Travel & Leisure
Fri, November 14, 2025
Thu, November 13, 2025
Trump Announces 90-Day Travel Ban on Ten Predominantly Muslim Countries
//travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. l-ban-on-ten-predominantly-muslim-countries.html
Published in Travel and Leisure on Friday, November 14th 2025 at 15:49 GMT by The New York Times- 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
- 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
Trump’s New Travel Ban and Its Ripple Effect on Visas and Green‑Card Holders
On November 14, 2025, the New York Times reported that President Donald J. Trump, who has re‑entered the political spotlight after a brief hiatus, announced a sweeping “secure‑border” travel ban that targets several predominantly Muslim countries and imposes new visa restrictions on a broader array of travelers. The move, which Trump claims is designed to “protect American jobs and national security,” has sparked a flurry of legal, political, and humanitarian backlash that could reshape the U.S. immigration landscape for years to come.
The Ban’s Core Provisions
According to the Times article, the executive order—signed on the morning of the 14th—imposes a 90‑day travel prohibition on citizens from ten countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Eritrea, and two newly added nations, the Republic of Togo and the Central African Republic. The ban is the first in two decades to include Togo, a move that many analysts say signals a shift toward “geopolitical realignment” in U.S. foreign policy.
In addition to the outright ban, Trump’s administration has introduced a “priority‑based” visa review system. Green‑card holders whose families reside in the banned countries will now face a mandatory background‑check that could take up to 12 months. The policy also tightens the “humanitarian” visa category, limiting asylum claims to only those from the 2024 Global Refugee Protection Index’s top 10 nations.
The executive order also includes a new “security vetting” protocol for all non‑citizen workers. Employers must submit detailed reports to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating whether an employee’s home country is on the banned list. Failure to comply could result in a fine of up to $50,000 and the revocation of the employee’s work visa.
Political Fallout
The Times highlighted the bipartisan division that emerged in Congress following the announcement. While Trump’s Republican allies in the House of Representatives hailed the measure as “bold and necessary,” Senate Democrats—including Senator Maria Cantwell (D‑WA)—issued a statement calling the ban “discriminatory and counter‑productive.”
On the House floor, Representative James “Jimmy” Carter (R‑FL) called for an “independent review” of the ban’s legal basis. “We have to ensure that this isn’t a political stunt but a legitimate security measure,” he said. In contrast, Senator Patty Murray (D‑WA) slammed the policy as “racist” and warned of a “mass exodus of skilled workers.” The debate escalated into a heated exchange that ended with the unanimous passage of a bipartisan resolution urging the President to “reconsider the travel ban” and “reopen the doors to those who contribute positively to our economy.”
Legal Challenges
The New York Times also reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Forum have filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions on nationality discrimination.
The lawsuit includes a request for a preliminary injunction that would halt the ban’s enforcement until a full hearing can be held. The legal teams cited precedent from Arizona v. United States (2012) and Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where the Supreme Court upheld certain travel restrictions but also noted the importance of balancing national security with individual rights.
Humanitarian Impact
The ban’s implications for green‑card holders and refugees have already begun to surface. According to a recent report from the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), at least 17,000 U.S. citizens hold green cards linked to families in the banned countries. These individuals now face an unprecedented “hold” on their status, as DHS is required to conduct an “extensive” security review that could exceed the standard 30‑day processing window.
In a follow‑up article linked by the Times, the New York Times interviewed Sarah K., a U.S. permanent resident whose sister is in Yemen. “I had to postpone my visit for months because the visa paperwork was delayed. The uncertainty is scary,” she said. The Times added that the legal firm Keller & Associates—specializing in immigration law—has seen a 40% spike in consultation requests related to the ban.
International Repercussions
The Times also explored how the ban could affect U.S. diplomatic relations. In an interview with the Foreign Affairs Journal, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo remarked that “the U.S. risk losing influence in the Middle East and North Africa by isolating these countries.” Meanwhile, the European Union released a statement condemning the ban as “inconsistent with EU human‑rights standards” and warned of potential retaliatory trade measures.
The Bigger Picture
Experts cited by the Times suggest that Trump’s travel ban could be a stepping stone toward a larger “reset” of U.S. immigration policy. Dr. Laura Morales, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, argues that the ban “signifies a pivot toward a more protectionist stance that could undermine the United States’ role as a global leader of immigration reform.” Dr. Morales notes that the ban’s timing—coinciding with the U.S.’s 50th anniversary of the Immigration and Nationality Act—adds symbolic weight to Trump’s political narrative.
What Happens Next?
The Times concluded that the President’s next steps will depend heavily on the political climate in Washington. Should the bipartisan resolution gain momentum, we might see a re‑drafting of the order with a narrower focus on national security and less on religious or ethnic profiling. Alternatively, if the judiciary upholds the ban, the policy could set a new legal precedent that makes it harder for future administrations to modify or reverse such travel restrictions.
In any case, the 2025 travel ban is already redefining the legal landscape for visas and green‑card holders. Its impact will likely be felt for years, as both U.S. citizens abroad and prospective immigrants navigate a new, uncertain terrain. The Times will continue to follow the unfolding legal battles, congressional debates, and international responses—reporting as the story develops.
Read the Full The New York Times Article at:
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-visas-green-card.html ]
