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.

By Ndiho Media

U.S. President Donald Trump this week hosted a pivotal working lunch at the White House with five West African leaders: Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Guinea-Bissau’s President Umaro Sissoco Embaló, Mauritania’s President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani, Liberian President Joseph Boakai, and Gabon’s President Brice Oligui Nguema. The gathering signaled a proposed shift in U.S. engagement with the region, focusing less on aid and more on trade and investment.

During the meeting, President Trump described the visiting nations as “very vibrant places with valuable land, minerals, oil, and wonderful people,” reflecting a brand-new strategy framing Africa as a partner in economic development.

The African leaders emphasized that Africa’s long-term growth depends not just on extraction, but on local processing and industrialization—areas where U.S. investment could play a transformational role.

President Brice Oligui Nguema told U.S. President Donald Trump during Wednesday’s meeting at the White House.

“We are not poor countries. We are rich in raw materials, but we need partners who will support us and help develop those resources through win-win partnerships.”

Behind the polite welcome, however, a sensitive proposal was reportedly raised: U.S. officials urged these nations to temporarily host deported third-country migrants while their asylum cases move through the American system—a deportation strategy sparking concern in diplomatic circles.

To provide further clarity, Ndiho Media interviewed Melvin P. Foote, founder of the Constituency for Africa and a seasoned policy strategist.

“If you were to say we’re going to change [USAID] and improve it—I’ve got a whole laundry list of ideas,” Foote said. “But to throw it away? I’m not sure how that works out for Africa—or even for us here in the United States.”

He warned that long-standing tools of U.S. influence, such as Voice of America, Peace Corps, and NGO partnerships, are being devalued.

“Why would we give up our leverage? The Peace Corps is taking a hit. Many of the programs that helped build trust between Africans and Americans are vanishing.”

Foote also challenged the transactional tone of the administration’s new focus:

“All I hear is: how can we squeeze something out of Africa? Not how we solve problems together—health care, climate, governance.”

Yet, Foote remained optimistic about the continent’s future, especially youth-driven initiatives like the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI).

“YALI created a generation of empowered leaders. Future ministers, presidents, innovators—it’s one of the best things we’ve ever done.”

Finally, Foote emphasized the importance of diaspora engagement:

“When you call yourself African American, you’ve got to love both Africa and America. And we need to start acting like partners—not patrons.”

Against the backdrop of shifting geopolitics and rising global competition, Melvin Foote argued that U.S.–Africa relations must be rooted in trust, mutual respect, and long-term vision, not just transactional deals.