A broad new travel restriction signed by Donald Trump officially went into effect at midnight on Monday, barring or limiting entry into the United States for citizens of nearly two dozen countries, primarily in Africa and the Middle East, reigniting debate over the president’s immigration agenda and its global impact.

This latest measure, enacted more than eight years after Trump’s original travel ban triggered mass protests and legal battles, marks a significant expansion in scope. Citizens from 12 nations: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, are now subject to a full entry ban. Partial restrictions will apply to travelers from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

Legal analysts have noted that unlike Trump’s initial 2017 executive order, which was widely condemned as a “Muslim ban” and eventually reshaped by the courts, this new directive is broader and crafted with language that may shield it from similar legal vulnerability.

Trump faces limited backlash

Despite its sweeping implications, the rollout of the new ban has so far been met with limited public outcry. It comes amid heightened tensions over Trump’s hardline immigration tactics, including his controversial use of the National Guard in Los Angeles following a wave of protests against renewed deportation raids.

Related News

Supreme Court clears fast-track deportations to random third countries

China-US trade falls 10.4% in H1-2025 to $289.36 billion

The latest proclamation includes Haiti, a majority-Christian nation that Trump vilified during his earlier presidential campaign, even promoting a discredited conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were responsible for bizarre acts of cruelty in the US. The inclusion of Venezuela, where Trump’s administration recently faced backlash over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador, has also drawn renewed scrutiny.

Critics say the policy will disproportionately impact African countries, cutting off avenues for students, professionals, and families. Mikhail Nyamweya, a foreign policy expert, has warned that the ban may institutionalize “a perception of Africans as outsiders in the global order.”

Humanitarian groups echoed that concern. “This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,” said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.

While five of the restricted countries, such as Equatorial Guinea and Myanmar, are not Muslim-majority, the list largely targets non-white populations from the Global South, reviving accusations that racial and religious bias continue to shape Trump’s immigration priorities.

Notably, the new order does not invalidate visas already issued before the policy took effect. However, new applicants from listed countries face near-certain rejection unless they meet a narrow set of exceptions, according to guidance issued Friday to US embassies and consulates.

Colorado attack cited as pretext

In a social media video posted Wednesday, Trump defended the ban as a national security measure, arguing that many of the affected countries have weak screening systems or refuse to repatriate citizens. He also linked the policy to a recent violent incident in Colorado, where the suspect, an Egyptian national who overstayed a tourist visa, is not from one of the listed countries. Authorities alleged that Soliman was in the US illegally and had filed for asylum three years earlier, in 2022.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, condemned the move: “The impact of the ban will once again be felt by Americans who were denied the ability to see their loved ones at weddings, funerals, or the birth of a child.”

In a related move, Trump also suspended visas for international students enrolling at Harvard University, claiming the institution represents a “liberal stronghold” with “un-American values.” The visa suspension at Harvard is expected to face legal scrutiny.