Quick Read
- The U.S. deported five migrants convicted of violent crimes to Eswatini under its third-country deportation program.
- The deportation follows a Supreme Court ruling allowing such practices, despite significant criticism.
- Eswatini, ruled by an absolute monarchy, has not commented on the agreement to accept deportees.
- The program has drawn both support for enhancing U.S. security and criticism for potential human rights violations.
The United States has deported five migrants convicted of violent crimes to the small African nation of Eswatini, marking a significant expansion of the Trump administration’s controversial third-country deportation program. The move, announced on July 16, 2025, by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has sparked heated debates over the ethics and legality of such practices.
Details of the Deportation
According to a statement from DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, the five deportees, who hailed from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos, arrived in Eswatini on the night of July 15. McLaughlin described the individuals as “uniquely barbaric,” citing their convictions for violent crimes, including murder and sexual abuse of minors. The deportation occurred under the leadership of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and was celebrated as a victory for public safety in the United States.
“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them,” McLaughlin stated on social media, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to removing dangerous individuals from American soil. The deportation follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that lifted restrictions on sending migrants to third countries, even if those nations are not the deportees’ countries of origin.
Legal and Ethical Controversies
The Supreme Court decision, issued earlier in July 2025, has been a pivotal factor in enabling these deportations. The conservative-leaning court sided with the Trump administration, allowing the government to deport undocumented migrants to third countries with minimal legal recourse. This ruling overturned previous restrictions that required deportees to argue against potential torture or degrading treatment in the receiving country.
However, the decision has faced significant criticism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented strongly, describing the ruling as “indefensible.” “Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. Critics argue that the policy undermines human rights protections and sets a dangerous precedent for future deportations.
Why Eswatini?
Eswatini, a small kingdom in Southeast Africa, has emerged as an unexpected destination for third-country deportees. With a population of approximately 1.2 million, the country is one of the world’s last absolute monarchies, ruled by King Mswati III since 1986. Political parties are effectively banned, and the government has faced accusations of suppressing dissent.
It remains unclear when or how the United States reached an agreement with Eswatini to accept deportees. The Eswatini government has not publicly commented on the matter, leaving questions about the conditions awaiting the deportees and the long-term implications of such agreements.
The Trump administration has reportedly sought similar arrangements with other African nations, including South Sudan and Nigeria. While some countries, like Nigeria, have resisted U.S. pressure, others have accepted deportees under undisclosed terms. Earlier this month, the U.S. deported eight migrants to South Sudan, a nation grappling with ongoing conflict and instability.
Broader Implications
The expansion of the third-country deportation program highlights the administration’s hardline stance on immigration. Supporters argue that the policy enhances national security and addresses the challenges posed by countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens. However, opponents warn that such practices risk violating international human rights norms and may expose deportees to unsafe conditions in unfamiliar countries.
The program has also drawn attention to the broader issue of global migration and the responsibilities of nations in managing displaced populations. As the United States continues to pursue third-country agreements, the debate over the ethical and legal dimensions of these policies is likely to intensify.
As the story unfolds, the world will be watching how Eswatini and other nations respond to their roles in this controversial deportation program, as well as the lasting impact on the individuals involved.