Uganda, already home to Africa’s largest refugee population, has agreed to accept migrants deported from the United States who do not qualify for asylum, marking a new chapter in Washington’s contentious deportation drive. The announcement, made on August 21, 2025, by a senior official in Uganda’s foreign ministry, places the East African nation among a select group of countries—including Rwanda, South Sudan, El Salvador, and Eswatini—that have struck similar deals with the US under President Donald Trump’s administration.
According to Dawn and RFI, the agreement is a “temporary arrangement” and comes as the US government seeks third-country destinations for migrants whose home countries are unwilling to accept their return. The details were outlined by Vincent Bagiire, permanent secretary at Uganda’s foreign ministry, who stated, “The agreement is in respect of Third Country Nationals who may not be granted asylum in the United States, but are reluctant to or may have concerns about returning to their countries of origin.”
Bagiire clarified that “individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors will not be accepted,” and added that Uganda would prefer to receive migrants originally from African countries. “The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” he said, signaling that the process is ongoing and subject to further negotiation.
This move comes at a time when Uganda is already accommodating an immense influx of refugees. The United Nations estimates that Uganda is currently hosting between 1.7 and 1.8 million refugees—the largest such population on the African continent. Most of these refugees hail from neighboring South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with recent surges attributed to Sudan’s ongoing civil war. The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, has praised Uganda’s “progressive refugee policy,” noting its open-door approach to asylum. President Yoweri Museveni’s government grants refugees the right to work, freedom of movement, and access to essential services. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi has called Uganda’s approach “the most progressive refugee policies in Africa, if not the world.”
Yet, this new arrangement with the United States is not without controversy. Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have voiced strong concerns that such deportations may breach international law. The principle of “non-refoulement”—a cornerstone of refugee protection—prohibits sending individuals to countries where they may face torture, abduction, or persecution. Critics argue that outsourcing deportations to fragile or unstable states, particularly in Africa, could worsen humanitarian crises rather than solve them.
The Trump administration, since retaking office in January 2025, has accelerated efforts to remove undocumented migrants, sometimes sending them to countries with which they have no meaningful ties. In one particularly contentious case, hundreds of Venezuelans alleged to have gang affiliations were deported from the US to El Salvador, where they were held in austere prison conditions before being returned to Venezuela. According to Dawn, these moves have been defended by US officials on the grounds that some nations refuse to accept their own nationals, leaving the US with few options.
Uganda’s agreement follows closely on the heels of Rwanda’s announcement earlier in August 2025 that it would accept up to 250 migrants deported from the US. However, details of that deal remain sparse, and Washington has yet to confirm the arrangement. South Sudan, another East African nation, accepted a group of eight migrant criminals from the US earlier this year—though only one was actually South Sudanese. Their extradition was contested in American courts, but Juba confirmed in July it had assumed responsibility for the men.
These developments have not gone unnoticed by human rights advocates. Amnesty International and other groups warn that transferring migrants to third countries—especially those experiencing conflict or economic instability—could expose them to fresh dangers. “Deporting people to countries where they risk torture, abduction or persecution could violate the principle of ‘non-refoulement,’” rights experts caution, as reported by RFI.
Uganda’s own refugee settlements are not without their challenges. The UNHCR points out that many are located in regions highly vulnerable to climate change, facing extreme heat and seasonal flooding. These environmental pressures have affected agricultural livelihoods and placed growing strain on natural resources, sometimes fueling tensions between refugees and the host communities. As more people arrive, these issues are likely to intensify, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of Uganda’s generous policies.
Despite these pressures, Uganda has maintained its commitment to providing a safe haven for those fleeing violence and instability. The country’s open-door policy has long been a point of pride for the Museveni government, and international observers have often cited Uganda as a model for refugee integration. New arrivals are granted the right to work, move freely, and access education and healthcare—privileges that are rare in many other refugee-hosting nations.
Still, the latest deal with the United States has sparked debate within Uganda and among the international community. Some Ugandans worry that accepting deported migrants from the US could strain already limited resources and complicate relations with neighboring countries. Others point to Uganda’s track record of compassion and resilience, arguing that the nation is well-placed to manage the challenges ahead. The government, for its part, has emphasized that the arrangement is temporary and subject to strict conditions, including the exclusion of individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors.
For the Trump administration, these third-country agreements are part of a broader strategy to address the complex realities of global migration. By partnering with countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan, US officials hope to overcome the barriers posed by uncooperative home countries and speed up the deportation process. However, as rights groups and humanitarian agencies have repeatedly warned, the human cost of such policies can be steep, especially when vulnerable people are sent to places where their safety is far from guaranteed.
As Uganda and the United States work out the finer details of their new arrangement, the world will be watching closely. The outcome will not only affect the lives of those facing deportation but could also set important precedents for how wealthier nations engage with the global refugee crisis. For now, Uganda stands at the crossroads of compassion and controversy, balancing its tradition of hospitality with the harsh realities of international politics and migration.
With negotiations ongoing and the fate of many migrants hanging in the balance, Uganda’s decision will likely reverberate far beyond its borders, shaping debates on asylum, human rights, and global responsibility for years to come.