Trump's new travel ban targeting 12 countries takes effect
A new travel ban signed by US President Donald Trump officially took effect today, Monday, 9 June.
As reported by BBC , the travel ban essentially bars nationals from 12 countries from entering the US.
These countries include: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Travellers from seven other countries – Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela – will also face partial restrictions.
According to reports, the White House said the so-called 'common sense restrictions' was meant to protect national security and prevent 'dangerous foreign actors' from entering the US.
This also marks the second time Trump has implemented a broad travel ban. A similar policy was signed in 2017 during his first term, sparking widespread legal battles and protests.
While the order is sweeping, it does include several exemptions. The travel ban does not apply to: Lawful permanent US residents (green card holders)
Immediate family members of US residents who hold immigrant visas
US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas
Children being adopted by US citizens
Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries
Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas
Holders of 'immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran'
Foreign nationals entering with specific non-immigrant visas
Athletes, coaches, and support staff attending major sporting events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
How scammers still lurk on Big Tech platforms like Airbnb
A new book Delusive Speech in the Sharing Economy uses Airbnb as its main case study to delve into the ways scammers with criminal intent deceive people. Big Tech sharing economy platforms like Airbnb and Uber are marketed as trustworthy, but a new book by a South African media scholar argues that they are highly vulnerable to scammers who spread delusive speech (a form of disinformation, designed to deceive by criminal intent). Julie Reid draws from first-hand accounts and more than 600 cases from around the world of victims lured into scams or physical danger by fake Airbnb reviews and listings, providing a detailed case study. She answers five questions about her book. How do the scams work? Airbnb is the world's largest accommodation-sharing platform. It connects property owners who want to rent out their homes with travellers looking for alternatives to traditional hotels. The company recently expanded its offering and now facilitates the booking of other services such as personal trainers or caterers along with accommodation rentals. Airbnb scams happen in several ways. The most obvious is the phantom listing scam. The scammer constructs a fake but attractive listing on Airbnb and accepts payments from unsuspecting guests. It's only when guests arrive at the address that they discover the property doesn't exist. Scammers have also learnt to navigate around Airbnb's review system. Fake positive reviews are produced by scam host networks, making them appear to be authentic. Bait-and-switch scams are also common. Here the scam 'host' contacts the guest on check-in day claiming the reserved property is suddenly unavailable. They offer alternative accommodation, which the guest later discovers is not as good as the original property they've paid for (which is often fictional). The guest pays for a premium rental but is forced to stay in a property that might be unsafe, unclean or missing amenities. Scam hosts use misleading, plagiarised or AI-generated property images and fake descriptions along with fake personal profiles and aliases. Delusive tactics also redirect guests away from the secure Airbnb payment portal to alternative payment methods. The scammer disappears with the money. But the danger isn't limited to financial crimes. The platform's business model is premised on staying in a stranger's private property, which can put guests' personal safety at risk. Criminal hosts can lure targets into dangerous environments. Once checked in, guests are isolated from public view, housed in a property to which the host has access. I've assessed multiple cases where Airbnb guests were assaulted, robbed with no signs of forced entry, raped, murdered, made victims of sexploitation, extortion or human trafficking, or held hostage. How does the disinformation work? I consider delusive speech a subset of disinformation because it presents intentionally misleading content at scale. But it differs from disinformation in its intentions. It isn't done to promote a particular cause or gain ideological, military or political advantage. Delusive speech is motivated purely by criminal intent or nefarious financial gain. Delusive speech works by hiding in plain sight on platforms we think we can trust, such as Airbnb, Uber and others. Often, it's indistinguishable from honest and genuine content. When users browse Airbnb listings for holiday accommodation, they're presented with numerous options. A fake property listing looks, sounds and feels exactly the same as a genuine one. This happens on a platform that has built its brand narrative around the concept of trust. Scammers exploit these digital contexts of pre-established trust. When users log on to popular e-commerce or sharing economy platforms, they're already primed to pay for something. It becomes relatively easy for scammers to delude targets into parting with their money. What can Airbnb do about it? Airbnb already has several trust and safety mechanisms in place. They include rapid response teams, an expert Trust and Safety Advisory Coalition and travel insurance for guests. The company claims to be trying to stop fake listings with machine learning technology. Sadly, none of these mechanisms works perfectly. Airbnb promises to verify properties and host identities, but my analysis exposes flaws in these systems. Scammers easily bypass verification tiers through aliases, forged documents and AI-generated material. Airbnb has admitted it needs to address the failures of its verification processes. My analysis uncovered how scammed guests are routinely denied the opportunity to post reviews of problematic rentals. Opaque terms of service and content policies allow Airbnb customer service agents and executives to justify censoring negative but honest guest reviews. This means dangerous and fraudulent activity goes publicly unreported and unreviewed, leaving future guests vulnerable. I argue that Airbnb's review curation mechanisms should be revamped according to internationally recognised human rights frameworks that protect freedom of speech. This would allow for more honest accounts of guest experiences and create a safer online environment. Perhaps the most common complaint I encountered was that Airbnb doesn't remove offending listings from its platform, even after a scammed guest provides evidence that the listing was posted by a fraudster. Airbnb must develop an urgent protocol for swiftly removing offending listings when discovered to protect future guests from falling victim to the same scam trap. What can users do to protect themselves? Travellers can protect themselves by being extra cautious. Ask around. Seek recommendations from people you know and trust, and who can verify that the property you are booking actually exists and the host is trustworthy. If that isn't an option, consider an established hotel instead, but book directly with the hotel and not via third party sites such as where listings can easily be faked. Check on Google Street View to make sure the property is where it claims to be. Either way, have a plan B in case things go wrong. Prepare ahead of your trip by deciding what you will do if you find yourself in an unsafe situation. And always, always buy travel insurance. Is it part of a bigger problem? I assess several digitally initiated scam categories in this book. Although my main case study focused on Airbnb, the problem of delusive speech online isn't unique to this platform. Delusive speech is now carried by all major tech platforms integral to everyday life. In the book, I also highlight how scammers operate in every corner of the internet, including dating apps such as Grindr, Tinder and Hinge; ride-sharing services like Uber, Lyft and Bolt; travel sites like and and social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, among others. I hope that these examples will boost awareness of the risks of using these apps and sites. DM First published by The Conversation. Julie Reid is a professor at the University of South Africa.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Faced with US tariffs China must reform and liberalise its economy
The tariffs are starting to bite. Data out this week showed that China's exports to the United States plunged by 34.4% last month, the sharpest drop since the Covid-19 pandemic, according to Bloomberg. This decline occurred despite the temporary trade war 'truce' announced by US President Donald Trump in May. This precipitous drop is undoubtedly a blow to China's critical export machine. Yet, it underscores a broader and more important economic question: Can China pivot its massive economy away from export-led growth towards a more sustainable model predicated on higher domestic consumption? Underlying the data is the strength of the Chinese export machine. Remarkably, despite the collapse in exports to the US, China's total exports rose nearly 5%. But the bigger challenge lies in transforming the economic model that has driven China's breakneck economic expansion for decades. The call for China to rebalance its economy away from selling to consumers in other countries is not new. Economists have long warned that its reliance on domestic savings funding investment into manufacturing foreign exports is unsustainable. The Trumpian trade war has merely sped up the urgency of its need to make this transition across the economic Rubicon. Scepticism Scepticism is rife as to whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has the means, or political will, to foster such a shift to a consumption-led economy. It would not be without its political and social risks. History has shown that when people become better off, and economically freer, they tend to demand equivalent political freedoms. Yet, the question might not be whether the CCP wants or is able to allow such a shift. Rather, can it afford not to? Surely, it understands that hoping that the status quo can continue is a road to nigh certain economic, social and political ruin. China must, in a sense, evolve or die. And the signs are that it is indeed taking this plunge. First, the narrative of weak domestic consumption is misleading. Consumer spending already makes up about 40% of China's GDP. While this is well below the global average of about 60%, the share scale of China's consumer market — already second only to the US — makes clear the upside potential if it is able to lift consumption to a level commensurate with an economy of its nature. Replacing lost US export revenue with domestic demand then may not be as difficult as it seems. Thanks to high production and relatively low prices, consumer goods are widely affordable, and China is not as susceptible to difficult and fragile supply chains as, for example, the US. Moreover, young Chinese Gen Z and millennial consumers are prone to spend on travel, lifestyle and technology. 'The bulk of consumer credit goes to people under 35,' notes Keyu Jin of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in the Financial Times. 'With one click on Alibaba, you can borrow to buy a lipstick.' Enormous potential Looking ahead, the potential for consumption growth is enormous. Boston Consulting Group estimates that by 2030, more than 500 million Chinese will belong to the middle and upper classes. That is more than the entire population of the US. Even a modest rise in their spending habits could drive a major increase in domestic demand, and indeed affect other emerging markets that sell to China — such as South Africa. Second is the shifting dynamics of the real estate market. China's zero-Covid-19 pandemic approach and its real estate crash did, undoubtedly, scare households. Consumer confidence remains significantly below pre-2020 levels, and precautionary savings are elevated. Yet, there are nascent signs of a turnaround. Research done by Absolute Strategy Research shows that households have now largely filled the hole in their balance sheets caused by the tanking property market, allowing them more room to spend. Home prices are stabilising, and consumer sentiment is slowly recovering. A recent Deutsche Bank survey showed 52% of respondents were ready to increase discretionary spending, the highest in a year. Still, converting this momentum into long-term consumption growth will require deeper structural changes. Confidence must be boosted and precautionary 'rainy day' savings, which are still so prized by a consumer market enduring post-Covid PTSD — should be depleted. But Beijing is listening to the economists on this. Xi Jinping's economic doctrine — emphasising 'dual circulation' and 'common prosperity' — has begun to prioritise domestic demand. Third, urbanisation is a critical factor. China's hukou system — which restricts rural migrants' access to benefits in urban areas thereby keeping a lid on the numbers of people that can move into the cities — puts a ceiling on consumption spending. But the August 2024 five-year reforms to ease this system could unleash enormous spending potential. Studies show that fully urbanised migrants increase their per capita consumption by as much as 60%. While this is not without its political risks for the CCP — studies also show that urban residents are more likely to prioritise liberal values such as free speech and democracy — it is a necessity for faster growth. Social safety net Finally, China's social safety net also needs strengthening. Beijing spends significantly less on social transfers than capitalist economies, and it collects very little income tax relative to GDP. This underdeveloped welfare system encourages excess savings and lower spending. But once again, despite some political resistance, reforms are being made. While Xi has spoken against 'welfarism' that 'encourages laziness', recent reforms include childcare subsidies, public medical insurance, old age benefits, employment support, and consumption incentives. While not enough, this is an impressive start, and a tacit acknowledgement that more needs to be done to shift the economy to be 'consumption led'. Long-term growth hinges on sustained political and economic reforms. Redirecting household savings into real economy spending by further welfare and tax reforms would strengthen the domestic market and help China make that shift into a more mature consumer economy. As the economic and geopolitical limits of the country's existing growth strategy becomes clearer, China must leverage its centralised policy apparatus to turbocharge consumer spending. 'Beijing has time and again demonstrated the ability to do the unexpected to reach its longer-term goals,' says David Goodman, director of the China Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, quoted in the Financial Times. China's consumers have struggled in recent years. But there is enormous spending power yet to be unlocked, and Beijing holds the key. Whether Beijing has both the means and the will to engineer this shift remains uncertain. But for the global economy — and especially for resource exporting emerging markets like South Africa that rely heavily on Chinese demand — it is a question of enormous consequence. China is still South Africa's largest single export market by far. Unlike Trump, who revels in signs of Chinese weakness, the rest of the world should hope China's economy is more resilient than it appears. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Dear Minister George, deliver us from the ‘rhino wars' and lead us to ‘convivial conservation'
South Africa's pervasive 'rhino war' rhetoric distracts us from addressing the root causes of poaching. We urgently need alternative conservation philosophies, practices and policies to tackle wildlife crime. In January 2025, conservationists were honoured to have you, Mr Dion George, Minister of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, at a two-week conservation management course in the Greater Kruger area. Following this, you assured South Africans that ' poachers' reign of terror on South African wildlife is coming to an end ', that the ' plundering of our natural resources ' would not be tolerated, and affirmed a 'renewed zero-tolerance stance on all forms of poaching'. Commended for your ' bold stance on poaching ', you instructed your legal teams to oppose bail for any poachers caught within national parks to ' send a clear message that poaching is economic sabotage, and those who engage in it will face the full might of the law '. You praised rangers as South Africa's ' unsung heroes ' who ' unselfishly place their lives at risk to protect our country's vulnerable wildlife '. Early in March 2025, you reminded the public that rangers were 'at the frontline' of the poaching scourge'. Minister George, we applaud your on-the-ground engagement with conservationists and law enforcement experts. As proud South Africans, we are inspired by a senior public official with an appetite for learning and a desire to act. In a recent press release, you affirm that poaching is a manifestation of transnational wildlife trafficking that requires a global endeavour to disrupt the criminal networks. We could not agree more. All the king's horses and all the king's men However, we are concerned about your reliance on what we call 'rhino rhetoric' — oversimplified narratives and images that frame the scourge of rhino poaching for both conservationists and the public. Rhino rhetoric dominates our media landscape and collective imagination with scenes of fearless, uniformed rangers, with K9s at their side, jumping in and out of helicopters, wielding semi-automatic weapons and other paramilitary paraphernalia. For at least the past 15 years, we have been told by SANParks executives, politicians, celebrities and foreign royalty that poaching is nothing short of a moral war against evil poachers, and that with enough passion, tenacity and firepower, the ' true heroes ' would soon be victorious. As far back as 2008, the Managing Executive of the Kruger National Park, Abe Sibiya, said, ' society cannot stand by and watch helplessly as international criminals declare war on our nation. We all need to defend our heritage with everything we have.' In 2009, Dr David Mabunda, then SANParks CEO, warned poachers that ' their days are numbered ', that ' we will seek them out, we will find them and they will be dealt with. This is a war that we plan on winning'. SANParks went as far as assembling churches to 'pray against rhino poaching' where SANParks' Communication Manager at the time, Mr William Mabasa, confirmed, ' we came here to ask God to intervene in this war '. In 2010, our then Minister of Environmental Affairs called on South Africans to ' stand together in this war on (the scourge) of rhino poaching '. Years passed, but the rhetoric stuck. In 2018, SANParks' Chief Operating Officer warned that ' by plundering the species in national parks and other protected areas, they (poachers) are selling their soul to the devil '. In 2023, SANParks was still ' battling poaching ' and taking ' the fight to rhino poachers '. In 2025, we hear you, Minister George, toeing the same line. The military discourse and where it got us Rhino rhetoric is rooted in timeworn militaristic approaches to protecting biodiversity, often referred to as ' green militarisation'. In South Africa, we have long cast poaching as a one-dimensional security problem that requires a simplistic, singular (and violent) response. This framing is effective in garnering public outrage and hones our attention on the seductive drama of valiant men (and the occasional woman) battling it out in the African bush. While widespread violent encounters and gunfights do occur, and have saved the lives of many rhinos, there is more to the story than gallant conservationists chasing devilish murderers through the African bush. For no matter how expertly rangers detect, ' hunt ' and apprehend poachers, this has not nor will it ' stem the tide against environmental crime '. Militarised approaches to conservation management, despite their rhetorical appeal, have shown limited long-term effectiveness. A 2023 study in the Greater Kruger landscape surveyed diverse rhino protection strategies in 11 conservation areas and found that paramilitary interventions, like ranger deployment and using K9 tracker dogs, were less effective than dehorning rhinos. The study details how between 2017 and 2021, when a militarised approach was in full swing, more than R1-billion was dedicated to anti-poaching activities — with R660-million of that spent in Kruger Park alone. Yet, the scourge continued. Since 2013, the year after SANParks appointed a military expert to convert Kruger's rangers into a ' paramilitary force capable of taking the fight to poachers ', the park lost 59% of its rhino population to poaching. Despite state-of-the art detection technology coupled with exceptional rapid-response teams, infiltration by rhino poachers — typically disaffected and exploited young men — remains high. Governance: the real rhino frontline Minster George, you know that the 'frontline' of poaching extends far beyond the boundaries of vast protected areas patrolled by rangers and K9s. Let us delve into the more mundane world of social systems, structures and governance. The act of killing an individual rhino is a result of transnational organised crime enabled by our country's economic inequality, historical injustices, tenuous relationships between local people and protected areas, the hollowing out of criminal investigations capacity, and broader governance challenges. Addressing these underlying factors, though not as vivid as scrambling helicopters and releasing hounds, is crucial to finding long-term solutions. Yes minister, our protected areas need you to visit more often — accompanied by your counterparts from land reform, agriculture, education, cooperative governance, finance, health, police, social development, trade, water and sanitation, women and youth. Is there political will to address the core causes of our environmental challenges? Our ministers — you and your colleagues — do, after all, have the mandate, power and resources to transform our country's governance shortfalls. These are the very problems that enable crime syndicates to gain control over poaching grounds and trafficking routes. To safeguard South Africa's natural resources — whether rhinos or abalone or succulent plants — a paradigm shift in focus is required, from incidents (a bludgeoned rhino lies dead in Kruger Park) towards systems (corrupt officials steal millions intended for school infrastructure for communities bordering the park). Minister George, are you prepared to also oppose bail for the (yet unprosecuted) thousands of corrupt officials who have plundered our country's financial resources, contributing directly to our governance woes, and indirectly to the poaching scourge? Will you consider urging your police minister colleague to target high-level poaching bosses, wildlife traffickers and the corrupt facilitators in airports, courts and police stations who empower them? If the (unfortunate) war metaphor must be wielded, are unethical government officials not our most insidious economic saboteurs, requiring nothing other than a bold stance and zero tolerance? Innovations in tackling organised wildlife crime Your ministry and department is already leading change: supporting long-term safety and security for wildlife and local people under initiatives such as the Integrated Wildlife Zones programme, rooted in the new National Integrated Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. We need this increased focus on wildlife trafficking as a transnational organised crime, requiring multidisciplinary, cross-border solutions to dismantle illicit value chains. Your team's recently formed Environmental Enforcement Fusion Centre draws on evidence from the SADC region that specialist investigations halt wildlife crime, with a broader and more sustainable impact than only ranger-led anti-poaching work. Well-trained, suitably equipped, and armed rangers have a crucial role to play, but only within a holistic, systems approach. Innovative, cross-sectoral initiatives are already under way and deserve more publicity and financial backing. For example, a prominent conservation NGO in the Greater Kruger historically adopted a narrow focus on military responses to poaching. However, through visionary leadership and concepts such as the Integrated Wildlife Zones, private nature reserves, local communities, civil society and government now collaborate to transform the Greater Kruger landscape into a ' safer place for people and for rhinos '. The unintended effects of valorising rangers Minister George, your public utterances consistently portray rangers as brave, dedicated individuals fighting a noble cause. For many rangers, this rings true, but again, there is more to the story. A recent study chronicles the hidden costs of framing conservation efforts, specifically the fight against poaching, as a 'war'. While it might seem intuitive to idealise rangers as 'soldiers' on the front lines, endowing them with a heroic mantle, this approach can unexpectedly backfire in ways that undermine the very cause it intends to champion. The constant public pressure on protected area managers and rangers to produce a quick and decisive 'victory', the sheer relentlessness of their struggle, and the constant exposure to fatigue, violence and trauma, has bred disillusionment and dark cynicism. As a result, frontline conservationists experience a profound loss of perspective that narrows their focus to mere 'survival mode'. The 'war' mentality has led to wide-scale burnout and a fixation on enforcing the law. Protected area managers lose sight of broader conservation goals and the possibility of alternative solutions. Crucially, casting rangers as heroes and poachers as villains is a binary and limiting framing that distracts us from tackling the complex social, economic and political drivers of poaching. Simon Sinek's Infinite Game approach offers a helpful alternative that can motivate rangers by shifting their perspective from a finite 'war' to a more fulfilling and sustainable practice. This involves reframing their purpose and meaning by focusing on a just cause that goes beyond solely defeating poachers. Additionally, promoting resilience helps rangers adapt to changing circumstances and view setbacks not as lost battles, but as opportunities for learning. Towards conviviality Convivial conservation is a global movement aimed at transforming conservation practices and policies. Drawing on the concept of 'conviviality', it emphasises inclusivity, reciprocity and fairness. It champions a move away from exclusionary and coercive approaches towards more collaborative strategies co-developed between diverse actors and sectors. Minister, please consider how such an approach could help us rethink the 'rhino war', so we can: Tell better, more nuanced stories: we need to recognise and communicate the complexities surrounding wildlife crime if we are going to collectively imagine a more sophisticated response to it. Direct resources not just at law enforcement but also towards initiatives that address poaching's root causes: no animal or asset in any reserve will ever be safe if they are surrounded by socioeconomic deprivation, inequality, corruption, and organised criminal networks. Bolster good governance on 'this' and 'that' side of the fence: local communities, municipalities, businesses, traditional authorities, and both park and law enforcement agencies need to view each other as neighbours in a shared landscape, with shared challenges and interests. The Integrated Wildlife Zones initiative is a positive step in that direction. Promote a more supportive and equitable work environment for rangers: we need realistic societal expectations about what rangers can achieve in the face of transnational criminal networks. In addition, rangers need better pay, decent housing, sufficient training and equipment, and culturally appropriate psychosocial support. Minister George, declaring more wars will not save our threatened biodiversity. Valorising field rangers and having them bear the brunt of South Africa's governance failures — and leaving them to endure the emotional and physical scars — is not sufficient. Let us expand our strategies beyond combative reactions to swiftly and fairly tackle organised crime and governance challenges for the benefit of wildlife, their guardians, and the millions of people living on the fringes of protected areas. DM Dr Lindie Botha is a social scientist working to mitigate the negative impacts of wildlife crime on biodiversity and people. Alastair Nelson leads Conservation Synergies, a non-profit that supports governments and their partners to use approaches from other fields to solve complex problems and improve conservation impact. Eldred de Klerk is a comparative policing and social conflict specialist who focuses on conflict resolution, violence prevention, rule of law and security sector reform.
