Uncertainty grows as US denies reports of 43-nation travel ban

The U.S. State Department has denied media reports claiming that 43 countries will be banned from traveling to the United States.

During a press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce addressed the reports, stating, “What people are looking at over these last several days is not a list that exists here that is being acted on.”

She clarified that there is an ongoing review, as mandated by President Donald Trump’s executive order, to assess visa policies and measures aimed at enhancing national security.

Reports from The New York Times and Reuters suggested that certain countries could face a complete or partial travel ban.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.

The order directed officials, including the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to determine within 60 days which nations might be subject to travel restrictions. A final proposal is expected to be reviewed on March 21.

Fear and uncertainty for foreign students

For thousands of international students in the U.S., uncertainty surrounding the potential travel ban has put their plans on hold.

Ahmed Ilyas, a 20-year-old student at George Mason University, had planned to travel to Pakistan for spring break. However, the news of a possible travel ban forced him to cancel. “I was planning to spend Eid in Pakistan, but now it looks like I’ll only be making video calls while staying at a friend’s house in Virginia,” he said.

Alleged travel ban list

Reports indicate that the ban could be implemented through a color-coded system.

Countries in the red category include Afghanistan, Iran, Cuba, Bhutan, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

Russia and Pakistan could be placed in the orange category. The Pakistan Embassy in Washington, D.C. has not received any official notice.

Several African and Caribbean nations could be placed in the yellow category. They might be given a two-month window to take measures to avoid stricter restrictions.

Impact on Afghan refugees

Aleena (not her real name), a former vocational training institute head from Kabul, fled Afghanistan after the U.S. troop withdrawal. She is currently in Pakistan, awaiting resettlement in the U.S. under an approved refugee program.

“It’s a matter of life and death for me. If this process is halted, I will have no place to run,” Aleena said, noting that Pakistan has also become increasingly hostile toward Afghan refugees.

Over 200,000 Afghans have either been approved for U.S. resettlement or have pending Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications. However, Trump has ordered a 90-day freeze on refugee admissions and foreign aid that funds their travel.

In response, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has urged Afghan visa holders outside the U.S. to return immediately before any potential ban takes effect. CAIR condemned the move, warning that reinstating a Muslim travel ban would unfairly target individuals who have already passed rigorous security screenings.

A repeat of 2017 ‘Muslim Ban’?

This would not be the first time the Trump administration has imposed such a policy. In 2017, the administration enacted the so-called 'Muslim Ban', which restricted travel from several Muslim-majority nations.

Shams ul Hassan, a professor of International Relations in Pennsylvania, pointed out an interesting omission. “There is no mention of a travel ban on Mexico,” he said.

Trump has maintained a tough stance on illegal immigration from Mexico, yet the country does not appear on the reported list. “Things don’t add up at the moment, but we must remember that the president is known for being unpredictable,” Hassan added.

He also noted that the proposed categories could shift at the last minute, creating further uncertainty.

For individuals like Ahmed and Aleena, along with thousands of others, unpredictability is the last thing they need. Any sudden policy change could upend their futures in the U.S.