World Cup travel ban fallout is ‘part of what it means to host an event': State Dept
The U.S. State Department has sought to justify a travel ban that leaves nationals from over a dozen countries at risk of being blocked from entering the United States for the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games, saying that addressing security concerns is 'part of what it means to host an event.'
In a press briefing on Thursday afternoon, the State Department principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott was quizzed by journalists following the announcement of full bans for citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Partial restrictions have also been imposed on the entry of nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
Advertisement
While President Trump's executive order, signed on Wednesday, contains exemptions for nationals who would be entering the country as athletes for major sporting events, as well as support staff and immediate relatives of athletes or teams, there are no such assurances for fans.
Iran has already qualified for the men's World Cup in 2026, which will be co-hosted in the United States, Canada and Mexico, while Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba and Libya are among the teams with varying degrees of probability of qualifying for the tournament.
Haiti's ability to play in this summer's Concacaf Gold Cup appeared to be confirmed on Thursday, having initially been placed into doubt by the executive order. This is because the order made a specified exemption for the World Cup and Olympics, but added other events would be assessed as whether they are deemed sufficiently 'major' by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio. On Thursday morning, the State Department did not answer directly when asked whether either the FIFA Club World Cup or the Gold Cup, both of which will be played in the U.S. this summer, are 'major sporting events.'
A State Department spokesperson simply told The Athletic: 'We are implementing the President's directive to secure U.S. borders and protect American communities and citizens.'
However, despite the executive order saying events would be adjudicated upon by the State Department, a White House spokesperson told The Athletic that both the Gold Cup and Club World Cup are deemed major events. This appears to pave the way for Haiti to compete in the Gold Cup and also enables nationals from the banned countries to compete in their club teams during the Club World Cup.
There was less reassuring news, however, for supporters of these nations.
During a news conference, Pigott said: 'I think both people that are coming and Americans would hope that we can have confidence that when people come to the United States, when they come, that they are properly vetted.
Advertisement
'I think this goes to the exact same consideration. I think that this is part of what it means to host an event of this magnitude, to make sure that we have that confidence. Again, we're in constant communication with countries about ways that we can see the vetting process we need to see, to have that collaboration and make sure that we're having those security concerns addressed. This is part of what it means to host an event. I believe people coming from all around the world, Americans going to these events, would want to see actions like this. We take security concerns extremely seriously. We want people to be able to go to the World Cup and do so safely.'
Trump's executive order describes Iran as a 'state sponsor of terrorism,' alleging that the state 'regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks.' Venezuelan nationals are accused of overstaying their visas at a rate of just under 10 per cent when visiting the country on a short-term tourist or business visas, while Trump's order claimed that 'hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.'
Exemptions are made for individuals, such as Iranian dual citizens who are traveling with a passport from a non-banned country. There will also be entry granted to Iranians on immigrant visas owing to ethnic or religious persecution in their home country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
15 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.'
