Trump’s journey ban is now in impact. This is what to know

President Trump’s in depth new journey ban took impact simply after midnight on Monday, barring nationals of 12 nations from getting into the U.S. and partially proscribing these from one other seven.

Trump introduced the coverage final week after a firebombing assault in Colorado, saying it’s vital for nationwide safety. It revives a controversial journey ban that Trump had enacted throughout his first time period and promised to revive whereas on the marketing campaign path.

“The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,” Trump stated in a Wednesday video introducing the ban. “We don’t want them.”

The ban largely impacts nations in Africa and the Center East. The person charged within the Colorado assault is from Egypt, which isn’t on the restricted listing. Trump says nations might be added or eliminated over time.

“The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made, and likewise, new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world,” Trump stated. “But we will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm, and nothing will stop us from keeping America safe.”

Whereas authorized challenges are anticipated, students say this ban has some key variations — and could also be much less weak — in comparison with Trump’s first-term journey ban.

The 2017 ban — initially focusing on Muslim-majority nations — prompted rapid outcry and authorized challenges, forcing the primary Trump administration to make a lot of revisions. The Supreme Court docket upheld a revised model in 2018, however former President Joe Biden promptly rescinded it on his first day in workplace in 2021, calling it a “stain on our national conscience.”

Georgetown College legislation professor Stephen Vladeck says Trump has discovered classes from his earlier expertise.

“I think what’s really striking about the latest iteration of this kind of travel ban is really how radically different it looks from the clumsier, I think, less careful attempts we saw during the first Trump administration,” Vladeck instructed NPR final week.

This is what to know in regards to the new journey ban, from exemptions to enforcement to response.

Which nations are affected? 

The complete ban applies to overseas nationals from 12 nations: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Heightened restrictions apply to folks from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

Why these nations? 

The White Home says these 12 nations are topic to the ban as a result of they had been “found to be deficient with regards to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States.” The opposite seven, it says, “also pose a high level of risk.”

The ban has been within the works for a while.

On Trump’s first day again in workplace, he signed an government order tasking the heads of varied businesses — together with the lawyer normal and secretary of homeland safety — with “identifying countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries.”

In final week’s video, Trump stated their evaluation thought of components together with “the large-scale presence of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to verify travelers’ identities, inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays and other things.”

The White Home says some nations on the listing, like Libya and Somalia, lack a “competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents.”

For others, its reality sheet cites country-specific information from a 2023 Division of Homeland Safety report on vacationers who stayed within the U.S. after their visas expired. The report exhibits that B1/B2 visa (for short-term enterprise or tourism) overstay charges vary from 7.69% (Cuba) to 49.54% (Chad).

Nonetheless, these giant percentages quantity to a comparatively small variety of folks — particularly when in comparison with the amount of vacationers who come from European and Asian nations whose residents don’t want a visa for enterprise or pleasure visits.

For instance, the Division of Homeland Safety recorded a 2.4% overstay fee amongst Spanish guests in fiscal yr 2023, amounting to over 20,000 folks. In distinction, the 49.5% overstay fee from Chad amounted to only 377 people.

How will the ban be enforced? 

The ban targets the visa software course of, together with purposes which can be already in progress within the now-banned nations.

The State Division instructed U.S. embassies and consulates final week to not revoke visas already issued to folks from the 12 banned nations, based on a cable obtained by the Related Press.

However, it says, folks from these nations who haven’t but acquired their visas, despite the fact that their purposes had been accredited, shall be denied. Beginning Monday, peoples’ purposes shall be rejected until they qualify for an exemption.

People who find themselves not U.S. residents typically should present a sound visa (or a waiver) to enter the nation. It’s as much as Customs and Border Safety (CBP) brokers to determine whether or not to confess or deny entry to people on the border.

The Division of Homeland Safety, which homes CBP, known as the ban a “necessary step to garner cooperation from foreign governments to accept deportation flights of their own citizens, strengthen national security, and help restore integrity to the immigration system.”

Who’s exempt? 

The proclamation carves out exceptions for folks in a number of classes of individuals, together with lawful everlasting residents, current visa holders and people whose entry “serves U.S. national interests.”

These embrace twin nationals touring with a passport from a non-banned nation, kids adopted by U.S. residents, rapid household immigrant visas “with clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship” and Particular Immigrant Visas for longtime U.S. authorities workers overseas.

There are additionally exemptions for immigrant visas for ethnic and non secular minorities going through persecution in Iran, in addition to Afghan nationals who can show they had been employed by or on behalf of the U.S. authorities throughout its navy marketing campaign in Afghanistan beginning in 2001.

The ban additionally doesn’t apply to any members of an athletic staff — together with athletes, coaches and rapid relations — “traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State.” Eleven U.S. cities will host matches through the 2026 FIFA World Cup, whereas the 2028 Summer season Olympics shall be held in Los Angeles.

How are nations responding?

The ban has attracted criticism from overseas leaders in addition to worldwide teams, with Amnesty Worldwide calling it “discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel.”

Some overseas leaders have requested for the U.S. to rethink.

The African Union Fee issued an announcement expressing concern in regards to the “potential negative of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchange, commercial engagement and the broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.”

“The African Union Commission respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned,” it wrote.

Officers in some African nations have already expressed willingness to work with the U.S.: Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the U.S., stated the nation “stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised,” whereas the AP studies {that a} authorities spokesperson for the Republic of Congo stated he believes the nation’s inclusion was “a misunderstanding” that can hopefully be corrected.

Leaders of different nations look like much less wanting to work out a compromise. Mahamat Idriss Deby, the president of Chad, stated Thursday that his nation will droop the issuing of visas to U.S. residents in response to the journey ban.

“Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride,” he wrote on Fb, based on a translation from the AP — referring to the luxurious jet the Trump administration has accepted from Qatar to make use of as Air Pressure One.

In Venezuela, Inside Minister Diosdado Cabello warned that “being in the U.S. is a big risk for anyone, not just Venezuelans.”

“If you’re really that foolish, then go to the United States,” he added, saying the nation is run by “bad people.”

How is that this ban totally different from the final one? 

Trump’s first journey ban, enacted in January 2017, focused seven majority-Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days.

That ban was the topic of a number of authorized challenges and restraining orders as a result of it was seen as focusing on Muslim nationals. Trump himself had known as for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” throughout his first marketing campaign.

The ban took impact abruptly simply days into Trump’s time period, hitting as some vacationers had been already on their option to the U.S. and turning airports into scenes of chaos and protest.

Immigration lawyer Mariam Masumi says this yr’s ban concerned extra superior discover and orderly implementation, seemingly slicing down on the quantity of public disruption and pushback. She thinks there’s additionally much less shock worth this time round.

“A significant difference here is that the first travel ban, Trump was openly saying very racist things, that he’s going to ban Muslims from the country,” Masumi instructed NPR final week. “And at this point, people have gotten used to that, and there’s this fatigue and tiredness around it, and we’ve unfortunately gotten very used to these policies.”

The 2017 ban was repeatedly revised to incorporate further nations (like North Korea and Venezuela) whereas dropping others, and was upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court docket ruling the next yr.

Masumi says the 2025 ban was crafted with extra authorized precision to keep away from a few of its predecessor’s pitfalls. It contains particular exemptions, waiver choices and extra of a justification for why sure nations are included, and does not single out Muslim-majority nations particularly.

That stated, Masumi says the coverage will nonetheless harm folks, particularly households, staff and refugees.

“This is going to have a global impact, as well, on our reputation in the world,” she stated. “And we’re basically closing our doors for immigrants, and it’s very unfortunate that this type of policy has become normalized.”

Are authorized challenges seemingly?

Masumi says her fellow immigration legal professionals have anticipated and ready for this kind of ban to take impact.

“And I imagine there will be legal challenges to the current ban, but I do think that they’ve been very careful in how they’ve crafted it,” she stated.

Vladeck, the Georgetown Legislation professor, thinks litigation will seemingly focus particularly on the factual grounds that the Trump administration is utilizing to focus on sure nations, and whether or not the Division of Homeland Safety information it cites “is actually both accurate and a legitimate basis.”

He suspects lawsuits may come from people who find themselves already within the U.S. and unsure about their skill to stay within the nation, or from folks in different nations who do not but have a visa however have robust authorized arguments for why the U.S. ought to permit them in. And, he says, it is also potential that the Trump administration carries out the ban in a approach that invitations authorized challenges.

“My own view is that I think the words of this policy are probably going to do relatively well in court, but I would not put it past this administration to enforce it in a way that invites further lawsuits,” he stated.

NPR’s Adrian Florido contributed to this story.