Trump’s latest travel ban is as misguided as his last one

The ban went into effect at the nation’s airports last Monday, affecting 19 countries. Aside from a few narrow exceptions, travel from a dozen nations will be blocked: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Another seven face partial restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

Also Read: FIFA World Cup 2026: Will US hostility trump its hospitality?

Although the first travel ban in 2017, aimed at Muslim-majority countries, sparked massive protests around America, this broader ban has met with a far more muted response. That may indicate that Americans are becoming inured to Trump’s xenophobic policies. Or they may be overwhelmed by the sheer ferocity of Trump’s unprecedented step of sending the Marines in to quell protests unfolding in Los Angeles, California.

The administration’s goal in banning visits from the poorest countries in the world is unclear. The executive order purports to “protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats," noting that visitors from a number of the countries overstay their visas and have governments incapable of adequate vetting.

But is blocking what are mostly business and tourist visas really the best solution to address such concerns? Only three countries on the list—Cuba, Iran and Syria—are considered by the US to be state sponsors of terrorism. And the biggest terrorist threat in the country, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is domestic. That’s true even if you look only at Islamist extremist attacks. Trump specifically cited the recent Boulder, Colorado bombing by an Egyptian national here on an expired visa as an example of why the travel ban was needed. But Egypt isn’t on the list. 

Also Read: Trump’s trade agenda: About US jobs or global supremacy?

The administration also ignores the fact that the US conducts its own extensive vetting before admitting travellers on foreign visas. That includes thorough security screenings and the collection of biometric data that can be run through national databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Vetting Center, among others.

As for the people who overstay their visas, this is a serious problem that has also troubled previous administrations. The Center for Migration Studies estimates that 40% of unauthorized immigrants arrived not by illegally crossing borders, but on visas that have since expired. Blocking new travel from these countries, however, is an ineffective response.

The original ‘Muslim ban’ was halted by lower court injunctions that rightfully ruled that a ban targeting a particular religion was unacceptable. Trump fought back with two more versions, until a version focusing on nations was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. He continued to broaden that list until the last year of his presidency. When President Joe Biden took office, he revoked the policy. The new ban has been neatly constructed to avoid lawsuits—a triumph for an administration that has faced challenges from Democrat-run states on nearly every major action.

Also Read: America’s H-1B visa is vital to US interests—and suits India too

It makes exceptions for existing visa holders and some special cases. But the special cases don’t seem to have been thought through. For example, that category includes Afghan translators who worked with US troops, but not their families. It also includes the athletes, coaches and support staff for two global events scheduled to take place in Los Angeles: the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. But not the thousands of fans who are expected to pour in from those nations.

The ban will be disruptive and cruel for many immigrant families nationwide. For example, Minnesota has the largest Somali refugee population in the US, and significant refugee resettlements from Sudan and Myanmar. Habon Abdulle, the head of a Minneapolis non-profit serving women of the African diaspora, told the Sahan Journal, a local immigrant news outlet, that the impact would be immediate and dramatic. “The previous travel bans left behind heartbreak—weddings missed, funerals unattended, futures put on hold," Abdulle said. “These are not political abstractions. These are human stories, interrupted."

Countries must often take tough decisions knowing that the outcome will inflict pain. If the need is demonstrable and the strategy sound, that is the price of leadership. But this travel ban does not meet those tests. ©Bloomberg

The author is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy.