Ndiho Media,LLC.

By Ndiho Media
The Trump administration’s agreements with Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini to accept deportees labeled as dangerous criminals have drawn both praise and criticism. Supporters see them as a diplomatic breakthrough that strengthens U.S.–Africa ties, while critics warn they raise serious legal and ethical questions under international law.
Joseph Szlavik, Partner at Scribe Strategies & Advisors and a key figure in behind-the-scenes negotiations with these African governments, says the arrangements are rooted in long-standing policy.
“This isn’t the first time the United States has deported people to a third host country. There are preexisting treaties and policies—like the ‘Safe Third Nation’ agreements we have with Canada and Mexico. President Trump is not setting a new precedent here,” Szlavik told Ndiho Media.
Szlavik explains his program as fixing a logistical issue: some countries of origin will not repatriate citizens, especially at moments of strained diplomatic relations, like with Cuba or Venezuela. He specifies that those being rescreened are “hardened criminals—people convicted of murder, rape, and other serious crimes” and not ordinary migrants.
For Szlavik, they also provide an ample diplomatic opportunity.
“Under President Trump, embassies are quickening their response to U.S. queries. It demonstrates Africa rising as an international partner and taking part in solution-oriented approaches beyond aid,” he said.
However, David O. Monda, who is a journalist as well as a professor at City University of New York – Guttman Community College, does not concur. In his argument, he asserts that arrangements risk violating U.S. constitutional protections, together with the non-refoulement rule at international law, where individuals cannot be transferred to states where they will not enjoy their rights or safety.
“All three countries are small, landlocked, and poor, with unstable political systems and human rights concerns,” Monda said. “It’s an elephant and ant situation—an asymmetrical power dynamic where the U.S. holds all the leverage.”
Monda challenges the morality of dispatching people who have not been to Africa to countries where they do not have connections.
“It creates the perception that Africa is becoming a dumping ground for America’s rejects,” he noted, adding that larger African countries like Kenya and Nigeria have rejected similar proposals.
Though Szlavik points out that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the program and African governments’ willingness to cooperate, Monda warns against circumventing due process.

By Ndiho Media Staff

The Trump administration’s agreements with Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini to accept deportees labeled as dangerous criminals are being praised by those familiar with the process, who say the deals are legal, strategic, and strengthening U.S.–Africa partnerships.

Speaking exclusively to Ndiho Media, Joseph Szlavik, Partner at Scribe Strategies & Advisors, revealed that he has been heavily involved in behind-the-scenes negotiations with these African governments to make the arrangements possible.

“This isn’t the first time the United States has deported people to a third host country. There are preexisting treaties and policies—like the ‘Safe Third Nation’ agreements we have with Canada and Mexico. President Trump is not setting a new precedent here,” Szlavik explained.

The program addresses a logistical problem: some nations refuse to take back their citizens, particularly when relations with the U.S. are strained, as with Cuba and Venezuela. In such cases, African partners have stepped in.

“South Sudan took in eight people, including Cubans with serious criminal records, because returning them to Cuba was impossible,” Szlavik said.

He stressed that those deported under these deals are not ordinary migrants.

“These are hardened criminals—people convicted of murder, rape, and other serious crimes. There’s not a lot of sympathy for them,” he said.

Beyond security, Szlavik views the agreements as part of a broader diplomatic and humanitarian strategy. His direct involvement in discussions has helped persuade African governments to see these arrangements as mutually beneficial.

“Under President Trump, requests to process deportees are taken seriously. Embassies are more responsive, and it shows Africa stepping up as a global partner,” he said.

Szlavik also underlined that diplomacy is often conducted discreetly.

“Foreign policy is not negotiated on live television. These talks were legal, went to the Supreme Court, and the court confirmed they’re fully within the law,” he said.

The deals align with Trump’s “trade, not aid” approach to Africa. Szlavik pointed to the administration’s efforts in advancing peace talks—such as between Rwanda and the DRC—and encouraging political transitions in countries like Guinea and Gabon.

“President Trump has taken a personal interest in Africa. He likes building one-on-one relationships with leaders. When there’s respect and direct dialogue, good things happen,” Szlavik said.

For supporters, these deportation deals are not just about immigration—they’re about reshaping U.S.–Africa relations and treating African nations as equal partners in solving global challenges.