Trump 19 country immigration ban and what it means for Diversity Visa applicants

Introduction

The Trump administration has announced a new immigration ban that affects 19 countries. The official explanation is that this is needed to protect the United States from terrorism, crime and visa overstays. At the US Green Card Office we fully support strong and careful security checks on every person who wants to enter the United States. However, we are strongly against blanket bans that punish entire countries and whole populations because of the actions of a minority.

We believe in a safe America, but also in a fair America that welcomes diversity. In this article we explain why these 19 countries were put on the list, why we think this approach is wrong, what legal or political changes might be possible, and why people from these countries should still consider applying for the Diversity Visa Program through our professional service.

Table of Contents

Why these 19 countries were banned

The government text is long and technical. If we summarise it, the reasons for the 19-country ban fall into three main groups

1. Countries with war, chaos or no functioning central government, so the United States says it cannot trust passports or background checks


2. Countries with very high visa overstay rates, meaning many visitors or students did not leave when their visa expired


3. Countries that the United States sees as hostile or uncooperative on security issues, including not accepting deported citizens back

Here is a short summary country by country:

Afghanistan

The United States says Afghanistan no longer has a stable and reliable government, so it is very difficult to confirm who people really are, and many people who entered on visas did not leave on time. Because of this, they decided to stop almost all entries from Afghanistan.

Myanmar Burma

Myanmar is under military rule and is very unstable. The United States points to very high overstay rates by visitors and students from Myanmar and says that the authorities do not cooperate well on returns of people who are deported.

Chad

Chad has extremely high visa overstay numbers. A large part of visitors stayed beyond the legal time. The government calls this a serious lack of respect for United States immigration rules and uses that as the main reason for the ban.

Republic of the Congo

People from this country also have high overstay rates. The United States argues that when so many people stay illegally after a legal entry, it becomes a security and enforcement problem, so they suspended most travel.

Equatorial Guinea

Here the focus is again on overstays, especially by students and exchange visitors. The overstay percentages are very high, so the government decided to block most visas.

Eritrea

The United States says Eritrea does not share reliable information about its citizens and often refuses to accept deported nationals. On top of that, many visitors and students overstayed their visas. All this together is used as the reason for a full ban.

Haiti

Haiti is unstable and has serious security and economic problems. The United States points to many recent arrivals, including people who crossed borders irregularly, and to high overstay rates. The official claim is that the system in Haiti is too weak to support proper vetting.

Iran

Iran is described as a state sponsor of terrorism and as a government that does not cooperate with United States security officials. Because of these political and security concerns, the proclamation blocks almost all entries from Iran.

Libya

Libya has no strong central authority that controls the whole country. Parts of Libya are used by armed groups and terrorist organizations. The United States says it cannot rely on Libyan documents or background checks, so it stops most entries.

Somalia

Somalia has long been affected by conflict and by the presence of terrorist groups. The United States argues that Somalia does not have a proper system for passports and records and that large areas are outside government control, so vetting is very difficult.

Sudan

Sudan is also going through conflict and political transition. The United States lists poor information sharing, weak institutions and high visa overstay rates as reasons to suspend travel from Sudan.

Yemen

Yemen is in a civil war. The United States has even carried out military operations there against terrorist groups. The government says Yemen cannot provide safe and reliable identity checks, so Yemeni nationals are temporarily blocked.

Burundi

Burundi is restricted mainly because of significant visa overstays. Many people who entered on tourist or student visas did not leave when they should have. This is used as the reason for stopping immigrant visas and most common visitor visas.

Cuba

Cuba is officially listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. The authorities say Cuba does not share enough security information and often refuses to take back deported citizens. This leads to restrictions on immigrant and visitor visas.

Laos

Laos is on the list because a high share of visitors from Laos overstayed, and the government has a poor record of accepting deported nationals back. So, the United States has suspended many types of visas.

Sierra Leone

For Sierra Leone, the main reason is again visa overstays, especially among students and exchange visitors, combined with weak cooperation on returns.

Togo

Togo is flagged for high overstay rates and limited cooperation on deportations, which results in strong visa restrictions.

Turkmenistan

The proclamation says that visitors and students from Turkmenistan too often remain longer than they are legally allowed. This, together with limited cooperation, is given as the reason for suspending immigrant and major non-immigrant visas.

Venezuela

Venezuela is in a deep political and economic crisis. The United States claims that the authorities do not provide trustworthy documents and do not cooperate well on security or deportations, so most immigrant and visitor visas for Venezuelans are blocked.

In short, the official logic is that these countries are either unsafe and unstable, or they do not cooperate enough, or too many of their citizens broke visa rules in the past.

Why US Green Card Office opposes country wide bans

At US Green Card Office we completely support careful and strict security checks on every applicant. No country wants to invite terrorists or serious criminals. We agree that every person who wants to live, study or work in the United States must be vetted properly with strong background checks.

What we do not accept is punishing millions of innocent people because of where they were born. When an entire country is banned, good people are treated as if they are dangerous without any individual assessment. Families are separated, students lose life changing opportunities, businesses lose talent and communities lose diversity.

This is not how the American immigration system should work. The United States has always been strongest when it welcomes people from many cultures, while still protecting national security. A smart system checks each person carefully, not entire nations.

Many human rights organizations, faith leaders, business groups and pro-immigration politicians have already spoken against this 19-country ban. They argue that it fuels fear and discrimination, hurts the economy and betrays the values of fairness and equal treatment. We share that view.

From a humanitarian standpoint, this sweeping ban will tear families apart. Thousands of people from these countries have relatives in the U.S. or had plans to reunite with family members. Under the ban, even a U.S. citizen cannot bring over their spouse or child from, say, Iran or Sudan, until the ban is lifted. An analysis by the American Immigration Council found that people from the banned countries would essentially “not be able to see family members living abroad” as long as this is in effect. That is heartbreaking for countless families. It also harms refugees fleeing persecution, many of these nations (Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc.) produce refugees who genuinely need safe haven. Blanket bans ignore individual merit or need, barring even the victims of terrorism or war, which goes against America’s long tradition of offering refuge to the oppressed.

Beyond the human impact, this policy even hurts America’s interests. In the past year alone, over 126,000 visas were issued to people from the countries now fully banned according to padilla.senate.gov That’s thousands of students, skilled workers, tourists, and family members who would have contributed to our economy and society. Lawmakers opposing the ban have noted that these individuals “support our economy or otherwise enrich our country in innumerable ways” says Alex Padilla. Banning them means losing out on talent and labor in key industries facing worker shortages, from medicine to agriculture. It also hits the tourism and travel sector as the U.S. Travel Association estimated a sharp decline in tourism revenue (a projected $12.5 billion loss in 2025 alone) due to such harsh immigration restrictions. In sum, the ban not only contradicts American founding principles of openness and religious freedom, but it could also undermine our economy and global standing. We believe there are smarter ways to vet travellers (using improved screening and information-sharing) without slamming the door on entire nations. America’s strength comes from its diversity and its ideals, a blanket ban like this, fuelled by fear and politics, is not the American way we know and cherish according to US Senator for California, Alex Padilla

Can Congress or the courts change this ban

The President currently uses a part of the immigration law that allows the suspension of entry of foreign nationals if their entry is seen as harmful to United States interests. That is the legal basis for this 19-country ban.

However, this does not mean the ban will last forever. There are several possible paths for change

Immigration rules in the United States are shaped by all three branches of government, the President, Congress and the courts.

• Congress can pass a new law that limits how far a President can go with such bans or that cancels this specific policy. For this to succeed, a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate must agree, and normally the President must sign the law. If the President refuses to sign the law, Congress will need a two thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to override the veto.
• The courts can review whether a ban is applied in a way that violates the Constitution or conflicts with other immigration laws. Previous travel bans have been challenged in court many times. Some early versions were blocked, later versions were narrowed, and one version was upheld. It is still likely that this new 19 country ban will also face legal challenges, although recent judicial developments may narrow the scope of injunctions and how broadly courts can block such actions.
• The ban could be cancelled by the sitting President or by a new President. A future administration that has a more welcoming approach to immigration can issue a new order that removes or reduces the restrictions.

Is this 19-country ban here to stay? Not necessarily. Just as previous travel bans have been contested, this one is already facing significant pushback from legislators and likely the courts. In Congress, many lawmakers (primarily Democrats) have denounced the ban as “sweeping” and “discriminatory.” For example, a group of 70 lawmakers led by Senator Alex Padilla and Rep. Judy Chu wrote a letter urging President Trump to rescind the ban immediately.


They argued that it “disgraces the founding principles of our nation” and called for transparency about the supposed security justifications. Members of Congress are also exploring legislative fixes: bills like the NO BAN Act have been proposed to prevent any president from implementing such broad, discriminatory bans in the future.


That act would amend immigration law to require that restrictions on entry be narrowly tailored and based on credible evidence, not blanket characteristics like religion or nationality. If the political winds shift, for instance, if the President’s party loses control of Congress in the next elections, we could see increased pressure to roll back the ban.


A new Congress could pass a law overturning or limiting the ban, though overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority. Nonetheless, the strong opposition we’re seeing means this policy is far from universally accepted, and future elections or congressional action could indeed put it on the chopping block.


On the legal front, expect courtroom battles. Immigration and civil rights groups are likely to challenge this ban as unconstitutional or in violation of immigration laws. In fact, earlier travel bans were met with numerous lawsuits, and some initial success. Back in 2017, courts struck down the first versions of Trump’s “Muslim ban” before a revised version was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018

The current 19-country ban could also end up before the Supreme Court. The President does have broad authority under law (Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) to suspend entry of classes of aliens he deems detrimental to U.S. interests.


However, if challengers can show that this policy is motivated by prejudice or lacks a valid basis, a court might block it. Legal experts note that an indefinite or “permanent” ban can be contested, if it’s overly vague or contradicts Congressional immigration policies, judges can intervene.


Already, we’ve heard the United Nations voice concern: UN officials reminded the U.S. of its obligations to protect refugees and provide due process to asylum seekers. While UN statements don’t carry legal weight in U.S. courts, they add moral pressure. It’s hard to predict the outcome, especially given the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority.


But one thing is sure, the ban will not go unchallenged. Lawsuits could at least carve out exceptions (for instance, for relatives of U.S. citizens) or force a review of the policy. And if a new administration comes into power in the future, they could swiftly revoke the ban via executive action, just as President Biden revoked the previous Trump travel bans on his first day in office. In short, this ban is politically and legally controversial, and there are multiple avenues by which it might be overturned or mitigated in the coming months and years.


What this means for the Diversity Visa Program

The most important point for our readers

The 19-country ban does not change the basic rules of the Diversity Visa Program.

The Diversity Visa Program is created by Congress and has its own list of eligible countries. A country can be eligible if it has sent relatively few immigrants to the United States in recent years. Most of the 19 banned countries are still on the Diversity Visa eligibility list because they are underrepresented in the immigrant statistics.

So, if you were born in a Diversity Visa eligible country that appears on the new ban list, you can still submit an entry to the Diversity Visa Program. The ban does not stop you from entering the annual selection and it does not remove your chance to be selected.

What can be affected is the final visa issuance if the ban is still in place at the time of your interview. However, it is very important to remember the timeline

In practice, it often takes around 12 to 16 months or more from the time you submit your entry until the time you may be called for a visa interview. That is a long period in politics and in law. During that time, the ban could be softened, limited by courts, changed by Congress or cancelled by the sitting President or a new President.

We have already seen in the past that countries were removed from earlier travel ban lists when their governments improved cooperation or when policies changed. There is every reason to believe that the current list will also be reviewed in the future.

Because of this, our clear advice is

If your country of birth is eligible for the Diversity Visa Program, you should still apply, even if your country is currently on the 19-country ban list.

Why you should still apply now and why using US Green Card Office makes sense

The Diversity Visa Program remains one of the most fair and accessible paths to a United States Green Card. It does not depend on family sponsorship or a job offer. It does not require you to be rich. It was designed to increase diversity by giving people from many different countries a real chance to become permanent residents.

However, the rules are strict. The online form must be completed correctly, the photo must follow detailed technical requirements, and even small mistakes can cause disqualification without any appeal. Many people are rejected every year simply because of errors with photos, names, dates, passport details or misunderstanding of the instructions.

This is where our paid professional service at US Green Card Office makes a very big difference

For both new applicants and those who have already applied through our service, there is no reason to worry if your country of birth is on the 19-country ban list. When you apply through US Green Card Office, your Diversity Visa Application remains valid for life as long as your country is subject to a ban. We will automatically resubmit your application every year at no extra cost, even during the period when visa interviews cannot be scheduled. If a ban prevents an interview in a particular year, your application will simply be submitted again the following year free of charge. This ensures that your opportunity to receive a United States Green Card continues without interruption, and you will be fully prepared the moment your country of birth is removed from the banned list.

By applying through US Green Card Office, you are not only submitting a form, you are investing in a long term, structured strategy for your immigration future.

Conclusion

The new 19 country immigration ban is worrying and, in our view, unfair. It targets entire populations instead of carefully judging individuals, it separates families, hurts students and workers, and sends the wrong message about what America stands for. At the same time, it is a policy that can change through political decisions and legal challenges.

The Diversity Visa Program continues to be open to most of the people from these countries who are on the eligibility list. The fact that you come from a banned country today does not mean you will be blocked for ever. Over the 12 to 16 months and beyond that it can take from entry to visa interview, the political situation can change in your favour.

Our strong recommendation is therefore simple

America still needs the energy, skills and dreams of immigrants from every part of the world. We stand for a safe United States, but also for an open and diverse United States. As long as the Diversity Visa Program exists, your dream is alive, and we are here to help you every step of the way.

Frequently Asked Questions