positions on the policy of deporting immigrants
African countries have had different positions on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting illegal immigrants convicted in criminal cases related to murder, rape, looting and robbery in the United States of America. Some of them agreed, some refused, and some had reservations (without specifying their approval or refusal) about receiving deportees of other nationalities, but in general they are characterized by tension and protest against burdening the continent with a burden it does not deserve Accordingly, the most important positions of African countries can be explained as follows:
– South Sudan
This position reflects the difference in vision between the desire to improve relations with the United States through cooperation on immigration issues, and the concern about the repercussions of American policy and the security and humanitarian burdens it may carry on South Sudan. The American administration also faced legal battles regarding the legitimacy of these deportations, and was criticized for the possibility of these operations violating international laws, especially since South Sudan suffers from armed conflicts and fragile security conditions that pose a threat to the migrants deported to it[6].
– Rwanda
Rwanda’s position on the policy of deporting migrants from the United States has been characterized by cooperation and conditional acceptance within the framework of structured bilateral agreements between the two countries. Rwanda has reached an agreement with the United States that allows the deportation of up to 250 migrants from the United States to Rwanda. The Rwandan authorities are given the right to approve every individual proposed for resettlement. Under this agreement, deportees receive support that includes training in the field of manpower, health care and assistance in providing housing, with the aim of integrating them and enabling them to start their new lives in Rwanda, which is considered one of the fastest growing economies in Africa over the past decade.
In the same context, Rwandan officials believe that their country’s societal values, which are based on reintegration and rehabilitation, make Rwanda a suitable environment to receive these migrants, especially with the historical suffering of Rwandan families from displacement and asylum. Rwanda officially announced the reception of the first batch of migrants deported from the United States, as the first seven deportees entered support and rehabilitation programs, with the deportees being given the freedom to choose whether to stay or return to their countries of origin unclear, Rwanda requires that deportees not be under criminal penalties or accused of sexual crimes against children, nor does it allow the re-implementation of US sanctions within its territory[7]
It is worth noting that Rwanda considers itself a model among African countries that have concluded such agreements with Washington, and has previously concluded similar agreements with Britain to receive asylum seekers, which reflects its desire to play a pivotal role as a receiving country for migrants deported under international and Western policies. Despite this, the situation is not without controversy and human rights and moral criticism, especially on the issue of the safety and rights. However, Rwanda appears committed to implementing the agreement within the limits of its legal and humanitarian capacity.
– Nigeria
Nigeria’s position on the policy of deporting migrants from the United States reflects a strong and firm rejection of this policy and the accompanying American pressure tools. Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Togar announced that Nigeria categorically rejects the pressure exerted by the United States on African countries to accept migrants deported from American territory, including Venezuelans, some of whom have just been released from prison, saying that the country is “unable to absorb Venezuelan deportees in light of its complex internal challenges.” He stressed that Nigeria “has enough of its problems and cannot be burdened with prisoners and foreigners from other countries.”
This rejection comes in light of the difficult economic, social and security conditions experienced by Nigeria, the largest African country in terms of population, as it faces various challenges, including food insecurity, waves of armed rebellion, high unemployment rates, and a crisis in overcrowded prisons that are witnessing an occupancy rate exceeding 137%. Nigerian authorities believe that such a deportation policy will increase pressure on fragile affairs and divert limited resources away from meeting urgent local needs[8].
Nigeria’s rejection goes beyond the mere issue of immigration, reflecting a broader stance against the reciprocal logic that has long shaped US-African relations, arguing that such pressures undermine national sovereignty and complicate international partnerships built on the foundations of democracy, development, and sovereignty, a point emphasized in Nigeria’s foreign policy strategy.
Despite the US administration’s attempts through summits and bilateral meetings to pressure African countries, Nigeria insists on its rejectionist position, expressing that accepting the deportation of migrants to it is not in its interest and contradicts its vision of the leadership role it seeks to play on the continent. This position opens the possibility that other African countries will express a similar position that reflects the increasing tension in relations between Washington and a number of countries on the continent regarding the issue of immigration and human rights.
– Kingdom of Eswatini
The position of the Kingdom of Eswatini on the policy of deporting immigrants from the United States of America to it is characterized by secret cooperation in exchange for widespread controversy inside and outside the country, as American media reports revealed that the United States concluded a secret agreement with the Eswatini government that includes the deportation of five convicted immigrants to the Kingdom’s prisons, including communicate repetition The kingdom, ruled by King Mswati III with an iron fist, is also subject to repeated human rights criticism due to its luxurious style of governance and repeated violations and abuses, which increases the sensitivity of the issue of deporting immigrants to it.
At the same time, this agreement represents part of the US administration’s strategy to strengthen the “safe third country” tool for deporting migrants who cannot be returned directly to their countries of origin, even at the expense of Washington’s relations with smaller states, which puts Eswatini in a difficult strategic position as it receives migrants who have no geographical or cultural ties to the country, often in secrecy and without official acknowledgement or broad public acceptance[9].
– Liberia
Liberia’s position on the policy of deporting immigrants from the United States of America is characterized by categorical rejection and disagreement with any agreements that allow the deportation of immigrants to it. These positions come in the context of Liberia’s internal situation, which suffers from complex security and humanitarian issues, as the Liberian government clearly refuses for the country to become a destination for deporting immigrants from the United States, especially with its recent history of receiving waves of refugees and displaced persons from whom the country is still trying to recover from the effects of their crises.
Liberia has not announced any formal agreement with the United States allowing deportees to be received, and has stressed that any such understandings must be transparent and take into account international humanitarian and legal standards. The Liberian authorities also expressed their concerns about the repercussions of the US mass deportation policy, especially in light of the spread of diseases, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, and limited resources that make managing the deportees issue an additional challenge that burdens the state[10].
Fifth: The pressure tools exerted by the Trump administration on African countries
The Trump administration’s pressure tools on African countries regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants are diverse and strict and effective, and are based on a combination of political, economic, and legal pressures with the aim of forcing these countries to accept immigrants deported from the United States, and the most prominent of these tools are the following:
1- Imposing visa restrictions: Visa restrictions represent one of the most important pressure tools, as the Trump administration deliberately reduces or suspends the granting of visas to citizens of certain African countries that refuse to cooperate in receiving deportees, as happened with Nigeria and South Sudan, as this step aims to put pressure on African governments by creating a negative impact on the travel movement of citizens of those countries, which burdens governments and forces them to cooperate.
2- Complete visa revocation: In some cases, the administration has even completely revoked all visas for citizens of certain countries, such as the sudden revocation of South Sudan visas, with the aim of increasing pressure and forcing the country to accept the deportation of immigrants. This was the first time the United States had targeted all passport holders from a particular country since Trump returned to the White House in January, which was translated as Washington putting pressure on South Sudan. Indeed, pressure from the Trump administration succeeded, and Juba received the Congolese citizen, in addition to 8 immigrants of different nationalities who were sent to Juba in July 2025, after a legal battle that lasted weeks[11].
3- Threat of economic sanctions: The US administration uses threats to impose tariffs or cancel trade concessions such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) as an economic pressure card on these countries. These threats are linked to important trade relations between the United States and African countries, prompting governments to take more lenient positions in accepting immigrants.
4- Using other political files for pressure: The Trump administration did this in order to tighten the noose on rejectionist countries, such as South Sudan, linking the immigrant file with other political files such as lifting US sanctions or facilitating the entry of political officials into the United States, which constitutes a complex pressure equation.
5- Exercising diplomatic pressure and public threats: This policy includes implicit and explicit hints from American officials that refusing to cooperate in the deportation file may lead to reducing aid or changing diplomatic relations, leaving African countries facing difficult choices between national interests and their development needs and submitting to Washington’s demands.
Accordingly, we find that these tools constitute a multifaceted pressure strategy used by the Trump administration to subject African countries to approval to receive deportees from the United States, although this approach has sparked widespread controversy and criticism from some countries and human rights organizations that consider it political and inhumane exploitation. However, the impact of these tools remains strong within the framework of the politically and economically intertwined American-African relations[12].
Sixth: A future vision for US-African relations in light of the policy of deporting immigrants
Given the future of the relationship between the United States and African countries, we find that it will be cautious and volatile, based on multidimensional challenges and tensions between American security and political interests on the one hand, and the development, sovereignty, and national dignity needs of African countries on the other hand, as the Trump administration shows a desire to redefine relations with Africa by focusing on security aspects and coercive policies such as the policy of deporting immigrants which has sparked negative reactions, African countries’ adherence to their sovereignty, and their refusal to burden them with ill-considered burdens by receiving deported immigrants. Accordingly, Trump’s proposed deportation plan may cause tension in US-African relations, with repercussions on diplomacy, trade, and development.
In the same context, some African countries may resort to exploiting this policy to build diplomatic and economic relations with the United States, especially since most African countries face political and economic challenges, and stopping American support has made the situation more complicated in areas such as health, education, and others. Therefore, ensuring access to American political and economic support may be linked to this policy, i.e. the “third country policy” for accepting immigrants deported from the United States of America in addition to making attractive economic offers to the Trump administration.
This policy is expected to continue to provoke resistance from some African countries that refuse to become a destination for deporting migrants, considering that they are exposed to political and economic pressures that affect their national sovereignty and affect their internal stability. This climate may push Africa to seek to strengthen its orientations towards unifying its positions in the face of foreign pressures, and to focus on fortifying national sovereignty and consolidating economic and social development while reducing reliance on aid and partnerships that burden political issues.
On the other hand, the United States seeks to maintain its influence in Africa by strengthening economic and security cooperation, but it faces increasing challenges from other international powers such as China and Russia, which are expanding their presence on the continent, which may prompt Washington to review deportation policies and adopt more balanced and sustainable strategies.
Thus, the future points to a relationship characterized by reservations and tensions, but it holds opportunities to reassign the partnership on a basis more respectful of the interests of both parties, if the differences in deportation policy are overcome and a political dialogue is built that focuses on common development, human rights, and respect for sovereignty. This requires both parties to adopt effective and comprehensive policies that take into account the dimensions of migration, development, and rights together to avoid further escalation and achieve sustainable cooperation that benefits both the African continent and the United States of America.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s policy of deporting illegal immigrants is a vital and pivotal test of relations between the United States and African countries. The divergent tendencies of African countries in dealing with these pressures reveal the vitality of the balance between national sovereign interests and international pressures. While some countries, such as Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan, appear more accepting of cooperation with Washington, responding to calls for economic and political support, On the other hand, an opposing and rejecting position emerges from other countries such as Nigeria, Liberia, and others, which have treated this policy as a direct threat to their national sovereignty and an additional burden on their limited resources and fragile societies that already suffer from complex economic, social, and security challenges.
This contrast reveals the complexity of the African landscape under the migrant deportation policy. The continent cannot be viewed as a homogeneous bloc, but must be understood as a multidimensional space in which the political, economic, social, and humanitarian dimensions overlap. African governments are forced to formulate multi-directional strategies: some deal with American pressure by investing it in strengthening their regional position and role, while the other tries to resist and renegotiate the terms in ways that preserve the dignity and basic rights of their people.
This scene also reflects the shift in the nature of global power and influence, as African countries have to deal with major powers such as China and Russia alongside the United States, which increases the complexity of their options, sources of funding, and international relations. Therefore, the interaction of these countries with the American challenge is not limited to a cross-pressure confrontation, rather, it constitutes a democratic and vital test of Africa’s ability to redefine its position in the international system by upholding the rights of its people and protecting their dignity, while ensuring the building of a sustainable development future and international relations based on mutual respect and common interests.
References:
[1] تيكواج فيتر، مواقف الدول الإفريقية من سياسة ترامب لترحيل المهاجرين غير الشرعيين، قراءات أفريقية، 2025م، متاح على: https://qiraatafrican.com/31667
[2] Yashraj Sharma, Is Trump using Africa as a ‘dumping ground’ for criminals?, Aljazeera, 2025, available at: https://2u.pw/t1jLb
[3] Giselle Ruhiyyih , Trump launches next round of third country deportations with new flight to Eswatini, politico, 2025, available at: https://2u.pw/OqEdI
[5] Gerald Imray, What to know about the Trump administration’s plan to deport migrants to Africa, PBS News, 2025, available at: https://2u.pw/pzL2O
[6] ترحيل مهاجرين إلى جنوب السودان يثير صداماً بين إدارة ترامب والقضاء، الشرق نيوز، 2025م، متاح على: https://2u.pw/AiVbbG
[7] هشام أحمد، لماذا تحاول أمريكا ترحيل مهاجرين لجنوب السودان ؟ وما قصتهم !، سودان فاكس،2025م، متاح على: https://2u.pw/Q9vYI
[8] نيجيريا ترفض قبول المهاجرين المرحلين من الولايات المتحدة، أفريكا فور بريس، 2025م، متاح على: https://2u.pw/XLjDv
[9] إدارة ترامب ترحل مهاجرين غير نظاميين إلى إسواتيني، صحيفة الشرق الأوسط، 2025م، متاح على: https://2u.pw/cdQXc
[10] وول ستريت جورنال: واشنطن تضغط على دول أفريقية لقبول مهاجرين مبعدين، سودان إندبندنت، 2025، متاح على: https://2u.pw/3RMrL
[11] صلاح الدين مصطفى، تفاؤل حذر: ماذا يعني فوز دونالد ترامب بالنسبة لأفريقيا؟، مركز الأهرام للدراسات السياسية والاستراتيجية، 2025، متاح على: https://acpss.ahram.org.eg/News/21303.aspx
