Dismay and disbelief as Trump bans visitors from a dozen countries
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on the day he signs an executive order, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File photo
Officials and residents in countries whose citizens will soon be banned from visiting the United States expressed dismay and disbelief on Thursday at President Donald Trump's new sweeping travel ban as his administration intensifies its immigration crackdown.
Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday barring citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. starting on Monday, asserting that the restrictions were necessary to protect against "foreign terrorists."
The order was reminiscent of a similar move Trump implemented during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021, when he barred travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations.
That directive faced court challenges and went through several iterations before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2018. Former President Joe Biden, a Democrat who succeeded Trump, repealed that ban in 2021, calling it "a stain on our national conscience."
But the new ban is much more expansive and covers Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
Citizens of seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - will be partially restricted.
A senior diplomat with the Sudanese Foreign Ministry, who asked not to be named, said Trump's justification did not stand up to scrutiny.
"Sudanese people have never been known to pose a terrorist threat anywhere in the world," the official said.
Chad President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno said he had instructed his government to stop granting visas to U.S. citizens in response to Trump's action.
"Chad has neither planes to offer nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride," he said in a Facebook post, referring to countries such as Qatar, which gifted the U.S. a luxury airplane for Trump's use and promised to invest billions of dollars in the U.S.
Afghans who worked for the U.S. or U.S.-funded projects and were hoping to resettle in the U.S. expressed fear that the travel ban would force them to return to their country, where they could face reprisal from the Taliban.
Fatima, a 57-year-old Afghan women's rights defender waiting in Pakistan for her U.S. visa to be processed, had her dreams shattered overnight after Trump's order.
"Unfortunately, the decisions made by President Trump turned all the hopes and beliefs of us into ashes," she told Reuters, asking that only her first name be published for security reasons.
BAN TO TAKE EFFECT MONDAY
Trump said the countries subject to the most severe restrictions were determined to harbor a "large-scale presence of terrorists," fail to cooperate on visa security, have an inability to verify travelers' identities, as well as inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and high rates of visa overstays in the United States.
He cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national tossed a gasoline bomb into a crowd of pro-Israel demonstrators as an example of why the new curbs are needed. But Egypt was not part of the travel ban.
"Because Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday.
When asked why he chose this moment to unveil the ban, he said: "It can't come soon enough."
The visa ban takes effect on June 9 at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT). Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said.
In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
The ban is likely to face legal challenges. But Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said he expected those lawsuits to face an uphill climb, because the latest ban contains various exemptions and cited specific security concerns with each country.
The ban includes exemptions, such as for dual nationals, permanent residents, immigrant visas for immediate family members of U.S. citizens and athletes traveling for major sporting events like the World Cup.
"Trump has learned from the mistakes of earlier travel bans," he said.
Some foreign officials said they were prepared to work with the U.S. to address Trump's security concerns.
"Somalia values its longstanding relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised," Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the United States, said in a statement. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
27 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
27 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Mistakenly deported man Abrego Garcia returns to US to face migrant transport charges
Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the US legally with a work permit, was erroneously deported to El Salvador. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from Maryland to El Salvador by the Trump administration, has returned to the United States to face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants within the US, Attorney-General Pam Bondi said on June 6. Mr Abrego Garcia's case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has blocked a number of Mr Trump's signature policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Mr Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his 'warrantless arrest.' Ms Bondi said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Mr Abrego Garcia to the US after US officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. The indictment was filed in federal court in Tennessee on May 21, more than two months after Mr Abrego Garcia's deportation. 'The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring,' Mr Bondi said in a press conference. In a statement, Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Mr Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, despite an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from deportation to El Salvador after finding he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned there, court records show. Critics of President Donald Trump pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. US District Judge Paula Xinis has opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration had done to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information. Officials countered by alleging that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang and said he had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. The indictment alleges that Mr Abrego Garcia worked with at least five co-conspirators to bring immigrants to the United States illegally, and then transport them from the border to other destinations in the country. Mr Abrego Garcia often picked up migrants in Houston, the indictment said. The indictment also charges Mr Abrego Garcia and two unidentified co-conspirators with transporting firearms illegally purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland. Mr Abrego Garcia also transported illegal narcotics purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland and was on some occasions accompanied on those trips by members and associates of MS-13, according to the indictment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
28 minutes ago
- CNA
South Korea's Lee, Trump agree to work towards swift tariff deal, Lee's office says
SEOUL/WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump and South Korea's new president Lee Jae-myung agreed to work toward a swift tariff deal in their first phone call since Lee was elected this week, Lee's office said on Friday (Jun 6). Trump has imposed tariffs on South Korea, a long time ally with which it has a bilateral free trade deal, and pressed it to pay more for the 28,500 US troops stationed there. Separately, Trump allies have aired concerns about Lee's more conciliatory stance towards China, Washington's main geopolitical rival. Lee, a liberal, was elected on Jun 3 after former conservative leader, Yoon Suk Yeol, was impeached and ousted. The future of South Korea's export-oriented economy may hinge on what kind of deal Lee can strike with Trump, with all of his country's key sectors from chips to autos and shipbuilding heavily exposed to global trade. His term began on Wednesday. "The two presidents agreed to make an effort to reach a satisfactory agreement on tariff consultations as soon as possible that both countries can be satisfied with," Lee's office said in a statement. "To this end, they decided to encourage working-level negotiations to yield tangible results." Trump invited Lee to a summit in the US and they plan to meet soon, according to a White House official. Analysts say the first opportunity for the two to meet could be at a G7 summit in Canada in mid-June. Lee's office said the two leaders also discussed the assassination attempts they both experienced last year as well as their enthusiasm for golf. Lee underwent surgery after he was stabbed in the neck by a man in January last year, while Trump was wounded in the ear by a bullet fired by a would-be assassin in July. South Korea, a major US ally and one of the first countries after Japan to engage with Washington on trade talks, agreed in late April to craft a "July package" scrapping levies before the 90-day pause on Trump's reciprocal tariffs is lifted, but progress was disrupted by the change of governments in Seoul. Lee said on the eve of the elections that "the most pressing matter is trade negotiations with the United States." Lee's camp has said, however, that they intend to seek more time to negotiate on trade with Trump. While reiterating the importance of the US-South Korea alliance, Lee has also expressed more conciliatory plans for ties with China and North Korea, singling out the importance of China as a major trading partner while indicating a reluctance to take a firm stance on security tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Political analysts say that while Trump and Lee may share a desire to try to re-engage with North Korea, Lee's stance on China could cause friction with the US. A White House official said this week that South Korea's election was fair, but expressed concern about Chinese interference in what analysts said may have been a cautionary message to Lee. Speaking in Singapore last week, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said many countries were tempted by the idea of seeking economic cooperation with China and defense cooperation with the United States, and warned that such entanglement complicated defense cooperation.
