On Friday, July 4, eight men landed at Juba International Airport in South Sudan. The group included two Cubans, two Burmese nationals, and one each from Laos, Mexico, and Vietnam. Only one of them was South Sudanese. According to the U.S. government, each had served a prison sentence in America for serious crimes and faced formal removal orders upon completing their terms. A prolonged court battle over the legality of their deportation kept them detained for more than six weeks at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.

Since they arrived in Juba, their fate has been a mystery. No reliable reports have emerged regarding their whereabouts or current condition. When pressed for details, former U.S. border czar Tom Homan said, “They’re free as far as we’re concerned. They’re no longer in our custody. Will they stay in Sudan? I don’t know,” he said in an interview.

Their removal illustrates the Trump administration’s immigrant deportation under the “third-country” removal policy, in which the U.S. sends detained illegal immigrants to nations other than their own when home governments refuse to accept them. In February and March this year, detainees were sent to Costa Rica and El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

CECOT was billed as a state-of-the-art solution to gang violence. Instead, it became a symbol of systemic abuse. Human-rights groups have documented detainees sleeping on concrete floors, being denied medical care, and subsisting on spoiled food. Venezuela’s Attorney General opened an investigation into allegations of torture and sexual violence against more than 250 of their citizens sent there. The resulting outrage damaged El Salvador’s standing and raised questions about accountability at facilities run by private contractors.

By sending eight unrelated migrants to South Sudan, Washington made Juba its latest African partner in U.S. immigration policy. South Sudan is a young nation still wrestling with civil conflict, famine, and mass displacement while its institutions struggle to deliver basic services. Ironically, Juba agreed to accept these men just months after Washington revoked all South Sudanese visas in April 2025 over a dispute about repatriating a Congolese national.

Last week, five more detainees landed in Eswatini under the same U.S. immigrant deportation policy. They are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos, and U.S. officials say their convictions include murder and child rape. Eswatini’s government has placed them in solitary confinement at undisclosed prisons while it arranges repatriation through a U.N. agency.

Other African states have faced similar discussions. Rwanda held exploratory talks with Washington about hosting deportees, though no deal was signed. And most recently, Nigeria’s foreign minister rebuffed Washington, saying his country “has enough problems of its own” and would not accept third-country removals.

These developments reveal a troubling pattern. Washington is using its economic and diplomatic weight to enlist developing nations in enforcing U.S. immigration policy. For fragile states across Africa, agreeing to host detainees can mean aid boosts, security support, or eased visa rules. Yet these same governments often lack the legal frameworks and oversight to ensure fair treatment. If they follow El Salvador’s model, they risk swift global criticism and continued reputational risk should reports of abuse emerge.

As more countries sign on — and it seems likely — the continent risks becoming a dumping ground for America’s crackdown on migration. African leaders and regional bodies must demand transparency and push back against coercive deals. Otherwise, smaller, less powerful states will succumb to U.S. pressure while their own citizens are deprived of essential services and protection.

"Sudanese families are not aware that Egyptians practice FGM. Amongst them, type three [the most extreme] is usually known as Pharaonic. So when we ask them whether Egyptians practice FGM or not, they realize that Egyptians must practice FGM because it's Pharaonic," Dr. Yussra Mohammed tells OkayAfrica. "During a [recent] conference, Egyptian organizations and activists were surprised that Sudanese referred to type three FGM as Pharaonic because, in Egypt, they refer to it as Sudanese. So they're throwing the blame on each other."

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is illegal in Egypt and Sudan, and yet 87.2 percent of Egyptian women and 86.6 percent of Sudanese women aged 15-49 have undergone it. In both societies, people believe that genital cutting is a tradition to preserve a girl's honor and, by extension, her family's.

In the first study of its kind, Equality Now and Tadwein for Gender Studies look at how perspectives around FGM might be changing in Egypt's Sudanese migrant communities. While it lays open several opportunities that could lead to its abandonment, it also reveals how little most people know about the practice and how much the nicknaming of the different types affects how people perceive them: as ancient, foreign, or religiously mandated.

Since the outbreak of war in April 2023, an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 million Sudanese have fled to Egypt. Equality Now, an international human rights organization that aims to protect and advance the rights of all women and girls around the world, and Tadwein for Gender Studies, an Egyptian organization with a mission to promote gender equality and address gender-based violence through research, advocacy, and community interventions, had been working to end FGM in Sudan and Egypt separately.

"When we saw the influx of people into Egypt, we thought that there was an opportunity to try and see what this migration means for the continuation or the abandonment of FGM," says Paleki Ayang, MENA Gender Advisor at Equality Now.

Economic instability, insecure housing, and obtaining legal status are among the many issues Sudanese are dealing with in Egypt. Although FGM is a deeply embedded cultural practice that is often falsely framed as a religious necessity, it is not a top priority for a refugee. So, could displacement be the reason Sudanese communities let go of FGM?

To find out, Tadwein interviewed 30 grandmothers, mothers, fathers, and young adults in Cairo and Giza. Half of them had been living in Egypt since before the war; the other half were refugees. They shared their varying knowledge of the three types of FGM, colloquially known as Sunna (type one), Sandwich (type two), and Pharaonic (type three).

"We need to debunk the myth that type one is harmless or religiously required," says Ayang. "People need to understand that the harms of FGM are physical, psychological, social, and economic."

The practice's main drivers are grandmothers; young men and fathers are the least informed. All interviewees claimed not to practice FGM, but Dr. Mohammed cautions that this might be because it is illegal in Egypt, and people will not go on record admitting that they broke the law. Most participants, however, were not aware of the law's exact ramifications; they merely assumed that it exists.

Both Ayang and Dr. Mohammed were surprised to find that neither Sudanese nor Egyptians know which type of FGM is prevalent in the other community. This is a testament to the tension between the communities.

In Sudan, FGM is usually done by a midwife, nurse, or grandmother, whereas in Egypt, it is carried out by doctors. In the study, many Sudanese said that they are not comfortable asking Egyptians for help or information due to the racism they experience. Not understanding how the system works and potentially jeopardizing their legal status could be a major deterrent to continuing FGM in Egypt.

In terms of ending FGM, Dr. Mohammed considers this lack of communication a good thing. "If the Sudanese find out that healthcare providers in Egypt conduct FGM, it will be on the rise," she says. Paired with the misconception that type 1 is not harmful, people will assume it is safe if a doctor performs it."

She continues, "When interaction happens and the families talk about FGM, God knows what could happen," she says. "So if we will intervene, we need to do it now."

Published at this crucial moment, the study is meant to be a stepping stone that paves the way for more in-depth research and campaigns, aiming to reframe FGM from being a legal or medical issue to a plain and simple human rights violation. It offers several recommendations, such as involving courts to enforce the law and elders to shift communal attitudes.

"There are now many female-headed Sudanese households in Egypt," says Ayang. "It's important to empower mothers with knowledge, confidence, and tools to resist whatever pressure they might face from their families and communities."

While Ayang admits that "There is no clear cut answer to whether FGM will be abandoned or continued," Dr. Mohammed believes that the factors that will help people abandon FGM are greater than those that provide room for its continuation.

A plane carrying the first batch of white South Africans granted refugee status by the U.S. government landed near Washington, D.C. today, Monday May 12, 2025. The 49 Afrikaner refugees are entering the U.S. at a time when the Trump administration is bent on dismantling most of the country’s refugee resettlement programs and generally laying siege on immigrants and immigration rights.

Earlier this year, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that South Africa’s government is persecuting its minority white population and proceeded to sign an executive order stopping all financial aid to South Africa. Trump also offered resettlement to white South Africans, and about 70,000 people reportedly indicated interest in relocating to the U.S. as refugees.

The first batch of refugees is part of a “much larger-scale relocation effort,” according to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The Trump administration’s acceptance of Afrikaner refugees is the latest escalation of its strained relationship with South Africa, even though its stance is partly based on gross misinformation.

Earlier this year, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a land expropriation bill that gives the government the power to take over lands that haven’t been used for long periods and lands not being adequately utilized. Following loud complaints by the Afrikaner-representing civil group Afriforum, Trump went on to state that land is being arbitrarily taken away from white South Africans and also claimed that the Afrikaner population is being targeted through racist policies.

While many white South Africans have ridiculed the idea that they need to be rescued and seek asylum in the U.S., the Trump administration has made the refugee program for Afrikaners a priority. This is happening at a time when refugees and protected immigrants are having their rights to remain in the U.S. revoked.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would not renew the temporary protected status (TPS) of some 7,900 Cameroonians. TPS, granted to people from countries dealing with armed conflicts and other dire circumstances, is routinely renewed every 18 months. The decision to end the TPS designation for the thousands of affected Cameroonians could lead to forced removals from the U.S. by late June.

Over half a million migrants from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have had their TPS designation revoked.

Also, last month, the U.S. government announced that it had revoked the visas of all South Sudanese and placed travel restrictions on the East African country. It cited South Sudan’s unwillingness to accept the return of its citizens in “a timely manner.” South Sudan’s government had initially rejected the deportation of an individual from the U.S., stating that the person was from Congo.

However, following strong words from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, South Sudan accepted the deported individual, hoping to undo the visa revocation announcement, which didn’t happen. South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, is in danger of plunging into another civil war, and the visa revocation endangers the lives of those who successfully sought asylum in the U.S. and could be forcefully deported.

Trump’s stance towards Africa (and the global south) has mainly been antagonistic. He infamously referred to African countries as “shithole” countries during his first term. This makes the extension of refugee status to white South Africans a curious case, if not disturbing.

South Africa’s former ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled by the American government after he suggested that white supremacy plays a role in Trump’s relationship with South Africa.

According to a draft list, 22 of the 43 countries that could face travel restrictions to the U.S. are African countries. Libya, Somalia, and Sudan are among eight countries that could face an outright travel ban. Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sierra Leone would face travel restrictions, and citizens from 16 other African countries would need two months to clear serious security checks.

When U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in April that President Donald Trump's administration had revoked visas for all South Sudanese citizens, citing South Sudan’s failure to accept deportees “in a timely manner,” it sounded like South Sudan was being punished for refusing to cooperate.

But the reality was far more ridiculous and unfair.

The problem centered on a single passenger: a man on a U.S. deportation flight whom South Sudan refused to accept because he was Congolese, not South Sudanese. Yet America didn’t care.

Even after South Sudan capitulated days later and agreed to take in the Congolese man, “in the spirit of friendly relations,” the U.S. has kept the visa revocation in place. Friendly relations, it seems, are one-sided.

Across social media, South Sudanese described it as American bullying. South Sudan’s Information Minister, Michael Makuei Lueth, told the media that the U.S. was “attempting to find faults with the tense situation” in the country.

“No sovereign nation would accept foreign deportees,” he said.

South Sudan is the world’s youngest country and is on the brink of renewed civil war, threatening over 11 million people.

And yet, from the African Union and other African heads of state? Silence.

That silence is telling and extremely dangerous.

South Sudan’s visa crisis came amid rumors of a draft U.S. travel ban list in which most of the countries are African.

This is just one example of how Trump’s second-term “America First” agenda has hurt Africa, with little pushback from leaders. Since returning to office, he has frozen billions of dollars in aid, ended Power Africa, and imposed new tariffs that threaten African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade and jobs across the continent. His policies are also threatening African students studying in the U.S.

Even South Africa, already punished after Trump suspended aid and controversially offered asylum to white Afrikaners, stood alone as it expelled the U.S. ambassador. There is no solidarity from neighbors. No AU statement.

Some may see America stepping back as a push toward self-reliance or simply wish to avoid Washington’s ire. And the African Union may still be adjusting under new leadership. The newly elected AU Commission Chairperson and commissioners took office in March.

But history shows the AU can speak up. In 2017, then-AU Commission Chair Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma condemned Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

“The very country to which many of our people were taken as slaves during the transatlantic slave trade has now decided to ban refugees from some of our countries,” she told the AU summit in Addis Ababa. “What do we do about this? Indeed, this is one of the greatest challenges to our unity and solidarity.”

Today, the challenge remains, but unity and solidarity seem missing.

If Africa’s institutions won’t stand up for their citizens, who will?