A controversial deal has come to light: Eswatini received a substantial sum from the U.S. government to accept deportees. This arrangement, shrouded in secrecy, has sparked both financial and ethical debates.
According to Eswatini's finance minister, the country received $5.1 million from the U.S. under an agreement to take in individuals deported by the Trump administration. This initiative was part of a broader effort to manage immigration policies. But here's where it gets controversial: details of this agreement, and similar ones with other African nations like South Sudan, Ghana, and Rwanda, have been kept under wraps.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here. (https://www.reuters.com/newsletters/daily-briefing/?location=article-paragraph&redirectUrl=%2Fworld%2Fasia-pacific%2Feswatini-received-51-million-accept-us-deportees-minister-says-2025-11-18%2F)
The specifics of the deal: The agreement, signed in May in Eswatini's capital, outlined that the U.S. would provide the $5.1 million to bolster Eswatini's border and migration management capabilities. In return, Eswatini would accept up to 160 third-country deportees. The U.S. State Department has stated that implementing the Trump administration's immigration policies was a top priority.
And this is the part most people miss: The U.S. has already sent at least 15 immigrants to Eswatini, originating from countries such as Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Yemen, and the Philippines. These individuals are currently imprisoned, with the exception of one who was repatriated to Jamaica. The Eswatini government is also facing a lawsuit from human rights lawyers who claim the deal is unconstitutional.
Controversy & Comment Hooks: What are your thoughts on this arrangement? Do you believe the financial incentives justify the acceptance of deportees? Or does the lack of transparency raise ethical concerns? Share your opinions in the comments below!
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
