In a move that has captured international attention and ignited debate across diplomatic and immigration circles, the United States government has issued a bold new directive aimed at tightening control over who may enter its borders. While the specifics of the decision are just beginning to be unpacked by analysts, one thing is clear: this is not business as usual.
On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a wide-ranging proclamation that imposes strict travel bans on citizens from 12 countries and partial restrictions on several others. The rationale, according to administration officials, centers around national security vulnerabilities, high visa overstay rates, and non-compliance with key identification and repatriation protocols.
The countries subject to a complete ban include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are nations identified as having systemic issues ranging from civil unrest and terrorism affiliations to weak or nonexistent cooperation with U.S. immigration enforcement.
In parallel, the proclamation outlines partial restrictions on individuals from seven more nations: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The restrictions vary from limited visa categories to increased scrutiny and documentation requirements.
The White House has emphasized that this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, the policy has been framed as “country-specific,” with each nation evaluated on criteria such as passport integrity, identity verification protocols, information-sharing with the U.S., cooperation in accepting deported nationals, and track records for visa overstays.
According to officials familiar with the policy’s drafting, the order was shaped in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the intelligence community. It follows months of internal reviews assessing each country’s compliance with minimum baseline standards of traveler vetting.
Afghanistan, now under full control of the Taliban—a group designated by the U.S. as a global terrorist organization—was cited as a primary concern. The country lacks functional immigration infrastructure and cannot verify identities through a central database. Notably, student visa holders from Afghanistan had an overstay rate of 29.3%, according to recent DHS data.
Similarly, Myanmar has demonstrated significant deficiencies in overstay compliance and cooperation. Business (B1/B2) visa holders from Myanmar overstayed at a rate of 27.07%, while students did so at an alarming 42.17% rate. The country has also failed to cooperate in accepting its nationals for repatriation after deportation.
The situation in Chad is even more concerning from a U.S. standpoint. In 2023, Chad recorded one of the highest overstay rates of any country worldwide: 49.54% for business visa holders. U.S. officials cited this as an indication of a “blatant disregard” for immigration compliance. The Republic of the Congo had similarly worrying statistics, with overstay rates of over 29% for B1/B2 visa holders and more than 35% for students.
Other countries have been flagged for different but equally pressing reasons. Equatorial Guinea, for example, had a 70.18% student visa overstay rate, one of the highest recorded. Eritrea refuses to accept the return of its nationals who have been ordered deported from the U.S., and it lacks a system for sharing criminal records, further complicating vetting efforts.
Haiti’s overstay rate is over 31%, and officials point to the country’s lack of centralized law enforcement as a major factor. Iran and Cuba, already classified by the U.S. as state sponsors of terrorism, were added due to their refusal to repatriate deported nationals and their general unwillingness to share security intelligence.
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen are all in states of civil conflict or have no functioning central government. Somalia is described in the proclamation as a terrorist haven, while Yemen remains a site of ongoing U.S. military operations.
The administration also addressed concerns about Venezuela, a country experiencing profound political instability and institutional breakdown. Its B1/B2 visa overstay rate is nearly 10%, and U.S. authorities have difficulty verifying identities and backgrounds of Venezuelan nationals due to the lack of operational civil registries.
Despite the firm stance, the proclamation includes exceptions. Lawful permanent residents, individuals with valid existing visas, dual nationals traveling on passports from unrestricted countries, and those deemed to have entry “in the national interest” will still be allowed to enter the U.S. on a case-by-case basis.
Officials noted that these restrictions are not necessarily permanent. Countries may be removed from the list if they demonstrate substantial improvements in their security cooperation, documentation systems, and visa compliance rates. Likewise, others may be added in the future if conditions deteriorate.
The administration has also made clear that the intent is not punitive, but protective. Homeland Security and State Department briefings emphasized that each nation was given multiple opportunities to meet U.S. standards before any action was taken. Still, the announcement triggered strong reactions across the globe.
In Washington, critics have accused the administration of reviving elements of the 2017 travel ban, which initially targeted several Muslim-majority countries and was met with legal challenges and public outcry. However, supporters argue that this new proclamation is more narrowly tailored and data-driven.
Internationally, some foreign governments have responded with concern, fearing both the economic and diplomatic fallout of being blacklisted. Visa suspensions could affect families, students, and professionals who maintain ties to the United States. Business leaders in affected nations warn that the restrictions could hamper trade, slow investment, and discourage collaboration in fields like education and health care.
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has been updating its global travel advisories to reflect shifting risk assessments. North Korea, for example, was recently added to the highest-level warning list—Level 4: Do Not Travel—on April 29, 2025. The advisory warns of wrongful detention and long-term imprisonment, and explicitly states that U.S. passports are not valid for travel to North Korea without special authorization from the Secretary of State.
This advisory has far-reaching implications. U.S. citizens caught traveling to North Korea without special permission may be denied assistance if detained, due to the absence of formal diplomatic ties. While Sweden acts as the U.S. protecting power in Pyongyang, access to detainees is frequently denied.
The Department of State has also urged travelers with special authorization to North Korea to make contingency plans, including updating wills and designating insurance beneficiaries. These warnings are part of a broader pattern: the global security environment is deteriorating, and U.S. citizens are being urged to take greater precautions than ever before.
The Level 4 travel advisory list now includes 21 countries, spanning from Afghanistan to Syria. This tier reflects regions facing extreme threats from terrorism, civil unrest, armed conflict, or lack of basic services.
In 2025 alone, 10 more countries were elevated to the “Level 3: Reconsider Travel” list. Uganda, for instance, was flagged for violent crime, terrorism, and discriminatory laws, particularly the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act. The advisory also warns of police corruption, frequent protests, and limited emergency services in major cities.
Other nations added to Level 3 include Papua New Guinea, Colombia, Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger. These designations reflect escalating criminal activity, unreliable law enforcement, and volatile political climates.
Mexico remains in a category of its own. The country’s travel advisories are structured on a state-by-state basis due to the vast variation in risk levels. While six states—Colima, Guerrero, Michoacán, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas—are under “Do Not Travel” advisories, states like Campeche and Yucatán are considered safe under “Exercise Normal Precautions.”
The situation in Mexico is particularly nuanced. Cartel violence, targeted killings, and kidnappings have led to increased restrictions on the movement of U.S. government employees. Many are barred from traveling at night or using non-app-based transportation. Tourists, while not always the direct target, are often caught in crossfire or become victims of theft.
Despite these warnings, Mexico remains one of the most visited countries by Americans, and the State Department urges travelers to remain cautious, follow local laws, and avoid drawing unnecessary attention.
All of this paints a broader picture of a world where travel has become significantly more complex—and potentially more dangerous. With this newest proclamation, the U.S. is doubling down on its message: security comes first.
Critics argue that while the administration is addressing legitimate security issues, the sweeping nature of these measures could alienate allies and cause unintended hardship. Humanitarian organizations have voiced concern that refugees and students may face undue challenges, particularly those with limited access to alternate visa pathways.
The Trump administration, however, insists that safety cannot be compromised. The goal, officials stress, is not to close America’s doors, but to ensure that those who enter have been properly vetted, and that countries around the world do their part to maintain the integrity of international travel systems.
The travel ban is set to go into effect on June 9, 2025, at 12:01 a.m. Travelers affected by the policy are encouraged to consult with legal experts, review the new visa criteria, and check the Department of State’s website regularly for updates.
The coming months will reveal how these sweeping changes play out across the world stage. Whether this approach fosters compliance or incites confrontation remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the landscape of global mobility has just changed—perhaps permanently.
