U.S. adds new African nation to expanding visa restrictions list
The U.S. Embassy in Zimbabwe has suspended routine visa services citing concerns with the Zimbabwean government.
The suspension impacts most non-diplomatic visas, disrupting plans for students, tourists, and business travelers.
The action aligns with intensified U.S. immigration policies emphasizing compliance with migration and security protocols.
According to a statement from the U.S. State Department, the pause in services will not apply to most diplomatic and official visas, but it is expected to affect thousands of students, tourists, and business travelers from Zimbabwe who rely on U.S. entry for education, commerce, and family visits.
This marks the second time in two years, Zimbabwe has been placed on the U.S. visa blacklist.
In 2023, then-U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a new visa restriction policy targeting individuals accused of undermining democracy in the country.
The move followed President Emmerson Mnangagwa's re-election in a disputed vote, which the opposition labelled a 'gigantic fraud.' Election observers also criticised the poll, stating it failed to meet both regional and international standards.
In a formal communication, the U.S. Embassy in Harare stated:
'The U.S. Embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, has paused all routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services with the exception of most diplomatic and official visas.'
The statement further emphasized the administration's rationale:
' The Trump Administration is protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process. We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse. Applicants with scheduled visa interviews will receive information once appointments can be rescheduled. '
While embassy officials clarified that the move does not constitute a full consular shutdown, and that essential services will continue, the timing of the decision has sparked speculation over mounting diplomatic friction between Washington and Harare.
The pause comes amid a tightening of U.S. immigration enforcement policies under President Donald Trump's second term, where visa access is increasingly tied to a foreign government's compliance with U.S. migration and security expectations.
Trump's revised immigration policy
The suspension of routine visa services in Zimbabwe aligns closely with President Donald Trump's revised immigration policy.
Introduced during his second term, the updated immigration framework marks an intensification of Trump's longstanding push to curb illegal immigration and reduce visa overstays especially from countries designated as high-risk by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Under this more assertive approach, Washington now explicitly links visa access to a country's cooperation with U.S. migration enforcement, including deportation agreements, data sharing, and return protocols.
Embassies have been granted broader authority to scale back or suspend consular services in countries seen as uncooperative or non-compliant.
This latest development comes amid a broader policy shift that has added both financial and administrative hurdles for several African nations. Most notably, the U.S. recently imposed a $15,000 visa bond requirement on nationals of Zambia and Malawi, citing high visa overstay rates.
In June, President Trump signed a new travel ban targeting 12 countries, primarily located in Africa and the Middle. Notably, seven of these are African nations.
In Zimbabwe's case, analysts view the suspension as a calculated diplomatic lever, intended to pressure the country into stronger compliance with existing migration agreements and broader international expectations.
As of now, no timeline has been provided for the restoration of normal visa services, leaving students, business travelers, and families in a state of uncertainty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new trade world is built around recent deals. The problem: We still don't know many details.
This past week saw Donald Trump move forward with a suite of new tariffs built around recent pacts that set headline rates of 10% to 20% for major partners who came to the table. But in recent days, there's also been confusion about what exactly many of these nations agreed to. As trade teams have moved through Washington, D.C., the issues have taken various forms, from how overlapping sectoral tariffs will work to the details of how foreign nations will invest billions in the US — not to mention an ongoing scramble for exemptions. It's been a clear snag for anyone looking for certainty after months of negotiating ups and downs. The larger problem, for now at least, is that nearly all these pacts remain in a sort of handshake phase. The confusion is a reflection of agreements that are still not finalized, and publicly announced elements are being interpreted differently by each side. Indeed, recent high-profile announcements alongside the European Union, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam all remain short of a joint statement from both sides — a key step in laying out areas of agreement. Not to mention legally binding texts. The dynamic has been in evidence on a nearly daily basis, and perhaps nowhere are the various sides talking past each other more than on plans for foreign nations to invest billions in the US. Trump has often described the agreements as akin to a cash handover — a "signing bonus," in his view. But with a very different view of the deals from the other side of the table. It's just one front likely to weigh on importers — including those importing from other countries facing higher "bespoke" rates as high as 50% — as companies may want certainty. But all sides are well aware that Trump has repeatedly reserved the right to raise rates if he feels these deals aren't working out to his liking. Two exceptions are recently struck deals, which have seen a few more formal details, including a joint statement with Indonesia and more technical language on an agreement with the United Kingdom, but with plenty of open questions there as well. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet A series of disputes over sectoral tariffs Sector-specific tariffs that Trump is also in the process of enacting on key industries have been a key point of contention, from how existing auto tariffs will overlap to forthcoming duties on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. On the semiconductor front, Trump paired his Wednesday enactment of "reciprocal" tariffs with the floating of a plan for 100% tariffs "on all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States." Within hours, trade officials in the European Union and South Korea followed up with an announcement that they would instead be exempt because of their deals. The dynamic had also been in evidence on pharmaceuticals, where Trump has also promised triple-digit rates. Left unclear is how these forthcoming duties — set to be levied under separate national security tariff powers in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — will impact countries that have struck deals, if at all. Even a White House fact sheet, despite Trump's comments, says that "the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors." Another point of contention this week is auto tariffs, which are already facing these so-called 232 tariffs of 25%. The terms of recent deals apparently include lowering those rates to 15% for the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, but this has not been enacted yet. That fact led Japan's top trade official to travel to Washington in recent days to see why the currently verbal agreement on autos hadn't been enacted. Ryosei Akazawa met with Trump's team and told reporters Thursday that he'd received assurances that the situation would soon be remedied. But there remains no official comment from the US side on when action, which would likely require executive action from the president, will be forthcoming. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Additional confusion around foreign investment deals The confusion has perhaps been most noticeable around agreements for increased foreign investment — $600 billion in potential money from Europe, $550 billion from Japan, and $350 billion from South Korea — which the White House has touted as key elements of these respective agreements. These varied investment promises have been backed up by only the sketchiest details and have taken different shapes between different countries. The Europeans say their $600 billion is simply a reflection of companies that "have expressed interest." Meanwhile, the South Korean and Japanese agreements have been sketched out as more akin to a fund to help spur private investments with additional financing resources. The formal White House fact sheet describes the Japanese agreement as a "Japanese/USA investment vehicle." But Trump has again and again — including Tuesday on CNBC — described it very differently. "I got a signing bonus from Japan of $550 billion," he said of that deal, adding, "It's our money to invest as we like." He was then pressed on Europe and the lack of details there and shot back, "Well, there are no details: The details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want." The president then reiterated, as he often does, that he plans to enforce these agreements through the constant threat of raising tariffs again. That got a response from Akazawa, the Japanese trade negotiator who was already in Washington over auto issues, who reportedly offered a very different description of the plan to reporters as "a commitment to invest in the US where there are benefits for Japan as well." He added: "We can't cooperate on anything that does not benefit Japan." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
20 minutes ago
- CNBC
Zelenskyy rejects Trump's proposal that Ukraine could swap territories with Russia
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy defiantly declared Saturday that his countrymen "will not give their land to occupiers," after President Donald Trump suggested that a peace deal would include some "swapping" of territories with Russia. "The answer to Ukraine's territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a message on Telegram early Saturday. "No one will and no one can deviate from it. Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier." His comments came after Trump announced on Truth Social that a long-awaited meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin had been scheduled for next Friday in Alaska. Further details and logistics of the meeting are still unclear and remain very fluid, including whether Zelenskyy will be involved. Trump did not mention the Ukrainian President in the post announcing the meeting with Putin. Later Friday, at the White House, Trump suggested that there have been talks about Russia and Ukraine potentially "swapping" territory as part of a ceasefire deal. "There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both and ... we'll be talking about that either later or tomorrow, or whatever." A White House official also said Friday that the Russians have provided a list of demands for a potential ceasefire for the war in Ukraine, and the U.S. is trying to get buy-in from Ukrainians and European allies. But in his message Saturday, Zelenskyy said any decision taken without Ukraine were "decisions against peace," adding, "They will not achieve anything." The White House had not commented on Zelenskyy's message by early Saturday. Russia's demands have previously included Ukraine ceding all the land that Putin claims to have annexed and accepting permanent neutrality, with a ban on Ukraine ever joining NATO. Putin claims four Ukrainian regions — Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — as well as the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which he annexed in 2014. Russian forces do not fully control all the territory in each region. It remains unclear whether Trump's reference to "swapping" territories means formal cession of land or a withdrawal from areas currently under each side's control. Zelenskyy and Ukrainian officials have long said they would not concede any territory that Russia illegally annexed. Ukraine has also insisted that any agreement must include "security guarantees" from its allies so that Moscow is not able to launch future aggression. The meeting in Alaska will be Trump and Putin's first encounter since the invasion of Ukraine, the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II, and comes after the relationship between the two leaders has wavered. In Trump's first term, the president called Putin a strong and smart leader and said he "got along great" with him. But after promising to solve the conflict within 24 hours during his presidential campaign, Trump has since extended that deadline and has expressed his frustration at the Russian president's seeming unwillingness to end the war. Trump had threatened to impose new sanctions and tariffs from Friday against Moscow and countries that buy its exports unless Putin agreed to end the conflict. It was unclear by Saturday morning whether those sanctions would take effect or be delayed or canceled. Trump's ultimatums have not prompted the Kremlin to move one inch on its war in Ukraine so far, other than to give the president a meeting. Although Trump's agreement to a meeting suggested a chance for progress, it was far from certain anything substantial would be achieved, Peter Watkins, an associate fellow at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, told NBC News Saturday. "The underlying issues have not changed," he said. "For Russia, this isn't just about territory, it's about controlling Ukraine as a whole." He also noted that Trump would likely want to leave the summit with something to show for it, but the outcome might be only "another step" in a protracted process rather than a decisive deal. Promises of talks between Trump and Putin have done little to quiet the violence on the ground since their announcement. The last time Alaska hosted a high-stakes diplomatic gathering was in March 2021, when senior officials from the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden met with top Chinese officials in Anchorage. On the ground, the Kremlin's larger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Overnight, Russian drone strikes hit a minibus in a suburb of Kherson, killing two and leaving six injured, the region's prosecutor's office said Saturday. Ukraine's Air Force Command said Saturday that Russia launched 47 drone strikes overnight in multiple Ukrainian regions, with 31 of them making landfall.
Atlantic
20 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Is a Degrowther
In the past few weeks, Americans learned that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled half a billion dollars of government investment in the development of mRNA vaccines, Las Vegas saw a 7 percent drop in visitors, residential electricity prices shot up by an average of 6.5 percent, the number of housing permits issued hit their lowest point in half a decade, employers quit adding workers, the manufacturing sector shrank, and inflation rose. These bleak figures depict an American economy slowing and its labor market weakening. A recession isn't guaranteed, but it's becoming much more likely and the stagflation that forecasters described as inevitable when President Donald Trump began prosecuting his global trade war is now a lot closer. Americans, now and in the future, will be paying more and buying less. Trump's second-term economic ideology is not only one of protectionism, mercantilism, atavism, and cronyism. It is also one of degrowth. Trump, who entered the White House promising to slash prices on household goods and supercharge the American economy, would never use that term himself. Degrowth—the notion that wealthy countries can and should reduce their consumption and production—is associated with environmental activists and leftist and green parties in Europe. Still, at its heart, degrowth argues that people should not only tolerate but desire a smaller economy. That's second-term Trumponomics, and everyone stands to be worse off for it. Without admitting it, the White House is pursuing a multipronged strategy to raise prices, suppress consumption, freeze production, and lower productivity in the United States. The trade war is the most obvious example, as well as the one having the most immediate consequences. Since January, Trump has raised and lowered and raised tariffs on goods imported from American allies around the world. Such barriers will eliminate the country's bilateral trade deficits and boost domestic manufacturing, the White House has promised, while warning that consumers and employers might have to endure a chaotic period of adjustment. But Trump has slapped tariffs on commodities and parts that factories use to make things in America, such as engine components and timber. He has slapped tariffs on products that are not or cannot be produced here, such as bananas and gallium. And he has slapped tariffs on items that would be too expensive for American consumers to purchase if they were made in this country, given the cost of American wages and the network of factories in operation, such as costume jewelry and sneakers. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the country's effective tariff rate now stands at 18.3 percent, the highest since 1934. Prices are beginning to rise as importers pass the cost of Trump's import taxes on to retailers and families. Industrial production is falling, as uncertainty plagues the sector. In response, Trump has argued with reality. 'We're only in a TRANSITION STAGE, just getting started!!! Consumers have been waiting for years to see pricing come down,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'NO INFLATION,' he added, pointing to egg and gas prices. But those are just two of 80,000 prices the government tracks each month to calculate the overall inflation rate. The cost of eggs has declined as the bird-flu pandemic has waned; the price at the pump has gone down due to weaker global growth and increased OPEC production. Across the economy, costs have remained witheringly high, despite the Federal Reserve combatting them with high interest rates. If the Fed cut borrowing costs, inflation would climb. Trump's campaign against reality extends beyond the price of consumer goods. Unhappy with the pace of employment growth, the president canned the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'They can't be manipulated for political purposes.' (Touché.) Unhappy with Fed policy, he has threatened to put Jerome Powell, his own appointee, 'out to pasture.' At the same time as he has prosecuted his bizarre unilateral war on imports, Trump has reduced government subsidies for a range of necessities. He has taken $1 trillion away from Medicaid, while vowing not to reduce the program's budget. He has cut food-stamp benefits, meaning low-income families will buy fewer groceries. He has eliminated support for the loans and grants that poor kids rely on to get a higher education. And he has slashed financing for renewable-energy production. Each of these policies will raise costs and reduce supply. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for instance, is expected to eliminate 1.6 million green-energy jobs and reduce electricity-generation capacity by 330 gigawatts by 2035. (That's roughly equivalent to the country's current solar-production capacity.) Americans a decade from now will pay higher prices for electricity and will use less of it, thanks to Trump. Right now, the United States is suffering from shortages—yes, shortages—of immigrants and visitors. Tourist meccas around the country are reeling as visitors from Europe and Asia opt to take their euros and yen elsewhere. Farms and nursing facilities are suffering from a lack of workers. Global investors are opting to park their money abroad, raising domestic borrowing costs and weakening the dollar. In the long term, Trump's attack on colleges and scientific-research institutions might end up being the most damaging of his degrowth policies. The American system of higher education—for all of its many, many faults—is an engine of global modernity. The country's land-grant schools help feed the world. Its public colleges vault poor kids up the income ladder. Its name-brand universities are laboratories of scientific innovation. But for the crime of supporting Black and brown kids, admitting foreign students, and hiring liberal thinkers, these institutions are under assault. The mathematician Terence Tao, described by some of his contemporaries as a latter-day Albert Einstein, might not be able to continue his research at UCLA, because of Trump's budget cuts. What good could possibly come of that? The same good that will come from slashing financing for mRNA-vaccine research, meant to prevent cancer and end pandemics. 'I've tried to be objective & non-alarmist in response to current HHS actions—but quite frankly this move is going to cost lives,' argued Jerome Adams, a physician who served as surgeon general during the first Trump administration. As a counterweight, the White House has cut taxes and slashed regulations, for some industries at least. The wealthy stand to do just fine in the Trump economy—happy, I suppose, to have a smaller pie if they get a bigger piece of it. Yet Trumpian degrowth will hurt them, too, in time. Rich people purchase homes and sneakers and bananas, and send their kids to college. Rich people use energy. Rich people hire workers to provide them with home-health support and staff their businesses. And rich people use vaccines and require cancer treatments. Unlike typical degrowthers—with their focus on long-term human flourishing and the conservation of the planetary ecosystem—Trump is engaged in financial nihilism. The president has, at least once, admitted that his policies will lead to Americans having less instead of more: 'Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.' If only that was the worst of it.
