An internal revolt erupted Monday as senior Democrats challenged the Donald Trump administration’s decision to send $7.5 million to the government of Equatorial Guinea in exchange for accepting deported non-citizens from the United States. The payment, drawn from the Migration and Refugee Assistance fund normally reserved for humanitarian crises overseas, marks the first known direct government-to-government transfer of its kind, according to lawmakers.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking detailed questions about the legality and transparency of the deal. She wrote that the payment “would far exceed the amount of U.S. foreign assistance provided over the last eight years combined” to Equatorial Guinea.
The payment came as part of a broader push by the Trump administration to negotiate “third-country” removal agreements, under which undocumented migrants in the U.S. are sent to nations other than their country of origin. Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich nation in central Africa, has faced repeated criticism for corruption at the highest levels and for weak protections of human rights.
In her letter, Shaheen asked what safeguards the administration has established to prevent human trafficking, abuse, or elimination of due-process rights for deportees. “This highly unusual payment to one of the most corrupt governments in the world raises serious concerns over the responsible, transparent use of American taxpayer dollars,” she wrote.
The State Department described implementing the administration’s immigration policies as a top priority, adding that it remained “unwavering in our commitment to end illegal and mass immigration and bolster America’s border security.” The spokesperson declined to provide further details on diplomatic or financial terms of the agreement.
From a strategic view, the deal aligns with the administration’s drive to link immigration enforcement to foreign-policy goals. Reports show that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau met with Equatorial Guinea’s vice president, Teodoro “Teddy” Nguema Obiang, in September. Obiang is the son of the country’s long-time ruler and has been implicated in large-scale corruption, including asset seizures spanning supercars and luxury homes abroad.
Critics say the payment raises a host of red flags. The fund used is designed for humanitarian relief, not immigration enforcement. The beneficiary government has a long record of rights abuses. The secrecy surrounding the deal leaves deportees’ fate unclear. One congressional aide called the arrangement “a notable, egregious agreement.”
Immigration advocacy organizations warn that sending individuals to a nation with weak rule of law can expose them to human trafficking, abuse, or unlawful detention. UN experts have previously flagged the administration’s push for third-country removals as lacking necessary procedural safeguards.
The payment to Equatorial Guinea highlights how immigration policy has become deeply intertwined with foreign-policy and national-security strategies. From the administration’s view, striking agreements with overseas partners to receive U.S. deportees helps relieve domestic enforcement pressure and strengthen diplomatic ties, particularly in regions where U.S. strategic interests such as oil or influence are at play. But the approach also reverses longer-standing norms separating humanitarian funding from migration control.
For U.S. lawmakers, especially Democrats who emphasize transparency and rights protections, the deal presents a political vulnerability. The fact that the payment surpassed eight years of U.S. aid to Equatorial Guinea in one move raises questions about priorities. It puts pressure on the administration to justify using a fund meant for refugees to finance deportation agreements.
For the individuals subject to these removals, the risks are significant. Many non-citizens facing deportation already operate in precarious legal and social environments. A destination country with pervasive corruption and weak human-rights oversight offers limited recourse. That dynamic raises concerns under U.S. and international law regarding non-refoulement and due-process protections.
Going forward, the deal may prompt Congress to tighten oversight of the Migration and Refugee Assistance fund, demand greater transparency in third-country removal agreements, or require stricter human-rights assurances before funds flow. For the administration, such scrutiny may slow future deals or compel more detailed public reporting.
The $7.5 million payment signals a strategic shift in U.S. migration enforcement, but it also introduces legal, ethical, and political risks that lawmakers and civil-society groups are now preparing to challenge.
Read Also: IMF says Senegal keeps the final say on how to handle its debt
