The United States has reached new bilateral agreements with Honduras and Uganda to accept deported migrants who are not their own nationals, according to official documents obtained. The move is part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration and his broader push to secure deportation deals across multiple continents.
Under the agreements, Uganda has agreed to receive an unspecified number of African and Asian migrants who had previously sought asylum at the US-Mexico border. The deal comes with conditions: Kampala will only accept individuals without criminal records, and the total number to be resettled remains unclear.
Honduras, meanwhile, has committed to take in several hundred deported migrants from Spanish-speaking countries over a two-year period. The Central American nation has also signaled that it may expand its intake beyond the agreed numbers, according to the documents. Families travelling with children are explicitly included in the arrangement.
The Trump administration has framed the deals as part of a larger campaign to secure what it calls “burden-sharing” agreements with partner nations. The goal, according to US officials, is to ensure that migrants who arrive at America’s borders can be resettled elsewhere, even in countries that are not their homelands.
So far, at least a dozen nations across Africa, Central America, and South America have struck similar agreements with Washington.
Last week, the State Department confirmed a “safe third country” deal with Paraguay, under which both countries pledged to share the responsibility of managing illegal immigration.
Earlier this month, Rwanda announced that it would receive up to 250 migrants deported from the United States, though it insisted it would retain the right to vet each case individually.
Panama and Costa Rica have also entered into similar arrangements, with both countries agreeing to take in several hundred African and Asian migrants. US officials have reportedly approached Ecuador and Spain to expand the network further.
The deals have drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates, who warn that vulnerable migrants risk being sent to countries where they may face danger, persecution, or onward deportation to unsafe territories.
UN human rights experts have expressed alarm, arguing that resettling migrants in nations with questionable rights records could amount to a breach of international law.
“Sending migrants to countries where they face a substantial risk of harm is a violation of core international protections,” one UN expert said, stressing that the agreements undermine the principle of non-refoulement the rule that asylum seekers should not be returned to places where they may face persecution.
Rwanda, for instance, has faced long-standing criticism for alleged human rights abuses and political repression. Human rights groups say sending deported migrants there could expose them to further displacement, or even forced return to dangerous homelands.
The administration’s ability to enforce these controversial deals was strengthened by a US Supreme Court ruling in June, which gave Trump the authority to deport migrants to countries other than their own without first allowing them to contest the risks they might face.
The decision, passed by the conservative-majority bench, marked a major victory for the White House. However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing dissent, calling it “a gross abuse” of executive power.
Since the start of his second term, Trump has doubled down on immigration enforcement a policy that was central to his campaign and a key driver of his political base.
At rallies and in interviews, he has repeatedly promised to “remove millions of illegal migrants” and ensure that “other countries share the burden.” The agreements with Uganda, Honduras, and other nations are now being touted by the administration as evidence that Trump is keeping that promise.
Yet, for critics, the price is far too high. “Migrants are being treated as bargaining chips in a global game of politics,” said a US-based rights activist. “Families fleeing violence and poverty should not be shipped off to countries they have no ties to.”
The controversy adds to mounting international unease about Washington’s hardline immigration policies. While some governments, particularly those with economic or political incentives, have agreed to the arrangements, others remain wary of being seen as complicit in what campaigners describe as “outsourcing asylum.”
Observers say the issue is likely to dominate US relations with parts of Africa and Central America in the coming months, as both supporters and critics of the policy test its limits.
For now, Trump has secured what few of his predecessors could: a growing list of foreign governments willing to house migrants the US refuses to keep. But the long-term consequences for America’s global image, for international law, and most importantly, for the migrants themselves remain deeply uncertain.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
