Lead: On 6 September 2025, US immigration officials notified Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García that he could be removed to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini after reversing a prior plan to send him to Uganda; the change follows his claims of fear if returned to Uganda and comes amid broader disputes over his immigration status and criminal charges in the United States.
Key Takeaways
- Kilmar Ábrego García, a 30-year-old Salvadoran, was told by US officials he may be deported to Eswatini.
- A US immigration officer rescinded a decision to send him to Uganda after he raised persecution concerns.
- Officials described some of his claims as “hard to take seriously” but agreed not to remove him to Uganda.
- He was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, returned to the US in June and faces human smuggling charges; he has pleaded not guilty.
- The administration has previously proposed several third-country destinations; Eswatini has received at least five deportees from the US.
- Eswatini, an absolute monarchy bordering South Africa and Mozambique, has not publicly confirmed financial terms for any deportation arrangements.
Verified Facts
An email from a US immigration officer, seen by CBS News and reported by the BBC, says the agency revised last month’s decision to remove Mr Ábrego García to Uganda after he said he feared persecution there. The officer described those claims as “hard to take seriously” but said the US would not send him to Uganda.
Mr Ábrego García was mistakenly expelled to El Salvador in March 2025, US officials acknowledged at the time. He was later returned to US custody in June 2025, detained, and charged with human smuggling; he has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Trump administration has asserted that Mr Ábrego García is affiliated with the MS-13 gang, an allegation he denies. His case has been highlighted by the administration as part of a tougher immigration enforcement posture.
Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) is a small, landlocked kingdom in southern Africa ruled by King Mswati III since 1986. US reporting indicates at least five people have been deported from the US to Eswatini under arrangements described by US officials as transfers of “criminal illegal aliens.”
Context & Impact
Legal and diplomatic questions surround the use of third countries as destinations for deportation, especially when the person has no known ties to the receiving state. Human rights groups and some analysts worry that sending people to countries with limited links to them may expose deportees to safety risks and raise due-process concerns.
Eswatini’s government has not publicly confirmed whether it receives payments or other incentives related to accepting deportees. Some analysts have suggested economic ties—such as sugar exports, for which the US is a significant market—might factor into Eswatini’s willingness to cooperate with removal requests, though direct evidence is limited.
Policy implications include scrutiny of vetting procedures used to pick third-country destinations, the legal basis for removal where the individual lacks ties, and potential diplomatic friction if receiving states later refuse to accept specific people.
Possible consequences
- Heightened legal challenges in US immigration courts.
- Strain on US relations with third countries asked to accept deportees.
- Increased advocacy and monitoring by human rights organizations.
Official Statements
“We will nonetheless agree not to send him to Uganda,”
US immigration officer (email reported to CBS)
Unconfirmed
- Whether Eswatini will formally accept Mr Ábrego García if the US moves to remove him there.
- Any financial payments or formal “deportation deal” between Eswatini and the US have not been independently confirmed by Eswatini authorities.
- The veracity of the US claim that Mr Ábrego García is an MS-13 member remains contested and is a subject of legal dispute.
Bottom Line
The case of Kilmar Ábrego García highlights growing questions about the US practice of seeking third countries for deportation, the rights of individuals who contest returns on safety grounds, and the diplomatic arrangements that underpin such removals. Expect continued legal challenges and scrutiny from rights groups as the government proceeds.