The Global Story The President's Path: Trump's travel ban
Donald Trump has signed a ban on travel to the US from 12 countries, citing national security risks. There are also seven additional countries whose nationals will face partial travel restrictions.
Caitríona Perry, Sumi Somaskanda, and Bernd Debusmann Jr. explore how the travel ban reflects Trump's broader approach to immigration and national security. They also discuss the latest phone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin, analysing its potential implications for the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Every weekend, The President's Path explores the state of US politics — in Washington and beyond. We dig into the key issues shaping America and uncover what's on the minds of those closest to power. You can contact us at: path@bbc.co.uk
Producer: John Ringer
Editor: Sergi Forcada Freixas
(Picture: US President Donald Trump gestures as he departs the White House in Washington DC, June 6, 2025. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Gory details of Elon Musk's 'rugby tackle' of Scott Bessent spill out as White House leaks escalate
New details surrounding a White House brawl between Elon Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have spilled out into the open - with one insider saying the Tesla CEO rammed his shoulder into Bessent's ribcage 'like a rugby player.' The Daily Mail was the first to report on the heated confrontation between Bessent and Musk, who's since been iced out of Donald Trump 's inner circle after their public blow-up this week. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon revealed that there was more to the mid-April tussle, insisting that both men ended up landing blows. They lost their patience with one another following a tense meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump snubbed Musk and instead took Bessent's advice on whom to name as acting IRS Commissioner, Bannon said. When Bessent and Musk exited the Oval Office, they began hurling insults at one another in the hallway. But it was Bessent who struck Musk where it hurts. According to Bannon, Bessent dared to say that the billionaire's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was a failure, since Musk didn't root out the $1 trillion in wasteful and fraudulent federal spending he promised he would. 'Scott said, "You're a fraud. You're a total fraud,"' Bannon said. That's when Musk body-checked Bessent, who hit the world's richest man right back, according to Bannon. Bessent's comment about Musk failing to deliver DOGE cuts at the magnitude he promised got the Tesla CEO to strike Bessent, who hit back, according to Steve Bannon Multiple people stepped in to break up the fight as the two men were getting close to the office of then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. Musk was then escorted out of the West Wing. Bannon previously told the Daily Mail that Trump sided with Bessent '100 percent.' Still, Trump wasn't particularly happy that the fight took place, according to Bannon. 'President Trump heard about it and said, "This is too much,'' Bannon said. Details about the Bessent-Musk clash only build upon speculation that Trump has long been drifting away from his former 'first buddy,' who donated $288 million to his 2024 campaign. They also reinforce the fact that leakers inside the White House are laser-focused on Musk. Sources close to the billionaire blew the whistle on his poor relationship with Susie Wiles, Trump's no-nonsense chief of staff. He treated Wiles like a 'secretary,' a source told the Daily Mail in April, despite her proven track record of success leading Trump's winning 2024 campaign. And in early March, there was wide-scale reporting on an Oval Office blowup between Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This was in the early days of the DOGE-inspired layoffs, and according to The New York Times, Musk berated Rubio for not firing anyone at the State Department. Rubio reportedly asked whether the 1,500 State Department officials who took early retirement buyouts counted as layoffs. Then he 'sarcastically' questioned if Musk wanted him to rehire them so he could fire them again, The Times reported. Most recently, Musk's alleged drug use was laid bare by insiders who spoke to The New York Times. Musk was reportedly taking ketamine so frequently that it was affecting his bladder function. The bombshell report also claimed he took ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and traveled with a daily pill box that contained about 20 different drugs, including Adderall. While all these disagreements played out behind the scenes, things between Musk and Trump seemed copacetic. In March, when Tesla stock was tanking and people began fire-bombing the electric vehicles all over the country, Trump brought Tesla to the South Lawn of the White House. One of the harshest barbs in the Trump-Musk feud came when Musk accused the president of being in the Epstein files As recently as May 30, Trump was praising Musk for his DOGE efforts during a press conference in the Oval Office, even presenting him a golden key to the White House. The era of good feelings would only last a few days more. On Tuesday afternoon, he posted on X about his unflinching hate for the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Trump's landmark budget and tax cut bill. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' In response, Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'very disappointed' about Musk's unabashed criticism. On Thursday, Trump threatened to cut off federal loans and subsidies to Musk's companies, which have received some $38 billion in government money over the last two decades. Trump doubled down on this idea Friday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One: ''I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair.' He also told reporters that he wished the billionaire 'well,' to which Musk replied in a post on X saying: 'Likewise.' Musk then responded to the clip of Trump talking about canceling his grants, saying: 'Fair enough.' Musk has sought to soften his tone, recently deleting his post on X saying that Trump was in the Epstein files. On Saturday, Trump did a phone interview with NBC's Kristen Welker and said he had no desire to mend his relationship with Musk. He also said he didn't plan to speak with Musk anytime soon. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump said. 'I have no intention of speaking to him.'
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: 'We can sniff Starmer's fear of Farage' say voters as they back winter fuel U-turn and insist two-child benefit cap must stay
Mrs Merton, the comic interviewer created by the late Caroline Aherne, famously asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels. In the same satirical spirit, voters have been wondering what it was about the Reform party's surge in the local elections that prompted Keir Starmer to tighten his immigration policy and row back on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Some welcome the winter fuel reversal and even give Labour some credit for listening and learning. More sceptical voters, of whom there are plenty, see a weak Government that can't make a decision and stick to it. Some wonder which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn. On all sides, the link between Labour's plummeting popularity and the winter fuel climbdown is obvious (in my research, Starmer's explanation that his newfound largesse was the result of an improving economy just made people laugh). 'You've kind of gotta sniff a bit of desperation,' one 2024 Labour voter told us. The same is true of Starmer's recent conversion to tighter immigration controls, with promises of stricter education and language requirements and a longer wait for settled status. On this issue, voters are, if anything, even more doubtful – for at least three reasons. First, they don't think he means it: the human rights lawyer and free-movement advocate has not suddenly seen the merits of firm border control ('If that was what you truly believe, it should have been on the table months ago,' a Reform supporter said). Second, they don't think it will happen: my poll found only just over a quarter of all voters think Labour would succeed in cutting immigration numbers, even if it wanted to – which most think it doesn't. Third, they think he's aiming at the wrong target. As my poll also showed, people care much more about illegal migration, and the vast hotel costs that follow, than about those coming here legitimately to work. Some worry that Starmer's new rules will make it harder to recruit, especially in crucial areas such as the care sector, even as migrants arrive on our beaches in record-breaking numbers. In a double blow for Starmer, the people who take his new immigration rhetoric most seriously are the ones who like it least, often inside his own party. Most of them don't think he means it either, but some longstanding Labour voters find it profoundly depressing that the Prime Minister seems willing, as they see it, to pander to the Right. Many found his warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' particularly worrying. 'When you're quoting Enoch Powell, I draw a line at that,' one told us last week. Evidently aware of these tensions, Labour figures are dangling the prospect of an end to the rule under which families can only claim child-related benefits for up to two children. This would please the Left and many party activists, but infuriate rather more than that. In my poll, most Labour voters backed the two-child benefit limit, while Conservatives and Reform voters did so overwhelmingly. They see it as an issue of fairness: 'I've got six children and I agree with the cap, because all the extra children I had, I've paid for,' one participant put it. These debates underline the dilemmas facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she prepares to unveil her spending review on Wednesday. With the economy struggling to grow under the weight of her extra taxes and regulations, she faces difficult choices over how to maintain public services – and the Government's new commitments on defence – while sticking to her fiscal rules. I found voters tend to want her to balance the books by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, but think she will do the opposite. Starmer has tried to divert attention from Labour's troubles by highlighting the contradictions in his opponents' plans. It is certainly true that Nigel Farage is offering simultaneously to slash taxes and boost spending – not least by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. But these attacks on Reform slightly miss the point. Those drawn to the party know its policies are a work in progress; it is the change of direction they want to see. They want a government that takes them seriously and puts Britain first. They won't be fact-checked into submission. More interesting is Starmer's acknowledgment that Reform is now Labour's chief opponent – a view shared by voters of all parties. Strikingly, my poll found Farage is considered the most likely of the current leaders to be PM after the next election. This is not good news for Kemi Badenoch. Most in my poll expected her to be swapped out before the election. This is not because it would be a good thing or would help the Tories' chances, but because that's what they believe the party does. No Tory leader has served a full term since David Cameron. The leadership circus has long been part of the Conservatives' problem. Another round would signal to many potential supporters that the party is not serious. And with Labour in trouble and Reform promising whatever it pleases, seriousness is above all what the Tories need to prove.
