On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled new restrictions on entry to the United States for nationals from a range of countries in an Executive Order (EO) titled ‘Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.’
This EO is set to take effect on June 9, 2025, and imposes a complete ban on entry into the United States as immigrants or nonimmigrants for nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
In addition, entry is fully suspended for nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela as immigrants, with nonimmigrant entry also restricted on B-1, B-2, F, M, and J visas.
These restrictions only apply to nationals from the listed countries who were outside the U.S. without a valid visa on the effective date.
Crucially, the EO does not revoke visas issued to nationals of the listed countries prior to June 9, 2025.
Furthermore, lawful permanent residents—also known as green card holders—from any of the affected countries are exempt from these travel bans.
Dual nationals using a passport from a non-affected country, certain diplomatic visa holders, and individuals within specific immigrant visa categories are also not impacted by these restrictions.
Additionally, the EO provides exemptions for athletes or team members traveling for major events like the Olympics or World Cup, determined by the Secretary of State.
Notably, the EO does not affect individuals seeking asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
In a separate action, President Trump also signed an EO prohibiting non-citizens who wish to study or take part in exchange visitor programs at Harvard University from entering the U.S. after June 4, 2025.
However, this particular EO has faced legal challenges and has been blocked by a federal district court, prompting the Department of State to instruct embassies and consulates to comply with the court’s ruling.
On a diplomatic front, thus far only Chad has responded to these developments by imposing reciprocal entry restrictions on U.S. citizens.
The EO, citing the lack of effective screening and vetting measures in the listed countries, as well as their history of not taking back their nationals who have been ordered removed, outlines the reasoning behind the entry bans.
This action appears to echo the legal arguments made in the 2018 Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld travel restrictions based on national security concerns.
At this point, the EO has yet to face any courtroom scrutiny, but various organizations are closely evaluating potential legal challenges.
The implications of these travel bans could be profound for U.S. companies and foreign businesses operating within the twelve fully restricted countries, or for those employing individuals from these nations currently in the U.S.
International students and participants in exchange programs from all nineteen countries mentioned stand to be significantly affected as well.
The entry bans delineate that nationals from the twelve specified countries are fully suspended from both immigrant and nonimmigrant entries, while seven others face partial restrictions.
The justification for the bans and restrictions accuses the listed countries of failing to ensure appropriate screening processes and having high rates of visa overstays among their nationals.
Immediate family members of U.S. citizens, notably, are still allowed entry, but must provide clear and convincing evidence of their familial relationship, potentially requiring DNA testing, which is a new procedural requirement.
Certain exceptions also apply to specific categories of immigrants and nonimmigrants, including diplomats and employees of international organizations.
Individuals traveling to the U.S. under the guise of critical national interests may be granted exceptions upon discretion of the Secretary of State or the Attorney General.
The EO does not outline a timeline for lifting the restrictions; rather, it mandates assessments every 90 days following its implementation to evaluate whether the bans should continue or be modified.
Looking toward the future, there are various uncertainties and implications for individuals and organizations, including how National Interest Exceptions (NIE) will be handled.
The restrictions also raise questions about how consular officers will limit the validity of nonimmigrant visas for applicants from the affected countries.
The EO’s requirement for immediate family immigrant visa holders to provide DNA evidence could fundamentally alter the visa application process for families wishing to reunite in the U.S.
Moreover, the possibility of expanding the list of countries subjected to these travel constraints looms, particularly regarding nations like Egypt.
In a continuing narrative, the EO concerning Harvard University has already sparked legal challenges even before its intended implementation, with the Department of State now reinstating visa processing for international students.
This situation underlines the ongoing tension between immigration policy and international relations, as well as the implications for education and professional opportunities for individuals from the designated nations.
As the June deadline approaches, attention will be focused not only on the administrative actions taken by the Trump administration but also on the potential for public and legal pushback concerning these sweeping travel restrictions.
In conclusion, this EO highlights the continuing evolution of U.S. immigration policy under President Trump, detailing new challenges for affected individuals and organizations as they navigate the complexities of these restrictions.
image source from：https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/trump-administration-issues-travel-bans-and-restrictions-for-nationals-of-19-countries
