On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” This order launched a 60-day review to have the U.S. Department of State identify countries with “deficient” vetting procedures, specifically, nations that do not provide sufficient information to verify the identity of their nationals or assess whether they pose security or public safety threats. Countries found lacking in these areas may face a partial or complete suspension of their nationals’ right to enter the U.S., as authorized by Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), noting that “whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or impose any restrictions he deems appropriate.”
This action could potentially lead to the reinstatement of the 2017 “Muslim Travel Ban,” affecting certain nations by restricting entry from several Muslim-majority countries. There are some who express concern that the EO could similarly target individuals based on nationality or religion. The EO also allows for visa revocations if individuals are deemed to “bear hostile attitudes” toward the U.S., which refers to anyone perceived to have negative, antagonistic, or threatening views or intentions regarding the U.S., its government, citizens, or national interests. As the 60-day review progresses, the administration’s findings will determine which countries may face renewed travel restrictions, potentially impacting international relations and travel for the next four years.
Reflect on how President Donald Trump, on January 27, 2017, during his first term, signed EO 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This order primarily imposed a 90-day entry ban on seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also included a 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, with the stated purpose of preventing potential terrorist entry into the United States. Widely referred to as the Muslim Travel Ban, this order affected individuals regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with employment-based visa. It caused widespread chaos at airports as travelers with valid visas and permanent residency were denied entry, leading to mass protests across U.S. airports and significant disruption in people’s daily lives, sparking global controversy.
From January to March 2017, federal courts temporarily blocked the travel ban following lawsuits from Washington and Minnesota, ruling that it likely violated the First Amendment (regarding religious discrimination) and the Fifth Amendment (due process). The revised version of the travel ban (EO 13780), implemented on March 6, 2017, removed Iraq, exempted green card holders and valid visa holders, and suspended refugee admissions for 120 days, dropping the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. However, federal courts continued to block it due to ongoing concerns about religious discrimination.
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court allowed a limited version of the travel ban to take effect, exempting individuals with “bona fide relationships” in the U.S., such as family or employment ties, while legal challenges persisted. The third version of the travel ban (Proclamation 9645), issued on September 24, 2017, added Chad, North Korea, and certain Venezuelan officials, while removing Sudan and justifying the decision based on security assessments rather than religious considerations.
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the third version of the travel ban in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the President acted within his authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) and that national security was a valid justification. Critics, however, argued that this legitimized religious discrimination. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked the ban on his first day in office, describing it as “rooted in religious animus and a stain on our national conscience.”
While no official action has been taken to reinstate the 2017 Muslim Travel Ban, discussions and concerns about the potential reimplementation of restrictive travel policies persist. The 2025 EO emphasizes the need to prevent the entry of individuals who may pose security threats. The situation remains fluid, and further developments are expected as the administration finalizes its policies. Ice Miller’s Immigration team will continue to monitor these developments. If you have Foreign national employees from predominantly Muslim countries contemplating travel in the coming months, it might be wise to consult with immigration counsel to discuss whether travel is advisable.
Special thanks to law clerk Ana Shiu Luo for her contributions to this article. Ana is not yet admitted to practice in any jurisdiction.
