Executive Order Suspends or Restricts Entry of Nationals from 19 Countries

Action: On June 4, the President issued an Executive Order indefinitely banning nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the US as immigrants or nonimmigrants. The Order additionally bans US entry by nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela as immigrants and under certain visa types, including those for business (non-employment), tourism, academic study, vocational training, and cultural exchange. The Order allows exceptions in some cases, including for athletes competing in the World Cup and other major sporting events.

In justifying the ban, the Order states that the Administration considered foreign policy and national security goals and factors including “each country’s screening and vetting capabilities, information sharing policies, and country-specific risk factors – including whether each country has a significant terrorist presence within its territory, its visa-overstay rate, and its cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals.”

Key Insights

The Order echoes a policy pursued in the first Trump Administration, which initially through an Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, suspended entry for 90 days nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) citing national security concerns. Responding to court decisions blocking implementation, the Administration issued a revised Order on March 6, which removed Iraq from the group of impacted countries, provided additional justification for including the remaining countries, and exempted those who already held visas and green cards.
Again facing court challenges and attempting to craft a policy that would survive legal scrutiny, the Administration issued a Proclamation amending the list (e.g., by adding North Korean nationals and certain Venezuelan government officials) and providing additional rational for its selection of countries.
A June 2018 Supreme Court decision ultimately upheld the Proclamation, noting that the President has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry to the US as long as he determines that entry “would be detrimental to the interests” of the US.
In upholding the Administration’s actions, the Supreme Court noted that the Proclamation provided more detailed justifications than the previous Orders and that it specified that the restrictions would remain in place only as long as the identified “inadequacies and risks” were unaddressed. The Biden Administration terminated the travel bans that remained upon taking office in January 2021.
The new Order will likely face similar litigation but appears to have been carefully written to withstand judicial review. This includes citing specific metrics (e.g., visa overstay rates), providing justification for each impacted country that the Administration argues warrants action, and grounding the Order’s reasoning in what it terms national security concerns.
Notably, aside from citing visa overstay rates for certain affected countries (seven of the 12 countries facing full bans), the Order does not explain the Administration's rationale for how those rates may have contributed to its selection of countries. For example, the Order notes that Afghanistan business/tourist visa holders have an overstay rate of 9.7%; however, other countries with higher rates (e.g., Angola and Tanzania) are not included.
The Order directs relevant agencies to develop a process for assessing whether any of the restrictions should be continued or terminated and contains a process for granting limited exceptions by the Departments of State and Homeland Security.

Executive Order Suspends or Restricts Entry of Nationals from 19 Countries

June 05, 2025

Key Insights

The Order echoes a policy pursued in the first Trump Administration, which initially through an Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, suspended entry for 90 days nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) citing national security concerns. Responding to court decisions blocking implementation, the Administration issued a revised Order on March 6, which removed Iraq from the group of impacted countries, provided additional justification for including the remaining countries, and exempted those who already held visas and green cards.

Again facing court challenges and attempting to craft a policy that would survive legal scrutiny, the Administration issued a Proclamation amending the list (e.g., by adding North Korean nationals and certain Venezuelan government officials) and providing additional rational for its selection of countries.

A June 2018 Supreme Court decision ultimately upheld the Proclamation, noting that the President has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry to the US as long as he determines that entry “would be detrimental to the interests” of the US.

In upholding the Administration’s actions, the Supreme Court noted that the Proclamation provided more detailed justifications than the previous Orders and that it specified that the restrictions would remain in place only as long as the identified “inadequacies and risks” were unaddressed. The Biden Administration terminated the travel bans that remained upon taking office in January 2021.

The new Order will likely face similar litigation but appears to have been carefully written to withstand judicial review. This includes citing specific metrics (e.g., visa overstay rates), providing justification for each impacted country that the Administration argues warrants action, and grounding the Order’s reasoning in what it terms national security concerns.

Notably, aside from citing visa overstay rates for certain affected countries (seven of the 12 countries facing full bans), the Order does not explain the Administration's rationale for how those rates may have contributed to its selection of countries. For example, the Order notes that Afghanistan business/tourist visa holders have an overstay rate of 9.7%; however, other countries with higher rates (e.g., Angola and Tanzania) are not included.

The Order directs relevant agencies to develop a process for assessing whether any of the restrictions should be continued or terminated and contains a process for granting limited exceptions by the Departments of State and Homeland Security.

CED Newsletters & Policy Alerts

Key Insights