The United States has broadened its use of third-country deportations to include several African nations, a shift that has drawn scrutiny over costs and oversight, according to a report by Democrats in the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The findings, first reported by Semafor, estimate that the programme cost U.S. taxpayers more than $40 million through January 2026.
Under the policy, migrants are transferred to countries that are not their nations of origin, often under bilateral arrangements involving financial incentives or diplomatic pressure.
Don’t Miss This: LCCI Trade Promotion Board Appoints Princess Layo Bakare Okewo as Chairman
The report characterises the system as one in which Washington “urges or coerces” governments to accept non-citizens, adding that what was once considered an infrequent diplomatic measure has evolved into a routine policy tool.
Several African states are listed as participants. According to the committee’s findings, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea and Eswatini received direct payments in exchange for accepting deportees.
Ghana has reportedly taken in West African nationals under related arrangements, while South Sudan and Uganda have also been involved in third-country transfers.
As of January 2026, Rwanda had received seven migrants, Eswatini 15 and Equatorial Guinea 29 under the programme.
The report states that through a growing network of bilateral agreements, the United States has been persuading governments to accept individuals with no direct ties to their countries, largely through lump-sum payments or diplomatic leverage. The specific terms of many agreements have not been publicly disclosed.
More than $32 million in direct payments were reportedly made to five countries: Equatorial Guinea ($7.5 million), Rwanda ($7.5 million), Eswatini ($5.1 million), El Salvador ($4.76 million) and Palau ($7.5 million).
Military aircraft were used for several transfers, with operational costs estimated at over $32,000 per hour. Flights transporting 51 individuals to Rwanda, Eswatini and Equatorial Guinea over a seven-month period reportedly cost about $2.5 million.
The report also suggests that in some instances, deportees could have been returned directly to their home countries, potentially reducing expenses.
Lawmakers raised concerns about monitoring and compliance.
According to the report, the State Department is not consistently tracking whether recipient governments are adhering to diplomatic assurances or enforcing agreed terms, even in cases where there may be indications of non-compliance.
The programme is described in the report as “an expensive deterrent with no measurable benefit.”
However, U.S. officials have defended third-country deportations as necessary in situations where migrants’ home countries decline to accept them, arguing that the approach broadens enforcement options and strengthens diplomatic leverage.
The migration arrangements come amid wider diplomatic engagement between Washington and African governments across humanitarian, security and economic fronts.
Analysts have offered mixed interpretations.
Some argue that participation in such agreements raises questions about bargaining power and transparency, while others view it as a pragmatic decision shaped by national interests and financial considerations.
Rwanda has also featured prominently in regional diplomacy, including mediation efforts related to tensions involving the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Eswatini continues longstanding cooperation with Washington on security and migration matters.
Meanwhile, South Sudan remains a focus of U.S. humanitarian support, with billions mobilised to address food insecurity and displacement challenges.
With total programme costs now estimated at over $40 million, the Senate committee’s report is likely to intensify debate over the structure, transparency and long-term implications of third-country deportation agreements involving African states.
