Trump Orders Sweeping Entry Ban on 12 Nations Amid Security Concerns
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai
President Donald Trump has signed a proclamation barring entry into the United States for nationals from 12 countries, with partial restrictions on seven others, citing national security concerns. The order, effective from 12:01 a.m. on Monday, June 9, 2025, marks a significant expansion of the administration's immigration policies.
The countries facing a full entry ban include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Partial restrictions apply to individuals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. These measures affect both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants, though exemptions exist for lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and individuals deemed to support U.S. national interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a video statement, President Trump linked the decision to a firebombing attack at a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado, allegedly perpetrated by an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa. Although Egypt is not among the countries listed in the ban, the incident was cited as evidence of the dangers posed by inadequately vetted foreign nationals.
'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,' Trump stated, emphasizing the need for stringent vetting processes. The administration highlighted concerns over countries with deficient identity verification systems and high visa overstay rates as primary factors in the decision-making process.
This move echoes the controversial 'Muslim Ban' implemented during Trump's first term, which faced numerous legal challenges but was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Legal experts anticipate that the new proclamation will also face judicial scrutiny, with civil rights groups and immigration advocates preparing to contest the order.
Critics argue that the ban disproportionately targets nations with majority Muslim populations and undermines America's commitment to humanitarian principles. Advocacy organizations warn that the policy could disrupt refugee resettlement efforts and strain diplomatic relations with the affected countries.
Simultaneously, the administration announced a ban on foreign students seeking to study at Harvard University, citing concerns over national security and intellectual property theft. Harvard condemned the decision, asserting that it violates the First Amendment and pledging to support its international student community.
In addition to the travel restrictions, President Trump has initiated an investigation into former President Joe Biden and his aides, alleging that they concealed Biden's cognitive decline and improperly used electronic signatures on official documents. The probe follows revelations from a new book highlighting concerns over Biden's mental acuity.
The administration has also proposed a $1,000 expedited visa interview fee and reallocated $250 million from refugee aid to fund voluntary self-deportation programs. These measures are part of a broader strategy to tighten immigration controls and prioritize national security.
International reactions have been swift, with several of the affected countries expressing dismay over the travel ban. Diplomatic channels are reportedly being utilized to seek clarifications and negotiate exemptions for specific categories of travelers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
5 hours 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
5 hours 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
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
How big of a threat is Asian superpower China really?
Daniel DePetris, Tribune News Service Last June, during an annual security conference in East Asia, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underscored that the United States was not seeking conflict with China. Maintaining a consistent dialogue with Beijing, he hinted, was just as vital to effective deterrence as ensuring the US military was fully equipped and prepared. Fast-forward a year later and the message from Washington is far different. Unlike his predecessor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth name-dropped China in his speech to the same security conference multiple times, as if to shame the Asian superpower for running roughshod over the so-called rules-based international order. China, Hegseth warned, was trying to become a hegemon in Asia, where it could dominate its neighbours, exploit the South China Sea's vast natural resources and coerce other countries into accepting Beijing's demands. In Hegseth's words, 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.' An invasion of Taiwan, he added, could be 'imminent.' If this all sounds scary, that's because it is. His comments raise the rhetorical gamesmanship to a level US officials weren't comfortable with in the past. The Biden administration was no slouch on China policy, but it still didn't want to inflame things unnecessarily. The Pentagon, for instance, repeatedly emphasized that while China's military drills around Taiwan were aggressive and designed to wear down the island's will to resist, a conflict in the Taiwan Strait was 'neither imminent nor inevitable.' In other words, there was still an opportunity to defuse any tensions before they exploded into a war that could drag the United States in, kill tens of thousands of people and throw a heavy wrench into the global economy. The Trump administration, however, has deployed noticeably sharper words during its first four months. Although the fundamentals of its wider policy in East Asia mimic the Biden administration's own — reinforcing US alliances; engaging in regular freedom of navigation exercises with Japan and the Philippines; and stressing the utility of preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait — Trump's advisers aren't afraid of poking Beijing in the eye. If managing the systemic rivalry with Beijing was a core component of Washington's overall strategy throughout Biden's four years, it increasingly looks like the guardrails that were put in place to prevent miscalculations are now eroding. Even so, does the Trump administration have a point? Is a conflict over Taiwan imminent as Hegseth suggests? And how real is the risk of China becoming Asia's hegemon? First, we should acknowledge that China is a threat in certain respects, particularly to its neighbors who have competing jurisdictional claims. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, is arguably the strongest military in the region today, a consequence of Chinese President Xi Jinping's long-standing policy of pouring money into its coffers to fund a large-scale modernization campaign. China spent $314 billion on defense in 2024, a 7% increase from the year prior and a whopping 59% increase from a decade ago. The PLA boasts the largest ballistic missile arsenal in Asia and continues to invest in hypersonic missiles, which are difficult for conventional air defenses to intercept. The PLA is also throwing out the old rulebook that used to govern affairs in East Asia. As I mentioned last week, the median line that once served as an unofficial boundary separating Chinese and Taiwanese airspace is now imaginary as the Chinese air force flies closer to the self-ruled island to test Taiwan's defenses and wear down morale. Yet the United States would be wise to refrain from overestimating China's military capability and underestimating the capability of its allies like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia — all of whom have an even greater interest in preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia than Washington does. China is its own worst enemy in this regard: The more it presses its territorial claims, the more incentive its neighbors have to balance Beijing. For the most part, this is exactly what China's neighbours are doing. Japan is the most obvious case study. Traditionally a pacifist country that kept to an artificially low defense budget relative to its wealth, Japan has spent the last three years adding resources to its so-called Self-Defense Forces and buying American weapons off the shelf. Tokyo's latest national security strategy, unveiled in 2022, was a sea-change in how Japan typically talks about its security environment. In that document, China was called out for challenging the international order, partnering with Russia in its war against Ukraine and trying to change the region's status quo by force. Japan's defense budget is set to double by 2027, and with more resources comes a greater capability to preserve the balance of power. The Philippines is another example. While the country can't possibly compete with China in conventional terms, the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has effectively given up on rapprochement with Beijing and thrown in its lot with Washington. China's incessant clashes with Philippine forces in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call to a country whose previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte (who is now in custody at the Hague for war crimes) drifted into the Chinese camp and took a more suspicious view of US intentions. Today, Manila is not only buttressing its navy and coast guard but also increasingly partnering with countries like Japan and Australia who have a similar threat perception about China.
