13 Places Where American Tourists Aren't Really Wanted Right Now
Here are 13 places where American tourists aren't exactly being welcomed with open arms right now.
On June 5, 2025, Chad suspended the issuance of visas to U.S. citizens in response to the U.S. including Chadian nationals in its expanded travel ban. President Mahamat Idriss Deby emphasized the principle of reciprocity, stating that while Chad may lack material wealth, it maintains its dignity and national pride. This move underscores the growing diplomatic tensions between the two nations. For American travelers, this means plans to visit Chad are effectively on hold.
The suspension serves as a reminder that international relations can have immediate impacts on travel freedoms. It's a clear signal that countries are willing to assert their sovereignty in the face of perceived slights. For tourists, it's essential to stay informed about such developments to avoid unexpected disruptions. In the case of Chad, the message is unequivocal: now is not the time for American visitors.
On June 9, 2025, Thailand unexpectedly closed two of its border crossings to tourists due to escalating tensions with neighboring Cambodia. The sudden decision left thousands of travelers stranded, highlighting the fragility of regional relations. The Thai government has yet to disclose when the borders will reopen or the specific reasons behind the closures.
For American tourists, this development underscores the importance of monitoring geopolitical dynamics in Southeast Asia. While Thailand remains a popular destination, the current situation suggests a need for caution and flexibility in travel plans. Until tensions ease and borders reopen, it may be prudent to explore alternative destinations.
In 2024, Spain witnessed significant anti-tourism protests, particularly in the Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, and Barcelona. Residents expressed frustration over overtourism's impact on their quality of life, leading to demands for legislation to curb excessive tourist numbers. The protests highlight a growing sentiment among locals that mass tourism, often associated with American travelers, is unsustainable.
For American tourists, this means that while Spain's cultural and historical attractions remain, there's a pressing need to approach travel with sensitivity. Engaging in responsible tourism practices, respecting local customs, and avoiding overcrowded hotspots can help mitigate tensions. Being mindful of the local sentiment is crucial to ensure a positive experience for both visitors and residents.
The U.S. Embassy and consulates in Mexico have issued a security alert warning American travelers about an increase in kidnappings linked to dating apps in popular tourist destinations, particularly Puerto Vallarta and Nuevo Nayarit. The alert advises travelers to exercise caution when using dating apps, avoid isolated areas, and meet new acquaintances only in public spaces.
While Mexico continues to be a favored destination for American tourists, these developments highlight the importance of vigilance. Travelers should stay informed about local advisories, avoid risky behaviors, and prioritize safety. Being proactive and cautious can help ensure a secure and enjoyable trip.
Iran's complex and often antagonistic relationship with the United States has led to limitations on American tourists. The country's decision to restrict American visitors reflects ongoing political and diplomatic hostilities between the two nations. These restrictions underscore the tense and volatile nature of Iran-U.S. relations.
For American travelers, this means that visiting Iran is fraught with challenges and potential risks. It's advisable to stay updated on diplomatic developments and consider alternative destinations until relations improve. Understanding the broader geopolitical context is essential for making informed travel decisions.
Since 2017, the United States Department of State has prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel to North Korea, citing the risk of arrest and long-term detention. Despite North Korea's efforts to develop tourism infrastructure, such as the Kalma Coastal Tourist Zone, the country remains largely inaccessible to American tourists.
The combination of strict government controls, potential safety risks, and diplomatic tensions makes North Korea an unviable destination for American travelers. Until significant changes occur, it's best to avoid planning trips to this isolated nation. Travelers should heed official advisories and prioritize their safety.
Moscow and St. Petersburg, once popular destinations for American tourists, are now off-limits due to escalating diplomatic tensions and international sanctions. The tourism industry in Russia is scrambling to attract visitors from other parts of the world as relations with the U.S. deteriorate.
For American travelers, the current climate in Russia presents significant challenges and potential risks. It's advisable to postpone travel plans to Russia until diplomatic relations improve and safety concerns are addressed. Staying informed about international developments is crucial for making safe travel choices.
Myanmar is currently experiencing intense internal conflicts, ranking among the most extreme globally. The country's inclusion in the U.S. travel ban reflects the severity of its political instability and armed conflicts.
Given the ongoing violence and unrest, Myanmar is not a safe destination for American tourists. Travelers are strongly advised to avoid the country until the situation stabilizes. Monitoring official travel advisories and news updates is essential for safety.
Yemen faces continued conflict involving Houthi militants and other factions, leading to severe instability. The U.S. has re-designated the Houthi group as a terrorist organization, further complicating relations.
For American tourists, Yemen presents significant safety risks, including the threat of violence and limited access to consular services. Travel to Yemen is strongly discouraged until conditions improve. Prioritizing personal safety and adhering to official advisories is paramount.
Libya is grappling with political instability and armed insurgencies, making it a hazardous destination for travelers. The presence of various militant groups and a lack of effective governance contribute to the country's volatility.
American tourists are advised to avoid travel to Libya due to the high risk of violence and limited consular support. Until the security situation improves, it's best to consider alternative destinations. Staying informed about regional developments is essential for safe travel planning.
Somalia is battling al-Shabab insurgents, leading to widespread violence and instability. The country's inclusion in the U.S. travel ban highlights the severity of its security challenges.
Given the high risk of terrorism, kidnapping, and armed conflict, Somalia is not a safe destination for American tourists. Travelers should avoid the country and monitor official advisories for updates. Prioritizing safety and adhering to travel warnings is crucial.
Sudan is experiencing a violent civil war between the military and paramilitary forces, resulting in over 150,000 deaths. The ongoing conflict has led to severe instability and humanitarian crises.
For American tourists, Sudan presents significant safety risks, including the threat of violence and limited access to essential services. Travel to Sudan is strongly discouraged until the situation stabilizes. Staying informed about developments and adhering to official advisories is essential.
Haiti struggles with gang control over its capital, leading to mass displacement and deportations. The situation has escalated into a full-blown humanitarian crisis, with the United Nations reporting a record number of internally displaced people in 2025. Port-au-Prince, once a cultural hub, has become increasingly unsafe—even for aid workers and journalists. The country's inclusion in the U.S. travel ban reflects the severity of its internal instability and the ongoing threats to foreign nationals.
For American tourists, the message is sobering: this is not the time for casual travel to Haiti. Safety concerns are not theoretical—they are immediate, complex, and life-threatening. Local infrastructure is under strain, and emergency response systems are overwhelmed. Until stability returns, Americans are strongly urged to avoid the region altogether. Respecting local realities and global advisories isn't just smart—it's a moral obligation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
10 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump promised Ukraine 'security guarantees': Here's what they could look like
On the face of it, talks on Monday between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders went well. The U.S. and Ukrainian leaders were pictured looking jovial and smiling together — a far cry from the extraordinary shouting match and public humiliation inflicted on Zelenskyy during his last trip to the White House in February. Monday's talks, which involved a raft of European leaders, appeared to make progress toward ending the protracted war between Russia and Ukraine, with Trump saying a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy would be arranged, followed by a trilateral meeting that he would join. The most significant development result for Kyiv and Europe, however, was Trump's statement that security guarantees for Ukraine would be "provided" by European countries in "coordination with the U.S." Describing that as a "major step forward," Zelenskyy said later that the package of security guarantees for Ukraine — highly coveted by Kyiv's leadership and seen as a deterrent to future Russian aggression — will include a massive purchase of American weapons, with financing reportedly supported by Europe. The agreement would be "formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days," he said. As for what the security guarantees could include, the detail is still scant. Trump commented at a post-talks press conference that Europe would "take a lot of the burden" for these, but said the U.S. would help and would make it "very secure." In any case, security guarantees likely mean that Europe, and the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" of countries offering to oversee a peace deal, is on the hook to fulfill what they've previously promised. French President Emmanuel Macron hinted Tuesday that the "first security guarantee we are working on — and it is the most important — is a strong Ukrainian army, composed of several hundred thousand men, well equipped, with defense systems and higher standards." "The second is to have reassurance forces, the British, the French, the Germans, the Turks, and others ready to carry out these operations — not on the front line, not in a provocative way, but reassurance operations in the air, at sea, and on land. The goal is to send a strategic signal: peace in Ukraine is also our concern," he told French broadcaster TF1-LCI, in comments translated by NBC News. Jaroslava Barbieri, research fellow at Chatham House, told CNBC Tuesday that the overall mood from the talks on Monday was one of "cautious optimism," but there are many unknowns. "However, we have to say that the Kremlin's maximalist demands on Ukraine have not changed and so there's still a number of uncertainties about the security guarantees, the details, who is going to be doing what, if there are any troop deployments then where will they be stationed and for how long, which countries will be contributing?" she asked. European leaders have voiced misgivings over the lack of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine before a peace deal is negotiated, but they seem willing to acquiesce, for now, with the end goal of peace and Ukraine and Europe's security in mind. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania's former foreign minister, told CNBC Tuesday that Europe still appeared to be struggling to be heard, saying the bloc had not yet found its strength and "ability to create leverage." "What came out of the meeting yesterday was that Europe was asking the U.S. yesterday to continue its assistance, to ask for a ceasefire, to assist any stationing of troops, and then some of the leaders were even saying, 'Well, some of the Ukrainian territories might be lost, but that's a reality.' Well, that doesn't sound like Europe finding it's strength," he said. "It's more like Europe agreeing that, 'we are in a very weak position and we have to please President Trump as much as we can and we have nothing to put on the table'," he noted. What's more, it's unclear whether the Kremlin will even agree to direct talks with Zelenskyy. Putin's presidential aide Yuri Ushakov stated Monday that Trump and Putin had discussed "that it would be necessary to study the possibility of raising the level of representatives of the Ukrainian and Russian sides," but that no firm decision was made. The proposed future summits between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy would keep a process towards a possible resolution of the conflict alive, but it would still follow the Russian script of a no-ceasefire scenario, Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank, cautioned. "Putin may already set difficult conditions for a meeting with Zelenskyy. And in a meeting with Zelenskyy, Putin's major goal may be to pin the blame for any failure on Zelenskyy instead of agreeing to a truce or a final deal. The outcome remains very uncertain," he noted.
40 minutes ago
Russia launches largest attack of August on Ukraine after Trump-Zelenskyy meeting
LONDON -- Ukraine's air force reported a major Russian attack on Monday night and into Tuesday morning -- the largest overnight barrage for weeks, coming while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with President Donald Trump and a delegation of European leaders in Washington. The air force said Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into Ukraine, of which 30 drones and six missiles were intercepted or suppressed. The air force reported the impacts of 40 drones and four missiles across 16 locations, with debris reportedly falling in three locations. Monday night's attack was the largest attack since Russia launched 309 drones and eight missiles into Ukraine on July 31, according to the daily figures published by the Ukrainian air force and analyzed by ABC News. Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said its forces shot down 23 Ukrainian drones overnight into Tuesday morning. Thirteen of the craft were downed over the Volgograd region, the ministry said. Regional Gov. Andrey Bocharov said on Telegram that falling debris set fires at an oil refinery and on the roof of a hospital building, though added there were no casualties. The overnight exchanges bookended a day of high-level talks in Washington. Trump, Zelenskyy and a host of European leaders met in the capital on Monday to discuss a possible roadmap to end Russia's full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022. Monday's summit followed a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, during which Putin refused an immediate ceasefire and demanded that Ukraine cede the entirety of its eastern Donetsk region in exchange for an end to the fighting, two sources told ABC News. Ahead of Monday's meetings, Trump appeared to be pressuring Zelenskyy into making a deal. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump wrote on social media on Sunday. The president also said Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO and would not be able to regain Crimea -- occupied by Russia in 2014. Such remarks raised concerns of another fractious Oval Office meeting, akin to Zelenskyy's February visit when the Ukrainian leader was publicly lambasted by Trump and Vice President JD Vance for his alleged ingratitude for American wartime support. But Monday's meetings were cordial, though the parties still appeared to be some way apart on key issues. Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders all confirmed their support for a direct bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin -- a proposal the Russian president has repeatedly dodged. Such a meeting would be followed by a trilateral meeting involving Trump, the president said. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is "ready" for a trilateral discussion. Trump remarked, "I think it's going to be when, not if." Later, Trump posted to social meda saying he had spoken by phone with Putin "and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy." The Kremlin is yet to explicitly confirm Putin's readiness to attend such a meeting. Yuri Ushakov, a top Kremlin aide, said in a statement that Trump and Putin "expressed their support for the continuation of direct negotiations between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations." "In this regard, in particular, the idea was discussed that the level of representatives from the Ukrainian and Russian sides should be increased," Ushakov said. "This refers to the representatives who participate in the aforementioned direct negotiations." On the question of security guarantees for Ukraine, Trump said during his meeting with Zelenskyy, "We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security." The president later confirmed that Putin would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, though Russian officials on Monday said that the presence of NATO troops in the country would be unacceptable. Zelenskyy and his European partners again stressed their desire for a full ceasefire, only after which peace negotiations could take place. Trump has repeatedly demanded a ceasefire since returning to office in January, but appeared to drop the idea after last week's meeting with Putin. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," Trump told Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Monday. "I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically, like, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn't want it." Trump added that he likes "the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you'd stop killing people immediately." Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to Trump for hosting the meeting, and wrote on Telegram afterwards thanking the White House for "the important signal from the USA regarding readiness to support and be part of" post-war security guarantees. "The leaders personally came to support Ukraine and discuss everything that will bring us closer to real peace, a reliable security architecture that will protect Ukraine and all of Europe," Zelenskyy wrote. Post-meeting comments from European leaders, though, hinted at unresolved obstacles to peace. "You have an American president, European presidents and a Ukrainian president all wanting peace," French President Emmanuel Macron said. "For my part, I have the greatest doubts about the reality of a desire for peace on the part of the Russian president, because as long as he thinks he can win through war, he will do so," Macron added. "His ultimate objective is to take as much territory as possible, to weaken Ukraine and to have a Ukraine that is not viable alone or is within the Russian fold." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the thorny issue of Ukrainian territorial concessions was not discussed. "The Russian demand that Kyiv give up the free parts of Donbas is, to put it in perspective, equivalent to the U.S. having to give up Florida," he said. "A sovereign state cannot simply decide something like that. It is a decision that Ukraine must make itself in the course of negotiations," Merz added.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
