In a sweeping immigration move, President Donald Trump has signed a proclamation fully banning nationals from 12 countries from entering the United States. The new travel restriction, which takes effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT on June 9, 2025, was confirmed in a statement from the White House on Tuesday, June 4.
The countries affected by the full travel ban are: Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
According to the Trump administration, the decision stems from ongoing national security concerns, including terrorism threats, inadequate identity verification systems, and failure to meet U.S. information-sharing standards.
“This measure is necessary to protect the homeland from individuals coming from countries with weak vetting processes and documented terrorism links,” the proclamation read.
In addition to the full bans, the proclamation also imposed partial visa restrictions on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, targeting specific visa classes such as student, tourist, and business visas.
However, the ban outlines some key exemptions, including: U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders), Dual nationals traveling on passports from non-banned countries, Diplomats and officials on accredited missions, Individuals granted special immigrant or adoption-related visas and Athletes participating in international competitions.
While the administration maintains that the move is designed to enhance national security, civil rights groups and immigration advocates have strongly criticized the ban. Opponents argue it is discriminatory and likely to disrupt families and communities in the U.S. with ties to the affected nations.
Legal analysts suggest the policy may face court challenges similar to the 2017 “Muslim ban,” which was eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after revisions.
As global reactions continue to pour in, several of the targeted countries have expressed concern, with some labeling the decision as "unjust" and "politically motivated."