You can find a PDF version of this fact sheet by clicking here.
By Dan Kosten and Arturo Castellanos-Canales
Introduction
On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that fully restricts the entry of all nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen due to alleged national security and public safety concerns. In addition, the Executive Order restricts the entry of nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela with B-1, B-2, F, M, and J visas. These temporary visas are issued to foreign nationals who travel to the United States for business activities (B-1), tourism (B-2), academic studies (F), vocational training (M), and exchange programs (J), respectively. The Executive Order also instructs consular officers to “reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals” from these partially restricted countries, “to the extent permitted by law.”
The Executive Order – set to go into effect on June 9 – allows a few exceptions to the travel ban. Diplomats, permanent residents, U.S. citizens with dual citizenship, athletes competing in the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics, soccer teams traveling for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, immediate family immigrant visas, adoptees, Afghans with Special Immigrant Visas, and members of ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran will still be allowed to travel to the United States. In addition, any individual from these countries whose presence would advance a critical national interest will be allowed into the country.
The Trump administration highlighted that these travel restrictions – which will be reevaluated 90 days after the publication of the Executive Order and every 180 days thereafter – are imposed to protect the United States from terrorism-related and public safety risks. However, evidence suggests that such measures do not enhance national security. Studies have revealed that most foreign-born violent extremists in the U.S. become radicalized long after their arrival, making nationality an unreliable predictor of terrorist activity. Furthermore, individuals from the restricted countries are already subject to a rigorous visa application process involving thorough vetting through multiple government databases to identify potential threats.
The new travel ban – which immediately faced harsh criticism from members of Congress – will potentially disrupt many American businesses, universities, and other organizations. It will interrupt the work and contributions of many immigrants from banned countries and prevent organizations and institutions from accepting employees, students, and scholars. It will likely discourage businesses, workers, and tourists from non-banned countries from investing, working, and traveling to the United States, further harming American economic well-being. It will also prevent many families from being reunited.[1] It will prevent persecuted individuals from seeking refuge in the U.S.
This explainer provides a quick overview of the bans, restrictions, and exceptions, as well as the justifications used by the Trump administration to ban and restrict travel from nationals of these countries.
Full restriction of entry of nationals from twelve countries
Under the Executive Order, entry is prohibited for all nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. This means that citizens from these twelve countries will not be allowed to travel to the United States until further notice. The administration argued that these countries were included in the list because they either lack a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, lack appropriate screening and vetting processes, their nationals have a high visa overstay rate, their governments do not keep proper criminal records, do not accept their nationals for deportation, or they have ties to terrorist groups. Below is a chart highlighting the reasons the administration provided to restrict travel from nationals of these countries, respectively.
| Countries | Stated Reasons for Restriction |
| Afghanistan | The administration argues that Afghanistan lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and lacks appropriate screening and vetting measures. In addition, it highlights that Afghan nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Burma (Myanmar) | The administration argues that Burma (also known as Myanmar) does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back their removable nationals. In addition, it highlights that Burmese nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Chad | The administration argues that Chadian nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Republic of the Congo | The administration argues that Congolese nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Equatorial Guinea | The administration argues that nationals from Equatorial Guinea who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Eritrea | The administration argues that Eritrea lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and does not keep criminal records. In addition, it highlights that Eritrea has a high visa overstay rate. |
| Haiti | The administration argues that Haiti has a high visa overstay rate. It also argues that Haiti lacks a competent central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information. |
| Iran | The administration argues that Iran is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and is largely uncooperative in identifying security risks. In addition, Iran does not accept back removable Iranian nationals. |
| Libya | The administration argues that Libya lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents. In addition, it notes that the historical presence of terrorists within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals. |
| Somalia | The administration argues that Somalia lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and lacks appropriate screening and vetting measures. In addition, it highlights that Somalia has been identified as a terrorist safe haven and does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back their removable nationals. |
| Sudan | The administration argues that Sudan lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and lacks appropriate screening and vetting measures. In addition, it highlights that Sudanese nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Yemen | The administration argues that Yemen lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and lacks appropriate screening and vetting measures. In addition, it argues that Yemen does not have control of its own territory. |
Partial restriction of entry of nationals from seven countries
Under the Executive Order, entry is prohibited for tourists, business visitors, international students, and exchange visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. This means that B-1, B-2, F, M, and J visa holders from these seven countries cannot travel to the United States. Other visa holders from these countries are still permitted to enter the U.S.
The administration argued that these countries were included in the list because they either have a high rate of visa overstays, sponsor terrorism, do not accept back removable nationals, do not share sufficient law enforcement information with the U.S., lack a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and lack appropriate screening and vetting measures. Below is a chart highlighting the reasons the administration provided to restrict travel from nationals of these countries, respectively.
| Countries | Reasons for Travel Restrictions for B-1, B-2, F, M, and J visa holders |
| Burundi | The administration argues that Burundi nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Cuba | The administration argues that Cuba is a sponsor of terrorism. In addition, it highlights that Cuba does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back removable nationals, and does not share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States. |
| Laos | The administration argues that Laotian nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. In addition, it highlights that Laos does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back their removable nationals. |
| Sierra Leone | The administration argues that nationals from Sierra Leone who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. In addition, it highlights that Sierra Leone does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back their removable nationals. |
| Togo | The administration argues that nationals from Togo who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Turkmenistan | The administration argues that Turkmenistani nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
| Venezuela | The administration argues that Venezuela lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and lacks appropriate screening and vetting measures. In addition, it argues that Venezuela does not cooperate with the U.S. to accept back removable nationals. Finally, it argues that Venezuelan nationals who visit the U.S. have a high visa overstay rate. |
Exceptions to the bans and restrictions
As explained above, the Executive Order includes a series of exceptions to the travel bans and restrictions. Below is the full list of exempted individuals who will not be subject to the bans and restrictions:
- Any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
- Any dual national of a country designated under sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a country not so designated;
- Any foreign national traveling with a valid nonimmigrant visa in the following classifications: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6. These visas are used by foreign officials, ambassadors, and diplomats entering the United States on official business;
- Any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State;
- Immediate family immigrant visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5) with clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship to U.S. citizens (e.g., DNA);
- Adoptions (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4);
- Afghan Special Immigrant Visas;
- Special Immigrant Visas for United States government employees;
- Immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran; and
- Any individual whose presence would advance a critical United States national interest.
Adjustments to Removal of Suspensions and Limitations
Within 90 days of the proclamation of the Executive Order and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, must submit a report to the President with an assessment and recommendations on whether the travel suspensions and limitations should be upheld, lifted, revised, or expanded.
Conclusion
The Executive Order’s travel restrictions raise significant concerns about their effectiveness and potential consequences. While the administration justifies these measures as necessary for national security, evidence suggests they will not achieve their intended goals.
Instead, the ban risks disrupting American institutions and undermining the contributions of immigrants who play a vital role in the nation’s workforce. Restricting and limiting travel from the 19 countries covered by the Executive Order harms America’s global reputation without enhancing U.S. national security. While the Executive Order instructs the Secretary of State to immediately engage all the countries to take measures to comply with U.S. requirements, it still lacks specificity about how countries can sufficiently demonstrate compliance to get off the banned or restricted lists. The ban’s broad restrictions could discourage businesses and tourists worldwide from choosing the U.S. as a destination, potentially harming economic growth and innovation. This policy could also negatively impact key industries, particularly those reliant on foreign workers, further straining the American economy.
[1] While some family immigrant visas are exempted, others are not explicitly mentioned such as V-92 and V-93, and for both fully and partially restricted countries the entire F category of family -sponsored immigrant visas are entirely blocked. This will negatively impact family unity.