Uganda categorically disowns any reports of having accepted to accept US deportees, as the country does not have adequate infrastructure and facilities to house foreign nationals. The categorical denial by the East African country goes counter to reports in the media that Washington had negotiated full deportation agreements with various developing countries.
Uganda’s foreign ministry responded to deportation agreement claims
This is the diplomatic trade that emerges as the tensions continue to increase regarding Trump’s aggressive policies on immigration, aiming at the third-country removal from various continents. The drama unravels the intricate issues that a country may have when they are pressured to engage in some sort of controversial deportation without sufficient consultation.
A senior Ugandan official denied on Wednesday a U.S. media report that the country had agreed to take in people deported from the United States, saying it lacked the facilities to accommodate them.
Citing internal U.S. government documents, CBS News reported on Tuesday that Washington had reached deportation deals with Uganda and Honduras as part of its drive to step up expulsions of migrants to countries where they do not have citizenship.
“To the best of my knowledge we have not reached such an agreement,” Okello Oryem, state minister for foreign affairs, told Reuters by text message.
“We do not have the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such illegal immigrants in Uganda.”
Honduras’ government did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comments on the report.
Immigration policy analysts stress that such agreements on deportation to third countries will need long negotiations and official diplomatic procedures before actual implementation can be made to work. These elaborate concurrences usually entail a consultation on legal acceptance, financial assistance, processing protocols, and a medium-term support network for the deportees. Lack of such high-level planning can create international tension and lead to failure in operations that may create an international strain between countries.
Third-country deportation deals face significant diplomatic hurdles
President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, and his administration has sought to increase removals to third countries, including by sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini.
The CBS report said the agreements with Uganda and Honduras were based on a provision of U.S. immigration law that allows people seeking asylum to be rerouted to third countries if the U.S. government determines those nations can fairly hear their claims.
Regional experts observe that African countries are unable to meet the needs of new arrivals, as they do not have enough resources to accept new groups of deportees who have other legal frameworks and cultures. The current refugee system of countries such as Uganda is already strained, with barely any budgetary funding provided by the international organizations, as well as the donor countries. Deportation of United States would add further burden on healthcare, education, housing, and social services as these regions are currently facing hardships in meeting the current demand due to misplaced displacement in the region.
What this means for Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy
Uganda, a U.S. ally in East Africa, also hosts nearly two million refugees and asylum-seekers, who mostly come from countries in the region such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Sudan.
Uganda’s denial reveals the diplomatic complexities surrounding Trump’s expanded deportation strategy and growing international resistance to unilateral immigration policies. The disagreement underscores how developing nations struggle to balance relationships with major powers while protecting their sovereignty and limited resources.
This incident demonstrates the significant challenges facing countries already overwhelmed by regional refugee crises and inadequate international support systems. The controversy highlights the urgent need for transparent negotiations and mutual consent in international immigration agreements to prevent diplomatic fallout.
GCN.com/Reuters