Trump’s proposal, would potentially make Rwanda the first African nation to accept third-country deportees from the US.
Donald Trump is reportedly exploring plans to deport migrants from the US to Rwanda, the New York Times (NYT) has reported. The proposal appears to borrow directly from Britain’s highly controversial Rwanda asylum scheme, one that the NYT notes has drawn intense domestic and international criticism.
Images of former UK home secretary Suella Braverman grinning during a tour of Rwandan detention facilities continue to haunt many observers. Braverman infamously described the prospect of deportation flights to Rwanda as her “dream” and “obsession.”
In its report, the NYT informs of the humanitarian and legal controversies surrounding the UK’s Rwanda plan, which was first agreed in 2022. Although it was later ruled unlawful by the British Supreme Court due to concerns over Rwanda’s human rights record and treatment of refugees, the Conservative government passed legislation in 2024 to override that ruling and declare Rwanda a “safe country.” Despite this, only a handful of asylum seekers left voluntarily under the scheme. The plan was ultimately scrapped after Labour came to power in July 2024.
The report also highlights the staggering financial cost to British taxpayers—£715 million in total, with £290 million paid directly to Rwanda. The Rwandan government has stated it will not refund the money, despite the programme’s collapse.
Trump’s proposal, which is still in early discussion stages according to Rwanda’s foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, would potentially make Rwanda the first African nation to accept third-country deportees from the US. While the specifics remain unclear, the New York Times suggests the idea is part of a broader Trump campaign crackdown on immigration—one already drawing comparisons to previous controversial moves, such as deporting migrants to prisons in El Salvador.
Critics cited in the NYT warn that Rwanda’s track record on human rights, its limited infrastructure, and history of refugee surveillance and intimidation make it an unsafe destination for asylum seekers—concerns echoed throughout coverage of the UK’s aborted plan.
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
