
Trump administration demands action from 36 countries to avoid travel ban
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has given 36 countries, most of them in Africa, a Wednesday deadline to commit to improve vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States .
A weekend diplomatic cable sent by the State Department instructs embassies and consulates in the 36 countries to gauge their host countries' willingness by Wednesday to improve their citizens' travel documentation and take steps to address the status of their nationals who are in the United States illegally.
The cable, which was described to The Associated Press, asks the countries to take action to address the U.S. concerns within 60 days or risk being added to the current travel ban , which now includes 12 nations. Of the 36 new countries targeted, 25 are in Africa.
It is the latest step by the Trump administration to crack down on those who overstay their visas and tying U.S. entries from certain countries to potential national security risks. Trump has said some countries have 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. Some countries condemned the travel restrictions and vowed reciprocal actions, while some resettlement groups say the ban sows division.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce declined to comment on the specifics in the cable, which was first reported by The Washington Post. She confirmed that the administration wanted nations to improve their own vetting processes for passport holders, accept their nationals deported from the U.S. and take other steps to ensure their citizens are not a threat to the U.S.
'We're looking at providing a period of time, (where if countries) don't get to that point where we can trust them and they've got to change the system, update it, do whatever they need to do to convince us that we can trust the process and the information they have,' she said.
It was not immediately clear if the ban would be imposed on countries that commit to making improvements and are making progress in addressing them but fail to meet the benchmarks within 60 days.
The list includes some countries that have been traditional U.S. partners, including Egypt and Djibouti, both of which have military relationships with United States, and others that long been friendly with the U.S., including Liberia, Nigeria and Ethiopia. Syria, which was left off the initial travel ban, as was Congo, are both on the new list.
South Sudan is already subject to a separate travel ban imposed by the State Department, which has revoked the visas of most South Sudanese already in the U.S.
President Donald Trump this month enacted a travel ban on 12 countries and imposed restrictions on seven others, although no previously issued visas have been revoked. His proclamation instead banned issuing new visas to citizens of the 12 countries.
That ban included Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Heightened visa restrictions will apply to citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
The 36 countries identified in the new cable are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Judge says government can't limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
BOSTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans. Tuesday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or 'X' identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth. In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender. Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy. In Tuesday's ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch's relations with other countries. The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said. 'Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,' Kobick wrote. Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out. 'The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,' Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. 'That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.' In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department. Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year. In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change 'does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.' It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.


UPI
18 minutes ago
- UPI
Judge expands order against Trump administration's passport gender policy
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department's passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary. File Photo by Ismael Mohamad/UPI | License Photo June 17 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department's passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary, saying the "passport policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws." Judge Julia Kobick granted a first preliminary injunction in April, which blocked the State Department's policy for only six of seven people who originally sued. On Tuesday, the judge expanded it to plaintiffs who were added to the suit, and nearly all trans and nonbinary Americans seeking new passports or changes. Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs "face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity." "The plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Passport Policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and runs afoul of the safeguards of the APA," Kobick wrote in Tuesday's opinion, while referring to the Administrative Procedure Act which governs how policies are adopted. After taking office earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, proclaiming the United States recognizes only two sexes -- male and female -- and that those sexes "are not changeable." Trump then ordered government-issued identification documents, including U.S. passports, to reflect a person's sex at birth. "We will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad with an X marker," according the State Department. "We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer's biological sex at birth." Under the Biden administration, passport holders could self-select gender designation, including "unspecified" which was designated by the letter X. The Trump administration appealed Kobick's ruling in April. On Tuesday, Kobick wrote that forcing transgender and nonbinary people to choose between two sexes makes them more vulnerable to discrimination. "Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport," Kobick wrote. The legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts celebrated Tuesday's ruling and vowed to "continue to fight." "This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school and family," Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement. "The Trump administration's passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity," Rossman added. "We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all."
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RIPTA faces 90 layoffs, 20% service cut even with funding in proposed House budget
Even with $15 million in new funding proposed by lawmakers, the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority would need to cut up to 20% of bus trips and lay off 90 employees to balance its budget next year, according to a consultant hired to find efficiencies in the system. The study identified ways RIPTA could generate between $2 million to $5 million in new revenue or savings, not enough to plug the agency's estimated $18 million budget gap. "There are no efficiencies that can be found that would completely close the budget gap that we are facing and prevent service reductions," RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand wrote in a letter to House leaders on June 16. "This will mean a reduction to the fixed route workforce by approximately 90 employees to get the service inline with financial resources." Such cuts to service will likely lead to "additional losses in terms of fare revenues," long-term loss of federal funds and loss of ridership due to diminished network effects and "inability to connect between routes," the study said. The options for raising more revenue identified in the "efficiency study" include an increase to RIPTA's standard $2 fare. Although the memo sent to lawmakers doesn't say how big the fare hike consultants studied would be, it was estimated to raise between $1 million to $2 million, depending on if it were extended to all routes. The study found that RIPTA could save up to $1 million by using federal reimbursement to pay for finance and procurement positions for capital projects. It also recommended shifting resources from rural routes to "low income and reverse commute services." And it said RIPTA's advertising revenue, which is roughly middle-of-the-pack for peer transit agencies, could possibly be boosted to make another $900,000 per year. "We are continuing to work as hard as we can to complete the study and I believe we are nearing the final scenarios. I'm providing this information as a heads up as I don't want to catch anyone off guard," Durand wrote to lawmakers. "In no way should these findings diminish the investments that the House is proposing for RIPTA." The study found RIPTA's operating costs are "in line with peer average" and its administrative costs are "below" average. RIPTA, like most transit agencies across the country, saw ridership crash during the COVID pandemic. Loss of fare revenue was plugged with federal aid, but since that assistance from Washington was exhausted this year, RIPTA has been facing a $33 million deficit for the year beginning July 1. As unpleasant as laying off 90 employees sounds, RIPTA was looking at up to 300 layoffs at the start of the year. Having to trim the workforce would also be a bitter pill for RIPTA to swallow after it raised pay recently to recruit new drivers and fix a shortage that was forcing the cancellation of trips. Gov. Dan McKee provided no additional funding for RIPTA in his budget proposal. The House rewrite of his budget unveiled June 10 included $15 million in recurring revenue for RIPTA in a proposed increase in the gas tax. Along with the funding, the budget mandates that RIPTA not cut the RIde Anywhere paratransit pilot program, which cost around $500,000 in its first year. The House passed the $14.4 billion state budget on June 17. It now moves to the state Senate. Liza Burkin, organizer of the Save RIPTA campaign and Providence Streets Coalition, said the latest consultant's report showed that there is no major inefficiency at the agency that can be fixed to close the budget gap. "Failing to fund RIPTA's $18M shortfall will initiate a chain reaction of route cancellations, fare hikes and job layoffs that will in turn lead to lower ridership and increases economic hardship," Burkin said. "This will ensure we will never achieve a robust system that affordably and sustainably gets people where they want to go." This story has been updated with new information. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Consultant: To balance budget, RIPTA needs to lay off staff, cut service