Dem Senator Slams 'Highly Unusual' Deal on Deportees

The US government has quietly sent $7.5 million to Equatorial Guinea—one of the world's most notoriously corrupt regimes—to persuade the country to accept noncitizen deportees from the United States, according to congressional and State Department sources. The payment, drawn from a congressional fund typically reserved for international refugee crises or resettling refugees in the US, marks a notable shift, as this is the first time such money has been used to facilitate deportations rather than humanitarian relief, reports the Guardian.

Equatorial Guinea, led for 46 years by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has been widely criticized for corruption and human rights abuses; both he and his son, the vice president, have faced accusations of embezzlement. The financial transfer has triggered concern among lawmakers and human rights groups. Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio first obtained by the AP, dubbed the payment "highly unusual" and questioned what safeguards, if any, exist to protect deportees from trafficking or abuse in the recipient country.

The arrangement is part of the Trump administration's broader effort to secure "third country" deportation deals—a policy criticized by the United Nations for potentially exposing people to rapid removal without adequate legal protections or time to raise asylum claims. The US has reportedly approached 58 countries, often using financial incentives or diplomatic squeeze, to secure agreements for accepting deportees. Most of these countries are flagged in US State Department reports for serious human-rights concerns.

story continues below

The State Department has defended the policy as a priority focused on immigration enforcement and border security but declined to comment on specifics of the deal. Observers noted the unusual secrecy surrounding the agreement, with some congressional aides characterizing the direct cash transfer as an "egregious" misuse of humanitarian funds. Critics argue the money could have been better spent addressing genuine refugee crises, questioning the administration's priorities.