The Trump administration’s approach to deporting migrants has sparked significant discussion, especially regarding costs and effectiveness. Recently, a congressional investigation revealed that the U.S. government has spent over $32 million to deport about 300 individuals to countries they have no ties to, raising serious concerns about wasteful spending.
For instance, the U.S. paid Rwanda $7.5 million to take just seven people. That breaks down to around $1.1 million per person. Similar deals were made with other countries, such as Equatorial Guinea and Palau, leading to costs of hundreds of thousands per person. What’s striking is that over 80% of those deported have either returned to their home countries or are in the process of doing so, suggesting that direct deportations might have been more efficient.
Many in the U.S. government are puzzled by this strategy. Some argue that it’s a scare tactic designed to deter people from coming to the U.S. One current official remarked, “It doesn’t make sense,” noting that the administration ends up paying twice for some deportees—first to send them to another country and then to bring them back.
The investigation shows unsettling patterns. In cases where countries were willing to accept deportees, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) often failed to follow proper procedures. For example, Mexico’s government stated they were never notified about a citizen being sent to South Sudan, a country characterized by extreme corruption, according to Transparency International.
Critics of the administration point out that these arrangements often involve corrupt regimes. For instance, Equatorial Guinea, a recipient of U.S. funds, ranks poorly for corruption and has a known history of human rights abuses. Despite this, there seems to be minimal oversight of how these funds are utilized.
Recent statistics indicate that as of September 2025, many of those deported had court-protected status, which means they should not have been deported. A federal judge raised concerns that the administration may be trying to skirt U.S. immigration laws through these actions.
Experts have debated the implications of these practices. Legal scholars and human rights advocates worry about the potential violation of international laws and the danger posed to individuals returned to countries where they face persecution.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, highlighted the risk of sacrificing relationships with allies by engaging with questionable foreign governments for these deportation agreements. While officials defend the administration’s actions as a necessary means to enforce immigration laws, many Americans are questioning the ethical and financial logic behind them.
For a deeper dive into U.S. immigration policies and their impacts globally, see this report from Transparency International on South Sudan’s corruption levels, highlighting the broader implications of such legal and diplomatic decisions.
