The Rising Cost of Outsourcing Borders: A Look at Third-Country Deportation Deals
A recent report, first highlighted by Semafor, reveals that the United States has spent over $40 million through January 2026 on a controversial program involving the transfer of migrants to third countries. This practice, where individuals are sent to nations that are not their country of origin, is raising questions about diplomatic pressure, financial arrangements, and human rights.
Africa’s Role in Third-Country Transfers
Several African nations have develop into key participants in this framework. According to the Senate report, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Rwanda have directly received payments to accept deportees. Ghana has also taken in West African nationals under similar arrangements, with South Sudan and Uganda also involved in these transfers.
The specifics of these agreements remain largely undisclosed, but the report indicates a growing trend of the U.S. “urging or coercing” foreign governments to accept migrants with no connection to their country, often through financial incentives or diplomatic pressure.
As of January 2026, Rwanda had received seven migrants, Eswatini 15, and Equatorial Guinea 29 under this arrangement.
Costs and Logistics
The Senate committee report estimates that over $32 million has been directly paid 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). These payments were often made as lump sums.
The logistical costs are also substantial. Military aircraft are frequently used for these transfers, with operating costs exceeding $32,000 per hour. Flights transporting 51 individuals to Rwanda, Eswatini, and Equatorial Guinea over seven months cost an estimated $2.5 million.
Oversight and Monitoring Questions
The report raises concerns about the lack of oversight and monitoring of these agreements. The State Department, it states, is not tracking whether foreign governments are complying with diplomatic assurances or enforcing the terms of the agreements, even when evidence suggests violations.
The report suggests that, in some cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their home countries, avoiding the expense and complexity of third-country transfers. It describes the program as “little more than an expensive deterrent with no measurable benefit.”
The administration defends these deportations as necessary when home countries refuse to accept their nationals, arguing that they expand enforcement options and diplomatic leverage.
Africa’s Broader Diplomatic Engagement With Washington
These migration arrangements are occurring within the context of broader engagement between African governments and the United States, encompassing security, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic relations.
Analysts offer mixed perspectives. Some question Africa’s negotiating power in these arrangements, while others view them as pragmatic decisions driven by national interests and economic considerations. For many governments, such cooperation is part of established bilateral relationships, separate from U.S. Domestic political debates.
Countries like South Sudan continue to receive significant U.S. Assistance to address food insecurity and displacement. Ghana remains engaged in discussions with U.S. Authorities on migration and visa policies. Rwanda plays a prominent role in diplomatic efforts, including mediation related to tensions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Eswatini maintains longstanding diplomatic ties with Washington and continues cooperation on security and migration matters.
Some governments have declined to participate in these deportation arrangements, while others have entered into agreements based on strategic, financial, or diplomatic considerations.
With program costs exceeding $40 million, scrutiny will likely remain focused on the scope, structure, and long-term impact of these third-country deportation arrangements.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a third-country deportation? It involves transferring migrants to a country that is not their country of origin.
Which countries are involved? Several African nations, including Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Rwanda, have accepted migrants under these arrangements.
How much is this costing U.S. Taxpayers? Over $40 million has been spent through January 2026, according to a recent report.
Is there oversight of these agreements? The report suggests limited oversight and monitoring of compliance by the State Department.
Why is the U.S. Doing this? The administration argues it’s necessary when home countries refuse to accept their nationals, expanding enforcement options.
