Here are the countries targeted in Trump's new travel ban
5 June 2025 20:59
(Reuters)US President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning the nationals of 12 countries from entering the United States, saying the move was needed to protect against "foreign terrorists" and other security threats.
When does it come into effect?
The proclamation signed by Trump comes into effect on June 9, 2025 at 12:01 am EDT (0401 GMT).
Whom does it apply to? The proclamation states that the full and partial travel bans apply to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:- are outside the United States on June 9, and- do not have a valid visa on June 9The proclamation also states: No immigrant or non-immigrant visa issued before June 9 "shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation."
Which countries are subject to a full travel ban?
The following countries are subject to full bans on entry:
Afghanistan MyanmarChadRepublic of the CongoEquatorial GuineaEritreaHaitiIranLibyaSomaliaSudanYemen
Which countries are subjected to partial ban? The following countries are subjected to the suspension of the entry of immigrants, and people on the following temporary visas: B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas.BurundiCubaLaosSierra LeoneTogoTurkmenistanVenezuela
Are there any exceptions to the travel bans? Exceptions to the travel ban include:- Any lawful permanent resident of the United States- Dual nationals- Diplomats travelling on valid non-immigrant visas- Athletes or members of an athletic team and immediate relatives, travelling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event- Immediate family immigrant visas- Adoptions- Afghan Special Immigrant Visas- Special Immigrant Visas for United States government employees- Immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Russian CB cuts key rate to 20%, inflation slowing down
The Russian central bank cut its key interest rate by one percentage point to 20 per cent on Friday, saying economic growth is cooling down and inflation is slowing. 'Current inflationary pressures, including underlying ones, continue to decline. While domestic demand growth is still outstripping the capabilities to expand the supply of goods and services, the Russian economy is gradually returning to a balanced growth path,' the bank said in a statement. A Reuters poll had predicted that the central bank would keep the key rate on hold. It had been at 21 per cent since last October to curb inflation in the overheated economy, which is focused on the needs of the military fighting in Ukraine. As a result, Russia's economic growth rate fell to 1.5 per cent year-on-year in the first four months of 2025, compared to 4.3 per cent last year, prompting sharp criticism of central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina. Consumer prices have risen by 3.39 per cent since the start of the year, compared to 3.88 per cent in the same period last year, while the annualised inflation rate fell below 10 per cent in May after peaking at 10.34 per cent in March. The central bank forecasts inflation this year at 7 per cent to 8 per cent and economic growth at 1 per cent to 2 per cent. The Economy Ministry is more optimistic, predicting growth of 2.5 per cent. The strengthening of the rouble, which has rallied by about 40 per cent against the dollar since the start of the year, has aided the central bank in its fight against inflation by making imported goods cheaper. Its rise has been largely thanks to US President Donald Trump's efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. But most analysts agree that without any sign of a breakthrough in the talks, the rouble is waiting for a trigger to start falling. 'Tight monetary policy has a particularly strong effect on the decrease in prices for non-food goods, including through the rouble appreciation,' the central bank said. Inflationary expectations among households, an important gauge monitored by the central bank, rose for a second month in a row in May to a level last observed around the time of the last rate hike in October. Some analysts have linked the rise in inflationary expectations to a planned mid-year nationwide increase in payments for electricity, gas, water, and communal services for households, suggesting that the regulator might ignore the gauge this time. Food inflation, with prices for staples like potatoes tripling since last year due to a poor harvest, has severely affected Russia's poor. The harvest outlook for this year will heavily influence the central bank's thinking. 'As for food products and services, inflationary pressures remain high,' the bank said. The tight monetary policy, with the key rate at its highest level since the early 2000s and also the highest among major economies in the BRICS group, has made loans and debt financing, and therefore investment, inaccessible for many Russian firms. The central bank counters this by saying that its research shows enterprises in most sectors make enough profits to finance their investments and that the situation even in vulnerable sectors, such as construction, does not pose systemic risks. Meanwhile Russia's economic growth slowed to 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025, the lowest quarterly figure in two years, data from the official state statistics agency showed on Friday. Economists have warned for months of a slowdown in the Russian economy, with falling oil prices, high interest rates and a downturn in manufacturing all contributing to headwinds. Moscow reported strong economic growth in 2023 and 2024, largely due to massive state defence spending on the Ukraine conflict. But economists have cautioned that growth driven by the defence industry is unsustainable and does not reflect a real increase in productivity. The Russian economy grew by 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first three months of the year, the lowest quarterly figure since the first quarter of 2023, Rosstat data showed. The economy expanded 4.5 per cent in the previous quarter, according to the data. Prices have also been rising quickly across the Russian economy for months, driven up by massive government spending on the Ukraine conflict and deep labour shortages. Inflation in April remained above 10 per cent for the third month in a row, figures showed. Last month, the Russian central bank maintained its key interest rate at 21 per cent, with inflation starting to decline but new risks facing the Russian economy because of global economic turbulence triggered by US trade tariffs. 'A further decrease in the growth rate of the global economy and oil prices in case of escalating trade tensions may have proinflationary effects through the rouble exchange rate dynamics,' the central bank said in a statement. Agencies
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US
It is hard to find a historic or contemporary precedent for the battle raging between Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Elon Musk, the world's richest man. There may be a couple of examples that come close, but nothing that quite captures the current moment. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up his profligate cousins and businessmen at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton for a royal shakedown. They got into line quickly. And almost two decades before, Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to bend the oligarchs who got rich off post-Soviet capitalism to his will. On its surface, the Trump-Musk feud seems to be over policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Tesla chief and former head of DOGE attacked Trump's tax bill this week as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk was channelling the concerns of deficit hawks in the US, who worry the bill will add trillions to the US debt pile at a time when the dollar has weakened and demand for more US debt is looking stretched. Trump, who has positioned the bill as a do-or-die piece of legislation, said on Thursday during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, that 'I'd rather have Elon criticise me than the bill,' adding later, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Then it got nasty. Within hours, Musk was on X calling for Trump's impeachment, to be replaced by Vice President JD Vance. The vice president himself was catapulted to power in part by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur who mentored and groomed Vance's career in politics. He threatened to form a new political party and stop ferrying Nasa astronauts into space. He said Trump would have lost the US presidential election without his endorsement. And for good measure, insinuated that Trump was linked to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump fired back. He suggested Musk was attacking the bill, not out of patriotic fervour, but because he had snatched away perks for electric vehicles from which Tesla benefits. 'Elon was wearing thin,' Trump said. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said in another post on Thursday night, threatening to leverage the power of the presidency against Musk's business empire, which includes Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla shares dropped about 14 percent on Thursday amid the spat. According to Bloomberg's billionaires index, Musk's net worth plunged $34bn that day. Tesla was trading up around five percent on Friday. Silicon Valley vs 'America First' nationalists The Trump-Musk feud is a decidedly American affair - partly performative, very populist, and made for social media. And on that note, Musk has been posting on X, the social media platform he bought before the US election, and Trump has been posting on Truth Social - owned by Trump Media & Technology Group - that was purposely built as a right-leaning competitor to X before Musk bought it. Of course, the US is no stranger to elite power struggles capturing the public's attention, particularly during its rambunctious, early years as a republic. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, famously killed Alexander Hamilton, the one-time treasury secretary, in a dual in 1804. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt rode a populist 'trust busting' wave that pitted him against the gilded elite, making men like JD Rockefeller his foe. But the Trump-Musk feud has key differences. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » The two men had forged an unprecedented alliance that, to a point, symbolised a broader one between Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and crypto bros on one side, and working-class "America First" nationalists on the other. While some media reports say that allies of the two men are urging both to reconcile, the standard bearers of "America First" nationalism appear to be egging Trump on and savouring Musk's fall from grace. Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast WarRoom advocates for "America First" positions, called on Trump to seize Musk's company SpaceX and examine the billionaire's immigration status. Musk was born in South Africa. Bannon himself was critical of Trump's tax bill, but he was one of the few supporters who called for tax hikes on the wealthy. 'You're going to have a few of the tech bros and the crypto crowd stick with Elon because you have the cult of Elon. But MAGA will 100% back Trump. You aren't going to have a person in MAGA who will buy a Tesla,' Bannon said. But Musk donated over $250m to Trump's 2024 campaign and has made clear he has no qualms about deploying his cash against those who turn on him within the Republican Party. On Thursday night, Musk wrote, 'some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…' Do Musk and Trump have options? Trump has a history of engaging in brutal public spats, only to mend fences later. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vance both lambasted Trump during his 2016 run for the White House. But the key difference here is that neither of these men had the deep pockets of the world's richest man to endure a battle with the president. To an extent, Musk is a country unto himself. His technology, like Starlink, is hovering over battlefields in Ukraine, while his company ferries Nasa astronauts into space. The knowledge he has gained of Trump's family and the inner workings of the White House would make him a valuable catch for any foreign leader, including US allies. More broadly speaking, the feud is likely to reaffirm a perception among American friends and foes that something within the US system is cracking. In less than one day, the president of the US threatened on social media to use the power of his office against a comrade-turned-foe, while the world's richest man called for his impeachment. Elon Musk: How a tech nerd became Trump's 'first buddy' Read More » Many observers said the bonhomie between Trump and his former 'first buddy' was bound to implode eventually, given both men's power and outsized egos. Musk also felt his investment in Trump's campaign wasn't paying off, reports suggest. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk tried to block OpenAI from building one of the world's largest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Trump and his aides rejected Musk's bid to cancel the deal in favour of his AI company. On Wednesday, Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire friend of Musk, suggested Trump pulled his nomination to run Nasa because of his ties to Musk. Things could get ugly if the feud refuses to die down, and the president has several institutions that could be weaponised against Musk and his businesses. Trump has not been shy about using state leverage to settle old scores since his return to power. However, Musk has pockets deep enough to make mid-term elections an uphill battle for Trump and his loyalists. If the gloves come off, the world will have a front row seat to an unprecedented battle between the world's most powerful politician and the world's richest man, as it all plays out in real time on social media.
