Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
People take part in a protest sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations against US President Donald Trump's new sweeping travel ban at Los Angeles International Airport on June 9, 2025. PHOTO: REUTERS
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel ban by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters.
Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against 'foreign terrorists' and other national security threats.
The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Mr Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from US universities and deport others.
In an internal diplomatic cable signed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action.
'The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days,' the cable sent out over the weekend said.
The cable was first reported by the Washington Post.
Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was 'questionable security' of that country's passport.
Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the US visas their citizens were being granted.
Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity.
The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed.
The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - has also been partially restricted.
During his first in office, Mr Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. 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
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Canada, Europeans and Brazil, not US, issue statement backing LGBT rights
WASHINGTON - The foreign ministries of Canada, Australia, Brazil and a host of European countries issued a statement on Saturday celebrating LGBT rights to coincide with Pride Day. The United States, which has moved rapidly to dismantle civil rights protections since the election of President Donald Trump, was not among its signatories. The statement, whose backers also include Spain, Belgium, Colombia, Ireland and other nations, said the countries "are speaking and acting as one to champion the rights of LGBTQI people," using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex people. "At a time when hate speech and hate crimes are on the rise, and in view of efforts to strip LGBTQI people of their rights, we reject all forms of violence, criminalization, stigmatization or discrimination, which constitute human rights violations," the statement said. It was not immediately clear why the United States was absent. Canadian, Australian, Brazilian, Irish and U.S. officials did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the Pride Day statement and Washington's absence from it. The U.S., once a champion of gay rights abroad, has reversed course under Trump, whose administration has rapidly dismantled longstanding civil rights protections for LGBT people and expelled transgender servicemembers from the military. Defenders of gay rights are concerned that the backsliding will embolden anti-gay movements elsewhere, especially in Africa, where it could worsen an already difficult situation for LGBT people. Trump's right-wing allies have tapped in to anti-LGBT sentiment to shore up their political support. In Hungary on Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters flouted a law passed in March by Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government that allows for the ban of Pride marches. The demonstrators swarmed Budapest with rainbow-colored flags in one of the biggest shows of opposition to the Hungarian leader. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
2 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling, World News
WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday (June 27) granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: That anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organisations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" [[nid:719600]]
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Iran could again enrich uranium 'in matter of months': UN nuclear watchdog chief
WASHINGTON: UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi says Iran likely will be able to begin to produce enriched uranium"in a matter of months", despite damage to several nuclear facilities from US and Israeli attacks, CBS News said on Saturday (Jun 28). Israel launched a bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites on Jun 13, saying it was aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon - an ambition the Islamic republic has consistently denied. The United States subsequently bombed three key facilities used for Tehran's atomic programme. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the extent of the damage to the nuclear sites is "serious", but the details are unknown. US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear programme had been set back "decades". But Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "some is still standing". "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi said Friday, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday. Another key question is whether Iran was able to relocate some or all of its estimated 408.6kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium before the attacks. The uranium in question is enriched to 60 per cent - above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. Grossi admitted to CBS: "We don't know where this material could be". "So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification," he said in the interview. For now, Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and Tehran rejected Grossi's request for a visit to the damaged sites, especially Fordo, the main uranium enrichment facility. "We need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened," Grossi said. In a separate interview with Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" programme, Trump said he did not think the stockpile had been moved. "It's a very hard thing to do plus we didn't give much notice," he said, according to excerpts of the interview. "They didn't move anything". US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday underscored Washington's support for "the IAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran", commending Grossi and his agency for their "dedication and professionalism".
