How Trump’s Deportation Policy Undermines Africa’s Sovereignty

The concept of state sovereignty is an important bedrock of international law, and a foundational principle in international relations. It guarantees and upholds for each nation the sole right to govern itself without external influence or foreign interference. Today, geopolitics continues to be an important factor in international relations, as nations seek to gain strategic advantages over each other.

Geopolitical factors, including geographic location, natural resources, and strategic considerations, greatly impact a nation’s foreign policy, security decisions, and economic interactions. Understanding geopolitics is essential for comprehending the dynamics that drive international relations and shape the distribution of power in the world.

Despite a state’s sovereign right to govern its territory, oversee its affairs, control its borders, and enforce its laws and policies, powerful nations pose challenging threats to the sovereignty of developing states by enforcing their political and economic influences on these nations.

U.S. President Donald Trump came out victorious in last year’s presidential election, riding the horseback of campaign promises, which included a mass deportation of unauthorized migrants, mostly convicted criminals. Since his assumption of office, his administration has embarked on the deportation of non-U.S. citizens with charter and commercial flights.

The Trump administration has struggled to increase deportation levels even as it has opened new pathways to send migrants to countries other than their home country, such as sending Venezuelans to Mexico, El Salvador or Panama. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said in late May that the administration had deported around 200,000 people over four months.

Notably, the U.S. third-country deportation has found its way into Africa, with numerous African nations emerging as suggested third countries. In May 2025, Trump’s administration reached out to several African nations to accept deported migrants. While the majority of these countries vehemently rejected the deal, Eswatini, South Sudan, and Rwanda welcomed the idea. In July 2025, both Eswatini and South Sudan received twelve migrants—from Mexico, Myanmar, and Yemen—deported by the U.S. This move portrays a power imbalance between the U.S. and African nations, raising concerns about the U.S influence over the sovereignty of these nations and the African continent as a whole.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda: Mechanisms of U.S. Deportation Policies

The Trump administration’s agenda is deeply rooted in his popular doctrine known as the “America First” philosophy, adopted by President Donald Trump. This doctrine has continued to shape the current U.S. administration’s policies and agenda and has led to significant changes in the U.S.’s bilateral relations with other countries, especially African countries, and international bodies inclusive. The “America First” philosophy is known to prioritize national security and economic interests of the U.S. through the formation, adoption, and implementation of new policies across all sectors, perceived to serve the U.S. interests more.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the tragically misnamed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) into law. OBBBA’s changes to federal immigration and benefits law will destabilise communities for generations. The bill strips many lawfully present immigrants from access to health insurance and nutrition aid. It deprives millions of children of an immigrant parent the anti-poverty benefits of the Child Tax Credit. And it funds a massive expansion of the immigration detention and enforcement budget while undermining due process and humanitarian protections.

The National Immigration Law Centre noted that the law immediately gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) $45 billion to detain immigrant adults and families, available through September 30, 2029. This sum more than quadruples Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s annual detention budget – adding approximately $11.25 billion each year. These funds will enrich private prison companies, whose executives have expressed glee at the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Beyond deportation, the U.S. administration adopted travel bans and visa restrictions as a tool to pressure African countries into accepting its deportees. The June 2025 travel ban, which widened previous travel restrictions, had a disproportionate impact on African countries. The list placed restrictions or limited entry on migrants from 19 African and Middle Eastern countries, affecting various immigrants’ visas for purposes such as tourism, business, and study.

Following the ban, an internal memo revealed the U.S. administration plans to consider adding 36 more countries to the list, with 24 of these countries being Sub-Saharan Africa. However, a nation’s willingness to accept third-country deportees from the U.S. was reportedly mentioned clearly in the memo as a factor in determining these future bans. This literally tells African countries that welcoming deported nationals can get them removed from the travel ban list. The adoption of such a measure further explains the coercive approach of the U.S. in its immigration policy, as it proves that visa policies that are specifically adopted for national security issues have turned out to be a foreign policy instrument of coercion.

Third Country Solution: Africa’s Sovereignty at Stake

The African continent has emerged as a focal point of President Trump’s new immigration policies. Eswatini was the first African nation to agree to the acceptance of five deported nationals from the U.S. Activists from Eswatini and South Africa—a neighboring nation—labeled the deal as unconstitutional, with claims that the decision to welcome the proposal was enacted unilaterally by the Prime Minister, Dlamini, without the collective support of the cabinet, and lacks parliamentary backing.

Furthermore, according to The African Report, the secrecy that the deal comes with raises high concerns in Eswatini, as no amount was indicated in the deal, differing from similar agreements the US made with El Salvador and Panama in which millions of dollars were exchanged. For this reason, the Eswatini Litigation Centre filed a legal complaint against the government, with different NGOs joining the legal fight. The case is set to be heard on Friday, August 22.

South Sudan is the second African nation to agree to the U.S. third-country deal, though the details of the deal weren’t announced to the public. In July, the South Sudan government announced that the U.S. deported eight men to the country, with one of them reportedly being a South Sudanese national. Its Foreign Ministry claimed that the deported nationals were placed under the government’s care.

The government also expressed its willingness to accept more deportees in exchange for the U.S lifting sanctions on a senior official, reinstating revoked U.S visas, unfreezing access to a U.S-based bank account, and supporting legal proceedings against First Vice President Riek Machar, who is still detained. However, the Trump administration hasn’t made any positive comment or impact yet as regards the requests.

As for Rwanda, the government announced in early August its agreement with the U.S. to accept 250 migrants. Given that Rwanda has positioned itself in recent years as a migration destination, this action by the country is not shocking. Moreover, the Rwandan foreign minister had mentioned, in May, that the United States and the country are in negotiations regarding the deal. A spokesperson of the government, Yolande Makolo, also said that Rwanda has the ability to authorize each person who is approved for resettlement. To help them get started in Rwanda, each of them will receive healthcare, housing assistance, and workforce training.

Recently, Uganda also agreed to accept deportees from the U.S. According to the Ugandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement is subject to several criteria, including that the asylum applicants have no criminal background and are not unaccompanied minors. Apparently, the United States’ intensive diplomatic campaign to compel African governments is progressively yielding. It will no longer be surprising to see more African countries supporting the deportation agenda.

However, Nigeria remains a major African country to have strongly rejected the plan, cited internal challenges and refused to negotiate away its sovereignty. In a July interview with Channels TV, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar reportedly emphasized that Nigeria will not bow to pressure from the U.S. to accept Venezuelan deportees or U.S. prisoners into the country. He said, “It will be difficult for a country like Nigeria to accept Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria. We have enough problems of our own; we cannot accept Venezuelan deportees to Nigeria, for crying out loud.“

He added, “You have to also bear in mind that the US is mounting considerable pressure on African countries to accept Venezuelans to be deported from the US, some straight out of prison.”

In response, the United States Mission in Nigeria issued an order via its X handle to visa applicants requiring the disclosure of all social media identities and handles used in the previous five years as part of the visa application process. The US Mission stated that applicants must provide all social media identities, handles, email addresses, and phone numbers associated with accounts used during the last five years.

In contrast, Nigeria has promised to impose reciprocal visa requirements on US citizens. Kimiebi Ebienfa, a spokesman for Nigeria’s Foreign Ministry, declared that the government would apply the same requirements to Americans applying for Nigerian visas.

“Some people from the US might want to apply for a visa, and we will adopt the same measures. Any visa is reciprocal. What you are mandating our nationals to do, we will also mandate your citizens applying for our visa to do,” he said.

In conclusion, President Trump’s deportation agenda has not just impacted individual African migrants but has also undermined Africa’s sovereignty systematically through pressuring African nations to accept deportees, adopting coercive diplomacy, leveraging trade and strict visa policies to achieve African nations’ compliance, and also through a disregard for international legal principles, which portrays a dangerous precedent for global governance. The coercive third-country agreements severely challenge the sovereignty of African nations, as they are compelled to accept burdens that may violate their own legal and humanitarian obligations. This dynamic exposes a power imbalance where one nation’s expansive sovereignty assertions undermine another’s.