'We don't want them': Trump issues latest iteration of controversial travel ban
US President Donald Trump instituted a long-anticipated travel ban on Thursday, prohibiting US entry to citizens from 12 countries and restricting the entry of citizens from seven others.
Trump's proclamation 'fully' restricts nationals from largely African and Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Myanmar from entering the US.
It also partially restricts nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
In a video he released on social media on Thursday, Trump said the Colorado attack had 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted'. The suspect in the attack is alleged to be an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and previously lived in Kuwait.
Rumors had been circulating for months about what countries would be on the list after Trump signed an executive order on 20 January and gave the US State Department 60 days to identify countries for which 'vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries'.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
According to the Trump administration, the ban is designed to 'protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes'.
How does the ban work?
The order goes into effect at midnight on 9 June, and both the full and partial bans apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who are outside the country on 9 June and do not have a valid visa as of that day.
The proclamation outlines that no visas issued before that date will be revoked.
Citizens from countries facing a complete ban will not be issued any non-immigrant or immigrant visas. Countries facing a partial restriction will see the suspension of entry of all immigrants and the following temporary visas: B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas.
The order has made room for exceptions including the following: any lawful permanent resident of the United States; dual nationals; diplomats travelling on valid non-immigrant visas; athletes or members of an athletic team and immediate relatives; travelling for the World Cup, the Olympics or other major sporting event; immediate family immigrant visas; adoptions; Afghan special immigrant visas; special immigrant visas for United States government employees; immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
'Unecessary and ideologically motivated'
Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement released on Wednesday that Trump's new travel ban 'is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated'.
'Are they troublemakers?': Trump questions why Harvard has so many international students Read More »
He criticised the targeting of mostly Muslim and African nations and said it raised 'the specter of more vague free speech restrictions'.
"Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer."
He added that the screening tests being undertaken by the US government were "vague" and could easily be abused to ban immigrants based on religion or political activism.
He said the new travel ban risks separating families, deprives students of educational opportunities, blocks patients from accessing unique medical treatment, and would create a chilling effect on travellers.
'Automatically banning anyone based on their nationality or vague allegations of 'hostile attitudes' to American culture or policies undermines our nation's values,' he added.
World reacts
Like Trump's controversial tariffs, the latest iteration of the travel ban has continued to ruffle feathers and wear leaders down.
Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, lambasted the Trump administration as 'bad people' on state television, saying 'they are supremacists who think they own the world and persecute our people for no reason".
"The truth is being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans," he added.
Meanwhile, the ban prompted Chad's president, Mahamat Deby, to issue a reciprocal ban on US citizens. In a statement, he said, 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and pride'.
Republic of Congo government spokesman Thierry Moungalla told a news conference he thought it was 'a misunderstanding'.
'Congo is not a terrorist country, does not harbour any terrorists, is not known to have a terrorist inclination,' he said.
The Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, took a more resigned tone. He said in a statement that Mogadishu 'values its longstanding relationship with the United States. [Somalia] stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised'.
Trump's history with travel bans
Six of the countries on the new list were on different iterations of Trump's 2017 predominantly Muslim travel ban list, and continue to remain on the banned list.
These countries include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela.
Trump upset national sensibilities when he issued a "Muslim" travel ban within a week of taking office during his first term in January 2017.
The countries on his original list were seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees
This order affected individuals regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with employment-based visas. Travellers with valid visas and permanent residency were denied entry.
Following large-scale protests and chaos at airports, courts pushed back on the ban, leading to the first ban being blocked by a temporary restraining order in Washington v. Trump in February 2017.
US judge blocks Trump order banning foreign students at Harvard University Read More »
Three more iterations of the ban followed, leading to numerous lawsuits being filed in federal court against the Trump administration.
One of the most successful lawsuits was Trump v Hawaii, a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Hawaii, where the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Dr Ismail Elshikh, and two John Doe plaintiffs challenged the various iterations of the ban.
After Trump issued the second iteration of the ban in March 2017, the Hawaii district court issued a nationwide injunction against the second version of the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 12 June 2017.
The Court prohibited the government from enforcing the ban against foreign nationals who possess a 'bona fide relationship' with a person or entity in the US. But the government interpreted that ruling narrowly, issuing new guidance that would still ban 'grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other 'extended' family members' on the theory that they are not 'close' family.
In July 2017, the Hawaii district court ruled that this definition 'represents the antithesis of common sense' and prevented the government from enforcing it. After a government appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely left the district court's order relating to travel, in place, while staying part of the order relating to refugees.
Trump issued a third iteration of the ban in September 2017, and the lawsuit returned to the Hawaii district court. The court ruled that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court permitted Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect as appeals progressed.
In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction after a 5–4 decision.
The third iteration of the ban imposed full visa restrictions on citizens from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. These countries included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Iranian nationals were allowed to enter under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas, although such individuals were subject to 'enhanced screening and vetting requirements'.
In January 2020, a fourth travel ban was instituted and included additional countries such as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, which restricted applications to immigrants from those countries but did not restrict entry by non-immigrants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
France opens 'complicity in genocide' probes over blocked Gaza aid
French anti-terror prosecutors have opened probes into "complicity in genocide" and "incitement to genocide" after French-Israelis allegedly blocked aid intended for war-torn Gaza last year, they said on Friday. The two investigations, opened after legal complaints, were also to look into possible "complicity in crimes against humanity" between January and May 2024, the anti-terror prosecutor's office (PNAT) said. They are the first known probes in France to be looking into alleged violations of international law in Gaza, several sources with knowledge of the cases told AFP. In a separate case made public on the same day, the grandmother of two children with French nationality who were killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza has filed a legal complaint in Paris, accusing Israel of "genocide" and "murder," her lawyer said. The French judiciary has jurisdiction when French citizens are involved in such cases. Rights groups, lawyers and some Israeli historians have described the Gaza war as "genocide." A demonstrator holds a placard reading 'Stop links EU Israel now' during a gathering against a shipment of Eurolinks military equipment parts set to go to Israel, in Marseille. AFP In the first, the Jewish French Union for Peace (UFJP) and a French-Palestinian victim filed a complaint in November targeting alleged French members of hardline pro-Israel groups "Israel is forever" and "Tzav-9." It accused them of "physically" preventing the passage of trucks at border checkpoints controlled by the Israeli army. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, Damia Taharraoui and Marion Lafouge, told AFP they were happy a probe had been launched into the events in January 2024 — "a time when no-one wanted to hear anything about genocide." A source close to the case said prosecutors last month urged the investigation in relation to events at the Nitzana crossing point between Egypt and Israel, and the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel into Gaza. A pedestrian walks past placards on the ground reading 'France profits off genocides to sell weapons' during a gathering against a shipment of military equipment parts set to be sent to Israel, in Marseille. AFP Around that time, hardline Israeli protesters — including friends and relatives of hostages held in Gaza — blocked aid lorries from entering the occupied Palestinian territory and forced them to turn back at Kerem Shalom. A second complaint from a group called the Lawyers for Justice in the Middle East (CAPJO) accused members of "Israel is forever" of having blocked aid trucks. It used photos, videos and public statements to back up its complaint. 'Genocide' complaint No court has so far concluded that the ongoing conflict is a genocide. But in rulings in January, March and May 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' highest judicial organ, told Israel to do everything possible to "prevent" acts of genocide during its military operations in Gaza, including through allowing in urgently needed aid. In the separate case, Jacqueline Rivault, the grandmother of six- and nine-year-old children killed in an Israeli strike, filed her complaint accusing Israel of "genocide" and "murder" with the crimes against humanity section of the Court of Paris, lawyer Arie Alimi said. Though formally against unnamed parties, the complaint explicitly targets Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government and the military. The complaint states that an Israeli missile strike killed Janna, six, and Abderrahim Abudaher, nine, in northern Gaza on October 24, 2023. "We believe these children are dead as part of a deliberate organised policy targeting the whole of Gaza's population with a possible genocidal intent," Alimi said. The children's brother Omar, now five, was severely wounded but still lives in Gaza with their mother, identified as Yasmine Z., the complaint said. Agence France-Presse
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Russian CB cuts key rate to 20%, inflation slowing down
The Russian central bank cut its key interest rate by one percentage point to 20 per cent on Friday, saying economic growth is cooling down and inflation is slowing. 'Current inflationary pressures, including underlying ones, continue to decline. While domestic demand growth is still outstripping the capabilities to expand the supply of goods and services, the Russian economy is gradually returning to a balanced growth path,' the bank said in a statement. A Reuters poll had predicted that the central bank would keep the key rate on hold. It had been at 21 per cent since last October to curb inflation in the overheated economy, which is focused on the needs of the military fighting in Ukraine. As a result, Russia's economic growth rate fell to 1.5 per cent year-on-year in the first four months of 2025, compared to 4.3 per cent last year, prompting sharp criticism of central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina. Consumer prices have risen by 3.39 per cent since the start of the year, compared to 3.88 per cent in the same period last year, while the annualised inflation rate fell below 10 per cent in May after peaking at 10.34 per cent in March. The central bank forecasts inflation this year at 7 per cent to 8 per cent and economic growth at 1 per cent to 2 per cent. The Economy Ministry is more optimistic, predicting growth of 2.5 per cent. The strengthening of the rouble, which has rallied by about 40 per cent against the dollar since the start of the year, has aided the central bank in its fight against inflation by making imported goods cheaper. Its rise has been largely thanks to US President Donald Trump's efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. But most analysts agree that without any sign of a breakthrough in the talks, the rouble is waiting for a trigger to start falling. 'Tight monetary policy has a particularly strong effect on the decrease in prices for non-food goods, including through the rouble appreciation,' the central bank said. Inflationary expectations among households, an important gauge monitored by the central bank, rose for a second month in a row in May to a level last observed around the time of the last rate hike in October. Some analysts have linked the rise in inflationary expectations to a planned mid-year nationwide increase in payments for electricity, gas, water, and communal services for households, suggesting that the regulator might ignore the gauge this time. Food inflation, with prices for staples like potatoes tripling since last year due to a poor harvest, has severely affected Russia's poor. The harvest outlook for this year will heavily influence the central bank's thinking. 'As for food products and services, inflationary pressures remain high,' the bank said. The tight monetary policy, with the key rate at its highest level since the early 2000s and also the highest among major economies in the BRICS group, has made loans and debt financing, and therefore investment, inaccessible for many Russian firms. The central bank counters this by saying that its research shows enterprises in most sectors make enough profits to finance their investments and that the situation even in vulnerable sectors, such as construction, does not pose systemic risks. Meanwhile Russia's economic growth slowed to 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025, the lowest quarterly figure in two years, data from the official state statistics agency showed on Friday. Economists have warned for months of a slowdown in the Russian economy, with falling oil prices, high interest rates and a downturn in manufacturing all contributing to headwinds. Moscow reported strong economic growth in 2023 and 2024, largely due to massive state defence spending on the Ukraine conflict. But economists have cautioned that growth driven by the defence industry is unsustainable and does not reflect a real increase in productivity. The Russian economy grew by 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first three months of the year, the lowest quarterly figure since the first quarter of 2023, Rosstat data showed. The economy expanded 4.5 per cent in the previous quarter, according to the data. Prices have also been rising quickly across the Russian economy for months, driven up by massive government spending on the Ukraine conflict and deep labour shortages. Inflation in April remained above 10 per cent for the third month in a row, figures showed. Last month, the Russian central bank maintained its key interest rate at 21 per cent, with inflation starting to decline but new risks facing the Russian economy because of global economic turbulence triggered by US trade tariffs. 'A further decrease in the growth rate of the global economy and oil prices in case of escalating trade tensions may have proinflationary effects through the rouble exchange rate dynamics,' the central bank said in a statement. Agencies
