Liberia Faces Scrutiny Over US Deportee Agreement Ahead of UN Security Council Presidency

Liberia is facing growing scrutiny over its agreement with the United States to accommodate third-country nationals deported from the country, with questions raised about transparency, constitutional requirements and the treatment of those removed.

The agreement was signed with the Trump administration on September 10, 2025. Its full terms have not been provided in the available account, while the number of people Liberia will ultimately host remains described as an expectation rather than a confirmed total.

The arrangement emerged as Liberia prepares to assume the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council in December as a non-permanent member. The agreement’s critics argue that it could affect the country’s credibility at a time when it has used its experience of prolonged armed conflict in UN discussions on Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and Iran.

Arrival of deportees

The first group reportedly included 20 deportees, with about 1,200 expected under the arrangement. Six people who refused to leave the aircraft were later taken to Equatorial Guinea under terms described as opaque.

Several deportees who landed at Roberts International Airport on August 20 said they had been detained in the United States without due process and chained during the flight to Liberia. The account does not provide their names, nationalities or individual deportation records.

A Liberian government press release described the programme as “humanitarian” and said it was intended to provide the “dignified, safe and orderly transfer” of non-criminals removed from the United States. The statement said Liberia had “not demanded or received any compensation or promise of reward”, while support would be available to manage the programme and strengthen migration management.

Questions over approval and payment

The account says Liberia’s National Legislature did not deliberate on or approve the agreement before it was authorised by the executive branch. Officials reportedly declined or failed to provide a copy of the deal to the account’s author, who later located it on the US State Department website.

Liberia’s foreign affairs minister reportedly said the matter was “at the level of the National Security Council”. The country’s then minister of justice reportedly said the agreement remained classified because it had been entered into with a “foreign country”.

The New York Times, as cited in the account, reported that US administration officials had agreed to pay Liberia $5m for accepting the deportees. The payment has not been independently established in the available material, and it remains unclear whether it was made, how it was negotiated or how any funds would be managed.

The reported payment appears potentially inconsistent with the government’s statement that Liberia had not received compensation, according to the account. The author also argues that any remuneration without approval from the National Legislature could raise constitutional concerns.

Legal and human-rights concerns

The account argues that the arrangement may conflict with Article 34(f) of Liberia’s Constitution, which it says requires treaties, conventions and other international agreements negotiated or signed on behalf of the country to be ratified by the National Legislature.

It also raises questions about whether the deportees’ protection claims in the United States were still pending, their legal status in Liberia, where they would live, whether they could move freely and why they were deported. Liberia and the United States are parties to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The author further argues that deportations carried out without due process, along with reports of cruel or inhumane treatment, could conflict with principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration refers to an “effective remedy” and a “fair and public hearing”, and states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

These constitutional and international-law concerns are assessments presented by the account, rather than findings of a court or other independent ruling identified in the available material.

The controversy comes amid a wider debate over Liberia’s dealings with the United States, including a bilateral health cooperation memorandum signed the previous December that involved more than $124m in planned assistance and access to citizens’ health data. The account also draws comparisons with Liberia’s 1926 agreement involving a $5m loan and a 99-year, 404,700-hectare lease to Firestone.