Britain's Green Party votes to class Zionism as a form of racism

Issued on: 05/10/2026 -

Britain's Green Party voted on Sunday to class Zionism as a form of racism, drawing criticism from British Jews and from the Israeli government which said it now ​viewed the party ‌as "a body that gives legitimacy to terrorism".

Israel bars UK Green leader after party votes to define Zionism as racism

Copyright AP Photo

By Simon Ormiston

Published on 05/10/2026 -  EURONEWS

UK Jewish groups say the motion stokes hatred after a string of attacks on their community, while the government and other parties have condemned a policy that even at least three out of five Green MPs opposed.

Israel has barred the leader of Britain's Green Party Zack Polanski from entering the country after the party's members voted to define Zionism as racism.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar took the decision on Sunday evening, hours after the vote at the left-wing party's annual conference, Israel's foreign ministry said. It called the resolution "a clear antisemitic text" and described the ban on Polanski as a "first step".

"The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle," the ministry said.

Israel's president, Isaac Herzog, called the party's decision "a disgrace".

"Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, and it forms the basis for the Jewish people's right to a state and a national home in the Land of Israel," Herzog said on X.

The motion passed by 1,022 votes to 813. It states that Zionism will be "treated as any other form of racism" and commits the party to supporting a "single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine".

Jewish groups warn over safety

The vote comes at a time of heightened fear among British Jews. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the motion stoked "anti-Jewish hatred after a year in which British Jews have been murdered attending their synagogue, stabbed in the streets, and seen their community buildings firebombed".

Two worshippers were killed in an attack on a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur last year. In March, ambulances run by a Jewish volunteer service were set alight in Golders Green, north London, the first in a string of arson attacks on synagogues and other Jewish sites in the capital. Two Jewish men were stabbed in the same neighbourhood in April.

Last week, two Iranian nationals were charged over an alleged plot to carry out an attack in Manchester around this year's Yom Kippur.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors antisemitism, recorded 1,926 incidents in the first half of 2026, its second-highest half-year total, including a record 135 assaults.

Ahead of the Green Party vote, the heads of the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council wrote to the party.

"This motion would make the Green Party the first electorally significant UK political party in living memory to adopt what appears to be an overtly antisemitic political platform," they said.

UK parties condemn vote

Bridget Phillipson, chair of the ruling Labour Party and minister for women and equalities, condemned the decision.

"It is shameful to vote against a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and to condemn the vast majority of British Jews and Jews around the world as racist for supporting Israel's right to exist," she said in a party statement.

The opposition Conservatives described the Greens as "toxic to its core".

"British Jews should not have to disclaim a belief in Jewish self-determination and the existence of Israel in order to be accepted by a British political party," said Chris Philp, the party's shadow home secretary.

Divisions in the party

"This has been a serious and deeply felt debate within our membership," a Green spokesperson said.

In a joint statement, Polanski and the party's MPs said there was "no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people".

The motion exposed divisions in the party. At least three of its five MPs opposed it, and Polanski, who is running to become an MP in former prime minister Keir Starmer's London constituency, skipped the vote.

He said earlier this week that the "displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people" was "clearly racism".

United Nations investigators have accused Israel of committing "genocide" in the war in Gaza, a finding that Israel has rejected.

The Greens, who hold five of the 650 seats in Britain's parliament, have surged in popularity under Polanski, attracting voters dissatisfied with the centre-left Labour government's stance on the Israel-Hamas war. Polls show his popularity has taken a hit in recent months following several missteps.

Who Is Really Responsible For The Fall Of The West? – OpEd

October 3, 2026

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak


Key Takeaways:

The author treats “the West” as a racialised, colonial construct and says slogans about invasion, replacement, and “saving the West” (naming Trump, Meloni, Farage, and Musk) shift blame for unemployment, poverty, and the cost of living onto migrants.

The essay argues migrants staff hospitals, transport, care, teaching, and other services and pay taxes; it blames ruling elites, deindustrialisation, and wealth transfer—not Muslims or migrants—for the decline it describes, including Brexit conditions.

The prescribed alternative is working-class unity against what the author calls a racist, capitalist ruling order; that is a political claim, not a documented finding.

The ‘West’ or ‘Western World’ continues to be a contested conceptualisation, temporalised and impregnated with the history of uncivilised wars and territorialised in the form of countries in Western Europe, North America and Australasia, which falsely claim a cultural unity based on Christianity, colonial modernity and racialised capitalist and colonial progress with limited democracy—four core values of othering and the foundation of white supremacist ruling ideology in the contemporary Western world.

Racist bigots in politics, journalism and academia, along with reactionary commentators and half-baked right-wing intellectuals, peddle white supremacist ideology in the name of protecting Western values and society. They do so by promoting a restless, concocted and reactionary nationalist campaign across the Western world that advances ideas such as ‘the West is falling’, ‘the West is in Crisis’ or ‘the crisis of the West’, ‘threat to Western values’, ‘death of the West’, ‘failed West’, ‘liberal West’, ‘too soft west’, ‘saving the West and Western values’, ‘death of Europe’, ‘Muslim and migrant invasion’, ‘boat invaders’, ‘the great replacement’, ‘historical shift’ and ‘London is a foreign country’, etc.

Therefore, flag-waving reactionary and right wing political campaigns calling for ‘Making Britain Great Again’, ‘Making America Great Again’, ‘Europe for Europeans’, ‘Restore Europe’ and ‘Reform Britain’ are in full swing, while people in the Western world are struggling with various forms of crisis, from rising youth unemployment to child poverty, and from homelessness to debt and destitution due to the rising cost-of-living crisis. The political leadership, instead of providing solutions to these problems, outsources them by othering the non-white population in the West. Political leaders from Trump to Meloni and Nigel Farage, and corporate trillionaires like Elon Musk, spread the messages of these campaigns on an everyday basis.


But who is responsible for the fall of the West? Muslims and migrants are not responsible. They work in hospitals as doctors and nurses; sustain public transportation as bus, train and taxi drivers; work as school teachers, college lecturers and university professors. Migrants work in care homes, hotels, hospitals and educational institutions as cooks and cleaners; they pay their taxes and bills and sustain local, regional and national economies. Migrants from different parts of the world work as engineers, researchers, bankers and consultants to sustain public infrastructure and the private mobility of capital. Migrants work as workers and managers in supermarkets. Migrants run libraries, coffee shops and airports. All bed-and-breakfasts would shut down in the West without migrant workers. The West can’t survive a day without depending on the labour, skills, knowledge and creativity of migrant workers, who come from all religious, national and racial backgrounds, forming a social rainbow of a multicultural and multiethnic society in the West.

However, despite all their contributions, migrants are demonised on an everyday basis as welfare scroungers and a threat to so-called Western values—a contested and philosophically unfounded expression. So, who is responsible for the fall of the West? It is not migrants, people of colour and white working people. It is the bourgeois ruling classes and elites in the West, whose wealth comes from slavery and who therefore promote modern slavery in different forms of capitalism and exploit people and the planet on a daily basis. These governing elites promote policies that transfer wealth from working people to their secure tax havens. They promote policies for quick profit by shutting down sources of livelihood, employment and income for working people, who can then be used as a reserve army of low-paid workers defined by national minimum wages, while the superrich enjoy unlimited wealth at their disposal for leisure and pleasure.


Migrants did not destroy Western European unity, but undemocratic European Commission created conditions for referendum in Britain to exit united Brussels. Migrants did not close down the industries, factories, hospitals, train stations, mines, council housing, public parks, playgrounds, schools and universities. The Western ruling elites, with their shopkeeper mindset of making quick profit, decided to shut down the economic engines of growth based on employment and replace them with jobless growth, generating unemployment, poverty and homelessness. Migrants suffer like anyone else in the West, while ruling and non-ruling elites enjoy their lives in leisure and pleasure.

The failed ruling classes in Western world outsource their failures to migrants, who face relentless racist discrimination in offices, violence in the streets and abuse in police stations because of the anti-migrant and racist propaganda spread by reactionary, right-wing politicians and their media and other mouthpieces of power, privilege and plunder. These forces plunder public resources at the cost of working people and create propaganda that turns working people against one another, undermining their own unity and interests. These strategies of the ruling classes are not confined to the West; they are a worldwide phenomenon aimed at weakening the united struggle of the working class and its empowerment and emancipation.

The plunderous, racist, colonial, imperialist and capitalist ruling classes, their ideologies and policies are responsible for the fall of the West. It is time to expose authoritarian ruling-class propaganda and the exploitative political, economic and policy regimes that survive by exploiting people and nature. The Western ruling classes are the real scroungers; they survive on the blood, sweat, creativity and labour of working people. Blaming migrants, the working classes, the poor and the vulnerable is not an alternative. The only alternative is to start a united struggle against the ruling classes and their racist, white supremacist ideology and capitalist system which is responsible for the fall of the West and many other sufferings in the world. Working class unity and solidarity can not only revive the West but also provide the path of peace, prosperity and progress of people across the world.

About Bhabani Shankar Nayak
Bhabani Shankar Nayak works as Professor of Business Management, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, UK.
View all posts by Bhabani Shankar Nayak →

Kenya breaks ground on $16bn refinery as environmental concerns grow

East Africa is accelerating its push for greater energy independence with a new $16 billion refinery in Kenya – but the project is raising fears over the environmental cost of an expanding oil economy.

Issued on: 01/10/2026 - RFI

The ground-breaking ceremony for the Dangote East Africa oil refinery at the Port of Lamu on 30 September 2026, attended by the leaders of Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Benin and Togo. © AFP - LUIS TATO

By:   David Coffey


Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote joined Kenyan President William Ruto and several African leaders on Wednesday to break ground on the Dangote East Africa Petroleum Refinery at the Indian Ocean port of Lamu.

Once completed, the refinery is expected to process 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day, producing petrol, diesel and jet fuel for Kenya and markets across East Africa.

“This is Africa coming together to build Africa,” Dangote said. “Today we are not simply breaking ground for a refinery, we’re breaking ground for a new chapter in Africa’s industrial journey.”

Dangote, who launched Africa's largest oil refiniery in Nigeria in 2023, presented the project as part of the solution to a long-standing paradox – an oil-producing continent that exports much of its crude while importing refined products.

“For too long, our continent has actually been rich in resources but poor in value creation and addition,” he said.

“Africa cannot build lasting prosperity by exporting what it has and importing what it needs.”

Aliko Dangote, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dangote Group, at the signing ceremony for the Dangote Refinery initial public offering in Lagos, Nigeria, 7 September 2026. @ REUTERS - Sodiq Adelakun

Energy independence

Africa produced around 6.8 million barrels of crude oil a day in 2024 while consuming some 4.5 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products, according to figures cited by Ruto.

Yet refining capacity remains limited in many countries, leaving them exposed to international fuel markets and forcing governments to spend valuable foreign currency on imports.

Dangote argues increased refining capacity could allow most African countries to become self-sufficient in fuel by 2030.

Asked whether the Lamu refinery marked a turning point in East Africa’s push for greater energy independence, Victor Abuso of RFI’s Kiswahili service said the answer was “yes and no”.

On one hand, he said, speeches at Wednesday's ceremony by Ruto and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni reflected frustration with the region’s long dependence on foreign suppliers and overseas refining.

A refinery on the scale of Lamu could begin to change that. But Kenya does not yet commercially produce enough oil to supply a refinery of this size.

Dangote said the plant would initially import crude by sea from the Middle East, the United States and elsewhere, before potentially drawing more heavily on African producers as regional production expands. Its location at a deep-water port is central to that strategy.

The complex will also include a 1,000-megawatt power facility built to supply the refinery, with excess output expected to feed into Kenya’s electricity grid.

Regional rivalry

Abuso said the Lamu project also exposed persistent divisions within the East African Community, with governments pursuing competing oil and refining strategies.

Uganda is preparing to exploit its own oil reserves and plans to build a smaller refinery in the district of Hoima, in the west of the country. Meanwhile the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, or EACOP, is being built to carry Ugandan crude more than 1,400 kilometres to the Tanzanian port of Tanga.

Uganda and Tanzania have also discussed developing a refinery and energy hub at Tanga – the same port initially considered for Dangote’s project before he opted for Lamu.

Abuso said this suggested East Africa’s emerging oil economy may be driven as much by national rivalry as regional integration.

The “economic rivalry” between Kenya and Tanzania in particular was likely to continue “for many, many years to come”, he said.

Museveni attended Wednesday’s ceremony and welcomed the Lamu project, while making clear Uganda intends to proceed with its own refinery ambitions.

The Dangote Industries oil refinery and fertilizer plant site in the Ibeju Lekki district of Lagos, Nigeria, 2 March 2026. @ REUTERS - Sodiq Adelakun

Environmental and security concerns

The region's drive for greater energy independence also comes with a potentially substantial environmental price.

EACOP has already drawn criticism over land acquisition, biodiversity, carbon emissions and its potential impact on communities along its route.

Lamu now faces many of the same questions.

The region is home to Lamu Old Town, a Unesco World Heritage site and one of the oldest surviving Swahili settlements in East Africa. Its coastline, islands and mangrove forests are a major tourist attraction, while fishing remains central to the local economy.

Abuso said environmental concerns were already growing, particularly over the mangroves and the possibility of pollution reaching the Indian Ocean.

“The biggest worry is the possibility of oil spills in the Indian Ocean,” he said.

Local fishermen fear pollution could affect their catches, Abuso said, while residents are concerned that industrial development could hurt tourism.

“A lot of people who live in Lamu depend on tourists,” he said, adding that communities wanted clearer assurances from the government about how their livelihoods would be protected.

A man inspects damage caused by an oil spill within the Niger Delta in Ogboinbiri, Nigeria, on 11 December 2024. © Sunday Alamba / AP

Land rights have also become a flashpoint. Local residents have gone to court, asking that their rights to ancestral land be recognised before the development progresses further.

According to Abuso, residents say they were “not properly informed about this project and the negative effects that could come with it”.

A court allowed Wednesday’s ground-breaking ceremony to proceed while the legal case continues. Another hearing is scheduled on 14 October.

Ruto has promised that land and environmental concerns will be dealt with “lawfully and fairly”.

Lamu also presents a security challenge. The county lies close to Kenya’s border with Somalia and has suffered attacks and abductions linked to the Al-Shabaab Islamist militant group.

Abuso said security was a “genuine concern”, with reports that Kenya could establish a dedicated military presence near the refinery to protect the facility and surrounding communities.

Dangote's $16bn Kenya refinery faces second legal challenge over state stake

/ Dangote GroupFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bne IntelliNews October 2, 2026

Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote's planned $16bn oil refinery in the Kenyan port town of Lamu faces a second legal challenge after the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK), a consumer-rights lobby group, petitioned for a review of the government's proposed equity stake and other state support for the project.

COFEK filed the petition with the Public Private Partnerships Petition Committee under Section 75 of the Public Private Partnerships Act, 2021, asking it to scrutinise the project's public equity, land arrangements and government support.

The filing argues that the 700,000-bpd facility violates Kenya's constitution by failing to comply with the law governing public-private partnerships, according to Bloomberg. Kenyan media describe the petition as a request for disclosure and review, and COFEK itself says the refinery's reported capacity alone does not establish consumer harm, Capital FM reported.

At issue is Kenya's proposed 10% stake in the refinery, reported to be worth about $500mn (KES65bn). President William Ruto said at the September 30 groundbreaking that the government would hold a stake. COFEK wants the government to disclose the acquisition vehicle, share class and payment terms, and to say whether the money has been budgeted, committed or disbursed. It is also seeking clarification of a reported KES21.5bn seed allocation linked to the project and of whether public land will count as part of Kenya's contribution.

COFEK secretary-general Stephen Mutoro said in an affidavit supporting the petition that he had not been given the decision authorising the project, the identity of the contracting authority or the procurement route, Kahawatungu reported.

The petition follows a separate land case. A group of 133 residents obtained temporary orders from the Malindi Environment and Land Court requiring the parties to maintain the status quo on disputed land in Lamu County, although the court declined to stop the groundbreaking, The Star reported. A hearing is set for October 14, according to a statement from the African Energy Chamber, an industry lobby group.

Dangote Group, the privately owned Nigerian conglomerate that operates a refinery in Lekki, said the land ruling would not halt the launch but might affect activities at the site. Responding to the residents' case before the groundbreaking, Dangote said: "If you want to go to court to stop the Lamu Refinery, go ahead; we are ready for you," as quoted by The Star.

Ruto and Dangote presided over the groundbreaking. A day before the ceremony, Ruto said the project would proceed despite court orders and accused "disgruntled opposition sponsors" of trying to undermine the investment, Citizen Digital reported. On October 1, he said those opposed to industrialisation were behind the court cases, according to Dawan Africa.

Opposition politician Ndindi Nyoro, leader of the People's Party of Kenya, has separately demanded that the government publish the names of all shareholders in the refinery.

The refinery is Kenya's largest-ever foreign direct investment. Most of the crude will initially have to arrive by ship, with Dangote saying he would source it from the Middle East, the United States and elsewhere. Dangote has pledged to commission the refinery within 40 months of the groundbreaking. That is in line with the 2030 completion target cited by the African Energy Chamber, which has warned that prolonged legal proceedings could affect the timeline.

COFEK is separately challenging a KES93.68bn oil storage agreement between the government and Gulf Energy, a petition the High Court has certified as urgent, Nation reported.

‘F*ck the Consultants’: Free Advice Offered for Democrats in Need of a Position on AI

“Wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations.”


Protesters during a “Stop the AI Race” demonstration calling for a slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence systems outside City Hall in San Francisco, California, on September 17, 2026.
(Photo by Karl Mondon / AFP via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A veteran aide for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has some choice advice for Democrats running for office in this year’s election, which is to ignore the guidance some of them are reportedly receiving from their political consultants on the question of regulating the artificial intelligence industry in the face of growing public concerns about runaway machine learning and the data center buildout that big tech companies are pursuing nationwide.

Warren Gunnels, who currently serves as the minority staff director for Sanders on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in the US Senate, issued his advice in response to a Politico article published Thursday, which had the headline “Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI.”

While the reporting noted that members of the Democratic Party’s consultancy class are “privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them” ahead of this year’s midterm election, Gunnels offered a 9-word antidote to what he considered bad political advice and a failure to recognize where most voters are on the issue.

“Nine words,” said Gunnels in his post: “Fuck the consultants, End Citizens United, Ban super PACs.” Gunnels backed up his statement with recent polling data suggesting that a strong stance on AI and data centers would likely help, not hurt, those seeking elected office.



Gunnels wasn’t the only one to react negatively.

Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center, said it’s “wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations.”

The US Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which unleashed a tidal wave of dark money campaign spending, said Fischer, “promised unlimited political spending would mean more speech and a more robust marketplace of ideas. But instead, candidates are chilled from discussing issues voters care about for fear of angering wealthy interests capable of spending millions to defeat them.”



In July, Business Insider reported that the AI industry had already spent at least $65 million in midterm races, though other estimates have put that figure much higher. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, CEO of Space X and a major player in the AI space with his GROK model, has vowed to spend a $100 million help his preferred candidates and the Republican Party win.

At a summit on the need for robust regulation of the AI industry held earlier this week, Sanders said he had a message for leaders and executives running theses tech companies.

“My message to the AI CEO’s: If you truly care about the future of humanity,” said Sanders, “stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into super PACs to defeat Members of Congress and candidates who are fighting for serious guardrails on AI.”



As the debate over AI regulation has emerged as a major topic in Washington, DC, and on the campaign trail in recent weeks, a series of polls have confirmed public anxieties about the technology.

A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago released Wednesday showed that more than half of US voters (53%) are “extremely” or “very” concerned about artificial intelligence’s environmental impacts, and the poll also found broader concerns about the negative impacts of data centers, especially on local water resources and utility rates.

“Change is scary, and I think some of that is being reflected here,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago institute that collaborated on the survey, of the results.

The Politico reporting, which drew Gunnel’s fiery response, also acknowledged the public sentiment, but described how consultants working on various Democratic campaigns are trying to avoid provoking the ire of deep-pocketed tech giants:
Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs — even as it’s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI’s chief competitor, Anthropic.

While the fears of being targeted by the industry cash may not be unfounded, progressives like Gunnels suggest that a willingness to take a stand against powerful AI companies is exactly the kind of fight voters want to see from party candidates.

For the Politico article, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House, explained how AI super PACs “come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation.”

In a social media post Thursday night, however, Jayapal backed the congressional campaign of Will Lawrence, running as a Democrat to win an open seat in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, by saying voters “need leaders who answer to their constituents, not the corporations that paid for their election.”

Following Gunnels advice that bucking the influence of corporate donors is actually a key component of a winning electoral strategy in the 2026 midterms, Jayapal said “electing fighters who don’t take corporate PAC money”—whether on the issue of AI, healthcare, housing policy, or broader concerns about economic inequality and affordability—is key for Democrats.

Amid Urgent Demand for Oversight, Analysis Details 105 US Lawmakers Personally Invested in the AI Industry

Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.


US Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) participates in the Competing and Setting the Standards in the AI Era panel during The Hill & Valley Forum 2026 at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on March 24, 2026, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images The Hill & Valley Forum)

Stephen Prager
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.

A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.



Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.

Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.

Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.

The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress’ AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.



One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party’s legislative agenda around the emerging technology.

According to Sludge, Gottheimer’s household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.

The report draws attention to the “scores of sales” he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his “Liberation Day” tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.

Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party’s approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of “superintelligent” AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.

This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill’s voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.

Gottheimer’s proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.

Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.

Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.

Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household’s millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.

Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.

One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.

Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.

On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk’s company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.

The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November’s midterm elections.

On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.

“AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both,” the lawmakers wrote. “While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles.”

“The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards,” the letter concluded. “To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, ‘Why Congress Slept’—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable.”

Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.

ICE, Trump and Africa: Secret deals, broken lives

Cover image: Reporters: ICE, Trump and Africa: Secret deals, broken lives 

© Studio graphique FMM

44.03

Issued on: 21/09/2026 
44:07 min From the show

For this edition of Reporters+, Karina Chabour investigated the dark side of US President Donald Trump’s immigration policy: How ICE deports immigrants to so-called third countries in Africa, far from the United States and often far from their countries of origin.


Most of the people deported have been living in the US for decades. They worked, paid taxes and many even have families who were left behind. Without notice, they were arrested, detained and then deported to Ghana and Eswatini: countries they don’t know and where they have no relatives, no income and no legal status.

Our reporter met individuals who now live in limbo: without papers and sometimes detained, at risk of being sent back to the very country they fled, many fearing for their lives.

Cover image: Sofia Alvarez Jurado, Forbidden Stories, Paris, September 21, 2026. © Screengrab
09:59

The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations

As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.

Lives in limbo and US pressure on African states

Behind the broken lives of the deported, the film reveals a dark system put in place by Washington. To secure agreements with African states, the US piles on the pressure: political and financial deals, discreet bargaining, or trade and tariff incentives.

READ MORE‘Waiting for us to crack’: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

“ICE, Trump and Africa – Secret deals, broken lives” reveals how the US is relocating deportations: how secret deals are being carried out by the Trump administration, using human lives as a negotiating tool.

With the collaboration of Caroline Dumay, Olivia Bizot, Simon Martin and Marine Pradel.

Third-country removals: Trump’s deportation policy by the numbers

INVESTIGATION

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has deported more than 25,000 people to so-called “third countries” – places that are not their countries of origin. Working with a team of 26 international media outlets, Forbidden Stories and FRANCE 24 have used information gathered by NGOs and open-source information to count and map these deportations. Our investigation shines a light on the scale of this mass deportation campaign that is being carried out under the cover of darkness.


Issued on: 21/09/2026 - 
By:The FRANCE 24 Observers/
Lise KIENNEMANN

icetracking.org

Forbidden Stories and FRANCE 24 have been working to document the scale of the Trump administration’s policy to deport people to third countries. © France Medias Monde graphic studio

For a better viewing experience on a large screen, expand the map.  

Rabbiatu Kuyateh considers the United States her country: “I've known it as my home”, she said. It isn’t where she was born, however: she was born and raised in Sierra Leone but fled the civil war there in the 90s. She has now lived in the United States for more than 30 years and has raised her own family there. Kuyateh is a nurse and, throughout this time, she had a series of renewable work permits and never obtained permanent residency. “I worked hard, I paid my taxes,” she said.

But in early July 2025, she was detained during a routine appointment with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Baltimore, Maryland. After spending four months in detention, she learned that she was going to be deported to Ghana, more than 1,000 km from her country of origin.

“I said, ‘Ghana? I’m not from Ghana; what am I going to do there? I only saw Ghana on the map; I don’t know where that is, ” she told the consortium.

THE DEPORTATION PROJECT Deported to Africa: An international investigation into Trump’s migrant policy


More than 25,000 people have been expelled to third countries

Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, more than 25,000 people have been deported to a country that is not their home country and with which they often have no ties, according to a count carried out by a team of 26 international media outlets led by Forbidden Stories. A large majority – 20,000 people – were deported to Mexico. Others – at least 5,447 people – had, by August 31, 2026, been taken on deportation flights and dropped all across the globe.

These “third-country removals” have become a core part of the Trump administration’s repressive migration policy. In recent months, they have been making an increasing number of deportation agreements with third countries, often under a cloak of secrecy.

There has been very little official communication about these deportations.

“At the beginning of the administration, they were really overt about the fact they're carrying out these flights. But over the past year, the government has been very opaque about these third-country transfers,” said Savi Arvey, director of Policy, Refugee & Immigrant Rights at the NGO Human Rights First.

To “shed light on these transfers”, the organisation relies on public flight-tracking data, as well as a network of NGOs, lawyers and on-the-ground sources. It shares its findings through the ICE Flight Monitor project, which monitors these deportation transfers, and the Third Country Deportation Watch tracker, developed with the NGO Refugees International.

Our investigation is based on their work, as well as that of the Human Rights Center at the University of Berkeley, freedom of information requests, and information gathered by journalists around the world and the lawyers of the people who have been deported. We were able to document a large number of these deportations and gather information on the number and nationality of those deported (see our methodology here).
Deportation agreements concluded with 35 countries on six continents

A total of 28 countries located on six different continents had received third-country deportees from the United States by August 31, 2026. The Trump administration had also concluded more deals enabling them to deport third-country citizens to seven other countries. (In the meantime, one of these countries, Guyana, received its first transfer of third-country citizens – six people from Cuba and Afghanistan who were transferred there in early September.)

More than 5,000 people removed on deportation flights

There have been roughly 20,000 non-Mexican nationals deported to Mexico, according to data gathered by Third-country Deportation Watch, despite the fact that there is no official agreement between the two countries. They were taken there by land routes.

The others – at least 5,447 people of 89 different nationalities – have been deported by flight. The number of flights varies depending on the country.

The second-largest number of third-country deportees were sent to Guatemala, just south of Mexico. Nearly 3,000 people have been deported there; 90% of them Mexican nationals. Four other Central American countries have also received more than 250 third-country deportees: Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and El Salvador.

Deals with 13 African countries

But people haven’t just been deported to the Americas. “During the first Trump administration, there were agreements signed with Mexico and three Central American countries [Editor’s note: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador],” said Arvey. “Now we're seeing that the US is going well beyond Mexico and Central America to countries in the Caribbean, countries throughout South America and countries across Africa and even in parts of Eastern Europe.”

Thirteen African nations, most in West or Central Africa, have signed third-country deportation deals with the United States – representing more than a third of the overall countries that have signed. Of them, 12 had already received third-country deportees by August 31, 2026, representing a total of 450 people. For the time being, Ghana is the African country that has received the largest number of individuals, with more than 100 people from third countries being sent there. The Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Sierra Leone and Eswatini have each received dozens of people.

Savi Arvey says that some of the agreements are being made with “countries that previously the United States did not look to partner with”, including “such a corrupt autocratic government like Equatorial Guinea”. “It seems like the goal for the United States is the deal. The profile of the country, its human rights record doesn't matter at all. ”
‘I had started a new life in the United States; I felt safe’

According to our count, the people who have been deported are from nearly 90 different countries, most from Africa or Central or South America.

Malick (not his real name) was on the same deportation flight as Rabbiatu. Born in Senegal, he came to the United States in 2023 after fleeing his country over fears about his safety. He obtained a work permit.

“I had started a new life in the United States,” he said. “I felt safe.”

Like Rabbiatu, Malick had been granted a “withholding of removal”, meaning that the United States government can’t deport you to your home country because your life or freedom would be threatened there.

The Trump administration has said on numerous occasions that they are targeting people with criminal records for deportation. In June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that the policy would apply to “aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers".

But the reports published by different NGOs tell a different story, as do the interviews that our group carried out with 33 different people who have been deported.

“I did not commit any crime; I always abided by the law,” Kuyateh said. She’s far from the only one. Most of the people deported to African countries don’t have any criminal record, says Alma David, an American lawyer who represents dozens of deportees to Africa.

Furthermore, of the people deported to third countries who do have criminal records, many had already served their sentence – in many cases, years ago.
Poor treatment and arbitrary detention

While third country deportations are legal under US law, it is only under limited circumstances and when proper protocols have been followed to guarantee the person’s safety.

However, NGOs as well as lawyers representing the victims have been reporting on the human rights violations taking place during these transfers, including degrading treatment and arbitrary detention. In El Salvador, more than 250 men have been held in a high-security prison meant to house gangs, a place with “inhumane prison conditions", according to Human Rights Watch. The organisation also documented “constant beatings” and “cases of sexual violence".

Human rights organisations are also worried about the specific people who have been deported.

“What's been extremely worrying is the targeting of people who've been granted withholding and removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture for third-country removals, in particular to various countries in Africa, but also to Mexico,” Arvey said.

Historically, people with this legal status were generally not deported. But as part of its mass deportation campaign, the new Trump administration has started using third-country removals as a way to deport people without returning them to their home countries.

Like Malick and Rabbiatu, Soraya (not her real name) had this legal status. Soraya is Ghanaian; she fled to the United States in 2024 because of her sexual orientation. “Withholding of removal, it's protection,” she said. “I was thinking they were going to protect me rather than sending me to a third country that will not accept me. But they still brought me to Cameroon, an African country that doesn't accept LGBT.”

Fears are particularly centred on the risk of "chain refoulement” – in which individuals are removed to a third country only to be sent back to their home country, where they face persecution. “In many cases, what we have seen is they are very much sending people back to countries that US immigration judges have established are dangerous for them,” said Meredyth Yoon, a US-based lawyer who represents more than a dozen third-country nationals removed to African countries.

Isatou (not her real name), a Guinean who migrated to the US to flee a forced marriage, was removed to Ghana, and then sent back to her country of origin. For her safety, we won’t say where she is now. But a few months after her removal, she told the consortium she had no choice but to hide. “I don’t go out anymore, I’m scared of coming across my family,” she said. “They ruined my life.”
‘Indirect form of return to harm’

Michael Garcia Bocheneck, interim director of Human Rights Watch's US programme, said:


“We think the government is using third-country removals to avoid the responsibilities that it has under international law not to return people to harm. (...) In many cases, it seems that the tacit assumption is that the third country will simply return them to their home country anyway. It's an indirect form of return to harm, and it's still a violation of international law.”

Carolyn Patty Blum, Clinical Professor of Law Emerita at UC Berkeley School of Law, said that in accordance with the non-refoulement principle – “a defining principle” of international law –, “no one should be forced to return to any country where they face a risk of persecution, human rights violations or torture". “Both the United States and the receiving countries violate that law by transferring people to places where they face serious risk of harm.”

Many of the deals include blanket language on ensuring migrants are not arbitrarily detained or sent to another country where they could face persecution. But the “stated ‘assurances’ of protection in the receiving country are inadequate", said Blum, who also pointed to the absence of “any methods of ongoing oversight” once the individual is outside the US.

Moreover, while some of the deals (known as “Asylum Cooperative Agreements”) include guarantees that transferred individuals can request asylum in the receiving country, other arrangements (called “Third-Country Removal Agreements”) offer no such protections. “What's been so concerning in this case is that often there's a reference to just transit,” Arvey said. “It’s very overt that the country understands that it will just serve as a transfer point. So it raises huge concerns about refoulement.”

Human rights advocates have repeatedly denounced the DHS policy of deporting individuals with little to no notice – leaving them with no real chance to contest their removal if they fear for their safety in the receiving country. On September 18, 2026, a US federal appeals court ruled that removing individuals to third countries without giving them a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of torture or persecution is illegal. The court also rejected the Trump administration's argument that general human rights assurances from third countries are sufficient.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said shortly after the decision that the ruling will not prevent “the third country deportation policy” from “continuing”. “If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere.”

That view is not shared by Trina Realmuto, the executive director at National Immigration Litigation Alliance, one of the groups who brought the class-action case. She told our consortium that “the decision is effective now, which means DHS cannot continue to apply its existing third-country removal policy”. However, she said that they “anticipate the government will seek Supreme Court review and could seek a stay of the decision while they do so.”
The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations


As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.
Chilling effect

Removing people to third countries with almost no warning has also been used by the Trump administration to deter migration and encourage self-deportation, according to the lawyers and NGOs we spoke with.

“If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman, in August 2025, referencing the aforementioned Salvadoran prison and a now-closed detention centre in Florida.

“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” a US official reportedly said, according to a report by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Contacted by the consortium, the US Department of State said in a statement that they “will use all legal means” to remove individuals with no right to remain in the US and that “they do not comment on their private diplomatic communications with other governments”. At the time of publication, ICE had not responded to our questions.

The consortium also contacted the governments of the 35 countries that have concluded a deal with the US. The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the interior ministry reiterated that “Mexico has not signed an agreement with the United States” to receive foreign nationals, saying it was receiving these “individuals on humanitarian grounds". The Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that an agreement had been signed with the US. At the time of publication, the other countries had not responded to our questions.
‘Threats of tariffs, visa bans or cuts to assistance’

The reasons why countries agree to accept these nationals often remain murky. Even when the agreements have been made public, the quid pro quos involved are rarely mentioned.

But according to documents obtained by the Washington Post as part of this project, the US has pledged more than $ 81 million (70 million euros) to 13 governments in connection with these agreements. This includes more than 15 million dollars (13 million euros) each for Guatemala and Honduras. The administration has pledged over five million dollars to six other countries – the Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Palau and Rwanda.

It seems, however, that these concessions are also tied to broader geopolitical or economic interests – quid pro quos that can often only be inferred from secondary agreements made alongside the transfers. The report from Senate Democrats stresses that “deportation is being used as a bargaining chip", with third countries “being pressured with threats of tariffs, visa bans, or cuts to assistance".

In the case of Ghana, for example, the foreign minister admitted following the deal that US officials had raised potential visa and tariff concessions for his country. Just days after the agreement was announced, the US lifted the five-year visa restrictions it had imposed on Ghana two months earlier.

“I think that it's fair to say that everybody is running a little scared of the US,” Bocheneck said. “I think they all know that whatever goodwill they've got with the US right now is very tenuous, and everybody's trying to do whatever they can on the political side to keep the goodwill as long as possible.”

Additional reporting: Magdalena Hervada, Léa Péruchon, Sofía Álvarez Jurado (Forbidden Stories) and Karina Chabour.

Investigation: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

Under often-secret deals struck with third countries across Africa and Latin America, US President Donald Trump has deported thousands of people who were hoping to build new lives in the US to countries they’ve never set foot in before. Working with Forbidden Stories, FRANCE 24 investigated the stories of several African migrants whose lives were thrown into chaos by their abrupt deportation from the US to a temporary shelter in Cameroon’s capital Yaoundé.


Issued on: 21/09/2026 - 

FRANCE24

By:  David RICH

At least 44 people from more across Africa have been deported from the US to Cameroon – a country to which they have no connection. © Studio graphique FMM


“Welcome to the temporary migrant shelter.” In a residential neighbourhood in the Cameroonian capital of Yaoundé, a government compound has been transformed into a place for people with nowhere else to go.

Behind its high clay-coloured walls, 20-odd people share dorm rooms sparsely furnished with bunk beds.

Several days after her arrival, Barbara* is still struggling to get her bearings.

“I feel really bad, I have no family here, I don’t know anyone, and most people only speak French,” she said in English.


The young woman had fled persecution in her homeland Ethiopia to the US, hoping to build a new life for herself. But in April this year, she was deported without warning by US immigration authorities to the Central African country of Cameroon, a country utterly unknown to her.

‘They put me on a plane, and I landed here’

Born in the state of Tigray in the north of Ethiopia, Barbara left her country after war broke out between federal government forces and the region’s Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The conflict is believed to have killed more than 600,000 people between 2020 and 2024.

Fleeing persecution, she travelled to Brazil at the end of 2024 before making her way to the US border by bus. The young woman was detained by border police on arrival and sent to an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

Several months later, a judge granted her “withholding of removal”, a legal protection distinct from asylum that nonetheless prevents recipients from being deported to their home country on the grounds that they would more likely than not face persecution.

Despite this measure, Barbara would remain in the detention centre for several more months – until she was abruptly bundled on board a flight to Cameroon on April 28, 2026.

“Police came to get me and told me I had to go back,” she said. “I was so shocked. They put me on a plane and I landed here.”

Within the walls of the Yaoundé migrant centre, people from almost a dozen African countries – Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe – all have similar stories.

Soraya* said she fled Ghana after her family found out about her sexual orientation.

“In Accra, people I know are looking for me,” she said. “They want me dead.”

Soraya had also been granted a protection measure in the US – before being deported without warning.
Legal loopholes

To be granted “withholding of removal” in the US, an applicant must show that they have more than a 50 percent risk of suffering persecution in their home country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group or for their political beliefs.

But this protection does nothing to prevent recipients from being deported to countries deemed “safe” – that is to say, where deportees wouldn’t be exposed to the same risk of persecution that they would in their homeland.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has wasted no time in launching itself at this loophole. Having promised to bring an end to what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants, Trump has struck a number of bilateral agreements with what have been dubbed "third countries".
The “temporary migrant shelter” in Yaoundé. © Forbidden Stories

The aim is clear: to expel migrants who are legally protected from being deported to their home countries, and to send a warning to those hoping to follow in their footsteps.

“It’s precisely because these people have been granted this protection in the United States that they are sent here,” said Cameroonian lawyer Joseph Awah Fru, who provides legal assistance to migrants deported to Yaoundé. “The US needed a ‘blank-slate’ country.”
Secret deals

More than 35 “deals” have been signed so far, the majority of which have been struck with Latin American countries, like Mexico, Panama, El Salvador and Costa Rica, or African states including Cameroon, Ghana, Sierra Leone, DR Congo, Eswatini, the Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea. These agreements have facilitated the deportation of more than 25,000 people.

But while the Trump administration has been stepping up the rate of deportations, the actual content of many of these agreements remains shrouded in mystery.

“Most of these are secret agreements that governments have not submitted to Parliament for approval,” said Beatrice Njeri, a Kenyan lawyer and a member of a coalition defending the rights of deportees. “There is neither openness nor transparency.”

She said that deportees often found themselves isolated in these third countries.

“They are being held in quasi-military conditions, treated as prisoners,” she said. “They usually have very limited access to a lawyer, so that they can find out what options are available to them, because governments want to force them to return to their home countries – despite the danger.”

In the case of Cameroon, the only publicly available document confirming the deal is an exchange of diplomatic notes that took place in December 2025, published in June by the US State Department.

Document : communiqué from the US embassy in Cameroon

As outlined in the note, both Yaoundé and Washington undertook to “arrange the transfer from the United States to the Republic of Cameroon of certain third-country nationals present in the United States”.

For its part, Cameroon agreed to treat these deportees in a manner consistent with its obligations under international law, and assured that they would not be subjected to persecution or torture, either in Cameroon or in any country that Yaoundé would send them on to.

The actual terms of the deal are still opaque. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the agreement appears to have been reached after Washington directly imposed financial pressure on the Central African country.

The US reportedly threatened to suspend a payment of some $30 million intended for the country office of the UN Refugee Agency. The payment finally went through on January 9 – six days before a plane carrying the first deportees from Louisiana touched down in the country.

A US government website said that the funding was intended “in support of third-country national arrangement negotiations”.

The UN refugee agency denied that the funds were earmarked for the resettlement of deportees, insisting that the money would be “allocated and used in accordance with its mandate”.

A source close to the Cameroonian government confirmed to FRANCE 24 that an agreement had been reached between Washington and Yaoundé, apparently negotiated by President Paul Biya himself, before the first deportations took place. The president's office did not respond to requests for comment.

The source said that the deal, which was struck in total secrecy, was meant to “improve” the relationship between both countries and strengthen cooperation on the economic and security fronts.

At the end of August, the two countries held an inaugural “US-Cameroon Bilateral Economic and Commercial Dialogue” in Yaoundé. During the event, the US announced an investment of $7 billion in Cameroonian industries ranging from tech, critical minerals, infrastructure and energy.

The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations


As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.

Deported without documents

In Yaoundé, the deportees allege they were stripped of their passports by US authorities, who have held onto them since their departure.

“When we arrived, we weren’t allowed to leave the centre,” said Soraya, who was on the first flight that landed in Cameroon on January 15. “We were treated like criminals.”

Unable to move around freely, some of the deportees took drastic measures – to little result.

“We decided to go on a hunger strike in protest, and that’s why they said they were going to give us identity documents that would allow us to move around freely,” she said. “But they only gave us a piece of paper valid for just two months that we could show if we were stopped by police.”

“The migrants are housed and fed, but they have no money,” Awah Fru said. “They can leave the centre, but the authorities warned them that they would not be held responsible if something happened to them. Their freedom has been violated.”

The source close to the Cameroonian government defended the measures.

“When you don’t have your papers in a country, you are required to restrict your movements,” they said.

For weeks now, Awah Fru has been making frequent visits to the centre to try to ensure the deportees’ rights are upheld. On August 5, the lawyer lodged an appeal on behalf of 36 migrants deported to Cameroon between January and May 2026 with the Yaoundé Administrative Court. He is seeking to suspend the agreement with the United States on the grounds that the deportations put them at risk of persecution and torture.

“From the moment that Cameroon agreed to welcome these people onto its territory, it has the responsibility to protect them like refugees,” he said. It’s a campaign that the lawyer has waged by himself – and not an easy one.
Constant pressure

During his first visit to the centre on February 17, Awah Fru and the four journalists accompanying him were briefly detained by the judicial police – an act that only deepened the climate of fear among the deportees, who largely refuse all contact with the media.

While in detention, the journalists were forced to delete the videos they had recorded and were warned by the police not to do any more work on the story. The source close to the government described their detention as “an unfortunate incident by a handful of overzealous police”.

“There’s no omerta around this case,” they insisted.

Despite these assurances, the Cameroonian government still hasn’t responded to FRANCE 24’s application for a media visa, submitted for this investigation.

Because of this, the testimonies of the deportees had to be recorded remotely.

The source close to the government insisted that Cameroon was a “welcoming country” where the deportees “are treated well”. The migrants have reportedly been visited by multiple officials from the justice and foreign affairs ministries.

They have also met with representatives from the UN Refugee Agency and the UN’s International Organization for Migration.

'Deportation machine': How Donald Trump and ICE are changing America

Cover image: 'Deportation machine': How Donald Trump and ICE are changing America

 © AFP
17:30

The latter agency plays a crucial role in the lives of those held in the detention centre – particularly those who decide to return to their home countries.

“The IOM representatives don’t tell us that they’re going to force us to return to our home countries, but that they can help us if we wish to do so,” one of the deportees said. “The government representatives, on the other hand, tell us that we must return to our home countries.”

“Where someone asks us to help them return to their country of origin, or to another country where they have the legal right to stay, we do so only after individualised counselling and protection screening,” the agency said in a statement, adding that the decision needed to be “freely” made.

“Our commitment in no way constitutes an endorsement of the decisions that led to the deportation of these people,” a spokesperson added.
‘They’re just waiting for us to crack’

Despite the difficult situation they’ve been put in, both Barbara and Soraya hope that with their lawyer’s help they can be granted asylum in Cameroon.

“I’ve heard there are human rights issues here,” Barbara said. “But if I go back to my country, I know what will happen – I have no choice.”

“Here, we wake up and each day is like the day before it,” Soraya said. “We have to beg for everything – they’re just waiting for us to crack and agree to go home. But most of us can’t go home. That’s true for me too, even though I know Cameroon isn’t any safer for me.”

In a grim irony, Soraya has been deported to a country where the laws against homosexuality are even more repressive than in her homeland. Homosexual acts are punishable by up to five years in prison in Cameroon, compared with three years in Ghana.

Among the first deportees sent to Cameroon, two other women – both from Morocco – were like Soraya and granted protection measures in the US due to their sexual orientation. Both women decided to return to their home country despite the risks, choosing to live in hiding rather than remain locked up in a strange land.

Gisèle, another deportee in the centre who fled the fighting between the DR Congo and Rwanda, has abandoned her plans to seek asylum in Cameroon for health reasons. Suffering from a thyroid condition, she has never been able to obtain her medication at the centre in Yaoundé, despite her repeated requests.

Worried that her health would only get worse, she finally agreed to be sent back to the DR Congo after five months behind the centre’s walls.

*Names have been changed at the interviewees’ request.

This article has been adapted from the original in French by Paul Millar.

The Deportation Project: our full coverage

Deported to Africa: An international investigation into Trump’s migrant policy

‘Waiting for us to crack’: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

Interactive map: Third-country removals - Trump’s deportation policy by the numbers

Scrollytelling: Flight to Ghana - Expelled From the US to a Country They’d Never Been to (coming soon)

‘I had never heard of Eswatini’: Deported to a country that rejects them (coming soon)

BY: Karina CHABOUR