Are Latin American travelers still coming to the US for vacations?
Even though Karen Aguayo lives in central Mexico – a short flight away from the United States – she has yet to visit, and has no plans to.
The 35-year-old Mexican national was hoping to make her first trip to the U.S. this year to visit her uncle, and even has a visa to visit the country. However, given the political climate, it feels like too much of a gamble for her safety. She went to Italy instead.
Under President Donald Trump's flurry of executive orders signed in January, the goal was to "strengthen national security," including cracking down on immigration, increasing scrutiny at our borders, and imposing a travel ban on numerous countries. Earlier this year, the president also ignited a trade war between the U.S. and China, Mexico, Europe and Canada when he announced a skyrocket in tariffs – a move that upset nationals.
'Don't know how we should behave': Is the US South LGBTQ friendly?
Aguayo said she's worried about being denied entry at the airport, along with how she may be treated while in the U.S., such as possible anti-Mexican sentiment.
"It's not only me, I believe that many people think the same. They'd rather feel welcome in other countries," said Aguayo, who posts videos about travel in Mexico on her YouTube channel La Karencita. "Now I'm in Europe because I feel that people are more open to make you feel welcome and safe; nothing happens here."
Since Trump's inauguration it feels like conflict and policies within the U.S. have been constantly changing, Aguayo said. "Maybe this is not the time to go."
A recent example that deters her from visiting is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that swept through the greater Los Angeles area in response to Trump's vow of 1 million annual deportations of undocumented immigrants. Subsequent days-long protests against ICE escalated into violence between law enforcement and demonstrators, resulting in the president deploying the U.S. National Guard.
While some Latin Americans are moving forward with their trips to the U.S., others are holding back due to safety concerns, a potentially hostile atmosphere or disagreement over the volatile political landscape under the Trump administration.
A slowdown from this group of travelers could have a lasting impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. has long been a popular destination for Latin Americans, with Mexico standing out as the second-largest demographic of visitor arrivals after Canada and contributing to an estimated $21 billion toward the American economy in 2018, according to the U.S. Travel Association.
These travelers pausing their U.S. visits aren't swearing off the U.S. forever, but their hesitation shows the country's current political actions aren't going unnoticed.
Latin American travelers conflicted over US travel
Although some Latin American travelers are reconsidering visiting the U.S., many continue with their travel plans, especially Mexican nationals. Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) data between March 2024 and 2025 for Mexican arrivals to the U.S. showed a growth of 14.9% – comprising 26.7% of international visitors to the country, just slightly under Canadians.
According to Expedia, many of the top U.S. destinations are still popular with Mexican travelers. For travel between May and June 30, lodging searches by Mexican nationals focused on cities like New York, Las Vegas, San Diego, Anaheim and Orlando. Emerging destinations showing increased interest include Charlotte, San Jose, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale and Fort Worth.
For the same travel period, airfare to the U.S. from Mexico is averaging below $575, with fluctuations depending on the arrival state.
In some parts of Latin America, travel to the U.S. is on the decline. Although data from the National Travel and Tourism Office's International Visitor Arrivals Program (ADIS) shows U.S. travel demand for 2025 remains strong in countries like Brazil and Argentina, overall visitor numbers from South and Central America have dropped. From this past March to last, South American arrivals decreased by around 6% and over 35% for the Central Americans.
'We are seeing varying trends in demand for US travel across Latin America," the online booking platform Skyscanner said in a statement. "What we do know is that since the pandemic travelers are more engaged with travel warnings and advisories and these will likely influence demand."
'Everything is changing so fast'
Alan Estrada, a 44-year-old Mexican travel content creator who shares his journeys under Alan Around the World, frequently travels to the U.S. for work. He recently attended the opening of the new theme park Epic Universe in Orlando and was also in Washington, D.C., earlier this month for the World Pride Music Festival. In July, the Mexico City-based traveler will visit New York for an event with one of his sponsors.
Most of Estrada's U.S. visits are for work reasons, and he said he doesn't have any upcoming leisure trips planned. This is not only due to tensions like the ICE riots, but also the potential for other U.S. issues to escalate, like involvement in the war between Israel and Iran. "I'm not saying I won't do it," he said about going to the U.S. for pleasure. It's just that now is not the right time, he said.
Although he's never had any issues with immigration, border control or hostility from Americans, the U.S. political landscape is on Estrada's radar.
"Everything is changing so fast and can escalate from one day to another really, really quickly," said Estrada. "So, we have to be informed and aware all the time."
About half of Estrada's audience is Mexican and most others live throughout Latin America. Lately, he's noticed a majority of comments on his social media channels and website – where people can call or email for travel advice – are about visiting the U.S.
"There are some people in the comments saying like, 'is it safe to go to the U.S.' or 'please don't go to the U.S.,' depending on the political views of my followers," he said. "I can feel the people kind of worry a little bit about what's happening right now."
Estrada believes the rise in concern comes from a mix of being more "cautious," disagreeing with American politics, and not finding the high price of travel to the U.S. to be worth it.
As many situations remain unresolved, these travelers' decision to visit the U.S. is in the air.
"The thing that I would need to see is not seeing people protesting because I think that's one sign that everything is getting uncomfortable, and not seeing the president talking about immigrants, about changing the rules," Aguayo, of La Karencita, said.
Although Aguayo has never been to the U.S., it's not a priority for her either. In the meantime, she's content traveling the rest of the world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
Israel says 21 people wounded as Iran fires dozens of missiles following U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities
Tel Aviv, Israel — Iran launched a wave of missiles at Israel on Sunday morning, wounding at least 21 people — four of them seriously, paramedics said — after the U.S. joined Israel's week-long attacks on the Islamic Republic's nuclear sites. Iranian missiles made impacts in four sites across Israel: in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Be'er Yaakov and Nes Ziona, according to Israel's Magen David Adom emergency response service. Searches were underway for people believed to be trapped under the rubble of a collapsed building in Tel Aviv, local media reported. The Israel Defense Forces told CBS News that Iran had launched about 30 missiles at Israel. Israeli security forces and first responders gather at the site of an Iranian strike that hit a residential building in the Ramat Aviv area in Tel Aviv, June 22, 2025. JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images circulating on both Israeli television and social media platforms showed serious damage to buildings, as well as injured people being rescued by first responders. The IDF said in a statement that during the missile barrage, no alert sirens had gone off in Haifa, despite there having been an impact from a missile there. "The possibility that there was an issue with the interceptor is being looked into," the IDF said, referring to its missile defense systems. "There was no malfunction in the alert system and a previous warning had been issued to the area." The Iranian assault took place hours after President Trump announced that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites: Isfahan and Natanz, and the well-fortified Fordo enrichment facility. In a briefing in Washington on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. operation, called "Midnight Hammer," used seven B2 bombers carrying bunker-busting bombs to attack Fordo and Natanz. It struck Isfahan, which had already been heavily bombed by Israel in previous days, with Tomahawk missiles launched by submarines. Since the beginning of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion" against Iran, its National Public Diplomacy Directorate says Iran has fired over 450 missiles at Israel and 400 drones. 24 people in Israel have been killed in Israel, all of them in the early days of Iran's retaliatory attacks last week. As of Friday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists in Iran, which relies on a network of contacts in the country, said 722 people had been killed in the country by Israel's strikes, with the attacks hitting 25 of the Islamic Republic's 31 provinces.
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Israel is not dragging America into war with Iran, its president says
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said Sunday Israel is 'not dragging America' into a war with Iran after President Donald Trump announced he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We are leaving it to the decision of the head of, the president of the United States and his team,' he said on CNN's State of the Union, 'because it had to do with America's national security interest, period. We are not intending and we don't ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel. The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all of the free world.' Despite Trump claiming in an address to the nation Saturday night that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated,' Herzog told host Kasie Hunt he could not say whether this was the case, instead claiming that the sites had been 'hit very hard, both by the Israeli attacks and absolutely by the American attack overnight.' Herzog also said that while Israel was not actively working toward a regime change in Iran, it would be a 'very blessed' outcome. 'After all, this regime is a very oppressive regime,' he said. Herzog reminded Hunt that he is the head of state in Israel, but noted that his authority was limited; it is the Israeli Security Cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that oversees war planning. He said he did not know the 'exact details' of communication between Trump and Netanyahu, but that there was 'a very close and intimate dialogue' between the two. Israel and Iran have exchanged strikes for over a week, with Iran firing dozens of missiles at Israel on Sunday. Iran threatened to retaliate against the U.S. for its airstrikes, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of 'everlasting consequences' and saying he does not know 'how much room there is left for diplomacy.'
Bloomberg
36 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The US Has Two Paths in Iran. Its Clerics Will Decide Both.
The US has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, and nobody, inside or outside the White House, can be sure how it will play out. That now depends entirely on the Iranian response and on what was destroyed at the deeply buried nuclear site at Fordow. For there are two possible paths to American success in the war that Israel cornered President Donald Trump — a man who claimed near-magical powers for ending and preventing wars — into joining. Both will test assumptions about the Islamic Republic's strength and messianic nature, because both are for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his generals to decide. The clearest path to success is that Iran's nuclear program has indeed been 'obliterated' and would require years and fortunes to rebuild, neutralizing that toxic issue for the foreseeable future. In this scenario, Iran's leaders may talk Armageddon and 'everlasting' consequences for 'The Great Satan,' but they choose any retaliation against US targets very carefully. Their goal would be to avoid a direct military escalation with the US that they might survive, but at enormous risk and cost. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made clear on Sunday, during a press conference, that was the hope. He said there were "both public and private messages being directly delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table.' Trump's fiercest critics would have to concede that this would be a good outcome, and that his options in any case had become quite limited the day Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his air force to take out Iran's nuclear program. With Fordow still intact, Iran would remain in possession of the feedstocks and enrichment cascades needed to create weapons-grade fuel. A nuclear breakout would have been far more likely, for never would the case for owning a nuclear deterrent have been clearer. A second path to victory — at least in the eyes of Netanyahu — would be through a bombing campaign so devastating and targeted in scope that it destabilizes Khamenei and results in a change of regime friendly to the Jewish state and the West. The assumption is that the country would be taken over by the urban opposition, which despises the clerical elite that's run Iran since the 1979 revolution, and has no interest in their country's continued isolation. With scenarios like these, no wonder so many opponents of American involvement are reaching back to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq for parallels. That, too, was justified by claims of an urgent nuclear threat and the promise of replacing an oppressive regime. The outcome was horrendous. But for one important aspect, which I'll come to, this isn't like Iraq. Trump wasn't itching for war with Iran, but was dragged into one by Israel. The likelihood of an Iraq-style ground invasion and occupation is approximately zero. The Iranian threat, including possession of an advanced nuclear program, wasn't fabricated. Iran has enriched enough uranium to 60%, a level that has no conceivable civilian use, to make nine warheads. Not even Iran disputes this. The only question is what they intend to do with it and how quickly. Also, unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran does pose an active threat — above all to Israel — through the active organization, funding and arming of mainly proxy assaults, especially since the Hamas terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023. Iran isn't only publicly committed to the eradication of the Jewish state, but has persistently taken action to further that goal. I'll leave it to others to parse whether all that justifies Israel's self-defense claims in terms of international law. Here's what concerns me more: First, the Iranian state has far more power to bring the region and global economy down in flames than Iraq ever did. Second, we don't yet know whether Fordow's bunkered enrichment cascades were, in fact, destroyed. Trump said they were; the Iranians said they remain untouched and that, in any case, vital equipment and people had been removed. Both have ample cause to lie, but if the cascades weren't destroyed, this is not yet over. There will be more airstrikes, more pressure for retaliation, more casualties and unintended consequences. Indeed, in terms of preventing an Iranian bomb, the outcome could well prove worse than if the US and Israel had done nothing at all. Nor does the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency know where Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium are, because these were removed by Iran to avoid their being blown into the atmosphere by US and Israeli munitions. That's good; there has to date been no radioactive contamination reported beyond immediate-impact areas. But it also means that the key feedstock for attempting to dash out a bomb is no longer under IAEA surveillance. If the prospects for ensuring a non-nuclear Iran are far from certain, those for forcing a positive change of regime are still less so. What we know of this phenomenon is, first, that it works best when the authority under attack has lost the will to kill, or lacks control over the security services needed to carry out its orders. Second, that it's best done organically, from within, and not through foreign military intervention. And finally, that success rests on the pre-existence of organized democratic opposition. None of these apply in Iran. Far more likely is that any change would come from within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, where a decision might be taken to remove the 86-year-old supreme leader for having insisted on a policy that proved disastrous. Maintaining Iran as a threshold nuclear power provoked Israel, the US and their Gulf allies by developing a nuclear program so clearly angled toward an eventual military purpose, but without producing the arsenal that might have provided the country with a North Korea-style immunity from attack. Would these be modernizing pragmatists who want to deescalate with the West? Or hard-liners determined to fix Khamenei's error? Would they liberalize the economy that, under international sanctions, the IRGC came to dominate? Would they liberalize politically, in a country that is, in reality, one of the last land empires, with large and sometimes restive Turkic, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi minorities? The potential for an Iraq, Libya or Syria-style chaos is real. More likely is that the Islamic Republic survives, with or without new leadership, and that the question of Iran's nuclear proliferation remains unresolved. That leaves what happens next primarily up to clerics and generals in Tehran. Trump could yet emerge the hero he so badly wants to be. And yet, perhaps ironically, he and Netanyahu now need to hope Khamenei and the younger IRGC commanders replacing those killed by Israeli strikes are more rational, and less messianically driven than they've been portrayed.
