African Motives for Accepting the Deportation of Migrants from the United States
The African continent is witnessing a qualitative shift in its patterns of interaction with the United States, in light of the new policies adopted by President Donald Trump’s administration regarding migration. These policies have led to the signing of agreements with several African countries to receive deported migrants from “third countries” with which they have no direct connection. Rwanda is among the most prominent of these host countries; on August 28, 2025, it confirmed that it had received seven migrants deported from the United States, becoming the third African state to engage in such arrangements after South Sudan and the Kingdom of Eswatini. Earlier, in July, South Sudan received eight male migrants from the United States, and two weeks later Washington confirmed that it had sent five more deported men to Eswatini. Uganda also announced a similar agreement to host individuals ineligible for asylum in the United States and unwilling to return to their home countries.
This reality raises questions about the motives of some African states to engage in such agreements with the Trump administration, their potential implications, and whether they will reshape relations between Washington and those countries.
African Motives
The motives behind some African states’ acceptance of deported migrants from the United States vary, ranging from political calculations to economic considerations and beyond. The most prominent of these motives can be summarized as follows:
1. Settling political files with Washington:
Political considerations are a main driver behind some African states’ involvement in such agreements. In South Sudan, President Salva Kiir’s government seeks to use cooperation on this issue as a tool to open the door to lifting U.S. sanctions on senior officials—such as Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel—and to restore U.S. support in managing internal conflicts.
In Uganda, accepting migrants is seen as a way to strengthen President Yoweri Museveni’s position, who has ruled for nearly four decades and announced his candidacy for the presidential elections scheduled for January 2026, as well as to ease tensions with Washington following the enactment of the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Law.
In Rwanda, cooperation fits within a broader strategy to consolidate its status as a trusted Western partner and to secure U.S. support in its conflict with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Meanwhile, Eswatini uses the issue of hosting U.S.-deported migrants as leverage to obtain American political or economic support.
2. Securing economic support:
Economic factors are central to some African states’ approval of these agreements, given the financial pressures and structural constraints they face: persistent budget deficits, mounting foreign debt, and underfunded vital sectors such as health and education. This weakens their ability to meet internal needs. In this context, agreements with Washington may provide direct financial aid or funding for specific development projects, bolstering foreign currency inflows and offering tangible economic opportunities. These arrangements also give governments an indirect tool to stimulate economic activity without large increases in public spending.
3. Responding to U.S. visa pressures:
In April 2025, Washington imposed strict visa restrictions on citizens of several African countries, including South Sudan, affecting students, businesspeople, and African communities in the U.S. These restrictions became a tool of pressure used in two ways: first, to coerce targeted countries into accepting deported migrants in exchange for lifting the restrictions; second, to send warning signals to countries that refused to host migrants that their stance could result in similar visa sanctions.
4. Enhancing international standing:
Some African governments—especially those facing mounting criticism over domestic conditions—seek to leverage cooperation with the U.S. on migration as a means of improving their international image. Hosting deported migrants is presented as a contribution to solving a global humanitarian issue, potentially granting these states the status of “responsible partners” in the eyes of the international community. This approach may also strengthen their bargaining position in relations with major powers.
New Equations
The deportation campaign led by the Trump administration is reshaping relations between Washington and certain African countries, introducing new dynamics that combine pressure and opportunity and opening the door to shifts in partnership patterns:
1. Reordering cooperation priorities:
Migration has become a top priority in U.S. bilateral relations with some African states, surpassing traditional issues such as economic development or counterterrorism cooperation. This reflects a shift in the partnership agenda between the two sides.
2. Using migration as a diplomatic pressure tool:
Trump employs migration as a bargaining chip. African states seeking better ties with Washington or access to benefits are compelled to accept migrants with whom they have no connection, turning the relationship into a conditional, “blackmail-like” arrangement that delivers political and economic gains to the U.S.
3. Threatening equal partnerships and reviving exploitation narratives:
The current deportation campaign highlights the unequal nature of relations between Washington and certain African states, which are treated as instruments for implementing U.S. domestic policy, with little regard for their local conditions or populations’ interests. Critics view this U.S. policy as a continuation of modern colonial patterns, using Africa as a dumping ground for developed-world problems, raising doubts about Washington’s seriousness in fostering equal partnerships and avoiding exploitation.
Negative Impacts
Engaging in migrant-hosting agreements with the U.S. may generate negative consequences for some African states, spanning political, security, economic, and social dimensions:
1. African disunity:
The African Union seeks to adopt a unified stance on migration, but these agreements with Washington have led to clear divisions, with some states accepting while others, such as Nigeria, rejecting them. This weakens Africa’s ability to negotiate collectively in international forums on migration issues.
2. Growing protests and public anger:
Hosting migrants has sparked internal tensions in some African states. In Eswatini, protests and social concerns erupted in response to the arrival of U.S.-deported migrants. Host populations may perceive their governments as yielding to external pressure, undermining sovereign decision-making. This could fuel public anger and threaten political and social stability, particularly given the lack of transparency around the agreements.
3. Strain on services and infrastructure:
Host countries face heavy pressure on already strained infrastructure, especially in health and education sectors. Receiving additional migrants requires expanded services despite limited resources, posing challenges to sustainable support and effective integration. Without long-term plans or adequate international aid, these pressures may worsen, lowering the quality of services for all residents, especially if migrant numbers grow.
4. Economic consequences:
While these agreements may provide temporary financial aid to stimulate local economic activity, they do not address structural economic problems. Governments also bear extra burdens to supply basic services to migrants, increasing fiscal deficits and undermining economic stability.
5. Rising security risks:
Security threats are among the most serious challenges. Some deported individuals may have criminal records or backgrounds posing risks to internal security. Cultural and social differences between locals and migrants may also fuel tensions and conflicts, particularly in areas with competition over jobs and scarce resources. This could strain security forces and jeopardize stability.
6. Damage to international reputation:
These agreements may harm the reputation of host African states and weaken their ability to attract foreign investment, especially if they are seen as “human warehouses” for unwanted migrants, tarnishing their external image.
Possible Trajectories
The deportation of migrants from the U.S. to some African states is likely to continue in the coming period, especially as Washington maintains pressure on governments to accept them. This reflects an American attempt to turn more African countries into resettlement hubs as part of what is described as the “geographic offloading” of its migration crisis.
The July summit between President Trump and West African leaders (Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Gabon) underscored Washington’s readiness to expand this policy. Deportation to “third countries” was a key topic, reflecting U.S. efforts to build a regional network for migrant transfers through opaque bilateral deals hidden from public scrutiny.
As such, more African countries may soon join the list of U.S. partners in hosting deported migrants. Leading candidates include Benin, Zimbabwe, and Gabon.
The future of this phenomenon will depend heavily on U.S. domestic politics. If the Republican Party remains in power, migrant deportation to Africa may intensify. If the Democrats return, such policies might be partially revised or frozen, particularly those drawing legal and human rights criticism, reflecting the two parties’ differing approaches to migration management.
For Africa, however, in the medium term, growing resistance may emerge—both at the popular level and from civil society organizations—especially if social and security impacts become tangible. Hosting migrants with no historical, cultural, or legal ties to the host states may be perceived as an infringement of sovereignty and a new form of Western dominance.
Conclusion
The deportation of migrants from the United States to certain African countries may expand in the coming years, but its continuation will depend on several factors: African states’ ability to withstand political, social, and economic pressures; Washington’s commitment to its economic and political promises, which may prove unreliable; and strategic considerations regarding host states’ national sovereignty, ability to protect their peoples’ interests, and the impacts on security, stability, and institutional structures. The human rights dimension is also critical: without clear regulatory frameworks, hosting migrants could trigger domestic unrest and international criticism.
