What we know about Trump's latest travel ban
Donald Trump has signed a ban on travel to the US from 12 countries citing national security risks, according to the White House.The US president said the list could be revised if "material improvements" were made and additional countries could also be added as "threats emerge around the world". This is the second time he has ordered a ban on travel from certain countries. He signed a similar order in 2017, during his first term in office.
Which countries are affected?
Trump has signed a proclamation banning travel to the US from nationals of 12 countries:Afghanistan MyanmarChad Republic of the CongoEquatorial GuineaEritreaHaitiIranLibyaSomaliaSudanYemenThere are an additional seven countries whose nationals face partial travel restrictions: BurundiCubaLaosSierra LeoneTogoTurkmenistanVenezuela
Why has a ban been announced?
The White House said these "common sense restrictions" would "protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors".In a video posted to his Truth Social website, Trump said the recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado "underscored the extreme dangers" posed by foreign nationals who had not been "properly vetted".Twelve people were injured in Colorado on Sunday when a man attacked a group gathering in support of Israeli hostages, throwing two incendiary devices and using a makeshift flamethrower.The man accused of carrying out the attack has been identified as an Egyptian national.
What has been the reaction to the ban?
Trump's latest order, which is expected to face legal challenges, drew a swift response, at home and abroad. Somalia promised to work with the United States to address any security issues. In a statement, Somalian ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, said his country "values its longstanding relationship" with America. Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello warned that "being in the United States is a great risk for anyone, not just for Venezuelans".Democrats were quick to condemn the move."This ban, expanded from Trump's Muslim ban in his first term, will only further isolate us on the world stage," Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat congresswoman from Washington, says in a social media post.Another Democrat, congressman Don Beyer, says Trump "betrayed" the ideals of the US' founders.
What happened last time?
Trump ordered his original travel ban during his first term in the White House in 2017.It featured some of the same countries as his latest order, including Iran, Libya and Somalia. However it drew heavy criticism for being a "Muslim ban" as six out of the eight countries listed were predominantly Muslim. It also faced challenges in the courts so was revised multiple times before it was eventually implemented in 2018. President Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump, repealed the ban in 2021, calling it "a stain on our national conscience."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk takes Trump feud to next level with more Epstein files claims as aides try to broker peace: Live updates
Donald Trump branded Elon Musk 'the man who has lost his mind' as the world's richest man escalated his feud with the president. Musk continued firing insults at Trump on Thursday evening on his X platform, with insiders said to be losing hope that a truce between the men can be brokered. Trump says he's 'not particularly' interested in peace talks with Musk Donald Trump was reportedly 'not angry or even concerned' about his escalating feud with Elon Musk in a phone call with reporter Jonathan Karl. Karl wrote on X that Trump branded Musk 'the man who has lost his mind', but was not concerned with speaking with the former 'First Buddy.' 'As for reports that there is going to be a Trump/Musk call scheduled for today, Trump told me he is 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk although he says Musk wants to talk to him,' the ABC News correspondent said.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Overview of Federal Actions on LGBTQIA+ Rights Practical Law The Journal
The current Trump administration has enacted policies that significantly lower federal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly transgender people. The administration has relied heavily on executive orders and agency directives to affect the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals as they relate to military service, health care, education, and civil rights enforcement (see, for example, Executive Order 14183, titled 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,' and Executive Order 14173, titled 'Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity'). For most of US history, LGBTQIA+ individuals faced negative treatment in various settings. For example, during World War II, the federal government dishonorably discharged gay individuals from the military. Additionally, from the late 1940s through the 1960s, a time known as the Lavender Scare, the US government either fired or forced gay individuals to resign from government service. (See Nat'l Park Serv.: LGB Military History and Libr. of Cong.: LGBTQIA+ Studies: A Resource Guide.) The modern LGBTQIA+ rights movement is commonly believed to have begun in 1969, when a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York City instigated a spontaneous uprising by LGBTQIA+ patrons. The following year, in 1970, the first Pride marches took place in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. (Libr. of Cong.: The History of Pride.) Over the course of the movement that continues today, the federal government has taken steps to either expand or contract the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals. Several times, restrictions imposed by one administration on these rights have been reversed by later administrations, reflecting changing political and social priorities. Major federal milestones in recent history include: Lawrence v. Texas. In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws nationwide and decriminalized same-sex sexual conduct. In so holding, the Court overturned its 1986 holding in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186 (1986)). It held that an adult's consensual sexual intimacy at home is a vital interest in liberty and privacy that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (539 U.S. 558 (2003).) The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' In 2010, the Obama administration repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals to serve openly in the US military. The policy had previously been enacted in 1993 and required service members to hide their sexual orientation or face discharge. (US Dep't of Def.: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Resources.) United States v. Windsor. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed by Congress in 1996) that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Court found that the law violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. (570 U.S. 744 (2013).) Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right nationwide. It held that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry. (576 U.S. 644 (2015).) Bostock v. Clayton County. In 2020, the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The decision extended federal workplace protections for these employees and made it illegal for employers to fire or discriminate against someone for being gay or transgender. (590 U.S. 1731 (2020); for more information, see Sex Discrimination Under Title VII and the EPA and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Under Title VII on Practical Law.) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that under the First Amendment, the state could not compel a website designer to create work that violated her values. The decision highlighted the tension between free expression and anti-discrimination laws. (600 U.S. 570 (2023).) The Trump administration has rolled back various LGBTQIA+ protections that were enacted by the preceding Biden administration. Additionally, state and local governments continue to pass legislation impacting LGBTQIA+ rights (for more information, see Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Discrimination State and Local Laws Chart: Overview on Practical Law). Counsel should stay informed on evolving policies and court rulings under the current administration to effectively advise on LGBTQIA+ rights in areas such as employment, health care, education, and public accommodations. (For resources for counsel to assist employers in addressing sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, see Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Badenoch says Trump-style blanket travel bans on foreign citizens could be ‘viable' in UK
Donald Trump-style blanket travel bans on foreign citizens could be 'viable' in the UK, Kemi Badenoch has said following a speech about law and immigration. The Conservative party leader admitted she had not seen Trump's list of banned countries, but said: 'I think there are scenarios where that is viable.' Earlier this week the US president signed a travel ban on 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar and Haiti, citing national security risks. Nationals from those countries will not be allowed to enter the US unless they qualify for an exemption. Seven additional countries will face partial restrictions. Asked whether she would ever consider implementing a similar system in the UK, Badenoch said: 'Parliament needs to be able to decide who comes into the country, for how long, and who needs to leave, and that does include travel bans. 'On a country-specific basis it's much tougher, it's often more vague. But I think there are scenarios where that is viable.' She added: 'That doesn't mean that I agree with what Donald Trump has done, I haven't actually seen the list of countries that he's banned people from. I'm much more focused on … what's happening here.' Badenoch was speaking at the Royal United Services Institute, a defence thinktank in Whitehall, where she announced the launch of a legal process to determine whether the Conservatives would endorse the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. The Tory leader faced questions about her party's collapsing popularity compared with the surge of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Her party came fourth in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse byelection for the Scottish parliament overnight. Labour beat the Scottish National party in a surprise victory, winning 8,559 votes and a majority of 602. Reform UK finished third on 7,088 votes, with the Tories a distant fourth on 1,621. Asked about the result, Badenoch said the Scottish constituency was 'not the place where the Conservative party fight back starts'. 'We live in a very competitive political environment, and we have made it very clear that the situation has changed and we have to be different, and that is what my job is right now – to change the Conservative party to make sure we can fight in an era of multiparty politics,' she said. She insisted that 'every week it gets better and better' amid questions about her performance as Tory leader. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'People often assume that the minute you come into a job like the leader of the opposition, that's it, you're ready to do it,' she said. 'It actually takes quite a while to learn how to do the job, and what I have been saying is that every week it gets better and better. Every week I have more experience. 'And this is what every leader of the opposition has found, from Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron, that is what it has been like. So when people assume that what they see on day one is what they're going to get in four years, they're completely forgetting that so much happens, the situation changes.' In her speech, Badenoch said the ECHR had become a 'sword' to 'attack democratic decisions' and that nearly all her shadow ministers had complained that it presented obstacles in their portfolios. She said she had asked David Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, to examine the consequences of withdrawing from the ECHR, with a decision to be announced at Tory conference in October. She said she was 'not convinced' by remarks from the head of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, who said the convention must adapt.
