What’s Really Behind Uganda’s Decision to Accept US Deportees?
Uganda stands as Africa’s largest refugee host country with nearly 2 million refugees and asylum seekers. The country made headlines that sent shockwaves through international communities: Uganda will now accept deported migrants from the United States who have clean criminal records and aren’t unaccompanied minors.
The US Embassy in Uganda and Kampala’s relationship has faced several challenges lately, despite their traditionally friendly ties. The country already provides shelter to about 1.7 million refugees from neighboring South Sudan, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This new agreement marks a radical alteration in Uganda’s international stance. The timing seems peculiar since the US has imposed 15 percent tariffs on Ugandan goods at the time of ongoing trade disputes.
This piece delves into Uganda’s decision-making process, potential benefits, controversial elements, and how this deal compares with other nations’ arrangements.
What exactly did Uganda agree to?
Uganda officially confirmed a “temporary arrangement” with the United States to accept certain deportees after mixed early reports. This marks one of the most important diplomatic developments in Uganda today, but many implementation details are still unknown.
Terms of the temporary arrangement
Uganda’s Foreign Ministry Permanent Secretary Bagiire Vincent Waiswa stated that the agreement covers “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”. Both nations have “concluded” the arrangement and now work to finalize the implementation details.
This agreement differs from standard deportation deals. It represents a “third-country” deportation policy where the US sends migrants to a third nation when they fail to qualify for asylum and cannot return home. Neither government has specified the number of deportees Uganda plans to accept.
Who will be accepted and who won’t
Uganda’s government has set clear limits on which deportees it will take:
- No individuals with criminal records
- No unaccompanied minors
- Preference for migrants of African nationalities
We focused on Africans and Asians who asked for asylum at the US-Mexico border but didn’t qualify for refugee status. This careful selection aims to address concerns about security and integration within Uganda.
Why the deal was initially denied, then confirmed
Uganda’s stance on the agreement changed dramatically within 24 hours. State Minister for Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem denied any deportation agreement on August 20, 2025. He told Reuters: “To the best of my knowledge we have not reached such an agreement. We do not have the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such illegal immigrants in Uganda”.
Uganda’s Foreign Ministry officially acknowledged the deal the next day. Oryem expressed concerns about integration during the denial phase. He asked: “We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?”. These opposing statements point to either internal disagreement or careful management of public reaction to this controversial arrangement in Uganda.
What does Uganda stand to gain from this deal?
Image Source: The Independent
Uganda’s decision to accept US deportees stems from a careful economic and diplomatic strategy. This arrangement comes at a crucial time when relations between both countries face challenges but could bring advantages to Uganda.
Trade benefits and tariff negotiations
The deportee agreement is driven by economic goals. Ugandan exports face a 15% tariff on goods entering the US market. These tariffs are a big deal as they mean reduced profits for Uganda’s main exports to America, which include coffee, vanilla, cocoa beans, and petroleum products.
International Relations Minister Henry Okello Oryem confirmed talks about “visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues”. This suggests tariff relief might be part of the deal. A similar case exists in the region where Eswatini took in deportees and got lower tariffs in return.
Restoring ties with the US after AGOA suspension
The bigger picture shows Uganda trying to fix diplomatic damage after being removed from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2023. President Biden cited “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” as the reason, which stopped Uganda from exporting certain goods to the US duty-free.
Before the expulsion, Uganda’s AGOA exports to the US reached USD 8.20 million in the 12 months to June 2023. This made up 11.5% of its total US exports (USD 70.70 million). The country’s total exports to the US in 2022 were worth USD 174.00 million. Getting back into AGOA would help Uganda’s economy, especially its agricultural sector that employs about 72% of the country’s workforce.
Potential aid and diplomatic leverage
Taking in deportees gives Uganda valuable diplomatic power. Godwin Toko from Agora, a Ugandan thinktank, noted that Uganda can “play a good boy for the US” to “gain leverage”. Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi thinks the deal helps Uganda’s government look better before the 2026 elections.
The deal might also help restore foreign aid that was frozen earlier. US cuts to foreign aid under the Trump administration have “hit Uganda hard” and affected important health programs and vulnerable groups.
Why is the deal controversial?
Image Source: Al Jazeera
The agreement between Uganda and the US has ignited heated debate among human rights supporters, legal experts, and political observers. This controversial arrangement raises basic questions about international obligations and the treatment of vulnerable populations.
Concerns over human rights and international law
Human rights organizations have voiced strong criticism of the deportation arrangement and warned about possible violations of international legal principles. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo called the deportee deal “human trafficking” and said it “runs afoul of international law”. Rights experts point out that sending migrants to countries that aren’t their own could violate the principle of “non-refoulement,” the life-blood of refugee protection. People who face deportation to countries where they risk torture or persecution might lose their fundamental human rights protections.
Unclear legal status of deportees
The biggest problem centers on the unclear status of people sent to Uganda. “Are they refugees or prisoners?” questioned Opiyo. This legal uncertainty creates confusion about deportees’ rights and protections once they arrive in Uganda. Aid groups highlight that bringing in deportees “with little notice or resources” could worsen existing pressures in a country that already hosts over a million refugees from neighboring nations.
Criticism from Ugandan opposition and civil society
Opposition figures look at the agreement with doubt and suggest political motives behind it. Lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said Uganda’s leaders rushed the deal to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections”. He asked Washington not to ignore what he described as ongoing “human rights and governance issues in Uganda”. Godwin Toko from a Ugandan democracy thinktank observed that Uganda lacks economic or military power, yet “can play a good boy for the US” to gain diplomatic advantages.
How does Uganda compare to other countries in similar deals?
Image Source: Newsweek
Uganda has joined other African nations in accepting US migrants as part of a broader deportation strategy. This development has caught attention both locally and throughout the continent.
Eswatini, South Sudan, and Rwanda’s arrangements
Eswatini took in five men with criminal backgrounds from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Cuba in July 2025. These individuals must stay in solitary confinement until their repatriation, which might take up to a year. South Sudan welcomed eight deportees, though only one person actually came from South Sudan. Rwanda took a different approach and agreed to take up to 250 deportees. Rwanda’s government stated they would “retain the right to approve each individual”.
What the US offered those countries
Eswatini’s decision to cooperate might have helped secure lower tariffs for their exports. South Sudan’s list of requests included lifting sanctions on Vice-President Benjamin Bol Mel, removing visa restrictions, and attracting US investment in their natural resources. Rwanda might receive an unspecified grant, similar to the nearly $300 million promised under a failed UK deportation agreement.
Lessons from past deportee agreements
These arrangements now face major legal hurdles. The US Embassy in Uganda has likely noticed Eswatini’s agreement being challenged in court on constitutional grounds. Past deportees struggled with uncertain legal status and poor detention conditions, similar to El Salvador’s agreement that sent migrants to notorious prisons.
Uganda’s choice to accept US deportees marks a transformation in its global position, especially since the country already hosts close to 2 million refugees. This deal, though controversial, shows a well-planned diplomatic and economic approach. The country aims to gain substantial benefits – tariff relief, possible readmission to AGOA, and better diplomatic ties with the United States.
The deal’s implementation and human rights impact raise serious concerns. Deportees’ unclear legal status and Uganda’s ability to welcome these people create real challenges. Human rights groups question whether these deportation practices follow international law.
Other African nations like Eswatini, South Sudan, and Rwanda have made similar deals with the US. Each nation has worked out different terms to get economic or diplomatic advantages. These agreements face criticism about their legal standing and how they treat deportees.
The deal’s timing looks calculated, right after Uganda lost its AGOA status and faced 15 percent tariffs on US exports. Ugandan officials’ mixed messages – first denying then confirming the deal within 24 hours – point to complex internal politics behind this choice.
The world watches this “temporary arrangement” unfold. Success depends on Uganda’s economic gains and its commitment to protect deportees’ rights and dignity.
