What does Trump's new travel ban mean? – DW – 06/09/2025
President Donald Trump's order banning citizens of 12 countries, now in effect, aims to protect the US from "foreign terrorists." What are the reasons and who is exempt?
This time, it's not a new executive order but a presidential proclamation that has caused a worldwide stir. The policy signed by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday is entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats" and takes effect on June 9.
Like executive orders, presidential proclamations are one of the instruments with which a US president can implement the administration's will, particularly regarding national security and immigration.
Unlike laws, these documents do not require the approval of Congress. However, they must be based on powers granted by law. In terms of content, Trump's new proclamation ties in with previous travel bans imposed during his first term as president, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2018.
Which countries are affected?
The proclamation bans entry to the US for all nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, regardless of their reasons for travel, unless the State Department deems their entry into the US to be in the national interest.
In addition to these 12 countries, people from seven additional nations will face partial restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Stricter visa checks and restrictions will apply, but these will also be case-dependent. A wealthy businessperson might be allowed to enter, while tourists or students could face higher hurdles.
Trump issues travel ban for people from 12 countries
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Trump cites Boulder, Colorado attack
In a video published on social media, Trump cited the June 1 attack in Boulder, Colorado as his reason for the order, saying it "underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." He also said nationals from certain countries posed "significant risks" of overstaying their visas.
An Egyptian man has been charged with injuring several people when he hurled Molotov cocktails at a demonstration in Boulder calling for the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza. According to the US Department of Homeland Security, he had overstayed his tourist visa. Egypt is not listed in Trump's newest proclamation.
In the proclamation, the Republican president argues that the countries affected by the new travel ban do not provide enough information on their nationals to assess potential security risks. Some of the countries listed — Iran and Cuba, for example — have been designated by Washington as "state sponsors of terrorism." This new ban will tighten up already existing measures.
The Trump administration has criticized the fact that some countries do not take back their nationals when the US requires them to leave.
However, critics have speculated that the ban has political and economic reasons, pointing out that Saudi Arabia and other countries, with which the Trump family has close business ties, will not be affected.
Trump said other countries could be added to the list in future Image: Leah Millis/REUTERS
Who will be exempt from new restrictions?
Green Card holders
dual nationals with a US passport
athletes and coaches participating in "major" competitions in the US
Afghan nationals, who worked for or on behalf of the US government or ISAF, with Special Immigrant Visas (SIV)
Iranian nationals with immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran
foreign diplomats and representatives of international organizations on official visits to the US
close relatives of US citizens (parents, children, spouses)
adopted children of US citizens
certain foreign national employees of the US government who have served abroad for at least 15 years
those who were granted asylum or admitted to the US as refugees before the ban came into effect
If not exempt, nationals from the banned countries will no longer be able to enter the US from June 9 for business trips, educational travel or family visits. The decision is also likely to have economic repercussions. The poorer countries on the list in particular, such as Haiti and Yemen, have benefited from trade ties with the US, as well as remittances sent by people living and working in the US.
Human rights groups have slammed the travel ban as being racist and discriminatory, pointing out that refugees and asylum-seekers from conflict regions will now lose access to protection programs in the US.
Harvard students from China, Taiwan in limbo
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Trumps targets Harvard University
Trump also announced specific measures to block new foreign students from attending Harvard University, whom he accused of developing "extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries" and flouting "the civil rights of its students and faculty."
"I have determined that it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University," Trump stated in his proclamation.
Initially, entry to almost all foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in educational programs at Harvard will be suspended for six months. The suspension period could be extended. The US State Department will be directed to examine whether to revoke the existing visas of students at the university.
In a statement, Harvard said this was "yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights." Earlier this year, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote that the university, which is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, would not "surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights."
This article was originally written in German.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Pakistan boosts military spending amid India tensions – DW – 06/10/2025
Pakistan has boosted defense spending despite battling severe economic challenges. The military has seen a surge in popularity since recent clashes with India. Pakistan has decided to substantially hike its military spending in the wake of recent clashes with its archrival and nuclear-armed neighbor, India. Islamabad raised next year's defense budget to 2.55 trillion Pakistani rupees ($9 billion), compared to 2.12 trillion in the fiscal year ending this month, marking a jump of roughly 20% year over year. The announcement came as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government unveiled its annual federal budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year on Tuesday. The surge in military spending came despite Pakistan battling weak finances and tremendous economic challenges. In fact, the overall spending planned in the budget is down 7% to 17.57 trillion rupees ($62 billion). Kashmir: Students struggle with trauma from air attacks To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Pakistan army's popularity surge Pakistan and India recently witnessed a major flare-up in violence, the worst since the rivals' last open conflict in 1999, which sparked fears that it could spiral into a full-blown war. It began after a deadly attack on Hindu tourists in Pahalgam town — in India-administered Kashmir — on April 22, in which 26 people, mostly Hindu men, were killed. New Delhi blamed Islamabad for backing the attack, an allegation Pakistan denies. The crisis soon spiraled into a major military confrontation between the two nations. After four days of fierce fighting, however, both sides agreed to a ceasefire. Against this backdrop, the higher defense expenditures "aren't in the least surprising," said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There's the fundamental issue of needing to ensure sufficient resources in the aftermath of a serious conflict with India. Furthermore, the military, which surely sought these increased expenditures, is emboldened following the conflict and will look to push its agenda more rigorously," Kugelman told DW. Pakistan's military, the country's most powerful institution, had been unpopular in recent years, as many people accused it of meddling in politics and keeping the country's most popular politician, Imran Khan, away from power. But the military establishment has seen a surge in popularity after the recent fighting. "Finally, with the nation fully behind Pakistan in its fight with India, the civilian and military leadership know that they have the political space to take these types of measures," remarked Kugelman. Pakistan celebrates its military after standoff with India To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Struggling with economic crisis Pakistan has been dealing with an economic crisis for years, marked by high inflation, a depreciating currency and International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts. As recently as 2023, the country was staring at risk defaulting on its debts. But a multibillion-dollar support package from the IMF has helped steady the economy and bring inflation under control. In January, Pakistan agreed to an unprecedented 10-year plan with the World Bank which will see $20 billion (€19.4 billion) worth of loans for the cash-strapped economy. Sharif's government now projects 4.2% economic expansion in 2025-26. Growth this fiscal year is likely to be 2.7%, against an initial target of 3.6% set in the budget last year. The reliance on the IMF means that Islamabad will have to fulfil the institution's requirements for budget management and economic reforms. The IMF has urged Pakistan to widen the tax base through reforms which include taxing agriculture, retail, and real estate. Analysts say Sharif's government plans to offset the increased defense budget with cuts to spending in other areas, including welfare. "It's a big hike and will have to be funded from somewhere. Of course, it will have implications for expenditure on the social sectors and on development schemes," Safiya Aftab, an Islamabad-based economist, told DW. "It's unfortunate that Pakistan is once again implementing the economic policy of a security state, but to be honest, the situation on the borders makes this inevitable," she added. What role does China play in India-Pakistan tensions? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video False priorities? Pakistan has faced criticism for years for its heavy military spending at the expense of health, education and social welfare. Kugelman said raising military expenditure while slashing spending on welfare services could worsen the hardships faced by common people who are already struggling to cope with the effects of the economic crisis. "But those in power would contend that recent weeks show the imperative, for national security reasons, of these moves," he underlined. "And they would also point to some improvements in macroeconomic stability, including lower inflation, though surely that wouldn't be a winning argument for the many Pakistanis still dealing with economic stress." Farhan Bokhari, an economic analyst, said that there's broad support in Pakistan for higher defense spending, "for the moment," pointing to the tensions with India. "But for the long term, Pakistan's economy needs to grow faster to be able to support larger defense spending in the years to come," he noted. Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Mocked After Claiming Flights From LA to San Francisco Cost $2: This Is 'Why Trump Airlines Failed'
President Donald Trump is drawing mockery online after doubling down on a baffling claim that flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco cost just $2, using the figure to criticize California's high-speed rail project. Trump's latest remark came on Monday during a press conference about his decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles to control protests. When asked about the possibility of sending Marines, he veered off-topic to slam the state's long-delayed bullet train project. "It should've never been built because you can fly there for $2. And what are you doing? They're doing that. You could drive, you could do lots of different things," he said. This wasn't the first time Trump made the claim. In February, he used the same figure while denouncing what he called "the worst overruns" in U.S. infrastructure history, according to Mediaite . "The worst overruns that there have ever been in the history of our country. And it wasn't even necessary. I would have said, you don't buy it. You take an airplane – it costs you $2. It costs you nothing. You take an airplane," Trump said in February. The actual cost of a commercial flight between LA and San Francisco typically ranges from $100 to $250, far from his stated amount. Additionally, Trump suggested it would be cheaper to provide luxury limousine service for every traveler than continue building the rail line. The remark drew ridicule on social media, with critics calling it a prime example of Trump's disconnect from reality. "If you're wondering why Trump Airlines failed," one user wrote , referencing the short-lived airline he operated in the 1990s. "Trump's living in coo coo land," a user said , with another adding that the president "has dementia." Though Trump's airfare claim has been widely debunked and ridiculed, he has shown no sign of walking it back. Originally published on Latin Times
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
US military adjusts Africa strategy – DW – 06/10/2025
The US military is urging African countries to be more responsible for their security as the Trump administration focuses on domestic policies. But could the move fuel militant groups and undo counterterrorism progress? Africa should take greater ownership of its own security challenges. That was the message recently communicated by Gen. Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (USAFRICOM). The unit is part of the US Department of Defense and is responsible for all Department of Defense operations and security cooperation on the African continent. The announcement comes as the United States rethinks its military strategy in Africa, signaling a significant shift in its approach to security on the continent. This adjustment aligns with a broader strategic pivot under the Trump administration, which is prioritizing homeland security and a leaner, more lethal military force, while reducing the US military footprint overseas, including in Africa. But could it mean for the continent? Africa's global relevance Africa is strategically important to European countries and the United States for its growing population and vast natural resources. "Africa is a strategic partner with a large and growing youth population — projected to double by 2045 according to the African Economic Outlook," Adib Saani, a foreign policy and security analyst told DW. "The continent is rich, holding vast mineral resources and strategic reserves like uranium that both Western and Eastern countries heavily rely on." The continent is also home to 11 of the world's 20 fastest-growing economies in 2024. "The US and others engage with Africa not just out of goodwill but because these resources are vital for running industries worldwide," Saani said. "This makes the relationship mutually beneficial — a win-win for Africa and the rest of the world." However, the Trump administration's defense strategy has shifted focus away from protecting the US from threats emanating from abroad, including countering terrorist organizations such as the "Islamic State" (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda, which have expanded their presence and capabilities in Africa. How USAID cuts are fueling Africa's humanitarian crises To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video 'Sharing the burden' of security operations Previously, US military efforts in Africa combined defense, diplomacy, and development. "America has been a close partner in countering violent extremism, especially in Eastern and West Africa,' Saani explained. "We have relied heavily on US logistics, training, and intelligence sharing to address these threats. In terms of human security, the US hasalso contributed through USAID and other programs that have helped lift many out of poverty." US Marine Corps Gen. Michael Langley said the military's priorities now focus on homeland protection. He instead encouraged "burden sharing" with African partners. He said the goal is to build local military capacity to enable independent operations and reduce reliance on US forces. This shift was evident during the 25th African Lion joint military exercise. The annual event is the largest military exercise on the continent and emphasizes combined air, land and sea operations with more than 40 participating nations. It lacked the US-led efforts usually apparent and instead focused on collaboration and cooperation. Historically, the US has played in a major role in security operations on the continent, including in Somalia Image: Senior Airman Kristin Savage/Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa/AP Photo/picture alliance What could reduced US involvement mean? Yet foreign policy analyst Adib Saani warns that a diminished US presence could create a power vacuum, emboldening militant networks and undermining years of counter-terrorism efforts. "If the US withdraws its support, it would hit us hard. It could embolden terrorists to carry out more lethal and audacious attacks, knowing there is no major power backing our fight. This would also dampen the morale of our soldiers who face these threats daily, and place significant economic pressure on affected countries." USAFRICOM currently deploys roughly 6,500 personnel across Africa and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance. With that gone, Saani worries that Africa will not be able to be fully indipendent when it comes to security: "It will be difficult in terms of logistics and technology — we are simply not there yet. Security is a shared responsibility and works best when it involves multiple actors. In my opinion, Africa cannot do it alone." Exploiting Africa — the hunt for raw materials To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Russia and China step in African countries will need to look for other allies – both new and old, say experts. China has already launched extensive military training programs for African forces, replicating aspects of the US military model, while Russian mercenariesestablish themselves as key security partners in North, West, and Central Africa. "China'sapproach in the past has mainly been economic," Saani explained. The US, he points out, has primarily focused on military support, in addition to economic help. "The Russians have strong presence with both economic and military involvement. It feels like everyone is competing for attention. The clear message is that there's a need to diversify partnerships. We can't rely solely on the US; we may also need to engage with the Russians and others." Niger: US military operations across the Sahel are at risk To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Can succeed alone? Some voices say that the lack of US support could be a wake-up call for African countries that forces them to consider their own resources and rise to the challenge. African nations can now take the opportunity to review their security resources, Saani says, and collaborate more closely. "Building up our defense industry is also critical. This means developing industrial capacity and enhancing the capabilities of our armed forces," adds the analyst. "We also need to tackle corruption to ensure that funds are not getting lost in people's pockets but are instead used to improve people's lives."
