logo
Trump's travel ban allows athletes from affected nations into US for the World Cup and Olympics. Fans may be stuck at home

Trump's travel ban allows athletes from affected nations into US for the World Cup and Olympics. Fans may be stuck at home

CNN20 hours ago

President Donald Trump's latest travel limitations may keep fans from the 19 named nations from seeing their athletes compete in some of the globe's most important sporting events in the next several years, even if the on-field competition won't be affected.
The president's proclamation does not appear to have a major immediate impact on planning for the World Cup, 2028 Summer Olympics or other major international sporting events scheduled for his second term in office as athletes, coaches, support staff and immediate family members will still be able to enter the country. But fans from those nations now face an even more uphill battle to see games in person, despite members of the Trump administration encouraging the world to come to the US for these global events.
Trump's travel ban fully restricts travel from Afghanistan; Myanmar, also known as Burma; Chad; Republic of the Congo; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Haiti; Iran; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; and Yemen. There are partial restrictions for Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
But there are exceptions carved out in the proclamation, including for athletes, coaches, important staffers and immediate family for athletes traveling to the US for the World Cup, Olympics and 'other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State.' The proclamation also states that people who have existing visas to be in the United States will not have their visas revoked as a part of the travel ban.
That means the Iranian national team – which has already qualified for the 2026 World Cup – will be able to play in the tournament, as would Sierre Leone, Sudan, Libya, Burundi, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti should those teams qualify. Those nations are still in the fight for qualification for the World Cup as the tournament field becomes clearer.
The Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Chad, Togo and Somalia all appear to be longshots for World Cup qualification and Afghanistan, Laos, Myanmar, Yemen and Turkmenistan have already been eliminated.
While the teams, their staffs and their immediate family would be able to travel to the US for the tournament, the travel ban would likely keep most of their fans from coming into the country for any games.
With the tournament being hosted by the US, Mexico and Canada, fans from the affected nations may be able to still travel to cheer on their teams in the tournament should they be scheduled in either Mexico or Canada. With qualification still ongoing, those fans won't know if that will happen for quite some time – qualification for the tournament doesn't wrap up until later this year and the drawing of teams into groups won't happen until that is done.
The US visa process for fans of the affected nations is already arduous and, even without a ban in place, the approvals would take time.
There are already concerns over how long approvals for visas into the US may take for fans hoping to see World Cup action. There are 42 countries that are a part of the US visa waiver program, meaning their citizens are allowed to stay in the country for up to 90 days for tourism or business without a formal visa. Some of the countries that are most synonymous with the men's World Cup – defending champion Argentina, five-time winner Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and even tournament co-host Mexico – are not a part of that program.
While the Trump administration has promised to speed up visa approvals for fans looking to cheer on their teams, the lengthy review process for nations that are not in the visa waiver program might have kept fans from the 19 nations affected by the proclamation from coming to the US anyway.
When asked specifically about whether fans from Iran and other affected nations would be given exemption from the travel ban for the World Cup, State Department principal deputy spokesman Thomas Pigott demurred.
'Both people that are coming and Americans would hope that we can have confidence that when people come to United States, when they come, that they are properly vetted,' Pigott told reporters on Thursday.
'I think this goes to the exact same consideration. I think this is part of what it means to host an event of this magnitude, to make sure that we can have that confidence. And again, we're in constant communication with countries about ways that we can see the vetting process we need to see, have that collaboration, make sure that we're having those security concerns addressed.'
In a response to CNN Sports' question Friday on whether fans should expect to not be able to come to the US for the World Cup or Olympics, a State Department spokesperson said, 'We are implementing the President's directive to secure U.S. borders and protect American communities and citizens. We are not going to get into hypotheticals or specific cases about application of the Proclamation.'
Athletes already in the US, such as the many Venezuelans and Cubans who play in Major League Baseball, are exempted from the travel ban.
When asked about these athletes, the White House pointed toward the section of the proclamation that states 'no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.' Many foreign athletes who play in the United States do so under the P-1A visa and those are valid for five years.
There are still some unanswered questions about the travel ban and its effect on international sporting events held in the US. While the World Cup and Olympics are specifically spelled out in the proclamation, other tournaments – like soccer's Gold Cup or track and field meets – are not. CNN has reached out to the State Department for additional information on how the secretary of State would determine what constitutes a major sporting event and what the timeline for that decision would look like.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants foreign visitors to come to the US for the World Cup and Olympics, but immigration concerns remain top of mind, as evidenced by a comment Vice President JD Vance made last month during the first meeting of the White House's World Cup task force.
'I know we'll have visitors, probably from close to 100 countries,' said Vance. 'We want them to come. We want them to celebrate. We want them to watch the game. But when the time is up, they'll have to go home. Otherwise, they'll have to talk to (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kristi) Noem.' Noem's department includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is responsible for deportations out of the US.
Organizers of LA 2028 said at a news conference on Thursday that they were confident the travel ban will not affect the Summer Olympics and appreciated the federal government for recognizing the Games' importance.
'It was very clear in the directive that the Olympics require special consideration and I actually want to thank the federal government for recognizing that,' LA28 Chairman and President Casey Wasserman said, according to the Associated Press.
'It's very clear that the federal government understands that that's an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for,' he said. 'We have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date and it will certainly be the case going forward through the games.'
The US Travel Association said in a statement that, while the proportion of annual foreign visitors affected by the ban is just 0.5%, the major global events taking place in the US over the next few years represent an opportunity to attract new visitors to the US.
'The travel industry supports policies that make the United States both secure and welcoming. In some instances, this is a challenging balance to achieve, and we respect the administration's efforts,' the association told CNN Sports in a statement.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

England's Dawson relishing return from international wilderness
England's Dawson relishing return from international wilderness

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

England's Dawson relishing return from international wilderness

England's Liam Dawson (C) celebrates with team-mates after dismissing West Indies' Johnson Charles during the 1st T20 at Chester-le-Street (Oli SCARFF) Liam Dawson is determined to make the most of his surprise recall to international duty after believing his England career had come to an end. The 35-year-old left-arm spinner had won just 20 caps across all three formats since making his debut in 2016. Advertisement He appeared surplus to requirements as England selected a succession of other slow bowlers in red and white-ball cricket, many of whom had inferior county records to Hampshire mainstay Dawson. But he produced a reminder of his quality with 4-20 and a player-of-the-match award as England marked Harry Brook's first T20 as captain with a 21-run win over the West Indies at Chester-le-Street on Friday. "I had got to an age where I probably thought international cricket was gone," said Dawson after taking his best figures in T20 internationals. "In my domestic career, I've tried to go out there and just enjoy playing for whoever I'm playing for. It was about going out there and not worrying about playing for England. Advertisement "I think that can hamper you sometimes so I've not really worried about that. I'm at an age now where I know that I'm close to finishing." Brook gave Dawson the new ball in Durham, a sign of his confidence in the bowler, and perhaps a marker for next year's T20 World Cup on turning pitches in India and Sri Lanka. "Personally, I think he's been knocking on the door for years to try and solidify that spot and the performance we saw from him was awesome," said Brook of Dawson. "Him and Adil Rashid working in tandem at both ends is going be good to watch in the coming years. He can also help the younger lads along the way, to have him in the inner circle when they are bowling is going to help us a lot." Advertisement The three-match series continues in Bristol on Sunday before finishing at Dawson's home ground in Southampton on Tuesday. Well though he bowled in Durham, Dawson is taking nothing for granted. "I know how cricket works, you've got to be consistent and it's only one game," he said. "So I'll park this and go again. It would be nice to play at my home ground, if selected." jdg/pb

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights
Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operates at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. In statement Friday, Lucas applauded a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that she said should encourage employees who feel DEI policies have discriminated against them. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW

Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term
Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack legal immigrants, too. In our new series, we'll track the Trump administration's attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment. One of President Donald Trump's defining moments during his first term was a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Now in his second term he's reprised that policy, introducing a new travel ban on Wednesday night that bars nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. starting on Monday. That announcement came on the heels of the administration's assault on international students, banning them from enrolling at Harvard University. The State Department is also looking to revoke Chinese students' visas while also pausing all upcoming interviews for international students scheduled to study here in a few short months. Meanwhile, the government's legal defense has taken a beating in the case of the migrants unlawfully deported to El Salvador—and, separately, a Maryland man who was wrongfully sent there is now headed back to the U.S. Here's the immigration news we're keeping an eye on this week: After ordering the secretary of state to come up with a list of countries that pose national security threats to the U.S., Trump made it official: We have a new travel ban. Starting on Monday, people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will be restricted from entering the U.S. Nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will also be partially restricted from entering the country. The order says that admitting people from these countries would be 'detrimental' to U.S. interests for varying reasons: It claims they have 'deficient' vetting and screening information of their citizens, 'significant' terrorist presence, and a high 'visa-overstay rate,' and they do not cooperate when the U.S. government deports their nationals. On Truth Social, the president shared a video explaining the new travel ban and cited the recent attack in Colorado, where an Egyptian man threw Molotov cocktails at people participating in a march for Israeli hostages. The suspect was an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa but had applied for asylum. (Egypt is not on the travel ban list). Immigration authorities also arrested his wife and five children with the intention of deporting them—all of them are Egyptian nationals who were part of the same asylum application—but a federal judge has temporarily blocked that move. There are some exceptions, including green card holders, dual citizens, certain athletes traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup and Olympics, Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and are holders of a special immigrant visa, and close relatives of U.S. family members and diplomats. Taken all together, the American Immigration Council estimated the 19 countries listed in the travel ban have populations of over 475 million people. They are predominantly Muslim and African, reminiscent of Trump's 2017 travel ban, which was challenged in court before the Supreme Court ultimately let a revised version stand. 'The latest travel ban will have devastating consequences for tens of thousands of people,' said Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school's Immigrants' Rights Clinic. 'Resulting in family separations, harming refugees and asylum-seekers, and throwing the lives of prospective international students who intended to study in the U.S. into disarray.' It's been more than two months since over 260 immigrants were accused of being members of foreign gangs, forced onto planes and summarily deported to El Salvador, with no notice, evidence, or court hearing. The Trump administration has been defending their deportation in a messy legal battle that took a new turn this week: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the federal government to offer each deportee a court hearing. The Trump administration deported these men within roughly 24 hours of the president signing an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Though these men are no longer on American soil, Boasberg's most recent order grants them class-action certification so they can still sue the Trump administration over violations of their due process rights. That's significant because throughout this legal battle, the Trump administration has argued the men are completely under the custody of El Salvador now and the U.S. government's hands are tied. Boasberg acknowledged that but affirmed that none of the plaintiffs were granted habeas corpus—a Constitutional right allowing anyone to contest the legality of their detention—before being shuttled on to a plane and deported to El Salvador, so the federal government must 'fix its legal wrongs.' Even the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had violated their due process rights and declared that immigrants are entitled to them under the Fifth Amendment. Boasberg's order will force the Trump administration to come before a judge with any and all evidence they have indicating that each deportee is in fact a member of a foreign gang. (Court documents indicate the evidence is nothing short of thin.) Then on Friday, another big development dropped: ABC News reported that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration admitted was deported in error to El Salvador, was on his way back to the U.S. He's been at the heart of the Trump administration's legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, with the Supreme Court ordering the federal government to 'facilitate' his release from El Salvador's custody. That hard-fought moment arrived Friday, but at the same time a two-count indictment was also revealed against Abrego Garcia. It alleges that he participated in a conspiracy to transport undocumented migrants through the U.S., though Abrego Garcia has not yet responded to the new charges. The Trump administration has been pulling all the levers it can find to limit entry of international students at college campuses around the country. Harvard has been in the president's crosshairs ever since it refused to accept a list of demands from the administration and sued the federal government. The Trump administration retaliated by announcing it was cutting off Harvard's ability to enroll international students. A federal judge blocked that order and it's currently being hashed out in court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio jumped in to announce he had instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to stop processing any new student visa appointments. In an internal cable viewed by Politico, Rubio said the State Department is taking a closer look at the existing screening process of student visitors and would develop new guidance in the coming days—it's not clear if it's been issued yet or not. Rubio also announced he would be 'aggressively' revoking visas of Chinese students specifically who are currently studying in the U.S., targeting 'those with connections to the Chinese Community Party or studying in critical fields.' The new action prompted over 30 higher education groups to come together and send a letter to Rubio, noting that in the 2023–24 academic year there were over 1 million international students in the U.S., which resulted in $44 billion worth of nationwide economic impact. Over the last few weeks, the Trump administration has deployed a new strategy in pursuit of the president's mass deportation goals. Undocumented immigrants will show up to court hearings in an effort to follow the rules and find a way to remain in the U.S. legally. But as they stand before a judge, they learn that the government has dropped their immigration case. As they go home, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ambush them and promptly arrest them. Historically, ICE has avoided immigration enforcement at and around courthouses, especially over noncriminal proceedings, because they want to encourage people to follow proper immigration procedure. However, under the law, they are technically allowed to make arrests in federal courthouses. And that's exactly what's been happening over and over again around the country, in Chicago, San Francisco, New York City and Phoenix. A similar situation happened to Carol Mayorga, an undocumented immigrant from Hong Kong whose legal name is Ming Li Hui. Mayorga came to the U.S. on a tourist visa 20 years ago, but she's remained here ever since. She became a mother of three children and is a waitress at a local diner in a rural Missouri farming town. During a routine appointment to renew her work authorization, Mayorga was detained for hours, then shackled and transported to a Missouri jail. She remained there for over a month, while her community rallied support to push for her release. The diner where she was employed raised over $20,000 for Mayorga and her children, garnering a story in the New York Times about how the largely Trump-supporting community was questioning his deportation policies in cases like Mayorga's. 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here,' said a friend of Mayorga's. 'But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.' This week, Mayorga was finally released from jail after ICE determined she was eligible for the Deferred Enforced Departure program, which applies to certain residents of Hong Kong. It's only valid until February 2027, and Mayorga still has a deportation order against her.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store