US $7.5M Payment to Equatorial Guinea for Deportees Sparks Global Outcry
London-UK, November 12, 2025
US $7.5M Payment for Noncitizen Deportees: A Global Outcry
The controversial move by the US government to transfer $7.5 million to Equatorial Guinea in exchange for the repressive West African nation accepting noncitizen deportees from the United States has ignited a fierce global outcry from human rights organisations, legal experts, and senior political figures.
The $7.5 million payment is reportedly the first withdrawal from a fund intended for international refugee assistance to be repurposed under the current administration to facilitate and hasten deportations—a policy shift that is alarmingly seen as a fundamental re-prioritisation of US foreign aid.
This arrangement, which sees the transfer of individuals with no ties to the country, represents a significant and unsettling escalation in the US administration’s push for “third-country” deportations, casting a stark spotlight on the human rights implications of outsourcing US immigration enforcement to one of the world’s most notoriously corrupt and authoritarian regimes.
Key Headlines
Fund Repurposed:
The $7.5 million was diverted from the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) emergency fund, which is typically used for supporting refugee crises and resettlement.
Regime Concerns:
Equatorial Guinea, led by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo for 46 years, is flagged by numerous international watchdogs for endemic corruption, human trafficking, and severe human rights abuses.
Secrecy and Speed:
The deal has been criticised for being negotiated in relative secrecy and for the lack of legal safeguards, which UN experts warn could see deportees removed to a third country within a single day.
Congressional Opposition:
A leading US Senator has publicly called the payment “highly unusual,” raising concerns about the misuse of taxpayer funds and Equatorial Guinea’s capacity to uphold basic human dignity.
The transfer, confirmed by government data, congressional Democrats, and State Department officials, marks a dark new chapter in Washington’s increasingly aggressive immigration agenda.
The money was sent directly to the government of Equatorial Guinea, whose President, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has presided over the country for nearly five decades, making him the world’s longest-serving non-royal head of state.
His government, along with his son and Vice-President, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, is consistently accused of high-level corruption and grave human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture, and denial of basic due process.
The fundamental objection raised by critics is not merely the choice of partner but the manner in which the deal was funded and executed.
The Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) fund, created by Congress to provide emergency support to international refugee and humanitarian crises, has been repurposed to serve an enforcement function—a clear inversion of its legislative intent.
This has prompted strong condemnation from the top-ranking Democratic senator on the Senate foreign relations committee, who highlighted the Equatorial Guinean government’s established record of corruption and complicity in human trafficking, questioning how the regime can be trusted to respect the basic human rights of the incoming noncitizen deportees.
The administration’s push for third-country deportations allows it to remove non-citizens who cannot be easily returned to their home countries, often because those countries refuse to accept them or because the individuals have pending claims for asylum or other forms of fear-based relief.
Human rights monitors warn that these opaque deals effectively circumvent existing US and international legal protections, creating a fast-track to expulsion without sufficient opportunities for legal recourse or the ability to raise legitimate concerns about torture or persecution.
The United Nations has previously issued warnings that this policy could result in people being removed to foreign nations without adequate legal safeguards, raising the serious risk of refoulement—the forced return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are likely to face persecution.
The administration, while often publicising its successes in securing new bilateral agreements for the return of foreign nationals to their home countries, conducted the Equatorial Guinea deal with a notable degree of secrecy.
This clandestine approach has only served to fuel the concerns of human rights advocates, who argue that the lack of transparency is a deliberate strategy to shield the policy from public and legal scrutiny.
They contend that the deal is part of a broader, deterrence-focused strategy designed to send a chilling message to potential migrants: that no matter the legal basis of their claim or their length of residence in the US, they face the risk of being banished to a country where their rights will almost certainly be violated.
Furthermore, the payment to a regime whose leaders have previously been the target of US asset seizure actions related to corruption provides a disturbing irony.
A high-profile case years ago saw the US Department of Justice confiscate millions of dollars in assets from the country’s Vice-President, Nguema Obiang Mangue, arguing the assets were purchased with the proceeds of corruption plundered from the Equatorial Guinean people. To now send $7.5 million directly to this government, with minimal public oversight, suggests a profound hypocrisy in US foreign policy.
The entire episode underscores a troubling trend where humanitarian funds are instrumentalised for immigration enforcement, and human rights considerations are subordinated to the goal of mass deportation.
As the global community watches, the primary concern remains the welfare and safety of the individuals who will be deported to Equatorial Guinea—a nation already notorious for its human rights record—without any clear, enforceable mechanisms to ensure their protection. This controversial $7.5 million transaction may ultimately cost far more in moral authority and human suffering.
