Historical Background

For nearly a month, the public has been speculating about when the Trump Administration plans to sign an upcoming travel ban. The draft list is said to total 43 countries, the largest exclusion of nations in American history. Across the globe, many regions have engaged in restrictions of mobility. Travel bans arise for various reasons, including racial motivations, sanctions, national security, and health concerns. For example, from 1901-1973, Australia implemented the White Australia Policy: a series of laws restricting non-European immigration. This act aimed to prohibit non-white individuals from migrating to Australia and deport “undesirable” non-white migrants already in the country. The White Australia Policy largely prevented Asian individuals, particularly Chinese people, from migrating to Australia. Similarly, South African travel bans restricted Black citizens throughout the Apartheid era via segregation policies and Pass Laws, which required Black people to carry identification that detailed where they could live and work. Both the White Australia Policy and the Apartheid bans sparked international criticism: the U.S., United Nations (UN), and other countries imposed travel sanctions on South Africa and boycotts of Australian goods and services.

Regardless of nation, most travel bans have proven vastly unpopular with the general public. During the Cold War, exit bans imposed throughout the Eastern Bloc made it nearly impossible for citizens to leave a declining economy, oppression, and censorship. Polling data from this period does not exist due to the environment of state control and the suppression of dissent. However, memoirs, interviews with émigrés, and defector testimonies point to widespread dissatisfaction with travel bans. Beginning in the 1980s, the U.S., China, Soviet Union, South Korea, and other nations banned entry for people with HIV/AIDS. Many bans were not lifted until recently, such as 2010 in the U.S.. However, public health experts and advocacy groups like the World Health Organization have long criticized HIV/AID travel bans as ineffective and discriminatory. Additionally, 90% of Americans believe that individuals living with HIV can lead productive and happy lives. Public reactions to the exit bans of the Cold War and the travel bans placed on communities with HIV/AIDS exemplify the general public unpopularity of most mobility restrictions.

Interestingly, various countries have utilized sanctions-based travel bans as a means of political maneuvering. For example, the UN used travel bans to sanction the self-proclaimed state of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, from 1965-1979. This occurred in response to the Rhodesian government’s declaration of independence from British rule, which was not recognized by any foreign power except South Africa. In another power play, the European Union (EU) and U.S. imposed travel bans on Russian officials from 2014-2016 after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. National security concerns related to nuclear weapons have also led to various travel bans. Since 2006, the UN and most Western nations have imposed travel bans on North Korean officials due to the country’s nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, the U.S. and UN placed sanctions in the form of travel bans on Iran from 2006-2015 due to nuclear proliferation. Overall, nations continue to employ sanctions-related travel bans as a tool for political leverage and to address national security threats.

Finally, although the majority of countries imposed rules regarding travel during the Covid-19 pandemic, health-related travel bans are not new. From 2014-2016, the U.S., Australia, and several African nations restricted travel from Ebola-affected areas in West Africa during the height of an Ebola outbreak. Similarly, Canada and China imposed temporary travel bans in 2003 due to a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak. However, travel bans have become more common globally in recent years. Growing concern about nuclear warfare has caused recent bans from the U.S., UN and EU to North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Migration flows remain a hotly disputed issue in many countries such as the U.S., Germany, and France. Economic sanctions in the form of travel restrictions continue to be a prevalent strategy as well: in 2021, the U.S. and EU imposed sanctions via travel bans of military leaders in Myanmar in retaliation to a military coup that tried to overthrow democracy in the country. The many purposes of travel bans still exist; thus, they remain utilized.

‍

The 2017 U.S. Travel Ban

The United States has the most prolific history of travel bans in the world, with domestic and international restrictions dating back to its inception as a nation. Broadly, historically marginalized groups such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) have always faced limited mobility—often by policies not legally defined as travel bans. Centuries ago, Black people were restricted from leaving plantations and other places of enslavement. When slavery was abolished, discriminatory redlining practices allowed for financial services such as mortgages and home loans to be denied or restricted to certain neighborhoods due to the racial identities of prospective residents. Today, the effects of redlining persist and less tangible social factors such as hostile behavior from neighbors continue to prevent BIPOC individuals from moving into predominantly white spaces. For example, a white couple in South Carolina was investigated in 2023 for setting a cross on fire in their yard facing toward their Black neighbors’ home. Women in the U.S. faced barriers to signing housing leases until 1974, thereby restricting their travel. Furthermore, many states criminalized homosexual acts until 2003, limiting the mobility of LGBTQ+ individuals. Communities cannot venture into spaces where they do not feel safe. Though progress has been made, past restrictions on movement faced by historically marginalized groups contribute to an enduring struggle.

Domestic and international bans on immigrant mobility have an expansive legal history. One of the earliest examples is the Alien Enemies Act (1798), which was passed to grant the U.S. government additional powers during wartime to regulate non-citizens. During both World Wars, provisions of the act prohibited the entry of people from opposing nations. During World War II, the act put thousands of noncitizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent in internment camps — for which the federal government formally apologized decades later. Recently, the act has effectively been resurrected on the grounds of deporting suspected gang members to El Salvador. These deportations, facilitated by the Trump Administration, have been challenged in the courts: a temporary restraining order was issued on March 15, 2025. Next, the Chinese Exclusion Act severely limited Chinese immigration to allow a quota of only highly skilled workers from 1882-1943. The U.S. Immigration Act of 1917 furthered the Chinese Exclusion Act by establishing the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” banning immigrants from most countries in Asia. Then, the Immigration Act of 1924 introduced strict quotas to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, effectively banning all Asian people from entering the U.S..

Notably, Muslim communities have long been heavily targeted by mobility restrictions. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. permanently tightened visa requirements, particularly for travelers from Muslim-majority countries. The Patriot Act, also passed in 2001, allows the government to ban individuals suspected of terrorism from entering the U.S.. In theory, this law applies equally to all citizens. However, it was written with Muslim people in mind and has impacted Muslim communities disproportionately, feeding discrimination against legal Muslim citizens and immigrants already in the U.S.. In 2015, the Patriot Act was expanded upon by the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which designated seven Muslim-majority countries as areas of security concern and disqualified citizens of those nations from travel visa waivers. Today, the Patriot Act continues to deny Muslim individuals their civil liberties by empowering law enforcement to raid homes, offices, and mosques in the name of the war on terrorism.

The previously mentioned laws targeting Muslim populations proved to be precursors to the Trump Administration’s various travel bans. In January, 2017, in the first month of his first term as president, Trump implemented a travel ban through executive order which prohibited entry of all refugees for 120 days, halted admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and barred entry for three months to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. This law differentiated from past U.S. travel laws by making no exception for students. Days later, multiple federal judges barred the ban from taking effect, and a nationwide injunction was affirmed on February 9, 2017. However, a narrower version was issued within a month later, targeting nationals of Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. As is common, this ban exempted those who already had a Green Card or valid visa. However, it barred travelers from the listed nations who lacked a close relative in the U.S. or approved refugee status. Courts in Hawaii and Maryland immediately issued nationwide injunctions preventing the implementation of this order. In September, 2017, the Trump Administration revised its ban for the third time to include certain nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Additionally, Iranian citizens were said to be “subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.” The judicial system pushed back yet again, issuing another nationwide injunction.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the president had broad authority over immigration, emphasizing national security over religious discrimination concerns. After this “green light” from the Supreme Court, the Trump Administration expanded its ban to include Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania in 2020. Across the world, many countries issue travel bans in response to reports of human rights abuses. For example, the UK, Canada, and EU imposed restrictions on Venezuelan officials in 2019 due to authoritarianism by President Nicolás Maduro. However, the sheer breadth of Trump’s ban is unmatched by any global power. The Supreme Court’s ruling remains widely criticized for deferring to executive power despite potential constitutional issues. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits religious discrimination and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit religious and national discrimination. There are also legal issues regarding the emotional and financial harm caused by separation of families due to the bans. These elements formulate a complicated landscape regarding immigration and legal restrictions of mobility.

Anticipated 2025 U.S. Travel Ban

Trump claims that the travel bans of his first administration were issued to prevent terrorism. However, an internal report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that people from the nations listed pose no increased terror risk. Politicians have long weaponized false rhetoric to justify policies that disproportionately impact vulnerable people. Immediately after the first order was signed, airports across the country erupted in chaos and uncertainty as international passengers arrived with no warning of the changed law. Parents were separated from children and U.S. citizens were subjected to interrogation and detention. The Trump Administration responded by defending the ban, downplaying the confusion and detentions at airports, and blaming airlines. The restrictions received backlash from U.S. citizens and the international community: 55% of Americans disapproved of the temporary ban on immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries and 58% disapproved of indefinitely suspending the Syrian refugee program. These actions set a dangerous precedent for the future of travel bans in the U.S. and the safety and wellbeing of all mobile citizens, particularly historically marginalized groups. Due to Trump’s 2025 return to office, this precedent was expected to be expanded; rumors have been circulating for months regarding the signing of a new travel ban.

The draft list for the anticipated travel ban contains 43 countries separated into three tiers by a color system. Those in the “Red Tier” are said to expect a total ban on any visa; this is hypothesized to include Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and possibly Iraq. The possible elimination of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program in Afghanistan is especially concerning due to the Taliban’s resurgence of control since May, 2021, and the subsequent unsafe environment facing women and children. Those in the “Orange Tier” are said to expect a ban with the exception of business visas and exceptional visas, which are given to individuals who prove highly skilled in a professional realm. Notably, business and exceptional visas cannot be utilized by people fleeing danger/seeking refuge. Finally, the “Yellow Tier” is said to represent a warning: those who have errors with their documentation must address the issue within 60 days or risk being moved up to the orange tier. These tiers can be understood as a warped traffic light system for immigration policy. Overall, the draft list is a marked escalation from the bans of Trump’s first administration. Though many expected a change in U.S. immigration law, the confirmation and severity of the anticipated ban remain alarming to many domestic and international citizens.

​Since Trump's first administration, global attitudes toward immigration and foreign travel have undergone notable shifts. In June 2024, 55% of U.S. adults favored decreasing immigration, marking the first majority for this view in nearly two decades. Additionally, in February 2024, immigration was identified as the most important national issue by 28% of Americans, the highest percentage since 2019. Polling data also indicates a notable shift in American attitudes toward racial diversity. In September 2024, 55% of Republican voters perceived the increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities in the U.S. as a threat to American culture—marking a significant rise from 21% in 2019. Furthermore, the current administration has expressed itself as more overtly nativist and isolationist than before. Only a few months into his term, Trump has already made enemies with several of the U.S.’ longest standing allies, including Canada, Mexico, Greenland and several European countries. These actions indicate a disinterest in cultivating positive relationships with other nations. Additionally, the actions and rhetoric of administration officials often portray American cultural identity to be solely white and English-speaking. This opposition to multiculturalism is reinforced by a protectionist and exclusionary approach to immigration. Overall, looking to past precedents throughout U.S. history and specifically the past Trump Administration may be helpful to gather background and an understanding of our starting point. However, it appears likely that Trump will continue to disregard prior norms in favor of personal discretion. On April 2, 2025, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce announced that the White House is working on a new deadline for the anticipated 2025 ban; the absence of an expected date does not mean that restrictions are no longer being worked on.

The impacts of travel bans extend beyond restricting individuals from a country. Bans often intend to alter the overall identity makeup of a region, whether by ethnicity, religion, or other status. The otherization of certain communities to be banned from a particular area is a dangerous step promoting an “us versus them” mentality. Additionally, limiting the mobility of a group solely on the basis of arbitrary classification is discriminatory, as it removes equal access to opportunities across the world. The absence of an identity group decreases the diversity of perspectives and lived experiences that benefit all humans, thereby furthering various harms such as misinformation and stereotypes.