travel bans definition

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Covid-19 related travel restrictions, share this content.

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

Travel Restrictions

The end of COVID-19 travel restrictions: Summary of findings from the COVID-19 related travel restrictions reports

Following the decision of WHO to determine the end of the public health emergency phase for COVID-19, UNWTO has released an in-depth analysis of the travel restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Report: Travel Restrictions 11 th

One out of five destinations continue to have their borders completely closed as new surges of COVID-19 impact the restart of international tourism. The latest research shows that still 98% of all destinations have some kind of travel restrictions in place.

Report: Travel Restrictions 10 th

The global vaccination rollout and increased adoption of digital solutions for safe travel should lead to a rise in international mobility over the weeks and months ahead,the latest data from the UNWTO indicates.

Report: Travel Restrictions 9 th

The emergence of new variants of the COVID-19 virus has prompted many governments to reverse efforts to ease restrictions on travel, with total closures to tourists most prevalent in Asia and the Pacific and Europe.

Report: Travel Restrictions 8 th

According to the eighth edition of the UNWTO Travel Restrictions Report, 70% of all global destinations have eased restrictions on travel introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Report: Travel Restrictions 7 th

Though many remain cautious in view of the development of the pandemic, the seventh edition of the UNWTO “COVID-19 Related Travel Restrictions: A Global Review for Tourism” confirms the ongoing trend towards the gradual restart of tourism.

Report: Travel Restrictions 6 th

87 destinations that have now eased travel restrictions, just four have completely lifted all restrictions, while 83 have eased them while keeping some measures such as the partial closure of borders in place.

Report: Travel Restrictions 5 th

According to UNWTO, as of 15 June, 22% of all destinations (48 destinations) have now eased restrictions on travel, up from just 3% (7 destinations) on 18 May.

Report: Travel Restrictions 4 th

The report notes that 100% of all destinations worldwide continue to have some form of COVID-19-related travel restrictions in place. Furthermore, as of 18 May 75% continued to have their borders completely closed for international tourism.

Report: Travel Restrictions 3 rd

UNWTO has found that 83% of destinations in Europe have introduced complete closure of borders for international tourism. In the Americas, this proportion stands at 80%, in Asia and the Pacific it is 70%, in the Middle East it is 62% and in Africa it is 57%.

Report: Travel Restrictions 2 nd

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted all destinations worldwide to introduce restrictions on travel, research by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has found.

Report: Travel Restrictions 1 st

Almost all global destinations have imposed restrictions on travel since January 2020, including complete bans on all travel as they work to contain the pandemic.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Global Health

Can travel bans prevent the spread of new variants.

Ari Shapiro

Patrick Jarenwattananon

NPR's Ari Shapiro speaks with Dr. Saad Omer about the effectiveness of travel bans now that the omicron variant has been discovered in the United States.

Copyright © 2021 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Questions and Answers About the Travel Ban Case

By Michael D. Shear

• June 26, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld some portions of President Trump’s revised travel ban on Monday, setting the stage for arguments on the case in October.

Here are some major questions the case presents:

What did the court decide about President Trump’s travel ban?

The court did two things: It agreed to evaluate the ban next term, and, in the meantime, the court overturned the decisions of lower courts, saying that Mr. Trump’s administration could enforce its immigration ban against certain people while it waited for the Supreme Court to hear arguments and decide the case.

Does that mean that the president can block everyone from coming from the six countries he identified as dangerous — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen?

No. The justices agreed with the appeals courts that certain people should be allowed to come to the United States, as long as they have what the court called “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Who would that be?

That is likely to be subject to interpretation and litigation. The court detailed several categories of foreign nationals who should be allowed into the United States: 1) people with a “close familial relationship” to someone in the United States; 2) students admitted to a university in the United States; 3) workers who have accepted an offer of employment from a company in the United States; and 4) lecturers invited to speak to an American audience.

But who qualifies for each of those categories will be up to the administration, and individuals denied entry might challenge those decisions in the courts.

Who remains blocked from coming to the United States after the court’s ruling?

The court basically said that foreign nationals with no “bona fide relationship” to the United States do not have the same rights and can be barred from entry. The justices wrote that the government’s authority to bar entry to the United States for national security reasons was “undoubtedly” at its peak when there is “no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”

What about refugees coming from places like Syria or other war-torn countries?

The court imposed the same rules for refugees as it did for those seeking entry from the six aforementioned countries. Refugees who already have some connection to the United States may not be summarily blocked from entry; those who have no prior connection to the United States may be blocked from entry.

Are there still big questions?

Yes. The definition of a “bona fide relationship” is not clear yet, according to opponents of the ban. For example, if a vacationer has a reservation at a hotel in the United States, does that qualify as a “bona fide relationship?” That kind of question will not be known for sure until the government blocks people from coming and the cases are taken to the courts.

What about Mr. Trump’s decision to limit the number of refugees admitted each year to 50,000 people?

The court said that the administration’s limit of 50,000 refugees could not be used to arbitrarily restrict entry to a refugee who otherwise had a legitimate connection to the United States.

When does this take effect?

In a June 14 memorandum, Mr. Trump said that the relevant agencies would wait 72 hours to make any changes if a court gave the government the right to reimpose the ban. The memorandum said that the 72-hour waiting period would “ensure an orderly and proper implementation” of the changes. That would appear to prevent a repeat of the original travel ban, when travelers got stuck in limbo in airports around the United States.

Is this a win for Mr. Trump?

Yes, in part. He will be able to say that the Supreme Court slapped down the lower courts for going too far and reaffirmed the president’s power to control the nation’s borders. But the court’s ruling also underscores the view that Mr. Trump was overreaching when he barred all travel into the United States by certain refugees and foreign nationals from six countries. Had the administration written the original travel ban along the lines of the court’s ruling, it might not have encountered such fierce political and legal resistance.

Did all of the court’s justices agree with the ruling?

No. The ruling was per curiam, meaning that it was the decision of the court, acting collectively as a unit. But three of the court’s most conservative members — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas — offered a dissent, saying they would have allowed the president’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States.

Is this a final ruling, then?

Not yet. The court’s ruling on the travel ban only applies for the period of time between now and when the justices make a final ruling, which might not come until late fall. The court agreed to hear arguments in the case in its next term, which begins in October. At that time, the court could endorse its current view of the travel ban or it could do something different.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook , Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter .

What is the travel ban? What does it mean for refugees?

The United States has historically welcomed refugees fleeing war and persecution, and given them a chance to rebuild their lives in safety. The Trump Administration’s executive orders on refugee travel, however, have hindered these efforts.

Breaking, Jan 31, 2020: The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds today to reports of the Trump Administration’s policy decision to expand the Travel Ban . 

While the Trump travel ban officially expired on Oct. 24, it isn’t over . Arbitrary new vetting measures effectively extend the ban for 90 days for refugees from 11 countries. These procedures will lengthen the resettlement process for thousands of people escaping violence and conflict.

President Trump first instated the travel ban on Jan. 27—his first week in office. This executive order suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred refugees fleeing the war in Syria from entry to the U.S. indefinitely. It also barred entry to refugees from six other countries— Iraq , Iran, Sudan, Libya , Somalia and Yemen —for 90 days. The order resulted in chaos at airports across the country as refugees who were already in the air were detained and, in some cases, sent back to the crises they had fled.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

After the travel ban was hit by a barrage of legal opposition and challenged in federal courts, President Trump issued a revised order on Mar. 6. This new order excluded restrictions on travelers who hold green cards in the U.S. It also removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the ban, and it removed the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

A Pakistani family is to arrive in the US next week as refugees with an IRC tie. Will they be allowed to stay? https://t.co/3Beqsc3eUp pic.twitter.com/Vfm60suJbO — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 29, 2017

This second travel ban was also challenged in federal courts. On Jun. 26, however, the Supreme Court put a partial stay on the rulings against the travel ban, effectively reinstating the order and immediately impacting already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.

The Trump Administration followed this decision with new guidelines on the travel ban , stipulating that people who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. can enter the country. These arbitrary guidelines raise more questions than answers. For example, travelers with a child or parent will be allowed entry; those with a grandchild or grandparent will not.

This limited travel ban went into effect on July 13 , leaving thousands of vulnerable refugees who were not already on flights to the United States stranded. It was challenged the same day by a federal judge in Hawaii who ordered the Trump administration to expand the number of people who are exempt from the travel ban to include grandparents and other relatives, as well as refugees without family ties to the U.S. 

Courts narrowed the scope even further on Sept. 7, ruling that there is a bona fide relationship between a resettlement agency and a refugee. But on Sep 12, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to stop refugees from entering the U.S. ahead of plans to hear arguments on the lawfulness of the travel ban on Oct. 10. These hearings were later cancelled as the Oct. 24 expiration date for the 120-day travel ban period approached, rendering the case moot.

The ban came at a time when more people are uprooted by violence than at any time since World War II—leaving innocent lives in danger or adrift.

“Legal uncertainty must not obscure that a ban on refugees is both bad and unnecessary policy,” said David Miliband , President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said in January. “We should look no further than the last six months as proof: the current system works well. It is harder to get to the U.S. as a refugee than through any other route, so this ban remains wholly unnecessary.”

IRC resettlement and policy experts have answered some of the questions you may have about the executive order: 

What is the travel ban?

The travel ban is an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27 and revised on Mar. 6. It suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred entry to refugees from six countries – Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – for 90 days. Iraq was removed from the list in March.

Is the travel ban over?

No. It expired on Oct 24, but new vetting procedures introduced by the Trump administration continue to thwart the resettlement process for refugees living in dire situations. According to Reuters, these new processes will “determine what additional safeguards, if any, were necessary to ensure that the admission of refugees from these countries of concern does not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.” For example, refugees will need to provide additional information such as addresses, phone numbers and email addresses for themselves and potentially their family members

Why did the White House want to halt refugee resettlement for 120 days?

The Trump administration has an unfounded belief that there is no proper security screening for refugees. It said it needed four months to review  existing security procedures .

But aren’t refugees already extremely vetted?

Yes. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the U.S. The resettlement process can last anywhere from 18-24 months after rigorous vetting by over a dozen federal agencies .  

A reminder of how the U.S. refugee vetting & resettlement process really works: https://t.co/mjMd8XzCo2 #StandWithRefugees #RefugeesWelcome pic.twitter.com/RBASDGxjUg — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 28, 2017

Refugees undergo biographic and biometric checks, medical screenings, forensic document testing, and in-person interviews. Syrian refugees must go through an additional layer of screening.

Who is exempt from the travel ban?

People who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the U.S. are exempt from the travel ban.

U.S. citizens and legal residents, such as green card holders and visa holders, are also exempt from the travel ban.

Who is considered to have a “bona fide relationship” with a person under the Trump administration’s guidelines? Who is not?

On Sept. 7, a federal appeals court ruled travelers with not only a close family relationship—child, spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling or half sibling—but also other relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins will be allowed entry into the U.S. But the Supreme Court reversed this ruling a few days later.

Out of 2,500 people the IRC was scheduled to resettle in 2017, roughly 1,950 do not meet the arbitrary definitions imposed by the administration—either because they do not possess U.S. ties or because they do not meet a near-nuclear family definition.

The banning of grandmothers—of unaccompanied children—from America’s shores is a disgrace.

Resettlement agencies like the IRC partner with the U.S. State Department and the U.S. government, which handpick and vet refugees to be matched with these agencies. This rigorous process can take up to two years.

As the travel ban took effect, the IRC urged the administration to speak about the legal justifications for their interpretation, and to provide additional guidance to resettlement agencies.

In his July 13 ruling, Judge Derrick Watson  of Hawaii not only loosened the travel ban restrictions to exempt grandparents and other relatives but ordered the Trump administration to admit refugees without family ties in the U.S. who had an assurance from a resettlement agency.

"An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court's touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades," Watson explained. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that." 

Why has the travel ban been challenged in multiple federal courts?

The travel ban has been challenged in multiple federal courts because it is seen as blatantly unconstitutional and it discriminates against people based on their religion and nationality. It was also hastily issued without any input from government bodies—such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State—that oversee immigrant and refugee travel.  

What did the Supreme Court's decision to hear the travel ban case in the fall—while partly reinstating the ban—mean for refugees?

The implementation of a partial stay by the Supreme Court on rulings against the Trump administration’s travel ban immediately impacts already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.  

This will have a disastrous impact on refugees. The IRC is gravely concerned about the humanitarian consequences, and the policy consequences, of the decision reinstate the administration’s travel ban.

We’ve seen some of the dire impacts of this policy in action: urgent medical conditions blocked, innocent people left in unimaginable circumstances. The ban remains a counterproductive measure: coming to the United States as a refugee is, by far, the most difficult route an individual can take. This is a system strengthened by successive presidential administrations, both republican and democratic. Slamming the door puts innocent lives at risk and does nothing to make us safer.

“The Court’s decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the U.S.,” said IRC president David Miliband.

How many refugees does the U.S. take in each year compared to other countries?

The U.S. is just one of 28 resettlement countries. Out of the nearly 20 million refugees in the world, less than 1 percent are considered for resettlement worldwide. Only a fraction of that 1 percent is invited to resettle in the United States.

How many refugees were to be admitted in 2017?

The lowest number in a decade: Although the U.S. was scheduled to admit up to 110,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017, the Administration slashed that number to 50,000. The fiscal year for resettlement ended in September.

How many refugees will be admitted in 2018?

President Trump set a cap of 45,000 for fiscal year 2018. 

How many people will the travel ban affect?

The Trump Administration policy will exacerbate the suffering of an estimated 60,000 vulnerable refugees who have been security vetted and are awaiting resettlement to the U.S.

Some 65 million people are currently displaced around the world. We are facing the most serious displacement crisis we’ve known since World War II.

For example, after six years of war in Syria, its neighbors can no longer absorb more refugees. The need for resettlement in safe third states is more necessary than ever— so President Trump’s refugee policies will affect the lives of the few given this chance in the U.S.

What will happen to refugees already approved for resettlement who haven't yet arrived?

The impact of cancelling refugees’ journeys to the U.S. is life and death for those with urgent medical conditions. It is acutely dangerous for refugee children who are on their own; it derails the progress of young refugee families who have quit jobs and vacated apartments in the countries where they found temporary asylum, all while pursuing better lives for their children through resettlement.

The temporary halt in the resettlement program may force refugees who already went through the rigorous screening process and who were set to arrive in the U.S. soon to instead wait months and even years to go through fingerprinting, interviews, health screenings, and multiple security checks all over again, all while their lives are in danger.

In addition, the travel ban is harmful to resettlement agencies who have made extensive preparations, financial and otherwise, for refugees who were expected to arrive.  

What does the travel ban mean for refugees already in the U.S.?

Refugees already in the U.S. who have been waiting to be reunited with family members still in danger may never have that opportunity, or their reunion may be delayed for months or years. The  Supreme Court ruling on Jun. 26, however, stipulates that those with a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. may be admitted. For instance, step-siblings and half-siblings will be admitted, but nieces and nephews will not.

Why did the travel ban name Syrian refugees, specifically?

On the campaign trail and now in the White House, Trump has made unfounded claims that refugees from war-torn Syria are a security threat. He has called them “a Trojan Horse” that would make America vulnerable to terrorism.

In fact, refugees coming to the U.S. are fleeing the same violent extremism that the U.S. and its allies are fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere. Based on recent data, the majority of those selected for resettlement in America are women and children.

Approximately 10,000 of the refugees who arrived in the U.S. in 2016 were from Syria. Syrian refugees must already go through an additional layer of screening on top of the already-rigorous vetting all refugees go through. This "enhanced review" process creates extra review steps with intelligence agencies and Department of Homeland Security officers who have particular expertise and training in conditions in Syria and the Middle East.

These additional reviews must take place before the refugee officer conducts the final in-person interview. This means that not only is there an extra layer of scrutiny—which the government believes is necessary because of the complexity of the conflict in Syria—but the process may also take longer due to this extra step.

This enhanced review makes it even more difficult for those who would do America harm to get through, while making it a more arduous process for all of the innocent refugees.

Are other countries part of the ban?

The original travel ban executive order barred both citizens and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries that have been linked to concerns about terrorism from entry into the United States for 90 days. The countries originally included in the ban were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Iraq, however, was removed from the list in May 2017.

New guidelines issued in September effectively extend the ban for people from 11 countries, which the Trump administration did not name.    

The president has talked about a “Muslim ban.” Is that in his refugee policies?

This question is central to some of the legal challenges that faced the travel ban.

The original executive order indicated that the U.S. will prioritize religious minorities over all other refugees. Barring refugees from certain countries like Syria and showing a narrow preference for religious minorities is tantamount to a Muslim ban.

What about refugees who have helped the U.S. military?

There are thousands of Iraqis and Afghans whose lives are at risk because of the assistance they offered U.S. troops stationed in their countries. This Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) population makes up one quarter of all the refugees the IRC would be resettling this year.

Among those with SIV status who arrived shortly after the first executive order was signed was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked for the U.S. Army for a decade. He was separated from his wife and children and detained at JFK airport in New York until a federal judge ordered his release on Jan. 28 following the ACLU suit. 

What's wrong with barring refugees from certain countries or religions if it makes us feel safer?

These bans fly in the face of America’s best values of freedom, fairness, and compassion, and they represent an abandonment of America’s role as a humanitarian leader.

By relinquishing its responsibility to some of the world’s most vulnerable people, the U.S. forgoes its moral authority to call upon  Europe as well as poorer countries  to provide shelter.

Will the refugee ban make America safer?

No. According to the Cato Institute, the chances are one in 3.6 billion that a U.S. citizen will be killed by a refugee; an American is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack executed by a foreigner.

Refugees are already the most vetted group to enter the U.S. and the bans outlined in the executive order will not improve national security.

Chances of being killed by a refugee in the US = 1 in 3.64 BILLION. Lightning is more dangerous. RT to spread the facts. #StandWithRefugees pic.twitter.com/M1rVrjF0D3 — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 30, 2017

In fact, barring certain groups from entry because of their religion or country of origin could have the opposite effect: Far from protecting America from extremism, a ban on Syrian and Muslim refugees is a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to the U.S.

Also, we must remember that support for refugees is not charity; it is a contribution to the global stability on which all countries depend. In fact, evidence shows that refugees are good for the economies that host them .

What comes next?

The IRC is calling on the Trump Administration to learn about who refugees are, and the dismal situations that require this life-saving resettlement program—including the violence that has forced over 600,000 Rohingya refugees out of Myanmar in recent months.

Resettlement is a critical system established in its current form by the Reagan administration, and strengthened by both Democratic and Republican administrations afterward.

“The human toll on families who have patiently waited their turn, done the vetting, given up jobs and prepared to travel is wrong," said IRC president David Miliband in a July 13 statement . "After decades of leading with its gold standard resettlement program, this defective policy shifts the goal posts and sees America turn its back on— and break its promise to— the world’s most vulnerable.”

What can I do to fight the ban?

We need your help to fight back and remind Congress that the Trump Administration’s refugee policies DO NOT represent American values. Take action.  

How else can I help refugees?

Make a donation today to support the International Rescue Committee in our work helping refugee families in the U.S. and around the world to survive and rebuild their lives.

Here are some more ways to help refugees in the U.S. right now.

Support our work

Explore related topics:.

• #RefugeesWelcome
• Take Action
• Syrian Refugees
• Where We Work
• How To Help
• Code of Conduct
• Ethics Hotline
• 87% Program services
• 7% Management and general
• 6% Fundraising

Get the latest news about the IRC's innovative programs, compelling stories about our clients and how you can make a difference. Subscribe

• U.S./Global
• Phone Opt Out
• Respecting Your Privacy
• Terms and Conditions
• Fraud Prevention

Closed borders, travel bans and halted immigration: 5 ways COVID-19 changed how – and where – people move around the world

Ph.D. Student in Political Science, University of Notre Dame

Disclosure statement

Mary A Shiraef received funding from the Nanovic Institute at the University of Notre Dame when launching the COVID Border Accountability Project in April 2020.

University of Notre Dame provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Trips canceled: 2.93 billion . International border closures : 1,299. Lives interrupted: Countless.

After the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic , most countries in the world closed their borders – though public health experts initially questioned this strategy for controlling the spread of disease .

I study migration , so I began tracking the enormous changes in how and where people could move around the world. The COVID Border Accountability Project , founded in May 2020, maps travel and immigration restrictions introduced by countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here is how our world shuttered – and how it’s starting to reopen.

1. March 11: It begins

Travel restrictions peaked right after the World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11. That week, our data shows a total of 348 countries closing their borders, completely or partially.

Complete closures restrict access to all noncitizens at international borders. Partial closures – a category encompassing border closures and travel bans – restrict access at some borders, or bar people from some, but not all, countries.

2. Fully closed borders

Most countries stopped all foreign travelers from entering at some point last year.

From Finland to Sri Lanka to Tonga, 189 countries – home to roughly 65% of the world’s 7.7 billion people – put a complete border closure in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to our database . The first to isolate itself from the world was North Korea, on Jan. 22, 2020 . The last was Bahrain, on June 4, 2020 .

Most countries eventually eased border restrictions, and many opened their borders only to close them again as COVID-19 cases spread globally. By the end of 2020, roughly half of all countries remained completely closed to noncitizens and non-visa holders except for essential travel related to health emergencies, humanitarian or diplomatic missions, commerce or family reunification.

3. Targeted bans and partial closures

Last year 193 countries closed down partially, restricting access to people from specific countries or closing some – but not all – of their land and sea borders.

Among these, 98 countries introduced targeted bans, which restricted entry to specific groups of people based on their recent travel or nationality. The first travel bans targeted China, followed soon by other countries that experienced the earliest known outbreaks of the novel coronavirus.

For instance, the United States was quick to pass a string of targeted travel bans , barring travelers from China first , then Iran , and then 26 European countries .

Most countries added land border closures to air travel bans, including the United States. In March the Trump administration closed its borders with Canada and Mexico .

4. Restrictions on US residents

Americans faced serious restrictions on their movement last year, too. People in the U.S., with its high COVID-19 spread, were barred from 190 countries either specifically – via a travel ban – or generally, due to closed borders.

The U.S. passport, usually one of the world’s most powerful for travel access to other countries, ranked 18th place in 2020 . Regions newly off-limits to Americans include most of Europe and nearly all South America.

5. Visa seekers and immigrants

Of the 98 countries that implemented targeted bans, 42 specifically restricted all visa seekers from entering the country. The week following the U.S. closure of immigration offices worldwide, 20 countries, including the Philippines , Benin and Nepal , stopped issuing all visas. More than 100 visa bans barred visa seekers from specific countries or groups.

In September, the Trump administration halted the U.S. asylum program, barring refugees from seeking asylum. The only other country that explicitly targeted immigrants and asylum seekers with a COVID-19 travel ban was Hungary .

The world today

I initially wondered whether international travel restrictions would stay in place after the pandemic ended, leading to more permanent restrictions on freedom of movement.

[ Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter. ]

But, by and large, the world is reopening. By the end of last year, 137 of the world’s 189 complete closures had been lifted, and 66 of the 98 targeted bans had ended.

In addition to the staggering numbers of closures and the occasional international spats, I’ve been struck by the level of cooperation between countries, especially within the European Union. Virtually every EU country complied with the bloc’s travel recommendations – a testament to its ability to manage crisis as a unified region.

Travel restrictions will continue to emerge, end and evolve, dependent on context. As wealthier countries vaccinate their populations at rapid speed, less equipped countries continue to suffer severe outbreaks . International travel may soon require a COVID-19 “ vaccination card .” New targeted travel bans could emerge.

“Normal” is a long way away.

Nikolas Lazar, Thuy Nguyen and the COBAP Team assisted with this story.

• Immigration
• Global pandemic
• Asylum-seekers
• Travel bans
• Coronavirus pandemic
• Post-COVID world
• border closures
• Pandemic1Year

Content Coordinator

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of travel ban in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• The UN Security Council imposed a travel ban , restricting foreign travel by the country's officials , to punish its government for harbouring members of a terrorist organization .
• Trump's first travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries was declared unconstitutional .
• Once the air travel ban is lifted , it's expected to take airlines several days to get operations back to normal .
• Two England fans defying a travel ban were put on a plane back home after arriving in Istanbul for the match .
• abolitionist
• anti-censorship
• decertification
• disqualification
• out of bounds idiom
• unauthorized
• unsanctioned

Translations of travel ban

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

to fasten the belt that keeps you in your seat in a car or a plane

Searching out and tracking down: talking about finding or discovering things

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add travel ban to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add travel ban to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Immigration History

Muslim Travel Ban

The "Muslim Ban" refers to a series of the Trump administration's executive orders that prohibited travel and refugee resettlement from select predominately Muslim countries. After several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of a third version of the ban.

Discussion Questions

How has the Trump administration justified its travel bans?

On what grounds might they be viewed as discriminatory?

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that banned travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–and suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees. The order sparked protests around the country at airports and immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations undertook several legal challenges to the order on the grounds that it constituted religious discrimination. The suits against the travel bans resulted in court injunctions temporarily blocking the order and groups in opposition to the ban also blocked a second iteration of the executive order. Nevertheless, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ultimately allowed a third version of the executive order to go into force, which expanded the list of barred travelers to include nationals from Venezuela (limited to government officials) and North Korea. In 2020, the Trump administration expanded visa restrictions on six more countries–Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania–citing screening and national security concerns in those countries. Nationals of thirteen countries are currently subject to various travel restrictions.

Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

Issued on: September 24, 2017

. . . . As President, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people. I am committed to our ongoing efforts to engage those countries willing to cooperate, improve information-sharing and identity-management protocols and procedures, and address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Some of the countries with remaining inadequacies face significant challenges. Others have made strides to improve their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until they satisfactorily address the identified inadequacies, I have determined, on the basis of recommendations from the Secretary of Homeland Security and other members of my Cabinet, to impose certain conditional restrictions and limitations, as set forth more fully below, on entry into the United States of nationals of the countries identified in section 2 of this proclamation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 2 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats. Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy . . . .

Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions and case by-case waivers . . . . [Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

© 2019 Immigration History

A project of the immigration and ethnic history society.

Example sentences travel restrictions

They will be badly hit by travel restrictions .

Aid agencies are already complaining that travel restrictions make it difficult for the muchneeded volunteers and supplies to get into the region.

In many cases scheduled return flights have been cancelled because of travel restrictions .

Rail travel restrictions apply - ask reservations for full details.

This includes offering free cancellation or reservation modification for people travelling to or from affected areas, including those impacted by international travel restrictions .

Definition of 'restrict' restrict

Definition of 'travel' travel

COBUILD Collocations travel restrictions

Browse alphabetically travel restrictions

• travel plan
• travel regularly
• travel restrictions
• travel schedule
• travel section
• travel separately
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'T'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

Search form

Fact sheet on the travel ban.

• This fact sheet provides basic information on the travel ban and its exemptions.
• By the adoption of resolution 1390 (2002) , the Security Council imposed a travel ban, reiterated in subsequent resolutions, including resolution 1989 (2011) adopted on 17 June 2011.
• The provisions of paragraph 1(b) of resolution 1989 (2011) mandate States to "prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories of Al-Qaida, and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, as referred to in the list created pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000) " (the "Al-Qaida Sanctions List"), which is updated and maintained by the Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee.
• The travel ban applies to all the individuals on the Al-Qaida Sanctions List wherever they may be located. The responsibility to implement the travel ban lies with the States of entry and/or transit.
• "provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige any State to deny entry into or require the departure from its territories of its own nationals";
• "and this paragraph shall not apply where entry or transit is necessary for the fulfillment of a judicial process";
• "or the Committee determines on a case by case basis only that entry or transit is justified".
• Under the third type of exemption [“the Committee determines on a case by case basis only that entry or transit is justified”], it is possible to apply for an exemption from the travel ban for necessary travel needs, including medical treatment abroad and the performance of religious obligations. Each request for exemption must be submitted in writing, by the relevant State(s) or in exceptional cases by a United Nations office or agency, on behalf of a listed individual to the Committee’s Chairman, through the Committee’s Secretariat (e-mail: [email protected] ; or fax: +1 212 963 1300). Section 12 of the Committee’s Guidelines sets out the procedures for applications for exemptions from the travel ban measure.
• Unless the Committee otherwise decides, all requests for exemptions and extensions thereto which have been approved by the Committee in accordance with procedures set out in section 12 of the Committee’s Guidelines shall be posted in the “Exemptions” section of the Committee’s website until expiry of the exemption.
• UN Social Media

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Port Health
• Port Health Stations
• Laws and Regulations
• Travel Restrictions to Prevent the Spread of Contagious Disease
• Contact Investigation
• Airline Guidance
• Maritime Guidance
• Definitions of Signs, Symptoms, and Conditions of Ill Travelers

At a glance

• Two federal public health tools are available to manage travelers who are known or suspected to have a serious contagious disease: the Do Not Board list and the Public Health Lookout.
• The Do Not Board list prevents travelers with risk of spreading a contagious disease from boarding an airplane.
• The Public Health Lookout prompts Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to notify public health authorities about the traveler so they can assess the need for follow-up or treatment.

Do Not Board List

Diseases are just a flight away. To protect the public's health, CDC partners with the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the spread of serious contagious diseases during commercial air travel. In June 2007, the two agencies established the Do Not Board list. It prevents travelers known or suspected to have a contagious disease that poses a threat to the public's health from boarding commercial airplanes. The Do Not Board list prevents a person from obtaining a boarding pass for any flight into, out of, or within the United States.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) enforces this list. Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 114), TSA may take actions necessary to reduce the risk of threats to aviation and transportation security. This includes denying boarding to travelers CDC identifies as having or likely having a contagious disease that poses a public health threat to other passengers or crew.

Travelers on the Do Not Board list (a public health list) action are not part of the No Fly List . Federal law enforcement agencies use the No Fly List for their own purposes.

Public Health Lookout

Travelers placed on the Do Not Board list are also issued a Public Health Lookout . When a person who has been issued a Public Health lookout tries to enter the United States at any port of entry (seaport, airport, or land border), CBP is alerted to notify public health officials. When this happens, health officials review the person's infectious disease status to ensure appropriate isolation, if indicated, and other public health management, including helping the person get treatment if needed. Having a Public Health Lookout attached to a person's name does not necessarily prevent travel or deny a person entry into the United States.

Why Both Tools are Needed

The Do Not Board and Public Health Lookout lists are two different but complementary tools for reducing the risk of spread of contagious diseases during travel. TSA administers the Do Not Board list, which prevents people known or suspected to have a contagious disease from flying commercially. CBP manages the Public Health Lookout that helps identify these people if they attempt to enter the United States by air, land or sea. Since the processes began in 2007, both tools have been used primarily for people with infectious tuberculosis. Preventing people with contagious diseases from traveling also helps to connect them to care or continued medical treatment, as needed.

Placing people on federal public health travel restrictions

These tools can be used for anyone known or suspected to have a contagious disease that poses a threat to the public's health if they meet certain criteria as listed below.

Local and state public health officials and officials of other federal agencies (such as the Department of State) or foreign governments can request CDC's assistance if a person known or suspected to have a contagious disease that poses a public health threat intends to travel. CDC helps ensure these people do not travel while at risk of spreading disease.

The criteria for adding people to the Do Not Board and Public Health Lookout are:

• Person is not aware of diagnosis or not following public health recommendations, or
• Person is likely to travel on a commercial flight involving the United States or travel internationally by any means; or
• Travel restriction is needed to respond to an outbreak of a serious contagious disease or to help enforce a public health order .

A person must meet the first criterion plus one of the three sub-criteria before these tools can be used.

These tools have been used for people with suspected or confirmed infectious tuberculosis (TB), including multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB), and for measles in a small number of cases. During 2020-2022, CDC used these authorities to restrict travel of people with COVID-19 and close contacts who were recommended to quarantine. These authorities were also used for mpox in 2022. Travel restrictions have also been used for other suspected or confirmed contagious diseases that pose a public health threat during travel, including viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola.

Removing the Restrictions

Once public health authorities confirm a person is no longer at risk of spreading disease, the restrictions are removed. This is typically done within 24 hours. CDC also reviews the records of everyone whose travel is restricted for public health purposes every two weeks to determine eligibility for removal.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID)
• Division of Global Migration Health (DGMH)

CDC works with partners to protect the health of people exposed to a contagious disease during travel and their communities from contagious diseases that are just a flight away.

For Everyone

Public health.