Shuttled out of countries under mysterious circumstances, dropped off in foreign states, and left with little legal recompense, the story of modern third-country deportees sounds like something out of a political fiction. But third-country deportations are intensely real, and they are only increasing.
Third-country deportations occur when a non-citizen is deported from their current nation of residence to a nation that is not their country of origin. These third countries could be ones the deportee shares a culture or language with, or they could be on entirely foreign continents. The idea of third-country deportations is not a new one in the United States or internationally; The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act allows for migrants or asylum seekers to be deported to states other than their countries of origin in situations where return to that country is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” Third-country deportations were exceedingly common in 19th-century European states.
In recent times, however, these normally extreme measures have been normalized, creating a mass policy of third-country deportations, an effort led primarily by the administration of President Donald Trump. The question of why other states are accepting migrants in the first place is the essential topic that haunts the status quo of third-country deportations, and the answer can’t be found without examining the current dynamics of international power and the mentality of “bending the knee” to global powers.
A Global Acquiescence
Developing states seem to have found that in a world order once more defined by great power politics, it is ill-advised to ignore the king when he comes calling. The Trump administration has abandoned all pretense of soft power – the gutting of USAID immediately comes to mind – and has, instead, decided that it is more profitable to make direct demands. And what’s more, the U.S. government has proven that it is willing to reward good behavior. For example, the Trump administration has agreed to pay Eswatini $5.1 million to accept up to 160 deportees from various countries. This money is intended to support the construction of Eswatini’s border management and migration infrastructure. Civil society groups in Eswatini have widely condemned this action, arguing that it represents democratic backsliding and will lead to human rights abuses. The United States has also paid Rwanda $7.5 million to accept up to 250 deportees and made secretive agreements with Ghana and Uganda.
These financial agreements cannot simply be viewed as a normative feature of international economic policy, but instead as a direct expansion of U.S. power over other states. These countries have effectively made calculated deals to give up a measure of basic sovereignty in exchange for the projected benefits that they will garner from the United States. By giving in to Trump’s demands, world leaders are allowing the United States to exercise undue influence over the governing of their states, losing autonomy as a result. Their leaders are cognizant of what they stand to gain – or conversely, lose – in the Trumpian world order, and acquiescence seems to be the only safe way out.
Deportees are also being sent to countries where Americans are strongly advised against visiting. South Sudan is currently classified as a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisory by the U.S. State Department, meaning that it is considered too dangerous for almost all Americans. After emerging from civil war in 2020, South Sudan remains in a state of disarray, with 1.9 million people displaced internally and over 2.3 million displaced outside the country. And yet, South Sudan has recently received eight deportees from the United States, only one of whom had any ties to the nation.
This acceptance of deportees from another country, some of whom have been charged with violent crimes, can only be understood in the context of what exactly South Sudan wants from the United States. In a May 12, 2025 memo in which South Sudan agreed to accept third-country nationals from the United States, South Sudanese officials also asked the United States to walk back severe visa restrictions on its citizens and courted U.S. investment in oil, gas, and minerals. While the United States has not yet agreed to these requests, it has already become clear that South Sudan sees acquiescence to U.S. deportation policy as an essential part of its post-civil war economic and political policy.
The People Left Behind
If the benefits are clear to states accepting migrants, they are much less apparent to the deportees themselves. Migrants deported to so-called “safe” third-party countries are often left stranded with zero connections, experience, or existing support systems. Many receiving countries are in an active crisis, as in South Sudan. Many scholars thus see these returns as a violation of the principle of non-refoulement, a basic principle of international law that prohibits states from removing individuals from their jurisdiction when there is a reasonable belief that their transfer would lead to harm.
In the case of South Sudan, Tom Homan, the former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director and current White House Border Czar, has admitted that he does not know the fates of the deportees. With South Sudan currently considered to be on the brink of breaking out into civil war once again, it is extremely likely that migrants face real danger.
In recent years, Eswatini has also come under fire for its flawed human rights record. After a wave of pro-democracy protests in 2021, security forces commenced a campaign of terror characterized by brutal treatment of political dissenters and human rights protestors. A 2023 report from the U.S. State Department noted that Eswatini has serious issues with the independence of the judiciary and treatment of political prisoners.
Despite this clear record of abuses, five deportees have already been sent to Eswatini from the United States, one of whom is currently holding a hunger strike to protest being held for three months without the opportunity to contact legal counsel. A group of non-governmental organizations and activists in Eswatini has challenged the government on this transfer of prisoners, noting that the deal violated due process and that the prison where the detainees are currently being held is 190 percent over capacity. The U.S. government has also indicated that it is interested in sending Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was thrown into the national consciousness after his wrongful deportation to a mega-prison in El Salvador, to Eswatini.
The wanton return of refugees to third-party countries is a pressing human rights issue that will have grave long-term consequences for both asylum-seekers and the integrity of the governments that receive them. Non-refoulement is a principle of international immigration law, and it is necessary that it be upheld in the modern day as political schisms deepen. It is essential to investigate the system of quid-pro-quo and backdoor deals between the United States and other countries that are currently supporting third-country deportation, and the rights of migrants and their families must be upheld against the normative pressure of Trumpian deportation policies before it is too late.
Featured Image Source: NPR