Secretive $7.5 Million Deal Sends 66 Deportees to Equatorial Guinea, Then On to the Countries They Fled

What Happened

The Trump administration negotiated a secretive deal with the government of Equatorial Guinea — one of the world's most repressive regimes — paying $7.5 million to accept deportees from the United States. Twenty-nine people from nine different countries were sent on two flights, the first on November 24, 2025 and the second on January 22, 2026. None of the deportees were citizens of Equatorial Guinea.

The deportees came from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mauritania, Angola, Congo, Chad, Georgia, Ghana, and Nigeria. Many had fled persecution and violence in their home countries and sought asylum in the United States. Instead of processing their claims, the administration sent them to a country that Freedom House rates 5 out of 100 on its Freedom in the World index — among the lowest scores on Earth, comparable to North Korea and Eritrea.

Conditions in Equatorial Guinea

The US State Department's own human rights report on Equatorial Guinea documents "credible reports of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including censorship; trafficking in persons, including forced labor."

Equatorial Guinea has been ruled by the Obiang family since 1979, making it one of the world's longest-running dictatorships. The country has no asylum system whatsoever. Once deported there, the 29 individuals face an impossible choice: indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, or forced deportation to the very countries they originally fled.

People With US Protection Grants

According to Third Country Deportation Watch, the January and June 2026 flights included people whom US immigration judges had granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, meaning a US court had found they would likely be persecuted or tortured in their home countries. Those grants bar removal to the home country, not to a third country, which is why DHS used third-country transfers.

On February 25, 2026, in D.V.D. v. DHS, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts declared the Department of Homeland Security's third-country removal policy unlawful and set it aside, holding that DHS cannot deport people to countries not designated in their removal proceedings without meaningful notice and a genuine opportunity to seek protection. The administration appealed and the ruling is stayed.

Onward Return to the Countries They Fled

Equatorial Guinean authorities told deportees that asylum was not available and that they would be returned to their countries of origin once travel documents were obtained. Third Country Deportation Watch reports that all 29 people from the first two flights were sent back to their countries of origin, including a Mauritanian man who had escaped hereditary slavery and a Ghanaian man previously granted withholding of removal because of persecution over his sexual orientation. In May 2026 the UN Human Rights Office raised concerns about the risk of refoulement; days later, individuals with withholding grants were returned. Flights continued through August 20, 2026, bringing the total to 66 people, and in August 2026 three detainees reported being threatened at gunpoint and assaulted at the hotel where they were held.

Part of a Broader Program

The Equatorial Guinea deal is part of a wider pattern. According to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority report published in February 2026, the administration has spent at least $40 million deporting roughly 300 migrants to third countries — countries the deportees have no connection to and did not come from. These secret deals have been negotiated with some of the world's most authoritarian governments, bypassing normal diplomatic transparency and congressional oversight.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen described Equatorial Guinea as "one of the most corrupt governments in the world" and questioned the $7.5 million payment tied to the deportations.

Legal Analysis

The deportation of people to a country with well-documented torture and arbitrary detention implicates several foundational protections under international law.

The Convention Against Torture, which the United States has ratified, contains an absolute prohibition on refoulement — the return of any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." The test is a personal, foreseeable and real risk to the individual (CAT Committee General Comment 4); a country's general human rights record, such as a 5/100 Freedom House rating, is relevant but not sufficient on its own. The strongest evidence here is individual: US immigration judges had already found that some of these people would likely be tortured or persecuted in their home countries, and those people were then returned there from Equatorial Guinea. The CAT's non-refoulement obligation is non-derogable — it applies regardless of the individual's immigration status, criminal history, or national security considerations.

The 1951 Refugee Convention's Article 33 similarly prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where their "life or freedom would be threatened." Many of the deportees had fled persecution in their home countries; sending them to a country without access to asylum, from which people with US protection grants were then returned to those same countries, is evidence of chain refoulement.

The ICCPR's Article 13 requires that aliens lawfully in a state's territory may only be expelled "in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law" and must "be allowed to submit reasons against expulsion." The secretive nature of the deportation deal and the lack of notice found unlawful in D.V.D. v. DHS suggest these procedural protections were not observed.

Rome Statute: Deportation or forcible transfer is a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(d) only when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population under a State policy. This entry records that classification as potential: the chain-refoulement evidence is strong, but no recognised legal authority has found the Article 7 contextual element, and it is not shown here.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

• Deportation to a torture state: Equatorial Guinea's 5/100 Freedom House rating and the State Department's own documentation of torture, arbitrary detention, and forced labor establish clear and well-documented risks to deportees.
• No asylum system: Deportees have no legal pathway to safety. They face indefinite detention or forced return to the countries they fled — a form of chain refoulement.
• Chain refoulement of protected people: People whom US immigration judges had found at risk of persecution or torture were transferred and then returned to their home countries.
• Secrecy: The $7.5 million deal was negotiated in secret, without congressional oversight, with one of the world's most corrupt and repressive governments.
• Vulnerability of victims: The 66 deportees include asylum seekers who fled persecution and people with US protection grants, detained without counsel and with no access to asylum.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

1. Convention Against Torture Article 3: The non-refoulement obligation is absolute and covers indirect (chain) refoulement. Transferring people whom US judges had found at risk of torture to a country that then returned them engages this provision.
2. 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33: Sending asylum seekers to a country with no asylum system, where they face potential return to the countries they fled, constitutes refoulement.
3. ICCPR Article 7: Subjecting deportees to conditions amounting to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment — including indefinite detention without counsel in one of the world's most repressive countries.
4. ICCPR Article 9: Arbitrary detention of deportees in Equatorial Guinea without legal basis or judicial review.
5. ICCPR Article 13: Failure to provide procedural protections for expulsion, including the right to submit reasons against deportation and to have the case reviewed.