Why were these 12 countries on Trump's travel-ban list?
A travel ban issued on Wednesday by US President Donald Trump is set to primarily affect countries in Africa and the Middle East.
Twelve countries face full bans, which will come into force on Monday. People from a further seven nations are facing partial restrictions.
Trump has depicted it as a matter of national security. He cited a recent attack on members of Colorado's Jewish community, which was allegedly carried out by an Egyptian national. Egypt itself is not on the banned list.
Other reasons cited include alleged breaking of US visa rules by people from the countries in question. Here is a closer look at some of the president's reasoning.
A range of accusations have been made against Afghanistan in a presidential proclamation signed by Trump. The document highlights that the Taliban, which controls the country, is a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group.
The move comes just weeks after the Trump administration appeared to signal that it believed the situation had improved in Afghanistan, when it announced the end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans living in the US.
Afghanistan is further accused by Trump of lacking a "competent or co-operative" central authority for issuing passports or civil documents. As with other countries on Trump's list, the issue of Afghan nationals overstaying their visas is also cited.
Trump's travel ban: Follow live updates
BBC Verify Live: Fact-checking Trump's reasoning
Everything we know about the ban so far
Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard
Trump's proclamation identifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism - a longstanding charge that the Middle Eastern nation has previously rejected.
The US has previously censured Tehran, Iran's capital, for its alleged sponsorship of proxy groups operating in the region, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
The new proclamation from Trump says the country is "the source of significant terrorism around the world", does not co-operate with the US on security risks and has "historically failed to accept back its removable nationals".
The move comes amid diplomatic wrangling between the two sides over the creation of a new deal over Iran's nuclear weapon-building capabilities.
Similar reasons are given in the case of Somalia. The east African country is branded by Trump as a "terrorist safe haven". Like Iran, it is also accused of failing to accept its nationals when removed from the US.
However, a further point was made by Trump: "Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects."
Somalia's internationally-based government faces a significant challenge from armed Islamists. It has pledged to "engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised" by Trump.
Libya, in north Africa, is cited for its "historical terrorist presence", which is painted as a security threat to Americans.
Libya and Somalia are also among the countries on Trump's list which have been criticised for their perceived incompetence at issuing passports.
The document highlights that "hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration".
Trump points to various perceived risks that this has entailed - including the creation of "criminal networks" and high visa overstay rates.
Data from the US Census Bureau suggested more than 852,000 Haitians were living in the US in February 2024, though it does not give a breakdown of when those migrants arrived.
Many came after a devastating earthquake in 2010, or after fleeing gang violence that took hold in the Caribbean nation. The US president also points to a lack of central authority in Haiti for matters including law enforcement.
These countries are solely accused by Trump of having relatively high visa overstay rates.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines an "overstay" as a person who remains in the US beyond their authorised period of admission, with no evidence of any extension. The "rate" signals the proportion of people who overstayed.
The central African nation Chad is singled out for showing a "a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws".
The document highlights an overstay rate of 49.54% by Chadians on business or tourist visas in 2023, citing a DHS report.
Congo-Brazzaville and Equatorial Guinea have equivalent rates of 29.63% and 21.98% respectively. But these rates are lower than Laos, which faces a lesser restriction.
Myanmar - referred to as Chad in the Trump proclamation - is similarly accused of a high visa overstay rates.
As with others on the list, including Iran, the country is further accused of not co-operating with the US to accept deported Burmese nationals.
For each of these countries, the first allegation made by Trump is that they have questionable competence at issuing passports and civil documents.
Eritrea and Sudan are further accused of having relatively high visa overstay rates. Eritrea is also blamed for failing to make the criminal records of its national available to the US, and of refusing to accept deported nationals.
As with Somalia, Yemen is also accused of lacking control over its own land. Trump's proclamation highlights that it is the site of active US military operations. The US has been combating Houthis, who have seized much of the north and west of the country during an ongoing civil war.
People from seven other nations face partial restrictions:
Venezuela is accused of lacking a "competent or co-operative" central authority for issuing passports and similar documents. Allegations of visa overstays and a refusal to accept deportees are again mentioned. In response, the South American country has described the Trump administration as "supremacists who think they own the world"
Cuba is labelled as another "state sponsor of terrorism" - a designation that was made by the US in 2021, and condemned by Havana. An alleged refusal to accept deportees is also mentioned, as are visa overstays
Visa overstays are again presented as the key issue in the cases of Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump earns bipartisan praise for decisive action against Iran's nuclear program
Exuberant Republicans, and at least one prominent Democrat, lauded President Donald Trump's leadership on Saturday after the U.S. completed an attack on three Iranian nuclear sites. "Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote on X. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., also said Trump made the right call. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," he said on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, wrote: "'Peace through strength' means ensuring our existential enemies don't acquire the most lethal and catastrophic weapons known to man." And former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz called Trump a "peacemaker." "President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike - one and done. No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!" he wrote on X. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the president "made the correct decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites. Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force. It would be a grave mistake to retaliate against our forces." Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said on X, "Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans." Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, said Trump's decision was the "right one. The greatest threat to the safety of the United States and the world is Iran with a nuclear weapon. God Bless our troops." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote on X that the U.S. "military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says." Johnson said that the president gave Iran "every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity." He added that Trump's "decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet." However, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who authored a war powers resolution to prevent the U.S. from getting involved in Iran said the attacks were "not constitutional." Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, echoed Massie's sentiments. "Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress. We need to immediately return to DC and vote on @RepThomasMassie and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war," he wrote on X.
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
