Trump Administration Rolls Out Sweeping Travel Ban on 19 Countries

By Devin Breitenberg

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation effective June 9 at 12:01 a.m. EDT, imposing full travel bans on 12 countries and partial visa restrictions on 7 others

Countries Affected

Full Ban (Entry & Visas Blocked):

Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen

Partial Ban (Visa Restrictions):

Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela

Together, these nations account for over 475 million residents and approximately 162,000 visas issued in 2023, affecting an estimated 34,000 immigrant visas and 125,000 non-immigrant visas annually

Exemptions & Legal Shielding

To withstand legal challenges and avoid accusations of discrimination, the proclamation includes comprehensive exemptions:

Green card holders, permanent residents, and dual nationals using a non-banned passport

Visas issued before June 9 remain valid; no revocations

Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (parents, spouses, minor children)

Athletes and staff for major events like 2026 World Cup, 2028 Olympics

Afghan Special Immigrant Visas and certain Afghan government employees

Iranians from persecuted religious minorities

Diplomats, U.N. personnel, refugees, asylum seekers, and those deemed in the national interest

Exemptions mirror earlier legal avoidances and reflect lessons learned from the backlash over the 2017 “Muslim ban”

Administration’s Claim: Security Concerns

According to the proclamation and Department of Homeland Security guidance, the ban addresses:

Inadequate vetting and information-sharing with the targeted countries

High visa overstay rates documented by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

Non-cooperation in repatriating deportees

National security threats labeled as foreign terrorist risks

The revised legal format closely follows Justice Roberts’ 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, which upheld executive power over entry bans

Economic and Travel Impacts

The World Travel & Tourism Council estimates this ban, combined with other policies (trade, immigration, LGBTQ laws), could slash $12–12.5 billion from U.S. tourism revenue in 2025

Highlights include:

11% drop in travel bookings for May–July

Air arrivals down 2.5%, Canadian border crossings down 15% in April

Projected spending fall to $169 billion from $180 billion

The African Union also warned the ban will impair educational exchanges and commerce

International and Political Reactions

Iran condemned the ban, calling it proof of “deep hostility” toward Iranians and Muslims

Somalia and other nations expressed dismay, while some—in private—considered cooperation to address U.S. vetting concerns .

Democratic leaders and liberal groups, including the ACLU and CAIR, denounced the measures as discriminatory and xenophobic, pledging legal action

Legal scholars note the prior Supreme Court precedent makes overturning the ban more difficult, though lawsuits are expected to target procedural and equal protection claims

Legal Framework and Review Cycle

Built on Presidential authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and bolstered by Thomas precedent.

Includes mandated 90-day and 180-day Systematic Reviews by the State Department and DHS to reassess country listings

Strategic exemptions and structured reviews are aimed at reducing risk of judicial nullification

The Legal Road Ahead

Though navigating stronger legal protections than its 2017 counterpart, the ban remains vulnerable to litigation:

Targeted lawsuits by immigrant rights groups are already pending rather than court-led injunctions

Courts may examine whether the security and overstay data sufficiently justify the sweeping ban. Critics argue some data (like Chad’s 377 overstays in 2023) are statistically minimal

Why This Matters

This policy signals a strategic, experienced approach to immigration restrictions, combining legal precision with geopolitical messaging:

Expands far beyond past bans—targeting African, Middle Eastern, and Latin nations

Maintains guarded flexibility and exemptions to avoid constitutional pitfalls

Reflects a shift in U.S. global posture: prioritizing national security at the expense of humanitarian openness

Its ultimate fate will test the balance between executive authority, legal standards, and America’s global image—while millions of affected families and professionals await clarity on their futures.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com