IRIA News

5 minute read

Rwanda has confirmed it is in the early stages of discussions with the United States about a possible agreement to receive immigrants deported from U.S. territory, marking the latest step in Washington’s controversial efforts to outsource deportation policies to third countries.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe announced the development during a television appearance on May 4, 2025, acknowledging that negotiations are underway but still far from finalized. “Those reports are true, we are engaged in discussions with the Government of the United States of America,” Nduhungirehe stated during the broadcast.

“I would say the discussions are in their initial stages, but we continue to talk about this problem of migrants,” he added. When contacted by reporters for more details, Nduhungirehe replied: “You will be informed when the discussions will be finalized.”

The statement comes as the administration of President Donald Trump continues to push an aggressive immigration enforcement agenda, targeting undocumented migrants and non-citizens for deportation. Despite being out of office, Trump’s hardline legacy persists through policies still defended and occasionally enforced by conservative lawmakers and immigration officials.

The potential deal with Rwanda echoes similar arrangements pursued by the U.S. with other third-party countries, including El Salvador. Washington’s attempts to export its immigration burden have been met with legal hurdles, logistical failures, and intense criticism from rights groups.

In Rwanda’s case, the country has already gained international attention as a willing recipient of deported migrants from the West. The East African nation, home to around 13 million people, previously entered into a high-profile agreement with the United Kingdom to take in illegal migrants.

However, that deal was promptly abandoned after the UK’s newly elected government reversed the decision. The UK’s Supreme Court had also ruled that deporting migrants to Rwanda “would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment,” rendering the arrangement illegal.

Nevertheless, Kigali appears undeterred. “It is not something new to us,” Nduhungirehe noted, referring to the prior agreement with Britain. Rwanda continues to present itself as a stable alternative for Western countries seeking to reduce their migrant populations.

Critics, however, warn that the image of Rwanda as a secure destination is far from reality. Human rights organizations and independent observers have long documented concerns over Kigali’s lack of press freedom, political repression, and alleged abuse of migrants.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has issued warnings about the potential dangers of deporting vulnerable individuals to Rwanda. The agency has expressed fears that some migrants sent there could be returned to countries from which they originally fled, a practice known as “refoulement,” which is prohibited under international law. Kigali has forcefully denied these allegations, with government officials accusing UNHCR of spreading falsehoods.

In a particularly controversial case last month, the United States deported a resettled Iraqi refugee to Rwanda. The man had been accused by the Iraqi government of working with the Islamic State group, and Washington had long tried to extradite him.

According to an internal U.S. government email and a U.S. official, this deportation was conducted in cooperation with Rwanda, although official confirmation from Kigali has not been made public.

The case raises further questions about the nature of the discussions between the U.S. and Rwanda. It is unclear whether this deportation was a trial case or part of a broader emerging framework. Either way, it illustrates how high-stakes and potentially dangerous such policies could become if formalized.

Domestically, Rwanda’s foreign policy is also under scrutiny for its military and political involvement in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Humanitarian organizations and analysts have pointed to Kigali’s alleged backing of militant groups in eastern DRC, fueling a deadly resurgence of violence in the region. The issue has intensified international criticism of Rwanda’s internal and external policies, especially in the context of hosting migrants from conflict zones.

The broader U.S. strategy to deport migrants to third countries remains highly contentious. The Supreme Court in April temporarily blocked a Trump-era policy that sought to deport a group of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations, after legal challenges questioned the administration’s use of a rarely invoked wartime law.

Meanwhile, human rights advocates continue to push back against the trend of externalizing migration control. They argue that such deals often disregard the safety and dignity of vulnerable populations while outsourcing moral responsibility to countries with questionable human rights records.

For now, the Rwanda-U.S. talks remain in their early phases, with no final agreement in place. However, the implications of such a deal, should it materialize, would likely spark fierce debate in both Washington and international forums.

As Rwanda positions itself as a hub for Western deportees, global attention will remain fixed on the country’s actions, both within its borders and beyond. Whether the ongoing negotiations with the United States proceed to a formal accord will be a litmus test not just for Kigali’s diplomatic ambitions, but also for the international community’s willingness to confront the ethical dimensions of modern immigration policy.