Revised US travel ban could expand to more than 40 countries: Reports

According to multiple media outlets, a new travel ban is imminent, with slight variations in the specific details. Reuters reported on Monday that the impending travel ban will affect citizens from 41 countries, according to an internal memo they reviewed and sources familiar with the matter. The new policy aims to enhance national security by tightening entry requirements.

The list is divided into three distinct categories: countries facing a complete entry ban, those with strict restrictions on travel to the U.S., and those given 60 days to address relevant issues. Reuters noted that Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea are five of the ten countries whose citizens will face a full visa suspension. An article in The New York Times last week stated that the complete list includes Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela. This categorization allows for a tiered approach based on risk assessment.

Seven of these countries—which appeared in different versions of Trump's 2017 "Muslim travel ban" list primarily targeting Muslim-majority nations—remain on the prohibited list, including Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela. Reuters listed Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, and South Sudan as five countries facing partial visa suspensions, which will affect tourism and student visas, as well as other immigration visas. Citizens from countries on the list will also face mandatory in-person interviews when applying for visas. Such measures are intended to enhance vetting processes.

Reuters reported that a total of 26 countries appear in the third group, which will have 60 days to address concerns or potentially face partial visa suspensions. These countries include Belarus, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan, among others. The New York Times had placed Pakistan in the second group, facing partial visa suspensions. These lists were developed in accordance with an executive order issued by Trump on January 20, which gave the State Department 60 days to determine which countries have "deficiencies in their review and screening information sufficient to warrant a partial or complete suspension of entry of nationals from those countries" in order to "protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, promote hate ideologies, or otherwise exploit our immigration laws for malicious purposes." A complete report and final list of countries is expected to be released this week. This deadline encourages prompt action and resolution of identified issues.

Trump issued a "Muslim" travel ban in January 2017, during his first week in office, which sparked widespread protests. The countries on his initial list were seven Muslim-majority nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees. The order affected all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with work visas. Individuals with valid visas and permanent residency were also denied entry. After mass protests and chaos at airports, courts pushed back against the ban, leading to the first ban being blocked by a temporary restraining order in February 2017 in the case of Washington v. Trump. The initial ban caused significant disruption and legal challenges.

Three subsequent versions of the ban were issued, leading to a plethora of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in federal court. One of the most successful lawsuits was Trump v. Hawaii, which was brought on behalf of the State of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Dr. Ismail Elshikh, and two John Doe plaintiffs, challenging various versions of the ban. After Trump issued the second version of the ban in March 2017—prohibiting entry from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia—the District Court of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction against the second version of the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 12, 2017. These legal battles underscored the constitutional concerns surrounding the travel bans.

The court prohibited the government from enforcing the ban against foreign nationals with a "bona fide relationship" to an individual or entity within the United States. But the government interpreted the ruling narrowly, issuing new guidance that still barred "grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other 'extended family' members," arguing that they were not "close" family members. In July 2017, the District Court of Hawaii ruled that this definition "flies in the face of common sense" and blocked the government from enforcing it. After the government appealed, the Ninth Circuit Court largely upheld the district court's order regarding travel, while staying the portion of the order regarding refugees. The definition of "bona fide relationship" became a point of contention in the legal proceedings.

Trump issued the third version of the ban in September 2017, and the litigation returned to the District Court of Hawaii. The court ruled that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and enjoined enforcement of the core provisions of the ban. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court allowed Muslim Ban 3.0 to take effect while appeals were pending. In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and it was argued on April 25, 2018, with an opinion issued on June 26, 2018. The Supreme Court's involvement highlighted the significance of the legal challenge.

The Court reversed the approval of the preliminary injunction in a five-to-four decision. In doing so, it rejected both the statutory and constitutional challenges to the ban. Despite substantial evidence that the ban was unconstitutionally motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the majority stated that "the Proclamation is facially legitimate and based on a plausible national security objective," and accepted wholesale the government's claim that the policy was formulated after a neutral, worldwide review of countries' ability to vet their nationals. The third version of the ban imposed sweeping visa restrictions on citizens from eight countries, six of which were majority-Muslim. These countries included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Supreme Court's decision was controversial and had far-reaching implications.

Iranian nationals were permitted to enter "in valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) status," although those individuals were "subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements." In April 2018, the government lifted the travel restrictions on Chad. In January 2020, a fourth travel ban was implemented, which included additional countries such as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, restricting immigration applications from these countries but not non-immigrant entries. These subsequent adjustments reflect the evolving nature of the policy.

Many have expressed concerns that the new travel ban could affect green card holders from banned countries, as it did when it was first implemented in January 2017, when green card holders were prevented from entering the country. Immigration lawyers are warning green card holders from countries facing bans to postpone outbound travel until the policy is confirmed. On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump has laid out a blueprint that would allow him to deport any foreign national who expresses pro-Palestinian sentiments or participates in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, contained in an executive order entitled "Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorist Entry and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats." The potential impact on legal permanent residents is a major concern.

The order also calls for enhanced screening measures for "all aliens seeking entry into the United States." That same month, he also implemented an executive order, "Combating Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism," which allows federal agencies to use "all available and appropriate legal tools to prosecute, deport, or otherwise hold accountable those who perpetrate illegal acts of anti-Semitic harassment and violence." Immigration lawyer, Erik Lee, stated that green card holders would be affected: "In short, these two executive orders effectively ban all non-citizens, including green card holders, from criticizing the U.S. government, its agencies, or the State of Israel, under penalty of deportation." These orders raise concerns about freedom of speech and potential for discriminatory enforcement.

Earlier this month, the government indicated that it is revoking the green card of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student and activist who played a significant role in student protests at Columbia University over the past year. He is currently being held at a detention center in Louisiana. According to a news report in The New Arab, last week, ahead of the new travel ban, the Trump administration began retroactively canceling the visas of Libyan students. U.S. embassies in multiple countries notified some visa holders—including those already in the United States—that their visas had been revoked. These individuals were instructed to report to their respective U.S. embassies for further interviews. These actions suggest a broader pattern of stricter immigration enforcement.