President Trump issues a Travel Ban on Citizens from 19 Countries

On June 4, 2025, President Trump announced a sweeping travel ban via a presidential proclamation titled Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. This proclamation bars entry into the United States for citizens of 19 countries deemed to pose security risks, with 12 countries facing a full travel ban and 7 others subject to partial restrictions. The ban goes into effect at 12:01 on June 9th by design, with this short delay between announcement and implementation hoping to avoid the airport chaos that occurred in 2017 when an earlier travel ban was implemented without warning.  

This new proclamation fully suspends the entry of immigrants (those seeking to become lawful permanent residents) and non-immigrants (those seeking to enter temporarily) from these 12 countries:

1. Afghanistan
2. Myanmar (Burma)
3. Chad
4. Republic of the Congo
5. Equatorial Guinea 
6. Eritrea
7. Haiti
8. Iran
9. Libya
10. Somalia
11. Sudan
12. Yemen

Additionally, these 7 countries face suspension of student, tourist, and business visa under their new “restricted” classification: 

1. Burundi
2. Cuba
3. Laos
4. Sierra Leone
5. Togo
6. Turkmenistan
7. Venezuela

In simple terms, this proclamation means immigration and travel from these listed nations will be severely limited or stopped completely once the ban goes into effect on the 9th. Although widespread, the administration cited high visa overstay rates, hostile and/or incompetent regimes, and refusal to accept removed nationals to support its foundation of the ban. 

Deeper Implications

President Trump’s proclamation explicitly ties immigration to national security and crime prevention, and it comes amid a broader immigration crackdown that has significant criminal law overlap. The administration justifies its action by claiming that some of the banned countries not only pose terrorism concerns, but also pose issues like organized crime and gang violence. For instance, in the context of Venezuela, U.S. officials recently highlighted the removal of Venezuelan nationals with alleged gang ties. Individuals hailing from affected regions should be aware that heightened scrutiny may apply not only at the border, but within the U.S. as well. For example, if an individual from one of the banned countries is under investigation for any conduct related to national security, such as donating to a banned organization or overstaying a visa, the fact that their home country is on the “watchlist” could lead to closer attention from agencies like the FBI or DHS. National security investigations, like terrorism and espionage, often involve extensive immigration checks. We may see increased use of security hold requests in immigration cases for nationals of these countries, meaning their applications or travel may be delayed while background investigations are completed. 

Visa fraud and related offenses are another area of overlap.  This could include obtaining a passport from a different country under false pretenses, misrepresenting one’s identity or nationality on a visa application, or attempting to enter the U.S. through fraud- carrying serious legal penalties. For instance, if someone from a banned country were to claim a different country of origin on a visa form or use a falsified visa in order to avoid the ban, they could be charged with visa fraud.

Who Is Exempt from the Proclamation?

While the move is immediate and undoubtedly daunting for immigrants in this nation, the administration made it clear that “No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.” This means that everyone who currently has a Green Card or visa will not be removed after the June 9th effective date, nor will their legal immigration status be terminated. Individuals who fit this criteria can even re-enter the U.S. if they are out of the country before/after the ban takes effect, though increased security and scrutiny can be expected. Green Card holders enjoy the most relief from this proclamation, as they are allowed to continue their immigration process to fully naturalize despite originating from a banned country. So long as they can prove that they are a law abiding and continuous resident, they can renew their card and even seek to fully naturalize as a U.S. citizen. Additionally, dual nationals (ex: a citizen of both the U.S. and Haiti) and diplomatic visa holders also enjoy similar relief. 

Notably, the proclamation does not directly prevent individuals from seeking asylum, refugee status, or other humanitarian protection. It explicitly states that nothing in the ban limits the ability to seek asylum or protection under U.S. law (such as withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture relief). For example, a Somali or Iranian national who manages to travel to the U.S. (perhaps via a third country) or who is already present in the U.S. can still file an asylum application and have it adjudicated; the travel ban does not shut down the asylum process for them. However, the practical obstacle is that the ban blocks the usual avenues of travel, like tourist or student visas, that many asylum seekers use to come to the U.S. in the first place. During the ban, refugees abroad from these countries will also face difficulties, as the U.S. refugee resettlement program for certain nations could be paused. In fact, President Trump separately suspended all refugee resettlement on January 20, 2025, via a different action.

Who Is Most Affected?

This exemption quickly begins to fade when an individual does not currently have a visa or Green Card, with special cases for review only applying to certain categories of people. The greatest volume of affected individuals would be immediate relatives of current U.S. citizens, with notable banned countries such as Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela. In 2023 alone, these countries saw a combined 115,000 immigrants gain Green Cards, mostly as a result of their family-based relationship to a U.S. citizen of lawful permanent resident. Moving forward, a current Green Card holder or U.S. citizen seeking to sponsor a family member, child, or spouse from one of the banned countries will no doubt experience the ban’s freezing effect. 

For those citizens from the partially restricted countries, certain travel can still occur, but under tighter conditions. For example, students and exchange visitors from countries like Burundi or Laos will not be issued new F or J visas while the proclamation is in effect. A student from Cuba who was accepted to a U.S. university for the fall may find their visa interview canceled or refused. Tourists and business visitors from these countries are likewise barred from getting B-1/B-2 visitor visas for now. Other types of visas (such as work visas like H-1B or L-1) are technically not banned for the partial-restriction countries, but the proclamation instructs consular officers to limit the validity period of any other visas they do issue, to “the extent permitted by law.” In practice, this might mean if an exception is made to issue, say, an H-1B work visa to someone from Cuba, the visa might be valid for a shorter duration, or for a single entry, and would likely require more frequent renewals.

Moving Forward
The June 2025 travel ban represents the United States’ dramatic shift in immigration policy over the last year by reinstating and extending restrictions that affect nearly one-fifth of the world’s nations. The administration presents this ban as a security measure, drawing on the template of earlier bans that have been upheld at the highest level of the courts. At the same time, it has provoked concern among immigrant communities and advocates, who fear it will separate families, hinder educational and business opportunities, and stigmatize entire populations without sufficient justification. From a legal standpoint, the proclamation will test the balance between executive power in immigration and constitutional protections once again. Prospective challenges will have to contend with the precedent of Trump v. Hawaii, upholding Trump’s 2017 travel ban, which currently tilts the scales in favor of the executive’s authority to impose such travel restrictions.