Uganda

Transfers have not yet occurred under a 2025 U.S.-Uganda agreement. On July 29, 2025, the United States signed an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with Uganda, under which the United States would send those who “may seek protection” in the United States to Uganda. Ugandan officials acknowledged the arrangement, stating that “individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors will not be accepted” and that “Uganda also prefers that individuals from African countries shall be the ones transferred to Uganda.” The agreement was published in the federal register on September 3, 2025 without any details about its implementation. 

An ACA is an agreement where the United States bars asylum seekers from applying for U.S. asylum and sends them to a third country to apply for protection there. U.S. law governing “safe third country” agreements provides that asylum seekers cannot be sent to third countries for assessment of their asylum claims unless they would be safe from persecution and have access to full and fair asylum procedures. The current and former Trump administrations have repeatedly entered into ACAs with countries that do not meet these requirements. The agreement with Uganda is being challenged  in U.T. v. Bondi, which challenges the legality of several aspects of the ACAs purportedly entered into under the safe third country provision of U.S. law. This includes a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2019 interim final rule purporting to authorize the ACAs (ratified by DHS in 2025), DHS guidance implementing them, and designations finding that countries with which the United States has ACAs provide access to a “full and fair” asylum system. U.T. v. Bondi began as a challenge to ACAs during the first Trump administration as U.T. v. Barr.

On September 4, 2025, an immigration judge cancelled (“pretermitted”) the asylum case of a Somali asylum seeker subjected to female genital mutilation and forced marriage in Somalia, and ordered her removed pursuant to the Honduras ACA or in the alternative the ACA with Uganda. The woman is a plaintiff in the U.T. v. Bondi litigation, which includes a challenge to the U.S.-Uganda agreement. 

Uganda’s history of receiving transferred asylum seekers raises serious concerns about their treatment, access to legal status, and protection. Between 2015 and 2018, Uganda received 1,749 Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers transferred from Israel. Once in Uganda, many of these individuals were reportedly subjected to beatings, exploitation, and forced return to potentially dangerous situations in their home countries. Following litigation, the Israeli Supreme court halted the Israeli government from further forced transfers to Uganda and Rwanda in 2018. 

Uganda is unsafe for many asylum seekers, including LGBTQ people, women, and political activists. Members of the LGBTQ+ population face legal discrimination and violent attacks in Uganda. Journalists and individuals critical of the Ugandan government risk arrest and brutal detention. Violence against women is widespread, and survivors frequently encounter inadequate support services. Uganda’s asylum system is backlogged, and those recognized as refugees are often sent to settlements with limited access to education or legal employment. In early December 2025, Uganda’s minister for refugees announced that the government would no longer grant refugee status to Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis, citing a shortfall of funding from UNHCR and an overburdened system that cannot provide full and fair asylum procedures and essential services to recognized refugees.

The U.S.-Uganda relationship is shaped by a range of economic, political, and diplomatic considerations. Uganda has sought to lower U.S. tariffs on its exports and to regain eligibility under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Uganda also appears interested in increasing U.S. humanitarian and development assistance, removing the restrictions on non-immigrant visas, including the 90-day limit, and in lifting of visa sanctions imposed on certain Ugandan officials. Beyond economic and visa-related concerns, the Ugandan government may be motivated by a desire to enhance its international legitimacy and to avoid U.S. criticism of its electoral conduct in the lead-up to the 2026 national elections.