Eswatini accepts 4 deportees for $5.1M under Trump third-country deal

Eswatini Accepts Four Deportees Under Trump Deal

The Eswatini government confirmed on March 12, 2026, that it had received four individuals from the United States under a third-country deportation agreement with the Trump administration. This brings the total number of deportees sent to Eswatini to 19, with origins in Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, and other countries. The Trump administration provided $5.1 million to Eswatini for accepting these individuals, part of a strategy to expedite deportations while avoiding direct legal scrutiny over asylum claims. The arrangement has faced criticism from human rights groups and neighboring nations, with concerns raised about its legality, ethical implications, and humanitarian impact.

Legal Framework for Third-Country Deportations

Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized to deport noncitizens to third countries when returning them to their country of origin or the designated removal location is deemed impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible. The DHS may select a third country if it aligns with U.S. international obligations, including the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits deporting individuals to countries where they may face persecution or torture.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

Legal challenges have emerged. Federal courts have ruled that third-country removals without adequate notice, opportunities for individuals to express fear of persecution, or credible assurances of safety violate due process. In 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy blocked a Trump administration policy to deport individuals to third countries like South Sudan, requiring at least 10 days’ notice and screenings for torture risks. The Supreme Court paused this order in June 2025, allowing deportations to continue pending litigation, but emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent refoulement. The Trump administration’s use of third-country deals has thus been a focal point of legal and ethical debates.

Financial Oversight and Transparency Concerns

The $5.1 million payment from the Trump administration to Eswatini for accepting deportees has drawn scrutiny over the financial mechanisms of these agreements. A congressional investigation revealed that the Trump administration paid more than $32 million to five foreign governments to accept deportees, raising questions about transparency and legality. In Eswatini, the funds were initially deposited into the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) account but were not allocated by the government, according to Finance Minister Neal Rijkenberg. This lack of clear financial oversight has fueled criticism, with lawyers and civil society groups in Eswatini challenging the legality of the deal in court.

Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy

The arrangement also highlights broader concerns about U.S. financial incentives for third-country cooperation. While the administration claims these payments are for ‘border and migration management capacity,’ critics argue the funds may not be used effectively or ethically. The BBC reported that Eswatini’s government has faced pressure to repatriate deportees to their countries of origin, with some individuals already returned to Jamaica, Cuba, and other nations. This raises concerns about the practicality and humanitarian impact of such agreements.

Eswatini’s Role in the Deportation Controversy

Eswatini’s involvement in third-country deportation deals has placed it at the center of a legal and ethical controversy. The country’s absolute monarchy, led by King Mswati III, has been criticized for its opaque decision-making process and lack of public transparency. The BBC reported that Eswatini’s acting spokeswoman, Thabile Mdluli, stated that any decision to accept more deportees would depend on ‘engagements’ with the U.S. government and ‘capacity availability.’ This suggests a lack of public accountability and raises questions about the country’s ability to manage the logistical and humanitarian challenges of accepting deportees.

Legal Battles and Sovereignty Tensions

Legal challenges have also emerged. Lawyers and civil society groups in Eswatini have filed court cases to challenge the legality of the government’s decision to accept the deportees, arguing that the deal violates domestic laws and international human rights standards. The government maintains that it has the authority to negotiate such agreements, emphasizing that the U.S. has no legal obligation to ensure the safety of deportees in third countries. This legal battle underscores the tension between national sovereignty and international human rights obligations.

Regional Concerns and Security Risks

The Eswatini-USA third-country deportation deal has drawn criticism from neighboring countries and international organizations. South Africa, for example, expressed concerns that deportees could cross into its territory through its porous border, potentially destabilizing the region. This reflects broader anxieties about the potential for third-country deportations to create regional security and humanitarian crises.

Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Strategy

The Trump administration’s reliance on third-country agreements is part of a broader strategy to address U.S. immigration system backlogs and reduce the number of asylum seekers. Critics argue that these deals often prioritize political expediency over humanitarian considerations. The congressional investigation into the $32 million payments highlights the scale of these financial commitments and the lack of oversight, raising questions about the long-term sustainability and ethical implications of such policies.

Global Challenges of Third-Country Deportations

As legal and political debates continue, the Eswatini case serves as a microcosm of the global challenges posed by third-country deportation agreements. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for future U.S. immigration policy and the role of foreign governments in facilitating deportations.