Trump travel ban targets nations mired in civil wars or armed conflicts
When President Donald Trump announced his new and expanded travel ban this week, the list of countries facing restrictions exhibited few obvious through lines. A closer look, though, reveals that many of the countries are united by a harsh recent history of civil war or armed conflict.
Of the 12 countries from which travel is fully restricted, three are embroiled in bloody civil wars: Yemen, Myanmar and Sudan.
Myanmar is considered among the most extreme conflicts in the world because of the number of armed groups involved in the civil war there, ranking behind only Gaza and the West Bank in an assessment by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a nonprofit analysis and crisis-mapping project. The country's military has faced an intense internal conflict since forcibly seizing power in 2021 and only controls about 21 percent of the country, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
ACLED lists Sudan as the eighth-most extreme conflict zone amid a ruinous civil war between the country's army and a rival paramilitary force. The fighting has led to more than 150,000 fatalities and a mass humanitarian crisis that numbers among the worst in the world.
Yemen, considered by ACLED to have high but not extreme levels of conflict, has been threatened by the presence of Houthi militants. The Trump administration re-designated the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization in early March.
These conflicts and others around the world have prompted mass migration from the violence and into neighboring countries or places deemed to be more stable — sometimes prompting political backlash aimed at refugees. In some cases, migrants don't have homes to return to or cannot return because of instability or the presence of a hostile regime.
Many of the remaining countries on the total-ban list — Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya and Somalia — are also undergoing conflicts of varying degrees of intensity.
In Haiti, the government is struggling to regain authority after gangs seized vast control of its capital, Port-au-Prince. Ten percent of the Haitian population has been displaced as a result of gang violence. Neighboring Dominican Republic implemented a plan in 2024 for mass deportations of Haitians back across the border.
Haiti's Foreign Affairs Ministry said in a statement Thursday that it was working to find a swift solution to the ban, given the consequences on Haitian families living inside and outside the country.
'This decision comes at a moment when the Haitian government is striving, with the help of its international partners, to fight the insecurity and to strengthen border security,' it said.
In Somalia, a fractious government emerging from a multi-decade legacy of civil war, is seeking assistance from international partners to fight against al-Shabab insurgents, who are global affiliates of al-Qaeda. The group, which previously led a fatal assault on a U.S. airfield in Kenya, has retaken crucial areas from Somali forces over the past three months.
Farther north in Africa, Libya is at risk of political instability over its oil fields, just five years out from a six-year civil war that broke the country in two.
In most cases, the White House cited visa overstays as the justification for putting countries on a full travel ban, including Muslim-majority nations such as Iran, Somalia and Yemen. While the overstay rate was high in some instances, the total number of visas issued was relatively small, The Washington Post reported. It was not immediately clear why some countries with higher overstay rates were left off.
A handful of countries impacted by the ban — including Cuba, Venezuela and Iran — were tied together by historically adversarial relationships with the United States. Human rights organizations condemned the move, referencing the confusion and turmoil that was suffered under the first Trump administration's travel ban.
'This brings back all the tragic stories … people who were unable to see a dying relative or the birth of a new child and had to attend weddings on Zoom,' Jamal Abdi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, a U.S.-based advocacy group, previously told The Post.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A week of shifting descriptions of Iran attack spark ongoing questions
A week after President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, the explanations and descriptions of what happened voiced by him, top aides and early intelligence reports paint contrasting pictures of the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. While the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program has been "obliterated," preliminary assessments — including from the Pentagon's own intelligence wing — painted an evolving picture as the week went on. Trump said he ordered the attack on June 21 to strike a uranium enrichment site located in 300 feet deep in a mountain in Fordo in northwestern Iran, an uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center following reports that Iranian officials failed to comply with international nuclear regulations. And as those early damage assessments cast doubt on the extent to which Iran nuclear program was crippled, several of Trump's top aides and allied lawmakers also appeared to scale back the stated goals of the attack. Here are some of the accounts and characterizations over the last week. On Sunday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's statement from Saturday night, just after the strikes, that the sites had been "obliterated." MORE: 'Way too early' to know full damage done to Iran nuclear sites, Joint Chiefs chairman says "It was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program," he added. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, however, declined to go as far, saying it would take more time to assess the extent of the damage done. Hegseth acknowledged that damage assessment was ongoing but stuck by the description he and Trump were using. "All of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect, which means especially the primary target here, we believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," he said. Officials and inspectors from outside Iran have not been able to gain direct access to the bombed sites to make a first-hand assessment. MORE: Centrifuges at Fordow nuclear facility 'suffered a great deal,' IAEA director says Trump officials had a more nuanced take after news reports surfaced Tuesday about an initial Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that said the attack set back Iran's nuclear program only by months. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the leaks of the military's report but did not go as far as to claim that the sites were obliterated. Instead, he insisted that "very significant, substantial damage was done" to key components of Iran's nuclear program, "and we're just learning more about it." At the same time, Rubio provided more details about the attack, including that the bunker-buster bombs were dropped on ventilation shafts leading deep inside Fordo's heavily fortified facility -- buried, officials and experts said, 200 to 300 feet inside a mountain. He ultimately acknowledged that it was difficult to get a read on damage inflicted to Fordo at this point, but asserted "the bottom line is real damage was done." That same day, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed in a statement that the three facilities were destroyed. The director general of the U.N.'s nuclear oversight agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said Wednesday that he believed some of Iran's enriched uranium had been moved from the sites before the attacks. Trump refuted that analysis. "It would have taken two weeks, maybe. But it's very hard to remove that kind of material, very hard and very dangerous. Plus, they knew we were coming, and if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there," he said Wednesday. Trump reiterated that the sites and the uranium were buried under rubble and inaccessible, adding that trucks seen in satellite images at the plant before the attack -- which some speculated could have been used to move the nuclear material -- were construction vehicles being used to cover the ventilation shaft openings with protective concrete. According to the two people familiar with the DIA's classified report, the bombing sealed off the entrances to two of the three nuclear sites targeted in the attack but most of the damage was done to structures above ground, leaving the lower structures intact. The assessment also found that at least some enriched uranium remained – possibly moved from the nuclear sites ahead of the blasts. The next day, on Thursday, Hegseth held a news conference where he slammed the news media over reporting but did not make the same assessment on the nuclear materials. Asked twice during the briefing if he could be more definitive about whether the enriched uranium was moved before the attack, Hegseth said the Pentagon was "watching every aspect." At that same Thursday briefing, Caine noted it's not his job to assess the damage, saying, "We don't grade our own homework." Hegseth also highlighted what appeared to be a different goal of the mission, arguing the attack had succeeded because it led to stopping the fighting between Iran and Israel — rather than the facilities' destruction because it destroyed Iran's nuclear program. "We got that peace, that ceasefire, that option because of strength, because of [Trump's] willingness to use American military might that no one else on the planet can do with the kind of planners and operators that the chairman just laid out," he said. Then, on Friday, Trump echoed that sentiment. "They put out that fire once that happened, once those bombs got dropped out, that war was over," he said. Still, the president claimed again that the sites were obliterated during a news conference. MORE: Secrets on Iran nuclear strike spill into open as Pentagon defends bombing "We finished them off," he said, adding, "I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon." Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister said on Iranian State TV Thursday, however, the facilities were not destroyed and his country will have leverage in negotiations. On Capitol Hill on Thursday, after administration officials gave lawmakers a classified briefing on the strikes, Republican lawmakers acknowledged that the U.S. strikes may not have destroyed Iran's cache of enriched uranium. But they said that wasn't part of the mission. "The purpose of the mission was to eliminate certain particular aspects of their nuclear program. Those were eliminated. To get rid of the nuclear material was not part of the mission,' Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., told CNN. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the "program was obliterated at those three sites," but added, "I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists. But it wasn't part of the targets there."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court upends order blocking Trump, DOGE takeover of Institute of Peace
A federal appeals court lifted a lower court's ruling on Friday blocking the Trump administration from dismantling the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit said the president would likely suffer 'irreparable' harm from not being able to 'fully execute' his executive power over the Institute's board. The decision relies on a Supreme Court ruling last month that allowed the president to fire two independent agency leaders as their lawsuits proceed. 'As a general rule, the President may remove executive officers at will. The Supreme Court has recognized a narrow exception for 'multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power' and that exercise 'quasi-judicial' or 'quasi-legislative' power,' the three-judge panel wrote in the order. 'Because the Institute exercises substantial executive power, the Government is likely to succeed on its claim that the Board's removal protections are unconstitutional,' they added. The Institute, a national nonpartisan organization created by Congress, is dedicated to protecting U.S. interests by helping to prevent violent conflicts and broker peace deals abroad, according to their website. In March, President Trump said he would dissolve the agency and fired five board members after the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) visited their headquarters seeking to gain access to computers and data. A previous executive order targeted the agency over reductions. Terminated employees sued, arguing their removal was unconstitutional and would require input from Congress. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that their removal was unlawful and alleged Trump officials used 'brute force' to take over USIP's headquarters. Following the ruling, USIP regained control of the headquarters, CBS News reported, and evaluated software systems before the Friday decision issued by the appeals court. Updated at 12:52 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
