COMMENTARY: The High Cost of Outsourcing Deportations To Africa
By Felicia J. Persaud
News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Weds. April 15, 2026: At a time when Americans are facing cuts to healthcare and rising costs for food, gas, and basic goods, a recent U.S. Senate report reveals something deeply contradictory: millions of taxpayer dollars are being paid for deportations to Africa and other foreign nations, forcing them to take in immigrant deportees who are not their own.
According to a report released recently by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Tim Kaine, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Tammy Duckworth, and Jacky Rosen, the Trump administration has spent more than $32 million on so-called “third country deportation” deals – sending migrants to countries they have no connection to.
Among the recipients are Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, and Eswatini – African nations now central to a controversial system raising serious economic, ethical, and geopolitical concerns.
The numbers are staggering.
In one of the most extreme cases, the administration paid Rwanda $7.5 million, plus an estimated $601,864 in flight costs, to accept just seven people – roughly $1.1 million per deportee.
Equatorial Guinea received $7.5 million to take 29 individuals, at an estimated $282,126 per person.
Eswatini was paid $5.1 million to accept 15 people.
This is not just immigration policy. This is outsourcing deportation at premium prices. And it is happening with countries that raise serious governance concerns.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 172 out of 182 countries on the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, placing it among the most corrupt nations globally.
Eswatini ranks 153rd out of 182 countries, with a score of just 23 out of 100, reflecting rising public sector corruption.
Rwanda, by contrast, ranks 41st least corrupt globally, with a score of 58 out of 100, making it one of the stronger performers in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet, according to the Senate report, there is little to no oversight on how U.S. taxpayer funds are used once transferred. Even more troubling is how inefficient – and at times absurd – this system has become.
In some cases, the United States is paying twice to deport the same individual. One example cited in the report involved a Jamaican national who was deported to Eswatini at a cost of more than $181,000, only to be flown back to Jamaica weeks later – again at U.S. expense.
The Jamaican government made it clear: “The Government has not refused the return of any of our nationals.”
That directly contradicts the administration’s claim that third-country deportations are necessary because home countries refuse to accept their citizens. So, what is really driving this policy?
The Department of Homeland Security has argued that some migrants are “so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back.”
But the data – and even internal accounts – suggest something else: a costly system designed less for efficiency and more for deterrence. Or as one lawmaker put it bluntly: “We spent so much of last year hearing about how we have to cut waste… but we are spending millions of dollars on this.”
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was even more direct: “For an Administration that claims to be reining in fraud, waste and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”
And that may be the most important takeaway. Because this is not just about immigration. It is about how policy is being executed – through opaque deals, questionable partners, and significant US taxpayer expense – with little accountability and even less transparency.
It is also about what happens when human beings become bargaining chips in international agreements, sent to countries they have never known, with uncertain protections and unclear futures. For African nations now drawn into this system, the implications are equally serious – raising questions about sovereignty, responsibility, and the long-term cost of participating in what is effectively a global deportation network.
At its core, this policy raises an uncomfortable question: why are African nations agreeing to take in Black and brown migrants who are not their own, in exchange for millions? Because when human movement begins to follow money instead of law, it forces us to confront a history we claim to have left behind.
Felicia J. Persaud is the founder and publisher of NewsAmericasNow.com, the only daily syndicated newswire and digital platform dedicated exclusively to Caribbean Diaspora and Black immigrant news across the Americas.
