In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order imposing travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Haiti, and Iran, in an effort to “protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors.” The ban, which comes into effect on June 9, 2025, mirrors a similar action taken during his first term but with significant changes.
The order restricts entry from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Additionally, nationals from seven other countries—Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela—will face partial restrictions.
Exemptions and Justifications
The travel ban includes exemptions for specific groups, such as athletes traveling for major sporting events like the Olympics or World Cup, and some Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas. Dual nationals and lawful permanent residents are also exempt. The administration has clarified that exemptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis.
Trump justified the ban by citing the need for thorough vetting processes, stating, “We don’t want them,” referencing recent security concerns like the attack in Boulder, Colorado, which left 12 injured. He argued that the United States cannot allow “open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter.”
Human Rights Reactions
Human rights organizations have sharply criticized the ban. Robyn Barnard from Human Rights First called the move “truly punitive,” adding that many of the affected countries are places people are fleeing due to conflict, violence, and persecution, particularly against women, girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Amnesty International has condemned the ban as “discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,” claiming that it promotes hate and misinformation. Barnard also stressed that such actions do not enhance security but undermine national security by arbitrarily targeting vulnerable populations.
Differences from the 2017 Ban
The new order bears similarities to Trump’s first travel ban, issued in 2017, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries. Critics had labeled it the “Muslim ban,” and the policy faced multiple legal challenges before being upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Unlike the previous order, which was challenged on religious discrimination grounds, the current ban does not target Muslim-majority countries. Instead, it focuses on nations with high visa overstay rates or significant political instability.
Unlike the 90- to 120-day duration of the original ban, this new order is open-ended, with no set expiration date. Trump indicated that the policy would be periodically reviewed.
Mixed Reactions from Affected Countries
The new travel restrictions have drawn strong reactions from several affected nations. Venezuelan officials have accused the Trump administration of being “supremacists who think they own the world,” while Somali officials have expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue to address security concerns.
Haitians, in particular, have voiced outrage at their country’s inclusion in the ban, given the ongoing security crisis in the nation. Many feel the ban is an unjust punishment while Haiti is grappling with its largest security crisis in recent history.
Analysis: A Political Move?
The timing of the announcement also suggests political motivations. Trump had made promises during his 2024 campaign to reinstate the travel ban, a key component of his previous administration’s immigration policy. The new restrictions come at a time when Trump is gearing up for re-election, and the ban is likely to galvanize his base, which has long supported hardline immigration policies.
Moreover, the partial ban on countries like Cuba and Venezuela is seen as a strategic move to appeal to conservative voters, especially Cuban-Americans in Florida who have historically supported tough policies against the Cuban government.
Criticism of Specific Countries
The ban’s impact on Myanmar, a country in the midst of a military-led coup and humanitarian crisis, has raised questions. Many of the Burmese people affected are refugees or pro-democracy activists seeking to escape violence and oppression. The ban extends to individuals who are fleeing a collapsed state, making it a particularly contentious decision.
Similarly, some critics have pointed out the absence of Egypt from the ban despite the involvement of an Egyptian national in the recent Colorado attack. Egypt’s exclusion from the ban may be due to the strong US-Egyptian military and diplomatic ties, a factor that has raised eyebrows given the nature of the threat.
Legal and Political Challenges Ahead
As with Trump’s previous travel ban, this executive order is expected to face legal challenges. Human rights organizations and political opponents are already preparing to contest the ban in court, arguing that it discriminates against individuals based on nationality rather than genuine security concerns.
The order has reignited debates over the balance between national security and human rights, and it is likely to become a central issue in the upcoming presidential election.
Conclusion
The new travel ban is a reflection of President Trump’s ongoing efforts to curb immigration and prioritize national security concerns. While some Americans may support the measures as a necessary safeguard, the travel restrictions are also drawing significant criticism from human rights groups, affected countries, and political opponents. As the ban moves forward, its impact on US relations with the international community and its legal viability remain key points of contention.