Donald Trump's travel ban: What's the difference between a ban and restrictions?
In a move that has left the world in utter shock, US President Donald Trump has signed a ban on travel to the US from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Haiti, and Iran, in a bid to "protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors.
" Starting on Monday, 9 June, citizens from 12 countries are set to be banned from travelling to the US: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
In a video message, Trump cited the recent attack in Colorado as an example of foreign nationals entering the US without being "properly vetted". Although the alleged attacker was an Egyptian national, quite notably, Egypt has been left out of the ban.
Another seven countries have come under a partial ban: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
For the unversed, the proclamation echoes an order from Trump's first term in 2017, when he announced a ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, and simultaneously fulfils a promise Trump made during his 2024 election campaign.
However, there are some exemptions, including athletes travelling for major sporting events, some Afghan nationals, dual nationals with citizenship in unaffected countries, and immigrants who are "ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik
IC Markets
Mendaftar
Undo
But how exactly is a 'travel ban' different from 'travel restrictions'?
What is a travel ban?
A travel ban is an official prohibition on the entry of individuals from specific countries or regions into a nation. In the case of Trump's 2025 policy, the US government announced a full ban on nationals from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, and Somalia. This means that citizens from these nations are categorically denied entry into the United States, regardless of the purpose of their visit or their individual circumstances.
The rationale behind such a ban typically centers on national security concerns, such as high visa overstay rates, inadequate vetting processes, or the potential for individuals from these countries to pose security threats. The administration cited these reasons when implementing the 2025 ban, emphasizing the need to protect US interests and prevent potential risks associated with travelers from these nations.
What are travel restrictions?
In contrast, travel restrictions are more nuanced and often involve limitations on specific types of travel or certain categories of travelers, rather than an outright ban. For instance, while a country may not impose a complete ban on nationals from another nation, it might restrict certain visa categories or impose additional vetting requirements.
Under Trump's 2025 policy, nationals from seven countries—such as Cuba, Laos, and Venezuela—are subject to partial restrictions.
These restrictions may include limitations on specific visa types, increased scrutiny during the application process, or additional documentation requirements. Unlike a full ban, these measures allow for the possibility of entry under certain conditions, provided the traveler meets the specified criteria.
See More:
Travel ban: 12 nations fully banned, 7 partially blocked; internet erupts over Donald Trump's travel crackdown
Key differences between a ban and restrictions:
While a travel ban is a complete prohibition of entry, travel restrictions deal with limited limitations on specific categories.
A travel ban is implemented based on the rationale of national security concerns, whereas travel restrictions are due to specific risks or policy objectives.
In the case of Trump's directive, while 12 countries have been 'banned' from traveling to the US, 7 countries have received travel restrictions regarding US travel.
Is this ban going to affect the US?
The implementation of travel bans and restrictions carries significant policy implications. Bans can strain diplomatic relations, particularly with countries whose nationals are affected. They may also impact international collaborations, trade, and tourism.
As debates continue over the effectiveness and fairness of such policies, it remains essential to consider their legal, diplomatic, and humanitarian implications.
'Don't Want Troublemakers': Trump Wants Foreign Student Cap at Harvard; Indian Aspirants Furious
One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
14 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Operation Social Media: Digital dogs of war bark loud, bite little in Pakistan's info ops
Live Events When bots go off louder than bombs Indian jets capturing Lahore and Karachi. Arrest of Pakistan's army chief and an alleged military coup. A Pakistani cyberattack disabling India's power grid. India bombing Afghan territory or surrendering in key battlefronts. Pakistan's playbook Videos from Lebanon's 2020 explosion being shared as missile strikes on Indian cities. Drone footage from Jalandhar fires framed as attacks. Game footage falsely portraying Pakistani military success. Recycled images from other conflict zones passed off as Indian casualties. Inside Pakistan's covert spy ring Open-source intelligence: Boon or bane? Newsrooms under fire Cyber Frontline: 1.5 million attacks, but only 150 breaches India's response AI fact-checkers Truth is the first casualty, but not the last word (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel 'Indian forces wave the white flag!'"Karachi captured!""Pakistan Army Chief arrested!"None of it was true. All of it went India and Pakistan teetered on the edge of open warfare this May following a gruesome terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 civilians, a parallel battle unfolded, not on land or in air, but in the boundless terrain of was not merely a war of missiles and drones; it was an orchestrated campaign of perception warfare, fuelled by a deluge of misinformation and psychological operations designed to distort, distract and is how 'Operation Social Media' unfolded -- an invisible front that exposed how deeply disinformation can influence modern conflict, and how India, despite facing a sophisticated hybrid threat, sought to maintain both operational focus and digital crisis began with a terror attack at a popular tourist spot in Kashmir. The assault bore the fingerprints of Pakistan-based terror outfits, prompting New Delhi to launch Operation Sindoor , a series of precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on May immediately, unverified claims began saturating social media. According to reports from The Guardian and The Washington Post, X (formerly Twitter) became a hotbed of false triumphs, premature victory laps, and fictionalised videos, repurposed war clips, and even footage from video games like Arma 3 flooded social media platforms during the India-Pakistan standoff, giving rise to a parallel narrative war. These posts were amplified by a mix of anonymous accounts, official handles, and even journalists acting on unverified internet observatory NetBlocks reported that 65% of these viral false posts originated from IP addresses linked to Pakistan, while another 20% came from untraceable bot to the Washington-based non-profit think tank, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate, 'X emerged as the primary hub for both misinformation and disinformation.' The think tank analysed 437 such posts and found that 179, or nearly 41%, originated from verified accounts, which are often perceived as credible due to their blue-check status. These included posts by politicians, influencers, media personalities, and retired military officials.'What was particularly alarming,' the report noted, 'was the credibility lent to these falsehoods by high-profile sources.' Despite the scale of this disinformation, only 73 posts, just 17%, were flagged by X's Community Notes, the platform's crowd-sourced fact-checking feature. This, the think tank argued, pointed to a serious lapse in content moderation at a time of high geopolitical Hameed Naik, director of the think tank, described the information war as 'a global trend in hybrid warfare'. 'This wasn't ordinary nationalist chest-thumping,' said Joyojeet Pal of the University of Michigan. 'This had the potential to push two nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink.'The social media campaign didn't begin with Operation Sindoor; it was already underway. On April 25, days before the Indian Air Force strike, India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had announced the banning of 16 YouTube channels and several Instagram accounts for spreading 'provocative and communally sensitive content.'Of these, six were Pakistan-based and ten operated from within India, with a combined viewership of over 680 million.A key inflection point came when Pakistan lifted its year-long ban on X during the peak of the crisis. According to minutes from a Pakistani Senate committee meeting, this move was deliberate and strategic, intended to enable Islamabad to 'participate in the narrative war.'NetBlocks confirmed that access to X in Pakistan was restored precisely as tensions with India escalated, giving Pakistani agencies and allied influencers a wide window to flood the platform with misleading and often provocative the aftermath of the operation, and as misinformation swirled on social media, India's Press Information Bureau (PIB) Fact Check division stepped in to debunk dozens of viral claims. These included:Together, these examples offer a window into the scale, coordination, and intent behind the disinformation campaign, aimed not just at misleading the public but also at distorting the global perception of India's military and political a related espionage probe, Indian intelligence uncovered a Pakistan-backed operation recruiting social media influencers as spies. Naushaba Shahzad Masood, known as 'Madam N', runs Jaiyana Travels and Tourism in Lahore. She was building a network of 500 spies inside India, focusing on Hindu and Sikh YouTubers like Jyoti Malhotra and Jasbir six months, Naushaba arranged travel for about 3,000 Indians and 1,500 expatriates to Pakistan, fast-tracking visas through direct contacts at the Pakistani High Commission in Delhi. She also managed Sikh and Hindu pilgrimage tours with the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), charging inflated fees that funded ISI trails include Naushaba's phone number found on arrested spies' devices and two Pakistani bank accounts linked to transfers from India. Her network recruits through agents operating in major Indian cities, including situation also highlighted the double-edged nature of Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT). Originally conceived to empower citizens through satellite images, open data, and social media monitoring, OSINT's decentralised model became a tool for mass manipulation.'Anyone with an internet connection could now pose as an OSINT expert,' observed an analysis published by ET. The danger lies in viral misinformation being passed off as expert assessments, especially when retweeted by influencers and news outlets under pressure for real-time Indian newsrooms too fell for the deluge of fake to The Washington Post, in one case, a journalist reportedly received a WhatsApp message, allegedly from a public broadcaster, claiming that Pakistan's army chief had been arrested. Within minutes, this falsehood became prime-time 'breaking news.'Speaking to The Post, Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao described the atmosphere as one of 'hypernationalism' and 'parallel reality,' cautioning that the lack of authoritative government briefings created a vacuum often filled by not everyone was Press Information Bureau, along with a 24/7 monitoring centre set up by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, worked to counter misinformation in real time. Fact-checks were issued, social media handles were flagged, and broadcasters were warned for violating verification social media churned with false claims, the real-time cyber threat was no less intense. According to Maharashtra Cyber, over 1.5 million cyber attacks were launched against Indian infrastructure by seven Pakistan-allied Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) barrage of cyberattacks not only came from the neighbouring country but from Bangladesh and the Middle Eastern hacker collectives such as APT 36 (also known as Transparent Tribe), Pakistan Cyber Force, and Team Insane PK launched a coordinated series of cyberattacks in the days surrounding the arsenal included malware campaigns, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, GPS spoofing attempts, and website defacements aimed at sowing panic and disrupting public trust in India's digital to officials familiar with the matter, India faced over 1.5 million intrusion attempts during this period. However, only 150 attacks were successful, a tiny claims that the hackers had penetrated Mumbai's airport systems or Election Commission portals were found to be baseless. Addressing reporters, a senior official of Maharashtra Cyber debunked claims of hackers stealing data from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai, hacking aviation and municipal systems, and targeting the Election Commission website."The probe discovered that cyber attacks on (government websites in) India decreased after India-Pakistan ceased hostilities, but not fully stopped. These attacks continue from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Morocco, and Middle Eastern countries," he Indian government's 'Road of Sindoor' report, a classified cyber threat assessment, showed these attacks were part of a coordinated hybrid warfare strategy involving both digital and psychological the information war raged online, Indian armed forces maintained disciplined silence and strategic clarity. Official statements were sparse, but targeted. Operation Sindoor focused solely on dismantling terrorist infrastructure, confirmed in a press conference by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who clarified that India did not target civilian the scenes, India's cyber defence grid was activated, fact-checking units expanded, and social media protocols for military updates tightened. The government also advised citizens to avoid unverified content and rely only on official the misinformation torrent intensified, social media users increasingly turned to AI chatbots for verification, only to find more confusion and falsehoods. Platforms like xAI's Grok, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Google's Gemini became common go-to tools for instant fact-checking amid the crisis.'Hey @Grok, is this true?' became a viral plea on Elon Musk's platform X, reflecting the surge in users seeking quick debunks. However, these AI assistants often propagated misinformation under renewed criticism for inserting far-right conspiracy theories into unrelated answers, misidentified old video footage from Sudan's Khartoum airport as missile strikes on Pakistan's Nur Khan airbase during the conflict. Similarly, unrelated fire footage from Nepal was wrongly claimed as Pakistani military Sadeghi of the disinformation watchdog NewsGuard warned, 'The growing reliance on Grok as a fact-checker comes as X and other major tech companies have scaled back investments in human fact-checkers. Our research has repeatedly found that AI chatbots are not reliable sources for news and information, particularly when it comes to breaking news.'The Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University found that AI chatbots were 'generally bad at declining to answer questions they couldn't answer accurately, offering incorrect or speculative answers instead.' For instance, AFP fact-checkers in Uruguay asked Google's Gemini about an AI-generated image of a woman; it confirmed the image's authenticity but fabricated details about her identity and digital front of the India-Pakistan standoff reveals the complex landscape of modern warfare, where victory is measured not just in ground gained but in narrative despite the storm of falsehoods, India's response, though understated, was layered, methodical, and largely effective. As the lines between social media warfare and statecraft blur, it's clear that the next great conflict won't just be fought with missiles, but with memes, metadata, and misinformation.
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Supremacist and racist mentality': Iran slams US travel ban; cites 'deep hostility towards Muslims'
Iran on Saturday condemned the US travel ban targeting Iranians and citizens of 11 other mostly Middle Eastern and African countries, calling it a reflection of a "supremacist and racist mentality. " These remarks came following US President Donald Trump 's executive order reinstating broad travel restrictions, citing national security concerns after a recent firebomb attack at a pro-Israel rally in Colorado. It is "a clear sign of the dominance of a supremacist and racist mentality among American policymakers," director general for the Department of Iranian Affairs Abroad at Iran's foreign ministry, Alireza Hashemi Raja said in a statement released by the ministry. He further stated that "US government's decision to ban Iranian nationals, solely based on their religion and nationality, not only reflects deep-seated hostility toward the Iranian people and Muslims but also constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of international law, including the prohibition of discrimination and basic human rights." The US travel restrictions, starting June 9, will apply to citizens of Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Seven additional countries face partial restrictions. Hashemi-Raja further indicated that, "depriving hundreds of millions of people of the right to travel to another country solely based on their nationality or religion is an example of racial discrimination and systemic racism within the American ruling establishment." The ministry official noted the ban's discriminatory nature would "entail international responsibility for the US government", without providing details. The minister also declared that Iran would take all necessary steps to protect the rights of its citizens against the impact of the US government's discriminatory decision. Diplomatic relations between Iran and the US ended shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with tensions persisting since. The United States hosts the largest Iranian diaspora globally. Tehran's foreign ministry data shows approximately 1.5 million Iranians resided in the United States in 2020. Trump's directive followed Sunday's incident at the Colorado rally, where officials reported over a dozen injuries. The accused is an Egyptian national who remained after his tourist visa expired.
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Detained Columbia graduate claims 'irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
Detained Columbia graduate claims 'irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release NEW YORK: A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the "irreparable harm" caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the "most immediate and visceral harms" he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. "Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone," the 30-year-old legal US resident wrote. "When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep." He also cited potentially "career-ending" harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy adviser. Even his mother's visa to come to the US to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. "As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States," he wrote. "Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?" Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded that Khalil should simply self-deport, taking advantage of the administration's offer of $1,000 and a free flight to those in the country illegally that use its CBP Home app. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Khalil obtained a green card, but the Trump administration says it is revoking it. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his US citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil - that his beliefs may pose a threat to US foreign policy - could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
