Trump announces new travel ban for 12 countries, restrictions on 7
President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions.
The ban takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m., a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled 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, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in 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.
Story continues below advertisement
In a video released on social media, 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. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa.
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,' Trump said.
0:38
Number of victims in Boulder terror attack increases to 12 after 4 additional victims identified
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 U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there.
Story continues below advertisement
Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'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.
Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative 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 Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the U.S. illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a U.N.-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,' Trump wrote.
2:43
FBI investigating 'terror attack' in Colorado after pro-Israel protest, multiple people injured
The Iranian government 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 U.S. on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution.
Story continues below advertisement
Other Mideast 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 organizations 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 Jan. 20 executive order 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 U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.
During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. 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. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty 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.
Story continues below advertisement
The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
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.
–Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer and Danica Coto contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
43 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ‘not a pattern'
OTTAWA – The American ambassador to Canada is pushing back on Ottawa's travel advice, saying his country doesn't search phones at the border and arguing some Americans travelling here are having a tough time. 'We welcome Canadians to come in and invest, to spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars at U.S. businesses,' U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra told The Canadian Press in an interview Friday. 'If a Canadian has had a disappointing experience coming into the United States, I'm not denying that it happened, but I'm saying it's an isolated event and it is not a pattern.' In April, Ottawa updated its advice to Canadians travelling to the United States to warn them about the possibility they might be detained if denied entry. 'Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices,' reads the new guidance. There have been reports of Canadians facing intensified scrutiny at the border, having phones searched and, in some cases, being detained. Hoekstra insisted concerns about device searches are not grounded in reality. 'Coming to the U.S., that's a decision for the Canadians to make. Searching devices and all of that is not a well-founded fear. We don't do that. America is a welcoming place,' he said. He said some Americans have expressed similar concerns about Canada. 'I've heard that from Americans coming into Canada as well, OK? Saying, 'You know, we've not received a warm reception when we've gotten to Canadian customs,'' he said. When asked if these reports from American travellers involve arbitrary phone searches and lengthy detainment, Hoekstra said there are consular cases of Americans complaining to the embassy about the Canada Border Services Agency. 'We've said, 'OK this may have been an isolated event. There may have been a Canadian border person who was having a bad day, and thought they'd take it out on, you know, somebody across the border,'' he said. In a statement, the CBSA said its officers follow a code of conduct and the federal ethics code that both require them to treat everyone equally, and the agency investigates any complaints of mistreatment. 'Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of integrity, respect and professionalism at all times,' wrote spokeswoman Karine Martel. 'Treating people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our border services officers' relationship with the public and a key part of this is serving all travellers in a non-discriminatory way.' Hoekstra said travel to the U.S. is up to individuals. 'If you decide that you're not going to come down or whatever, that's your decision and you're missing an opportunity. There are great things to see in America,' Hoekstra said. He also noted the case of CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, who recently said she prepared to visit the U.S. last month as if she was 'going to North Korea' — with a 'burner phone' that didn't carry any personal information — only to experience a warm welcome. 'It's like, (let's) get past the rhetoric and let's look at the real experiences that people are having here,' Hoekstra said. Airlines have been cutting flights between Canada and the U.S. due to a slump in demand, and Flight Centre Travel Group Canada reported a nearly 40 per cent drop in flights between the two countries year-over-year in February. A survey in early May conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies found 52 per cent of respondents feel that 'it is no longer safe for all Canadians travelling to the United States,' with 29 per cent disagreeing and 19 per cent saying they were unsure. Roughly the same proportion said they personally feel unwelcome in the U.S. LGBTQ+ groups have opted against attending World Pride events in Washington and United Nations events in New York, citing scrutiny at the border as the Trump administration scales back protections for transgender and nonbinary people. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: This Trump-Musk cage match could be seen coming
WASHINGTON, D.C. — More or less on schedule, U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are headed for a steel cage match. The steel will be more expensive now due to tariffs, but spectacles don't come cheap. Article content This past week's Trump-Musk breakup could be dismissed as simply the latest episode of a professional-wrestling-reality-show presidency. The script is as old as baby-oiled wrestlers in the ring and as current as the Axe-body-sprayed young men in the audience. Article content Article content Article content Two great titans — The World's Richest Man™ and The World's Most Powerful Man™ — joined forces to form a fearsome tag-team. Call the alliance The World's Most Manly Men™, with rotating mouthpiece managers in their corner, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and the like. Article content Article content The World's Most Manly Men™ steamroller over weak opponents at first to establish their dominance. Trump-Musk dismantle overseas aid to the poor; Trump-Musk take down funding for Aids prevention and treatment in Africa. Next up, The World's Most Manly Men™ grapple with stronger opponents, preferably effete and somehow suspect; Trump-Musk battle public broadcasting, then Columbia, then Harvard. Article content Eventually though, the new tag-team champions run into formidable opponents — the judiciary, the bond market, the American voter's preference for big government without having to pay for it. Victory is no longer easy nor assured. Will The World's Most Manly Men™ prevail? Article content The final step comes as surely as celebrities gather like moths around the pro-wrestling flame. The World's Most Manly Men™ must turn on each other. The spittle-flecked air is filled with cries of ingratitude, betrayal and treachery. The ambush then comes. The allies turn on each other. A low blow is landed — Trump is a reckless spendthrift! A steel chair is used to devastating effect — Musk's government subsidies will be cut off! Article content Article content The erstwhile allies are headed for a showdown. Tickets are sold to the clash of the titans; The World's Most Manly Men™ will fight each other in a cage match. Article content Article content That may well suffice as an explanation for the latest melodrama here in Washington, the latest staging of circuses in the declining imperial capital. But it overlooks a deeper division at the heart of the Trump project, a division advertised as brazenly as the golden Trump brand on a failed casino or a skip-the-line visa. It was right there in the name: Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Article content Efficiency is what Elon Musk desires, but it runs counter to the heart of the Trump project. Efficiency is what has driven globalization, automation, information technology and open trade, where more efficient production enables cheaper goods and services. Efficiency is the altar at which Musk and the tech-bros worship. Efficiency is the AI future where goods are cheap and services may well be cheaper still; The World's Most Richest Man™ takes his billions and employment shrinks dramatically.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Carson Jerema: Carney ignores his own constitutional power to approve pipelines
Mark Carney isn't interested in being prime minister of Canada. Sure, he may like the title, the presumed prestige that comes with it, as well as meetings with Donald Trump, but when it comes down to the authority the federal government possesses, he'd rather defer to the provinces. He doesn't want to be the leader of the sovereign nation of Canada, he wants to be a project manager for B.C., Quebec and Ontario. Article content Article content At a news conference Friday to discuss his One Canadian Economy legislation, Carney claimed it would streamline the approval of projects deemed in the 'national interest,' and said it was a 'bill that meets this hinge moment' with 'urgency' and 'determination.' The prime minister spoke of how 'it's become much too difficult to build in this country' and that the 'federal government' will 'identify and expedite nation building projects.' Article content Article content Except by 'urgency' and 'determination' Carney means not a streamlined process, but another regulatory regime on top of all the others. And, crucially, when Carney talks about 'nation building' and the 'national interest,' he doesn't mean anything that would be in Canada's interests but would, instead, cede power to the provinces, giving them a veto over infrastructure projects. Article content When asked by a reporter about whether pipelines would be approved over objections from B.C. or Quebec, Carney responded as if Ottawa didn't have the clear authority to do so. 'No. Simply no, we must have a consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people,' he said. If that wasn't clear, Carney added, 'if a province doesn't want it, it's impossible.' Article content Article content To drive home an apparent ignorance of Canada's constitution, Carney also said, 'It is not the choice of the federal government.' Article content Article content However, this is incorrect. While the Liberals may choose to not exercise their constitutional powers, it is most definitely Ottawa's 'choice.' Section 92 (10) of the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power over 'Works and Undertakings connecting' a province 'with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province.' Ottawa also has authority over any projects 'declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces,' even if such projects exist entirely within a single province. Article content What this means is that if Ottawa wants a pipeline that crosses provincial borders, it is entirely within its rights to approve it, even over the objection of provincial obstructionists, be they in B.C. or Quebec. It is a power that could not be more clear and it is one that has been backed up by the courts. In 2019, for example, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against the provincial government, which was seeking a reference on whether it had the power to put conditions on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which exports heavy oil from Alberta, through, B.C. and to the West coast. The ruling stated that this was 'not within the authority of the Legislature.'
