Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017.
Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him.
Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas.
Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens.
His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired.
'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said.
The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there.
Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office.
'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac.
Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates.
Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally.
Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince.
'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote.
The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution.
Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed.
International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban.
'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.
The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.
During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed.
They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.
The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
9 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Donald Trump plunged America into a blind war
Photo by Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images One minute after midnight on 21 June, a small group of US B-2 Spirit bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri heading west across the Pacific. They were picked up shortly afterwards by flight tracking accounts on social media, prompting breaking news alerts that multiple American bombers capable of carrying the type of heavy ordinance that would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear sites were airborne as journalists frantically traced their trajectory. In fact, this was a decoy. The real strike group was flying east across the Atlantic, with seven B-2 bombers joined by US fighter jets as they reached the Middle East, which escorted them into Iranian airspace. In the early hours of 22 June local time, they dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound guided bombs known as 'bunker busters', on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo and Natanz. A US Navy submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at a third site in Isfahan as part of what the Pentagon called 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. By now, most people will have seen Donald Trump's address to the nation in the hours that followed, flanked by his distinctly uncomfortable-looking vice-president JD Vance along with secretary-of-state-turned-national-security-adviser Marco Rubio and defence secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump, predictably, pronounced the whole operation a 'spectacular military success', declaring that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated', which he could not possibly have known at the time and has yet to be confirmed. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump intoned. 'If they do not, future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.' Appearing to veer from his script towards the end, he added, 'I want to just say, we love you, God.' In the best-case scenario for those who support these strikes, Trump has acted decisively, ordering the use of military force where successive previous presidents had equivocated, and setting back the Iranian nuclear programme for years, perhaps even for good. He has finally neutered a regime that has long been defined by its rallying cry, 'Death to America', and delivered Israel from the existential threat that would have been posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, which one former Iranian president is said to have described as a 'one-bomb country'. According to this rendering, Trump has taken advantage of a moment of profound weakness for Tehran, whose most notorious proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have been eviscerated by the Israeli military campaign over the last 18 months, and whose most senior military commanders and nuclear scientists have been assassinated. He has forced a reckoning for the Iranian regime – that will be quietly welcomed by many in the region and beyond – abandon your nuclear ambitions, or cease to exist. In the process, he has also proved the TACO theory (Trump Always Chickens Out) wrong. Perhaps some even see him delivering on his election campaign mantra that he would deliver 'peace through strength'. This is all, theoretically, possible. We should be clear, less than 24 hours at the time of writing from the US strikes, that nobody – not Trump, not the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and not Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei – knows for certain where this will lead, or how this war will end. (Trump has already called it a 'war' on social media.) But the history of recent US military campaigns in the region does not bode well. The exception often noted is the first Gulf War in 1991, where the coalition military effort known as Operation Desert Storm lasted than two months and succeeded in forcing Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, although the Iraqi dictator was permitted to remain in power. The problem with the optimistic case this time is, to quote the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the 'known unknowns', and the 'unknown unknowns'. In the short term, the known unknowns include what capabilities Iran retains to retaliate, both in terms of its proxies abroad (including the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq), the remaining stockpiles of missiles and drones in Iran, which Israel has repeatedly targeted in recent days, and its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where almost a third of the world's seaborne oil transits. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Ayatollah Khamenei, who is 86 and said to be in faltering health, is reportedly sheltering in a bunker, according to the New York Times, avoiding electronic devices for fear of revealing his location and communicating only through a trusted aide, where he has listed several clerics who could replace him if he is killed, along with substitutes for the military chain of command. We do not yet know how Khamenei will respond to these attacks and whether he will assess – as many commentators have insisted – that he must now retaliate in some meaningful form if he hopes to restore Iran's deterrence and remain in power. We do not know whether Tehran can be induced to resume negotiations on a nuclear deal with Washington, as many European leaders have now urged. We do know, however, that Iran had previously negotiated a nuclear deal – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, and the EU in 2015, which Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. It is not clear that any Iranian government would entrust its future to a new deal that could be similarly torn up by the next US administration. (Trump has also launched trade wars against Canada, Mexico and China since returning to power despite signing much-hyped trade deals with them during his previous term.) Meanwhile, the example of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, which has pursued nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them despite the significant costs, and is not currently being bombed by the US, might well suggest to the Iranian regime that the surer course for survival would have been to race for a bomb while it still could, and, if it has the opportunity, to try again. We also know that despite the repeated messaging via US backchannels in the hours after the strike that this was a 'one-and-done' operation – a limited campaign to target the nuclear facilities and nothing more, certainly not the prelude to regime change – Trump and Netanyahu have delivered starkly contradictory signals. Netanyahu openly urged the Iranian people to 'stand up' against the regime after launching the Israeli military campaign on 13 June. Trump has demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from Iran on social media and threatened to kill Khamenei. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on the evening of 22 June. 'MIGA!!!' Given these statements, it is not hard to see why the Iranian government might conclude that the US and Israel have, in fact, launched a war that aims to overthrow them, and, therefore, that this is not merely a negotiating ploy that could yet end in a new nuclear deal, but an existential fight that justifies any means. Then there are the unknown unknowns. We do not know, for instance, whether there could be other Iranian nuclear facilities that had not yet been identified, and what steps the regime might have taken to ensure the survival of key personnel, equipment and material. We do not know how secure the regime's grip on power is and whether Khamenei could yet be sidelined, or simply replaced, by hardliners from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or former high-ranking officials. 'Tehran is now full of such plots,' one anonymous source, who claimed to be part of a plan to replace the ageing supreme leader, told The Atlantic after the strikes. 'Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered.' If the regime does fall, it is far from clear what type of government would take its place, and what that would mean for the region, and well beyond. Recent examples – such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria – suggest liberal democracy is an unlikely outcome. 'The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' taunted Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chair of the country's security council, who is now probably best known for his bellicose social media threats. He then claimed that a 'number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' (It is worth bearing in mind that his main role these days seems to be garnering attention and provocative headlines.) With the Russian military tied down in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is unlikely to offer much in the way of meaningful help in the short term, but he will certainly capitalise on what appears to be a flagrant breach of international law and what he will present as yet more evidence of American hypocrisy. (Putin, too, claims to have attacked Ukraine in part to stop the country developing nuclear weapons and threatening Russia's national security.) Moscow also stands to benefit from a rise in the price of oil if Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz or targets other oil-producing facilities in the region. Beijing has strongly condemned the US attack, which the foreign ministry said, 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law'. China is Iran's largest trading partner, which supplied around 15 percent of the oil the country imported last year, and will not welcome the prospect of a massive spike in oil prices if the conflict escalates at a time when the Chinese economy is already slowing. But the prospect of the US getting drawn into another interminable war in the Middle East and deferring, yet again, the mythical 'pivot to Asia', with its focus on deterring a Chinese assault on Taiwan, offers other potential benefits to Beijing. The reverberations of Trump's gamble will be felt far beyond the borders of Iran. Flanked by Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth as he delivered his speech in the hours after the attack, the impression was less a show of unity than a president who is keenly aware of the domestic political risk this involves – and the vehement opposition already emanating from parts of his Maga base – and determined to show that his top lieutenants were all on board. Perhaps that was why Vance in particular, who has built his political brand on his opposition to US military intervention overseas, looked so perturbed. Trump has plunged the US into a war with Iran, with no apparent strategy, and objectives that appear to be evolving, in real time, on social media. Maybe the best-case scenario will yet transpire, and the Middle East will emerge from this conflict more stable and prosperous, but recent history cautions against too much optimism. [See also: The British left will not follow Trump into war] Related
The Herald Scotland
27 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?
"Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine told reporters a day after the strikes on June 22. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the main agency that assesses the scale and evolution of Iran's nuclear program, said hostilities would need to cease for it to resume inspections. The organization, housed within the United Nations, said it would hold an emergency meeting June 23. Trump said Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated It was not entirely clear what evidence or intelligence Trump was relying on when he told the world that Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been destroyed. He also disputed twice disputed intelligence community findings before the strike that Iran was not close to producing a nuclear weapon. "Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a late-night June 21 address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Hegseth used similar rhetoric at a morning news conference, saying that thanks to Trump's leadership, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." But a battle damage assessment is ongoing, Hegseth acknowledged during in the briefing. He noted it was the Pentagon's "initial assessment" its precision munitions had the desired effect. "Especially in Fordow, which was the primary target here. We believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," Hegseth told reporters. Caine was more cautious. "It would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there," he said when asked about Iran's remaining nuclear capabilities during the same news conference. Live updates: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes How much of a hit did Iran take? It was a "responsible" comment from Caine, said Simone Ledeen, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Trump's first administration. Whether the Iranian nuclear program was set back a decade or decades and whether there is no more nuclear program period "really needs to be determined by a systematic battle damage assessment," she said. Yet, given what the president and secretary of defense know of the bombs that were dropped and where, Ledeen added, "I don't think it's far-fetched for them to say that these sites were destroyed." Democratic lawmakers on committees that oversee the military, intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus are pushing for classified briefings to help them reach their own conclusions. "There is a lot we still don't know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment," Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said in a statement. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen also said in a statement, "We are still waiting to understand the extent to which that action has deterred Iran's nuclear threat." "President Trump must now de-escalate tensions with Iran and immediately brief Congress," the New Hampshire Democrat said. Vice President JD Vance did not specify the extent of the damage to Iran's sites as he made a round of television interviews the morning after the strike. "But we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night," Vance said on ABC News' "This Week" program. "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to." Iran claims its uranium stockpiles were evacuated Iran's IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were "evacuated" from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified. Russian Security Council deputy chairman of Dmitry Medvedev also said Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appeared to be unaffected or to have sustained only minor damage. "The enrichment of nuclear material - and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons - will continue," Medvedev said in a social media thread. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Russia is an ally of Tehran's, and Medvedev is a previous Russian president. Israeli forces could try to enter Iran's nuclear sites in a sensitive operation and make a determination for itself and the United States, said Ledeen, the first-term Trump defense official. But an official assessment will have to be conducted by the IAEA, which says it can not go in until the conflict ends, for the international community to accept it. "I hope it is the end, so IAEA can get their inspectors in there sooner rather than later," Ledeen said. "You also don't want loose material getting into the wrong hands." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard
The Herald Scotland
28 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump vowed to keep US out of wars. What changed with Iran attack?
It's not clear what exact damage was done in Iran. The White House says U.S. bombers decimated three uranium enrichment facilities. What comes next is also far from certain: additional U.S. strikes, Iran's retaliation, a resumption of diplomacy, even? Is this the start of the collapse of Iran's clerical regime? Is it a historical moment akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union? What's indisputable is that one pull factor for the U.S. is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long, complicated relationship with recent American presidents. The U.S. bombing of Iran is also the culmination of a process that traces at least as far back to the 1990s when Netanyahu, then a young lawmaker, predicted the Islamic Republic, Israel's sworn enemy, would one day either acquire, or be on the cusp of acquiring, a nuclear weapon and Israel would be forced to act - ideally with U.S. help. "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb," Netanyahu said in 1992. His prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, "Fighting Terrorism." Netanyahu's constant refrain: bomb Iran Netanyahu is the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in the Jewish state's history. He's occupied the role on and off for more than 17 years. In every one of those years he's sought to convince American presidents to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only. Netanyahu has appeared at the United Nations with elaborate maps and cartoon-style drawings of bombs. He worked hard to scupper the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that Trump exited because he said Iranian officials could not be trusted. In 2002, Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee that both Iraq and Iran would soon have a nuclear bomb. A year later the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2009, he told members of Congress in private that Iran was just a year or two away from producing a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. Successive American presidents have listened and acted on Netanyahu's Iran warnings, most substantively politically in the form of the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's uranium enrichment in return for relief of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. When Trump, in his first term, exited that agreement it was working in the sense that Iran was not enriching uranium at a level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Netanyahu's public and private relationships with recent American presidents have been marked by chilly tensions and insults. In 2015, Netanyahu's spokesman apologized to former President Barack Obama. He has also clashed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Netanyahu has even annoyed Trump, although their relationship trends toward mutual lavish praise. But no American president - until now - has gone along with Netanyahu's war plans for Iran, fearing the U.S. could be dragged into a wider Middle East war. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan still haunt U.S. presidents. "The president more than anybody is worried about protracted military conflicts and that is not what we are getting ourselves involved in," U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on ABC's "This Week" program on June 22. Vance said the Trump administration is also not trying to force regime change in Iran. Reading Trump's Iran tea leaves Trump may also not be as risk averse to military actions as is sometimes portrayed, including by himself. In his first term, he ordered a missile attack in Syria to punish then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons; a raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and a drone attack that killed Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander much beloved in Iran whose death led to Iranian reprisals on U.S. bases in Iraq. Also in the background: The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and former U.S. officials such as Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, say Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced since Trump exited the nuclear deal. "Iran cannot be left with an enrichment capability, able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing," Shapiro wrote in a recent blog post. Trump has made various comments for years that reflect that sentiment. The main thrust of his remarks in recent weeks have been to say he won't allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program, and Tehran could give it up through negotiation or through what he called "the hard way." After first pushing for a diplomatic solution, Trump's tone changed after Israel on June 13 struck dozens of nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing many of Iran's military elite and senior nuclear scientists. By June 17, the president was threatening Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on social media, calling him an "easy target." See updated maps, satellite images: Iran's nuclear sites before and after Israeli attacks Trump likes a winner. He often says so himself. In the days leading up to the U.S. strike, Israel appeared to be winning. "Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a statement as he addressed the world on June 22 to update them on the war's latest development. He spoke in English, not Hebrew. In his own address, to the American people, Trump said, "I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel." Not mentioned: U.S. intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that they did not think Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Tom Vanden Brook
