logo
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries

Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries

The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017.
Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him.
Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas.
Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens.
His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired.
'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said.
The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there.
Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office.
'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,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac.
Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates.
Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally.
Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince.
'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote.
The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution.
Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed.
International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban.
'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,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.
The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.
During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed.
They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.
The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.

Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say
Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say

A planned conference in Saudi Arabia this month that supporters of Palestine had hoped would push western governments to recognise a Palestinian state has weakened its ambition and will instead hope to agree on steps towards recognition, diplomats have said. The change to the aims of the conference, due to be held between 17 and 20 June, marks a retreat from an earlier vision that it would mark a joint declaration of recognition of Palestine as a state by a large group of countries, including permanent UN security council members France and the UK. Emmanuel Macron, the French president and a co-sponsor of the event, has declared recognition of Palestine as 'a moral duty and political requirement', but French officials briefing their Israeli counterparts this week reassured them the conference will not be the moment for recognition. That is now seen as a prize that will emerge from other measures, including a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages, reform of the Palestinian Authority, economic reconstruction and a definitive end to Hamas's rule in Gaza. France and Saudi Arabia have set up eight working parties to prepare the necessary ingredients for a two-state solution, and Macron is hosting a conference of civil society under the banner of the Paris Peace Forum immediately before the three-day conference. The UK is overseeing the humanitarian working party and other working groups cover reconstruction, economic viability of a Palestinian state, promoting respect for international law, narratives for peace and 'peace day', an imagining of the benefits to both sides from a peaceful settlement. Israel and the US have attended run-up meetings to the conference but have not spoken, prompting speculation they may boycott the event. Israel has fought hard to prevent stateless Palestinians achieving self-determination. Polls show only a fifth of the Israel electorate favour a two-state solution and 56% of Jewish Israelis supported the 'transfer of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries'. Israel has also approved plans to build a further 22 settlements in the West Bank – the biggest expansion in decades. Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, said it was 'a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state'. Macron's initiative has been described as 'disastrous' by the Israel's ambassador to France, Joshua Zarka. Recognition of a Palestinian state was previously seen as an outcome of a failed 1990s-era two-state plan. However, governments in Europe increasingly doubt Israel has any intention to ease its control over Palestinians and see recognition as a possible lever to force a change of thinking among Israeli officials. Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised a Palestinian state last year. Macron has insisted he would only recognise a Palestinian state without Hamas – the same stance as the UK. In an open letter to Macron, The Elders, a group of former senior UN diplomats, say recognition is 'an essential transformative step towards peace' that should be taken as a matter of principle, divorced from negotiations over the ultimate form of Palestinian statehood and how and when Hamas should be disarmed. Anne-Claire Legendre, the president's adviser on the Middle East, has said the conference 'must mark a transformative milestone for the effective implementation of the two-state solution. We must move from words to deeds, and we must move from the end of the war in Gaza to the end of the conflict.' She met Israeli officials this week to discuss the conference and Israel's often cloudy long-term vision for the region. She also met the Palestinian prime minister, Mohammad Mustafa. Israeli newspapers reported the travelling French officials as saying: 'The recognition of a Palestinian state remains on the table, but not as a product of the conference. This will remain a bilateral subject between states.' The British foreign secretary, David Lammy, who is expected to attend the conference, is under massive backbench pressure to do more to punish Israel and is, at minimum, being asked flesh out the conditions for the UK recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, told MPs this week the UK thinking was evolving. 'One reason that the traditional position of the UK government has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end, or during, a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution,' he said. 'Many minds have been changed because of the rhetoric of the Israeli government – the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution.' But the British are looking for firm undertakings at the conference on the future government of Palestine, including the exclusion of Hamas from any future governance of Gaza, which is something Hamas itself has appeared to accept in the various plans drawn up by Arab states. A growing number of Conservative MPs have broken with their frontbench on the issue and now back recognition, including the former attorney general Sir Jeremy Wright. France hopes that a group of western states recognising a Palestinian state could be counter-balanced by Muslim states normalising relations with Israel. However, Saudi recognition of Israel seems impossible. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, the other co-host, has asserted repeatedly that Israel is committing a genocide, a view that is shared widely by Saudi public opinion.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk feud is very dangerous for the President
Donald Trump and Elon Musk feud is very dangerous for the President

Daily Record

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Record

Donald Trump and Elon Musk feud is very dangerous for the President

The political alliance between Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk has disfigured US politics. Musk helping bankroll Trump's second election victory was an example of money buying power. Being handed a job as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut spending was also wrong on a number of levels. It reeked of a massive favour to a donor and led to the dodgy practice of unaccountable allies of Musk cutting government programmes. But both individuals are ego maniacs and it was only a matter of time before they fell out spectacularly. Musk is unhappy at a Trump tax bill he believes will be financially ruinous. Sniping then led to Musk making the incendiary claim the president's name appears in the notorious Jeffrey Epstein files. Few things are more damaging reputationally than being linked to the late Epstein - just ask Prince Andrew. This developing feud between Trump and his former pal Musk is dangerous for the President. The Tesla co-founder has power and influence, both politically and in the corporate world, and he seems intent on doing damage. A positive step for the world would be if both men cancelled themselves out through their bickering. The US is known as a land of opportunity but we are in a situation where a small number of billionaires wield disproportionate power. People like Musk should be paying more in tax and held to account for the cuts he was allowed to make in government. Trump is already a lame duck president and Americans must look to a time when he is no longer in charge. Weapons in court The proliferation of weapons on our streets is bad enough. But it beggars belief that thousands of blades, guns and bullets have been seized in Scottish courtrooms in the last year as our investigation reveals. The motivation of those who would attempt to enter a court while armed is not clear. Do they think they need protection or is it to dish out retribution? Whatever the reason, it is vital courts are safe places for justice to be carried out without fear for anyone's safety. People should be able to expect to attend court as an employee, witness or accused without being worried about the threat of violence. Those sinister or stupid enough to believe they can carry weapons into a court of law should be left in no doubt their conduct is unacceptable. They should be hammered by the courts they seek to undermine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store