Entry Order: Understanding the New U.S. Immigration Policies

Understanding the New U.S. Entry Order: A Critical Overview

In the evolving landscape of global mobility and national security, few developments carry as much weight as changes to a nation’s entry policies. We are here to help you navigate these complex waters. On June 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10949, marking a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. This comprehensive “entry order” is designed to restrict the entry of specific foreign nationals into the United States, citing paramount concerns over national security and public safety. What exactly does this mean for individuals, businesses, and the broader international community?

At its core, this proclamation is not merely an isolated executive action but a carefully constructed policy rooted in prior mandates and reinforced by established legal precedent. It represents a targeted effort by the U.S. government to enhance its border security protocols and compel greater international cooperation on information sharing and identity management. For many, the implications are immediate and profound, creating new barriers to entry and re-entry, while for U.S. employers, it introduces complex challenges in talent acquisition and retention. As we delve into the intricacies of this “entry order,” we aim to provide you with a clear, professional, and accessible understanding of its foundations, justifications, scope, and far-reaching consequences.

When analyzing the effects of this proclamation, it’s important to consider several factors:

• The foundational legal principles upon which the proclamation is based.
• The specific countries affected and the rationale for their designation.
• The short-term and long-term implications for affected individuals and U.S. businesses.

Countries Subject to Full Ban

Country	Reason for Full Ban
Afghanistan	Significant national security risks.
Burma	Deficiencies in vetting procedures.
Chad	High overstay rates and security issues.
Republic of the Congo	Insufficient cooperation on information sharing.
Equatorial Guinea	Concerns over potential terrorist activities.
Eritrea	Deficient immigration controls.
Haiti	High visa overstay rates.
Iran	State sponsor of terrorism.
Libya	Security risks associated with governance.
Somalia	Presence of terrorist groups.
Sudan	Political instability and terrorism.
Yemen	Ongoing conflict and terrorist activity.

The Bedrock of Authority: Presidential Power and the INA

When considering any sweeping executive action, particularly one impacting immigration and national sovereignty, the first question often arises: what is its legal basis? In the case of Presidential Proclamation 10949, its legal authority is firmly established within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specifically, the proclamation invokes sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, statutory provisions that grant the President broad discretionary power to regulate entry into the United States. Do you understand the sheer scope of this authority?

Section 212(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) states that whenever the President finds that the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the President may, by proclamation, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. This is an extraordinarily powerful tool, granting the executive branch significant control over who may enter the country. Similarly, Section 215(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1185(a)) empowers the President to impose restrictions on the departure and entry of aliens in times of war or national emergency, or if the President determines it to be in the national interest. These sections collectively form a robust legal foundation for the President to act decisively in matters of national security.

Furthermore, the legal landscape supporting such executive actions has been solidified by significant Supreme Court precedent. Perhaps most notably, the 2018 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii affirmed the President’s expansive authority under INA 212(f) to impose entry restrictions based on national security concerns. The Court determined that the executive branch has inherent authority to protect national security, and that the President’s findings in such matters are largely beyond judicial scrutiny as long as there is a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.” This ruling set a clear precedent, indicating a robust legal framework for future immigration executive actions and signaling a strong judicial deference to presidential determinations in this sensitive domain. We see, therefore, that this latest “entry order” operates within a well-defined and previously affirmed legal structure, lending it considerable weight and durability.

Executive Mandate: How EO 14161 Shaped the Proclamation

To fully grasp the origins of Presidential Proclamation 10949, we must look to its immediate precursor: Executive Order 14161, signed on January 20, 2025. This executive order served as the foundational mandate, directing key national security agencies to undertake a comprehensive assessment of risks posed by foreign countries. It was a crucial first step in a broader strategy to fortify U.S. national security through enhanced immigration vetting. But what precisely did this initial order demand, and how did it directly lead to the widespread entry restrictions we now see?

Executive Order 14161 tasked the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the Secretary of State (DOS), the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), with reviewing and updating information-sharing requirements for foreign governments. It mandated these agencies to assess the adequacy of information provided by foreign countries to the U.S. government for visa and immigration adjudications. This included evaluating how well countries share identity management information, criminal records, and terrorist threat data. The order underscored the administration’s commitment to protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats by closing perceived vulnerabilities in the vetting process.

The Proclamation, therefore, directly stems from the findings of the review initiated by Executive Order 14161. Based on the reports submitted by the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, which detailed various deficiencies and risks associated with specific countries, the President moved forward with the targeted restrictions. This process highlights a deliberate, multi-agency approach to policy formulation, where intelligence and security assessments directly inform executive action. The administration’s objective was clear: to implement policies that compel foreign governments to enhance their information-sharing and identity-management protocols, transforming immigration policy into a strategic tool for international cooperation and security objectives. This continuity from the Executive Order to the Proclamation demonstrates a structured and methodical approach to an intricate national security challenge.

Why Restrictions Are Deemed Necessary: Vetting, Overstays, and Non-Cooperation

The justifications underpinning Presidential Proclamation 10949 are multifaceted and deeply rooted in national security assessments. The U.S. government has articulated clear, specific criteria for designating countries for entry restrictions, emphasizing that these measures are not arbitrary but rather a response to identified vulnerabilities. Do you ever wonder about the specific data points that drive such impactful decisions?

One primary concern cited is deficient vetting and screening information from foreign governments. For the United States to effectively vet visa applicants and individuals seeking entry, it relies on foreign partners to provide accurate, comprehensive data, including biographic, biometric, and criminal information. When countries lack the technical capacity, political will, or existing infrastructure to share such critical intelligence—or worse, when they actively obstruct such sharing—it creates what the U.S. government deems an unacceptable security risk. For instance, some countries may lack competent central authorities for issuing reliable travel documents, or they may not have robust systems for tracking and reporting criminal records, hindering the ability of U.S. consular officers to make informed decisions.

Another significant justification is high visa overstay rates, particularly for B-1/B-2 (business/tourist), F (student), M (vocational student), and J (exchange visitor) visas. The Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (the “Overstay Report”) played a critical role in identifying countries with problematic overstay rates, which indicate a lack of compliance with U.S. immigration laws and pose potential public safety risks. For example, the report revealed alarming overstay rates for B-1/B-2 visas from certain designated countries, such as Haiti at 31.38 percent and Afghanistan at 28.53 percent. Such statistics suggest a systemic issue where foreign nationals, once admitted, frequently remain beyond their authorized period, straining enforcement resources and raising concerns about accountability.

Finally, a critical element is the lack of cooperation in accepting back removable nationals. When foreign nationals are ordered to be removed from the United States, their home countries are obligated under international law and bilateral agreements to accept their citizens back. However, some governments routinely delay, obstruct, or simply refuse to issue necessary travel documents for their citizens, making it exceedingly difficult for U.S. immigration authorities to repatriate individuals who have violated immigration laws, including those with criminal records. This non-cooperation undermines the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and is explicitly cited as a reason for imposing entry restrictions. The presence of significant terrorist groups or state-sponsored terrorism within certain territories, such as Somalia being a “Terrorist Safe Haven” or Iran and Cuba being “State Sponsors of Terrorism,” further compounds these security concerns, providing a direct rationale for comprehensive protective measures.

A Differentiated Approach: Full and Partial Bans Across 19 Nations

The “entry order” employs a granular assessment of risk, leading to a differentiated application of entry restrictions across 19 designated countries. This is not a one-size-fits-all ban; rather, it categorizes nations into those facing a “full ban” and those subject to a “partial ban,” reflecting varying levels of security vulnerabilities and cooperation with U.S. immigration and counterterrorism efforts. What does this nuanced approach signify for global travelers and businesses?

Under the proclamation, a full ban is imposed on foreign nationals from 12 countries. These nations are deemed to have pervasive and critical deficiencies that warrant the most stringent entry restrictions. For individuals from these countries, both immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States is suspended. The countries subject to a full ban include:

• Afghanistan
• Burma
• Chad
• Republic of the Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eritrea
• Haiti
• Iran
• Libya
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Yemen

This means that, with very limited exceptions, individuals from these nations will be unable to obtain any type of U.S. visa or be admitted at a port of entry if they are outside the U.S. as of the effective date of the proclamation. The severity of this measure reflects the U.S. government’s assessment of acute national security risks, pervasive information-sharing deficiencies, and/or significant visa overstay rates.

Conversely, a partial ban is applied to 7 countries, signifying that while concerns exist, they may be less comprehensive or affect specific visa categories more acutely. For these nations, the suspension specifically targets immigrant entry and certain nonimmigrant visas, including B-1 (Business Visitor), B-2 (Tourist Visitor), B-1/B-2 (Combined Visitor), F (Student), M (Vocational Student), and J (Exchange Visitor) visas. Additionally, consular officers from these countries may exercise discretion to reduce the validity for other nonimmigrant visas. The countries under a partial ban are:

• Burundi
• Cuba
• Laos
• Sierra Leone
• Togo
• Turkmenistan
• Venezuela

This differentiated approach highlights the administration’s detailed analysis, distinguishing between nations with fundamental security gaps versus those with specific, albeit significant, issues such as high overstay rates or lack of cooperation on particular immigration matters. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for anyone attempting to navigate the complexities of U.S. immigration under this new policy regime, emphasizing the need for meticulous compliance and awareness of individual country designations.

Countries Subject to Partial Ban

Country	Reason for Partial Ban
Burundi	Specific visa category concerns.
Cuba	Political considerations and security risks.
Laos	High visa overstay rates.
Sierra Leone	Pervasive vetting issues.
Togo	Lack of cooperation on immigration matters.
Turkmenistan	Concerns over transparency.
Venezuela	Political instability.

Navigating the Impact: Challenges for Foreign Nationals and Key Exemptions

For foreign nationals, the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 10949 translates into tangible and often immediate challenges. The core of these restrictions applies primarily to nationals from designated countries who are outside the U.S. and do not possess a valid visa as of the effective date, June 9, 2025, at 12:01 am ET. What does this mean for the lives and aspirations of those affected?

The most direct consequence is the potential impossibility of entry or re-entry into the United States. Many individuals who might have planned to travel to the U.S. for tourism, business, education, or to join family members may now find their pathways closed. This can lead to significant disruptions, including:

• Job Losses and Career Disruption: Foreign nationals working or studying abroad who planned to return to the U.S. or accept new positions may find themselves unable to, leading to job loss or missed opportunities.
• Educational Setbacks: Students from designated countries may be prevented from pursuing or continuing their studies in the U.S., impacting their academic trajectories.
• Family Separation: For family members seeking to reunite or visit relatives in the U.S., the ban could lead to prolonged separation and emotional distress.
• Economic Hardship: Many individuals rely on travel for business or personal reasons, and these restrictions can severely impede their economic well-being and future prospects.

However, it is crucial to understand that the proclamation includes several key exceptions designed to mitigate immediate, broad-scale disruptions for individuals already integrated or holding valid travel authorizations. These exceptions are vital lifelines for many, ensuring that not all foreign nationals from designated countries are universally barred. Who, then, is exempt from these sweeping measures?

• Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders): Individuals who hold a green card are exempt and retain their right to enter the U.S.
• Individuals Physically in the U.S. before the Effective Date: Those already present in the U.S. when the proclamation takes effect are generally not impacted by its entry restrictions for their current stay.
• Existing Valid Visa Holders (Not Revoked by Proclamation): Crucially, the “entry order” generally does not revoke visas issued before its effective date, provided the visa was not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud and is not subject to revocation under other provisions of law. This limits immediate disruption for many.
• Dual Nationals Traveling on a Passport from a Non-Designated Country: If an individual holds citizenship in both a designated and a non-designated country, and travels on the passport of the non-designated country, they are typically exempt.
• Specific Diplomatic and International Organization Visa Categories: Certain visa types are exempt due to their diplomatic or official nature, including A-1, A-2 (diplomatic), G-1 to G-4 (international organization representatives), and NATO visa categories.
• Athletes for Major Sporting Events: Special provisions are made for athletes participating in major international sporting events, such as the 2026 World Cup or the 2028 Olympics, recognizing their unique contributions.
• Certain Immediate Family Immigrant Visas and Adoptions: The proclamation makes exceptions for certain immediate relative immigrant visas (e.g., spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens) and for adoptions, acknowledging humanitarian considerations.
• Afghan/U.S. Government Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs): Individuals who have served the U.S. government in Afghanistan and qualify for Special Immigrant Visas are also exempt.
• Case-by-Case National Interest Waivers: Perhaps the most flexible exception, a national interest waiver allows a consular officer or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official to determine that the entry of an individual, despite being from a designated country, is in the national interest of the United States. This provides a discretionary pathway for individuals whose entry would serve significant U.S. objectives, such as critical humanitarian cases, essential business travel, or individuals possessing unique skills beneficial to the U.S. economy or security.

These exemptions provide crucial avenues for many to navigate the restrictions, but they do not diminish the broad impact felt by those who fall squarely under the ban. The proclamation mandates a dynamic and complex immigration landscape that requires careful understanding and adherence to its provisions.

Economic Headwinds: The Entry Order’s Ripples Through U.S. Industries

The implications of Presidential Proclamation 10949 extend far beyond individual travelers, casting a significant shadow over the U.S. economy, particularly for businesses that rely on a diverse global talent pool. The sweeping nature of these entry restrictions is projected to exacerbate existing talent shortages across various U.S. industries, creating unforeseen challenges and potentially slowing economic growth. How will this “entry order” manifest in the American labor market?

In today’s interconnected global economy, businesses thrive on the ability to attract and retain the best talent, regardless of national origin. The restrictions, by limiting the influx of foreign nationals, directly impact sectors that have historically depended on skilled immigrants and temporary workers, such as technology, healthcare, education, and hospitality. Consider a tech startup seeking specialized engineers from a designated country, or a university attempting to recruit top researchers. The “entry order” can suddenly close these talent pipelines, forcing companies to reconsider their hiring strategies and potentially delaying innovation or expansion. This leads to a tightening of the labor market in key areas, driving up costs for employers and potentially leading to unfilled positions that hinder business operations.

Moreover, the proclamation’s impact on business is not confined to new hires. U.S. employers face challenges in retaining existing foreign national employees who might be traveling abroad for business or family reasons. An employee from a designated country, if they travel outside the U.S. without a valid visa as of the effective date, could find themselves unable to return, leading to sudden, unplanned losses of critical staff. This creates immense operational disruptions, necessitating emergency restructuring or the arduous process of replacing highly specialized personnel. What impact do you think this has on corporate planning and stability?

Beyond talent acquisition, the “entry order” significantly increases the administrative burden for U.S. businesses. Companies must now meticulously track the nationalities of their current and prospective employees, understand the nuanced differences between full and partial bans, and keep abreast of any new guidance or interpretations from government agencies like the Department of State or Department of Homeland Security. This often requires increased investment in legal counsel, human resources expertise, and compliance systems, diverting resources that could otherwise be allocated to growth or innovation. Furthermore, the risk of heightened immigration audits and enforcement actions adds another layer of complexity and potential financial penalties for non-compliance, forcing companies to adopt more stringent internal policies and procedures for their foreign national workforce. This cumulative effect paints a picture of substantial economic headwinds for many U.S. industries, necessitating significant adaptation and strategic foresight.

Employer Obligations: Increased Compliance and Talent Strategy Shifts

For U.S. employers, the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 10949 is not merely a matter of understanding policy; it mandates tangible shifts in their operational and talent acquisition strategies. Navigating this new landscape demands a heightened focus on immigration compliance and proactive workforce planning. Have you considered how such a broad proclamation would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of human capital strategies?

Firstly, the requirement for businesses to meticulously track the nationalities and visa statuses of their foreign national employees has become paramount. This involves not only understanding who is currently employed but also anticipating potential issues for those who may travel internationally. For example, if an employee from a country under a partial ban holds a B-1 visa that is valid but will expire before their next planned international trip, securing a new visa could be impossible, effectively stranding them outside the U.S. This necessitates a proactive approach to employee travel, with companies needing to advise affected staff members on the risks of international travel and potentially restrict it. The implications for critical business travel, international conferences, or even personal emergencies are substantial, demanding that employers adopt stricter internal guidelines and communication protocols.

Secondly, the “entry order” forces companies to confront and address talent shortages with renewed urgency. Industries reliant on specific skill sets that are often met by foreign talent, such as STEM fields, may find their pipelines severely constrained. This pushes employers to explore alternative solutions, including:

• Increased Investment in Domestic Workforce Development: Companies may need to ramp up training programs, apprenticeships, and university partnerships to cultivate local talent to fill skill gaps.
• Relocation of Operations: In extreme cases, businesses might consider relocating certain operations or job functions to countries where talent acquisition is less encumbered by U.S. immigration restrictions.
• Automation and AI: Some companies may accelerate the adoption of automation and artificial intelligence to mitigate the impact of reduced human capital availability.
• Leveraging Exceptions and Waivers: Employers will need to work closely with immigration counsel to identify if any of their critical foreign national employees might qualify for a national interest waiver or other specific exemptions, though these are often discretionary and highly competitive.

Finally, the administrative and legal workload for U.S. employers is set to increase significantly. Stricter immigration audits and a more complex regulatory environment mean that HR and legal departments must dedicate more resources to ensuring compliance. This includes:

• Enhanced Due Diligence: Thorough vetting of all potential foreign national hires to ensure compliance with the proclamation’s rules.
• Record-Keeping: Maintaining meticulous records of foreign national employees’ immigration statuses, travel histories, and eligibility under the proclamation’s exceptions.
• Legal Counsel: Increased reliance on immigration attorneys to navigate the nuances of the proclamation and advise on complex cases.
• Policy Adaptation: Updating internal company policies to reflect the new restrictions, particularly concerning international travel and remote work arrangements for foreign national employees.

The “entry order” thus transforms immigration compliance from a routine administrative function into a critical strategic imperative for U.S. employers, demanding adaptability and a comprehensive understanding of its widespread implications.

Beyond Borders: Geopolitical Leverage and International Information Sharing

While the immediate focus of Presidential Proclamation 10949 is on U.S. national security, its strategic intent extends far beyond border control. This “entry order” is fundamentally a tool of geopolitical leverage, designed to compel foreign governments to enhance their security protocols and improve information-sharing practices with the United States. How does immigration policy become a instrument of international relations?

The U.S. government openly states that a core purpose of these restrictions is to encourage foreign governments to meet minimum standards for information sharing and identity management. By imposing consequences on countries that fail to comply, the proclamation creates a strong incentive for cooperation. For instance, countries that are deficient in providing accurate biographic and biometric data, or that refuse to accept the return of their removable nationals, now face tangible repercussions in the form of travel restrictions for their citizens. This creates pressure for those governments to address their internal shortcomings in areas like criminal record keeping, passport issuance, and counterterrorism intelligence sharing. The message is clear: improved cooperation on security matters can lead to a review and potential easing of entry restrictions.

This approach underscores how immigration policy is intertwined with broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. It’s not just about keeping perceived threats out; it’s also about fostering a more secure global environment through bilateral cooperation. The proclamation effectively transforms the privilege of U.S. entry into a bargaining chip, encouraging foreign governments to invest in stronger internal security measures and engage more actively in international intelligence exchange. This can lead to a more robust global network for tracking criminals and terrorists, ultimately serving the U.S. counterterrorism mission and enhancing global public safety. It’s a classic example of using a domestic policy lever to achieve international strategic goals, aiming for a ripple effect of improved security standards worldwide.

However, this strategy is not without its diplomatic complexities. While the U.S. aims to exert pressure, such sweeping restrictions can also strain international relations, provoke retaliatory measures, or be perceived as punitive by affected nations and their allies. Finding the balance between asserting national security imperatives and maintaining productive diplomatic ties becomes a delicate act. Nevertheless, the administration’s stance is that the imperative of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks and other threats necessitates these measures, framing them as a necessary step in advancing both national security and global counterterrorism efforts. Ultimately, the “entry order” serves as a potent reminder of how national policies can powerfully shape international dynamics and drive a push towards greater global security cooperation.

The Road Ahead: Adapting to Evolving U.S. Immigration Policy

As we conclude our comprehensive analysis of Presidential Proclamation 10949, it becomes clear that this “entry order” is more than a simple set of travel restrictions; it represents a significant and multi-faceted evolution in U.S. immigration policy, with profound implications for individuals, businesses, and international relations. We have explored its deep roots in presidential authority and Supreme Court precedent, examined the detailed justifications based on vetting deficiencies and overstay rates, and unpacked its nuanced application across 19 countries. What, then, should be our takeaway from this complex policy shift?

The overarching objectives of this proclamation are unequivocal: to strengthen national security, enforce the integrity of U.S. immigration laws, and promote greater international cooperation on information sharing and identity management. By identifying and restricting entry from countries deemed to pose specific security or compliance risks, the U.S. government aims to mitigate potential threats to public safety and encourage its global partners to enhance their own security infrastructures. While the stated intentions are clear, the immediate and ongoing implications for foreign nationals seeking entry and for U.S. employers navigating talent acquisition are undeniably significant, creating new barriers and increasing administrative complexities.

For individuals, meticulous attention to visa categories, country designations, and the specific exemptions outlined in the proclamation will be paramount for any future travel plans or immigration processes. For businesses, adapting to this evolving landscape means a proactive approach to workforce planning, increased investment in compliance, and a strategic re-evaluation of global talent pipelines. This “entry order” signals a continued emphasis on national security as a driving force behind U.S. immigration policy, marking a period where vigilance and adaptability are essential for all stakeholders. As global circumstances continue to shift, so too will the policies governing international mobility, making ongoing education and informed decision-making critical for navigating the road ahead.

entry orderFAQ

Q：What are the main reasons for the entry restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10949?

A：The main reasons include national security concerns, inadequate vetting processes, high visa overstay rates, and lack of cooperation from certain countries in accepting back their nationals.

Q：Who is exempt from the entry restrictions imposed by this proclamation?

A：Exemptions typically include lawful permanent residents, individuals physically present in the U.S. before the effective date, valid visa holders, dual nationals traveling on an appropriate passport, and certain humanitarian cases.

Q：How does this proclamation impact U.S. businesses?

A：The proclamation complicates talent acquisition and retention, increases compliance burdens, and may lead to operational disruptions as businesses face challenges related to hiring foreign nationals and retaining existing employees on travel.