Trump Imposes New Travel Ban on 12 Countries—Here's What Travelers Need to Know

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced a travel ban on citizens entering the U.S. from 12 countries, along with severe restrictions on those traveling from seven additional nations.
According to the announcement by the White House, nationals from Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen are banned from entering the United States effective 12:01 a.m. on June 9.
Those from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will also face heightened restrictions.
"In Executive Order 14161 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), I stated that it is the policy of the United States 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," Trump shared in the announcement. "I also stated that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests."
For Americans, the U.S. State Department has travel advisories with a "Do Not Travel" list. Of the travel ban nations, several countries have a level 4 travel rating: Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen. That said, the travel advisory is a suggestion and Americans are not banned by the U.S. government for entering the aforementioned countries.
According to the Associated Press, many of the countries on the new ban list were also included in Trump's travel ban during his first term. The AP also reported that Trump shared an additional message on social media tying the travel ban to a terrorism attack in Colorado on Sunday, in which a man threw a gasoline bomb into a gathering of pro-Israel demonstrators. However, the suspect in that incident is Egyptian, which does not appear on this new list of banned countries.
Several aid groups have already condemned the ban, with Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, telling the AP, "This policy is not about national security—it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States."
Shawn VanDiver, the president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, a nonprofit assisting in the resettlement of Afghans in the United States, shared in a statement with multiple outlets that while the Trump administration has made an exception for special immigrant visas for Afghans who were employed by the U.S. government, that still leaves "tens of thousands of Afghans with pending cases—especially family members—[who] will now be blocked from reaching safety, regardless of their loyalty to the United States or prior vetting." He added, "To include Afghanistan—a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years—is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold."
Some nations also appear unfazed about the ban or restrictions. According to CNN, Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela's Minister of Interior, Justice, and Peace, shared on local television that traveling to or being in the U.S." ... is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans ... They persecute our countrymen, our people for no reason." Cabello added, "If you're really that foolish, then go to the United States."

Hashtags

Politics

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Yahoo

18 minutes ago

Yahoo

Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' [Read: The case for a big, beautiful military parade] Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal–NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. [Read: The all-volunteer force is in crisis] A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents 'scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve. A version of this essay originally appeared on AEIdeas from the American Enterprise Institute. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Here's what to know about American Samoans in Alaska who are being prosecuted after trying to vote

San Francisco Chronicle

18 minutes ago

San Francisco Chronicle

Here's what to know about American Samoans in Alaska who are being prosecuted after trying to vote

WHITTIER, Alaska (AP) — FOR MOVEMENT AT 9 A.M. EASTERN ON SATURDAY, 6/7. WITH VOTING-AMERICAN SAMOANS MAINBAR. They were born on U.S. soil, are entitled to U.S. passports and allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but 11 people in a small Alaska town are facing criminal charges after they tried to participate in a fundamental part of American democracy: voting. The defendants, who range in age from their 20s to their 60s, were all born in American Samoa — the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship at birth. Prosecutors say they falsely claimed American citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The cases are highlighting another side of the debate over exaggerated allegations of voting by noncitizens, as well as what it means to be born on American soil, as President Donald Trump tries to redefine birthright citizenship by ending it for children of people who are in the country illegally. Here's what to know about the prosecutions in Alaska and the status of American Samoans when it comes to voting. What is the Alaska case about? The investigation began after Tupe Smith, a mom in the cruise-ship stop of Whittier, decided to run for a vacant seat on the regional school board in 2023. She was unopposed and won with about 95% of the vote. That's when she learned she wasn't allowed to hold public office because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. Smith says she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in federal elections but thought she could vote in local or state races, and that she never would have voted if she knew it wasn't legal. She says she told elections workers that she was a U.S. national, not a citizen, and was told to check a box saying she was a citizen anyway. About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to her husband and nine other American Samoans. While Smith appeals the charges against her, the state filed charges against the others in April. The state argues that Smith's false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' Why can't American Samoans vote in the U.S.? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises U.S. citizenship to those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. American Samoa has been U.S. soil since 1900, when several of its chiefs ceded their land and vowed allegiance to the United States. For that reason, Smith's lawyers argue, American Samoans must be recognized as U.S. citizens by birthright, and they should be allowed to vote in the U.S. But the islands' residents have never been so considered — Congress declined to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa in the 1930s — and many American Samoans don't want it. They worry that it would disrupt their cultural practices, including communal land ownership. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that in 2021 when it declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. People born in all other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam — are U.S. citizens. They can vote in U.S. elections if they move to a state. American Samoans can participate in local elections on American Samoa, including for a nonvoting representative in Congress. Have other states prosecuted American Samoans for trying to vote? Supporters of the American Samoans in Whittier have called the prosecutions unprecedented. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, suggested authorities are going after 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office, but officials found they did not intend to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She also avoided charges. Is there any legislation to fix this? American Samoans can become U.S. citizens — a requirement not just for voting, but for certain jobs, such as those that require a security clearance. However, the process can be costly and cumbersome. Given that many oppose automatic citizenship, the territory's nonvoting representative in Congress, Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, has introduced legislation that would streamline the naturalization of American Samoans who do wish to become U.S. citizens. The bill would allow U.S. nationals in outlying U.S. territories — that is, American Samoa — to be naturalized without relocating to one of the U.S. states. It would also allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive personal interviews of U.S. nationals as part of the process and to reduce fees for them. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska, and Johnson from Seattle.

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

Yahoo

Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today?

XRP has been a strong performer in the crypto sector since Trump won the election. The token's main use case is for cross-border payments. Ripple, the company behind XRP, has been very active this year in continuing to build out its business. 10 stocks we like better than XRP › Aside from Bitcoin, few cryptocurrencies have benefited more than XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) from President Donald Trump's election win back in November. Now the fourth-largest cryptocurrency in the world by market value, XRP has blasted more than 330% higher (as of June 5). Trump's win ushered in a new regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies, one less focused on caution and more focused on growth. The win also removed several regulatory headwinds for XRP. After experiencing such a strong run built on several strong catalysts, should you still invest $1,000 in XRP today? The big catalyst for XRP was getting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) off its back. In 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, the company behind XRP, as well as Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and Ripple's current Chief Executive Officer Brad Garlinghouse, for selling XRP as an unregistered security back in 2013. Investors viewed the case as a big deal because it could have set a precedent for the SEC's regulatory jurisdiction over many cryptocurrencies. While Ripple appeared to get a partial victory in 2023 when a federal judge ruled that sales of XRP to retail investors did not constitute sales of unregistered securities, the SEC appealed the case. Only after Trump won the presidential election, eventually leading to the resignation of SEC Chair Gary Gensler, did the lawsuit eventually end, removing a big overhang for Ripple and XRP. With the lawsuit now in the rear view, Ripple has been able to focus on its cross-border payments business, which leverages XRP, to help businesses move money globally more efficiently. Furthermore, Ripple launched its own stablecoin, called RLUSD. XRP can also benefit from RLUSD because it serves as a bridge currency, helping people who want to transfer other currencies to RLUSD and vice versa. Ripple also paid $1.25 billion to acquire prime broker Hidden Road in one of the largest acquisitions made in the crypto industry. Management believes the move could accelerate institutional adoption. Ripple also said that Hidden Road will eventually move post-trade activity to the XRP ledger to streamline operations and reduce costs, aiming to make XRP's ledger the main blockchain network for institutional decentralized finance. Ripple could also potentially serve customers of Hidden Road seeking digital asset custody, similar to what a bank offers. Other potential catalysts include the future launch of spot price XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which actually buy and store cryptocurrencies and then sell shares based on how much they own, with the goal of tracking a cryptocurrency's price. Ripple could also go public at some point. While Garlinghouse has said the company is not interested in doing this right now, it could still happen at some point. Cryptocurrencies are hard to value because they don't generate cash flow and earnings and trade heavily on momentum and on broader sentiment about the sector. The good news is that XRP has a compelling use case in its ability to process 1,500 transactions per second, making it an ideal blockchain and token for cross-border payments. The bad news is that there are competitors that can also process lots of transactions per second. But XRP is part of a growing ecosystem within Ripple, which now has its own stablecoin and a huge prime broker, on top of the existing bank clients. This could give XRP a leg up in becoming the preferred token for institutions conducting cross-border payments. For this reason, I think XRP is worth a small, speculative investment, but I wouldn't invest too heavily in the token just yet because it's still too volatile. Consider how much $1,000 means to you financially when investing in XRP. If it's a big part of your portfolio, it's prudent to invest less. If you can invest $1,000 and not worry too much about losing it, then definitely invest because, long term, XRP could have a ton of upside. Before you buy stock in XRP, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and XRP wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Bram Berkowitz has positions in Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today? was originally published by The Motley Fool Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten