US President Donald Trump holds a signed declaration. Recently imposed a travel ban … more
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has returned and expanded the controversial travel ban introduced for the first time during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in presidential Proclamation This came into force on Monday, June 9, 2025, inhibits the entry of nationals from 19 countries, which aims mainly at the Muslim majority and the African nations.
Scope of travel ban
The Declaration fully suspendes the issuance of immigrants and non -immigrants to 12 countries nationals: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ayi, Iran, Libya, Libya, Libya, Somalia. It imposes some restrictions on the tourist visas of B-1/B-2 and F, M and J Student and Exchange Visas for Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuelan nationals.
The exceptions apply to green card holders, double nationals, some specialist immigrants, athletes in international competitions and immediate relatives of US citizens.
The legal basis and the previous court
The administration is based on a portion of the migration and nationality law, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any category of non -citizens considered “harmful to the interests of the United States”. This authority was confirmed by the US Supreme Court Trump against Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump’s third version of Trump on the ban on travel was constitutional, emphasis on executive assessment of immigration and national security.
However, critics argue that this widespread ban perpetuates the intention that discriminate, noting the disproportionate effects on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of the Trump 2024 campaign to “restore the ban on travel and maintain radicals”.
The discreet impacts and constitutional doubts
Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of the Migration Law at Cornell Law School, provides for the challenges of the court, but warns that they may fail in the context of today’s previous one. “Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,” he said. “Families will be separated and we are not necessarily safer.”
The Council for American-Islamic Relationships (CAIR) called the series “Ideological Motivation”, “Unnecessary” and “Overbroad”, criticizing the cooling For legal trips, academic exchange and humanitarian reunification.
Legal scholars have begun to question the constitutionality of this policy. In particular, they argue that the clause of equal protection of the fourth amendment prohibits governments from refusing equal legal protection, while the first amendment clause prohibits or rejecting any religion. Critics argue that Trump’s policy, which aims at specific nations usually linked to certain religions, dangers that violate both clauses allowing discrimination based on nationality and faith. In addition, the 1965 migration and nationality law abolished the quotas of national origin to prevent such prejudice. By restoring the restrictions associated with religious or national identity, opponents claim that policy reflects the practices that introduce discrimination that the law was intended to eliminate.
Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the US Council of Immigration, noted: “Nationality bans have never proved significant national security value.
Human and financial cost
According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) “a total of only 162,000 migratory considerations and temporary work, studies and travel considerations were issued in the financial year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the categories that have now been banned, according to the Institute of Migration.” Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people worldwide.
In addition to family divisions, the ban can prevent students, scientists and health professionals at a time when the US is facing deficiencies in STEM and health care. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm At the targeting of international students, as the administration at the same time suspended new considerations for foreign scholars in selected institutions, promoting further fears of ideological clearances in academia.
Return to distinctions of national origin?
The policies of the 2025 trips from Trump’s first term of office and extend their scope. The first “Muslim ban” of 2017 was repeatedly hit until a closer adapted edition survived the judicial review. Today’s ban, while the most procedural refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying the birthplace entrance? The signature of Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 Ina said that “the harsh injustice of the National System of Origin” will I never come back. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived this shade, using presidential declarations instead of legislative quotas. “This is not national security – it is the national scapegoat active,” said Cair Nihad Awad executive. “It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political profit.”
Conclusion
The legality of the 2025 journey prohibition that is being restored as it is may pass Trump against HawaiiBut morality, logic and long -term consequences remain in question. As the lawsuits in Mount and in the Civil Rights groups prepare their defenses, the nation must decide: Do we protect ourselves by closing doors or standing firmly in our values for opening, equality and fair process?
