Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.

Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,” Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to “third-party countries” they have no personal connections to.

Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.

Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a “dumping ground” for migrants with criminal records.

In this week’s statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.

“Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,” she said.

“Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

Trump’s mass deportation campaign

In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country’s population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.

But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.

In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.

An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.

But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.

Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.

Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to “third-party countries” where they may not even speak the language.

Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.

Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump’s allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.

El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.

The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge’s order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.

Deportations to Africa

In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start “third-party” deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.

Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.

The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.

But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.

That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.

Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.

The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them “sickos” and “barbaric”. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.

The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.

They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan’s custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.

“The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,” the justices wrote, calling the government’s actions “flagrantly unlawful”.

In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.

Cosying up to Trump?

Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.

Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.

Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.

But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.

In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda’s support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.

The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.

In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government’s recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that “appeasing President Trump pays”.

Muganwa explained that Tuesday’s agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries’ shared bond.

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

Rwanda previously struck a deal in 2022 with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers from that country.

But the British Supreme Court nixed the agreement in 2023, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe third country to send asylum seekers to.