
'We don't want them': Trump issues latest iteration of controversial travel ban
US President Donald Trump instituted a long-anticipated travel ban on Thursday, prohibiting US entry to citizens from 12 countries and restricting the entry of citizens from seven others.
Trump's proclamation 'fully' restricts nationals from largely African and Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Myanmar from entering the US.
It also partially restricts nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
In a video he released on social media on Thursday, Trump said the Colorado attack had 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted'. The suspect in the attack is alleged to be an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and previously lived in Kuwait.
Rumors had been circulating for months about what countries would be on the list after Trump signed an executive order on 20 January and gave the US State Department 60 days to identify countries for which 'vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries'.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
According to the Trump administration, the ban is designed to 'protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes'.
How does the ban work?
The order goes into effect at midnight on 9 June, and both the full and partial bans apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who are outside the country on 9 June and do not have a valid visa as of that day.
The proclamation outlines that no visas issued before that date will be revoked.
Citizens from countries facing a complete ban will not be issued any non-immigrant or immigrant visas. Countries facing a partial restriction will see the suspension of entry of all immigrants and the following temporary visas: B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas.
The order has made room for exceptions including the following: any lawful permanent resident of the United States; dual nationals; diplomats travelling on valid non-immigrant visas; athletes or members of an athletic team and immediate relatives; travelling for the World Cup, the Olympics or other major sporting event; immediate family immigrant visas; adoptions; Afghan special immigrant visas; special immigrant visas for United States government employees; immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
'Unecessary and ideologically motivated'
Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement released on Wednesday that Trump's new travel ban 'is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated'.
'Are they troublemakers?': Trump questions why Harvard has so many international students Read More »
He criticised the targeting of mostly Muslim and African nations and said it raised 'the specter of more vague free speech restrictions'.
"Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer."
He added that the screening tests being undertaken by the US government were "vague" and could easily be abused to ban immigrants based on religion or political activism.
He said the new travel ban risks separating families, deprives students of educational opportunities, blocks patients from accessing unique medical treatment, and would create a chilling effect on travellers.
'Automatically banning anyone based on their nationality or vague allegations of 'hostile attitudes' to American culture or policies undermines our nation's values,' he added.
World reacts
Like Trump's controversial tariffs, the latest iteration of the travel ban has continued to ruffle feathers and wear leaders down.
Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, lambasted the Trump administration as 'bad people' on state television, saying 'they are supremacists who think they own the world and persecute our people for no reason".
"The truth is being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans," he added.
Meanwhile, the ban prompted Chad's president, Mahamat Deby, to issue a reciprocal ban on US citizens. In a statement, he said, 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and pride'.
Republic of Congo government spokesman Thierry Moungalla told a news conference he thought it was 'a misunderstanding'.
'Congo is not a terrorist country, does not harbour any terrorists, is not known to have a terrorist inclination,' he said.
The Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, took a more resigned tone. He said in a statement that Mogadishu 'values its longstanding relationship with the United States. [Somalia] stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised'.
Trump's history with travel bans
Six of the countries on the new list were on different iterations of Trump's 2017 predominantly Muslim travel ban list, and continue to remain on the banned list.
These countries include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela.
Trump upset national sensibilities when he issued a "Muslim" travel ban within a week of taking office during his first term in January 2017.
The countries on his original list were seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees
This order affected individuals regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with employment-based visas. Travellers with valid visas and permanent residency were denied entry.
Following large-scale protests and chaos at airports, courts pushed back on the ban, leading to the first ban being blocked by a temporary restraining order in Washington v. Trump in February 2017.
US judge blocks Trump order banning foreign students at Harvard University Read More »
Three more iterations of the ban followed, leading to numerous lawsuits being filed in federal court against the Trump administration.
One of the most successful lawsuits was Trump v Hawaii, a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Hawaii, where the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Dr Ismail Elshikh, and two John Doe plaintiffs challenged the various iterations of the ban.
After Trump issued the second iteration of the ban in March 2017, the Hawaii district court issued a nationwide injunction against the second version of the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 12 June 2017.
The Court prohibited the government from enforcing the ban against foreign nationals who possess a 'bona fide relationship' with a person or entity in the US. But the government interpreted that ruling narrowly, issuing new guidance that would still ban 'grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other 'extended' family members' on the theory that they are not 'close' family.
In July 2017, the Hawaii district court ruled that this definition 'represents the antithesis of common sense' and prevented the government from enforcing it. After a government appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely left the district court's order relating to travel, in place, while staying part of the order relating to refugees.
Trump issued a third iteration of the ban in September 2017, and the lawsuit returned to the Hawaii district court. The court ruled that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court permitted Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect as appeals progressed.
In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction after a 5–4 decision.
The third iteration of the ban imposed full visa restrictions on citizens from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. These countries included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Iranian nationals were allowed to enter under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas, although such individuals were subject to 'enhanced screening and vetting requirements'.
In January 2020, a fourth travel ban was instituted and included additional countries such as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, which restricted applications to immigrants from those countries but did not restrict entry by non-immigrants.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Ukraine on the Peace Agreement Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda
We welcome the signing of the peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. This important achievement for Africa and international security has been made possible thanks to the decisive role of the United States and personally President Donald Trump, as well as a number of countries and international organizations. In particular, we commend the constructive efforts of the Presidents of Angola and Kenya, the African Union, the East African Community, the Southern African Development Community, and the United Nations. The State of Qatar has made a significant contribution to advancing the peace settlement, especially by ensuring complementarity and coherence among various mediation initiatives. Ukraine highly values the effective mediation by the United States. We congratulate U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and American diplomacy on this achievement. The active involvement of the American side in the negotiation process played a decisive role in reaching and signing the peace agreement. We hope for the responsible efforts of both parties in implementing the peace agreement and in ensuring lasting peace and security in the Great Lakes region. This will create favourable conditions for strengthening the economic potential and social stability of the states in the region, improving their investment attractiveness, and deepening economic ties with other countries. Ukraine reaffirms its commitment to comprehensively intensify mutually beneficial cooperation with the countries of the region, including a readiness to contribute meaningfully to achieving their socio-economic development goals. We are confident that the United States can play a similarly decisive role in achieving a just peace and ending Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. This peace agreement demonstrates that it is possible to stop the killing and restore peace even under challenging circumstances, when the international community acts resolutely and the parties participate in the peace process in good faith. We emphasize that the foundation of the peaceful settlement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda is based on the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, including the mutual obligation of states to respect each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty within internationally recognized borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force, to avoid interference in internal affairs, and to facilitate the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. It is precisely these universally recognized principles of international law that underpin Ukraine's proposals for ending the war in Europe and restoring a comprehensive, just, and sustainable peace for Ukraine. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.


Dubai Eye
2 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Rwanda, Congo sign peace deal in US to end fighting, attract investment
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo signed a US-brokered peace agreement on Friday, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement marks a breakthrough in talks held by US President Donald Trump's administration and aims to attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. At a ceremony with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, the two African countries' foreign ministers signed the agreement pledging to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Kinshasa and Kigali will also launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. "They were going at it for many years... it is one of the worst wars that anyone has ever seen. And I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled," Trump said on Friday, ahead of the signing of the deal in Washington. "We're getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it." Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the agreement a turning point. Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner said it must be followed by disengagement. Trump later met both officials in the Oval Office, where he presented them with letters inviting Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame to Washington to sign a package of agreements that Massad Boulos, Trump's senior adviser for Africa, dubbed the "Washington Accord". Nduhungirehe told Trump that past deals had not been implemented and urged Trump to stay engaged. Trump warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if the agreement is violated. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. The gains by M23, the latest cycle in a decades-old conflict with roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, sparked fears that a wider war could draw in Congo's neighbours. ECONOMIC DEALS Boulos told Reuters in May that Washington wanted the peace agreement and accompanying minerals deals to be signed simultaneously this summer. Rubio said on Friday that heads of state would be "here in Washington in a few weeks to finalise the complete protocol and agreement". However, the agreement signed on Friday gives Congo and Rwanda three months to launch a framework "to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains". A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday that another agreement on the framework would be signed by the heads of state at a separate White House event at an unspecified time. There is an understanding that progress in ongoing talks in Doha - a separate but parallel mediation effort with delegations from the Congolese government and M23 - is essential before the signing of the economic framework, the source said. The agreement signed on Friday voiced "full support" for the Qatar-hosted talks. It also says Congo and Rwanda will form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months. Congolese military operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe.


Dubai Eye
2 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Radiation levels in Gulf remain normal, says UN nuclear watchdog
Radiation levels in the Gulf region remain normal after the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict severely damaged several nuclear facilities in Iran, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. Grossi noted that any significant radioactive release would have been detected by the 48-nation International Radiation Monitoring System (IRMIS). He added that "Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and the Tehran Research Reactor represented our main concern as any strike affecting those facilities – including their off-site power lines – could have caused a radiological accident with potential consequences in Iran as well as beyond its borders". "It did not happen, and the worst nuclear safety scenario was thereby avoided." Grossi reiterated that nuclear facilities should never be attacked, and emphasised the need for IAEA inspectors to continue their verification activities in Iran. He added that information from Iran's Nuclear Regulatory Authority show there is no increased off-site radiation levels in the nuclear sites.