
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BreakingNews.ie
11 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass lay-offs as part of President Donald Trump's plan to dismantle the agency. The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Advertisement Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.


Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Trump may sell his brand-new Tesla
President Donald Trump may sell or give away the red Telsa he purchased from Elon Musk, according to a new report. Trump bought the Tesla - paying cash - in March after he let Musk park several of his vehicle on the South Lawn in a show of support. The move comes after he and Musk's bro-mance ended, loudly and spectacularly, on the social media on Thursday. It was both painful and fascinating to watch. Musk dropped the bombshell after bombshell tweet: that the Jeffrey Epstein files haven't been released because Trump was in them; he endorsed Trump's impeachment; and he declared the president's tariffs will bring about a recession. Trump is 'not interested' in speaking with him. In March, the president turned the South Lawn of the White House into a Tesla showroom with five different models - including the infamous cybertruck - on display on the driveway. The model Trump bought, which he said his staff at the White House would use, has a starting price of $76,880. Aides have taken selfies of themselves in the Tesla as it sat in its parking space outside the West Wing. It's unclear if any one has actually driven it. Trump held the event to support Musk's electronic car company. Tesla showrooms and vehicles became targets of the public's rage as they expressed their unhappiness with Musk and his government cutting work through the Department of Government Efficiency.


North Wales Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.