Trump's Shocking Third-Country Deportation Program Sends 5 'Barbaric' Criminals to Eswatini After South Sudan Controversy

Trump Administration's Bold Move: Five 'Barbaric' Criminals Sent to African Kingdom

Did you know that the Trump administration has just sent five convicted violent criminals to one of Africa's most controversial destinations? On July 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that five immigrants from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos had been deported to Eswatini, the small African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland. This shocking development represents a significant escalation in Trump's third-country deportation program, which has been sending migrants to countries they have no connection to whatsoever.

According to DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, these individuals were described as "uniquely barbaric" criminals whose home countries refused to accept them back. The deportees include convicted murderers, child rapists, and confirmed gang members - individuals so dangerous that their own nations turned them away. McLaughlin posted mugshots and criminal records on social media, though she deliberately omitted their names for security reasons.

This unprecedented move comes just weeks after the Trump administration sent eight men to South Sudan under similar circumstances, marking a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration enforcement policy. The program has sparked intense debate about human rights, international law, and the treatment of deportees in countries with questionable governance records.

The Supreme Court Ruling That Changed Everything

The legal foundation for these controversial deportations was established by a crucial Supreme Court decision in June 2025. The court's conservative majority ruled that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries, effectively overturning lower court orders that had required migrants to have a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge their removal. This 6-3 decision removed the last legal barrier preventing the Trump administration from implementing its most aggressive deportation strategy.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissenting justices, issued a scathing 19-page critique of the majority's decision. She condemned it as "a severe misuse of judicial power" and criticized the president's actions as executive overreach. "The Government has made it clear in both word and action that it feels unrestricted by law and free to send anyone anywhere without notice or a chance to be heard," Sotomayor wrote.

The ruling came after eight men were initially sent to South Sudan in May but were diverted to a U.S. military base in Djibouti when a federal judge found the administration had violated procedural requirements. These men were held in converted shipping containers for weeks while their legal challenges played out in court. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately cleared the way for their transfer to South Sudan, where they arrived on July 5, 2025, despite the State Department's own warnings against travel to the war-torn nation due to "crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict."

Inside Eswatini: Africa's Last Absolute Monarchy

Eswatini presents a particularly troubling destination for U.S. deportees. This landlocked nation of just 1.2 million people, nestled between South Africa and Mozambique, is ruled by King Mswati III, who has maintained absolute power since 1986. The country represents Africa's last remaining absolute monarchy, where democratic institutions are virtually non-existent and human rights violations are commonplace.

The human rights situation in Eswatini has deteriorated significantly in recent years. Human Rights Watch reported in January 2025 that "civic space, judicial independence, and the rule of law remain under threat." The assassination of prominent human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in January 2023 sent shockwaves through the activist community, with many fleeing the country fearing government retaliation.

According to the World Bank, over half of Eswatini's population lives in poverty, while the country struggles with high unemployment, soaring crime rates, and severely overcrowded prisons. Lucky Lukhele from Swaz Solidarity, a civil society organization, told international media that it represents "blatant racism to assume Africa is a dumping ground for Donald Trump." The opposition party PUDEMO has stated that accepting foreign deportees "poses a serious risk to our already vulnerable communities," which are already battling a severe crime wave including rape and murder.

The Diplomatic Game: What's Really Behind These Deals?

The Trump administration's success in securing deportation agreements with African nations reveals a complex web of diplomatic pressure and incentives. According to multiple sources, the U.S. has approached approximately 51 countries to accept non-citizen deportations, with particular focus on African nations that may be more susceptible to economic and political leverage.

Countries accepting U.S. deportees are reportedly expecting favorable treatment in trade negotiations, foreign aid packages, overseas investment opportunities, and reduced visa restrictions for their own citizens. This transactional approach to diplomacy has raised serious concerns among international observers about the commodification of human rights and the exploitation of economically vulnerable nations.

Eswatini government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli confirmed that the deportations were "the culmination of several months of intensive high-level discussions." However, she notably failed to disclose the specific terms of the agreement or what compensation Eswatini received for accepting the deportees. The five men are currently being held in "correctional facilities within secured units," according to official statements, though their exact legal status and future prospects remain unclear.

The administration's broader strategy includes similar agreements with El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama, where hundreds of Venezuelan and other migrants have been sent. This systematic approach to third-country deportations represents a fundamental shift in how the United States handles immigration enforcement.

Human Rights Crisis: The Dark Reality of Third-Country Deportations

The humanitarian implications of Trump's third-country deportation program have drawn fierce criticism from human rights organizations worldwide. The practice of sending individuals to countries where they have no family ties, language skills, or support networks violates fundamental principles of international refugee law and human dignity.

In South Sudan, the fate of the eight deportees remains shrouded in mystery. Government officials have refused to disclose their whereabouts or legal status, raising serious concerns about their safety and well-being. Prominent South Sudanese activist Edmund Yakani publicly condemned the policy, declaring that "South Sudan is not a dumping ground for criminals." The country, which has been ravaged by civil war since 2011, lacks the infrastructure and resources to properly handle or reintegrate deportees.

The situation in Eswatini appears equally problematic. Civil society organizations have warned that the country's already strained prison system, where inmates receive only one meal per day, cannot adequately accommodate additional foreign prisoners. The lack of transparency surrounding the deportees' treatment and legal rights has further heightened concerns about potential human rights violations.

International legal experts argue that these deportations may violate the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits sending individuals to countries where they may face persecution or torture. The Trump administration's new ICE guidelines allow deportations to proceed even without guarantees that receiving countries will not persecute or torture the deportees - a significant departure from previous policies.

Global Outrage and the Future of Immigration Policy

The international community's response to Trump's third-country deportation program has been overwhelmingly negative. African leaders and civil society organizations have condemned the policy as neo-colonial and racist, arguing that it treats African nations as "dumping grounds" for unwanted migrants. The African Union has called for urgent consultations on the matter, while several member states have begun reviewing their cooperation agreements with the United States.

The policy has also drawn criticism from within the United States. Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Andy Kim and Representative Dave Min, have denounced the deportations as violations of constitutional rights and international law. Human rights organizations have filed multiple lawsuits challenging the program's legality and demanding greater transparency in the deportation process.

Looking ahead, the Trump administration shows no signs of slowing down its aggressive deportation strategy. Border czar Tom Homan has stated that the U.S. aims to sign third-country deportation agreements with "many countries" to support the administration's goal of record-breaking deportations. With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, the program's scope could potentially expand dramatically in the coming months.

The long-term implications of this policy extend far beyond immigration enforcement. By prioritizing deportation numbers over human rights considerations, the Trump administration risks damaging America's international reputation and relationships with key allies. The treatment of deportees in countries with poor human rights records may also create new legal liabilities for the United States under international law, setting dangerous precedents for future immigration policy.