When the State Department released a memo on June 14th, few expected it to carry sweeping consequences for millions of people across three continent. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s signed document details plans to expand the Trump administration’s travel ban to 36 additional countries, including Ethiopia, a move that has caused considerable concern among diplomatic and diaspora communities, especially within the Ethiopian-American population.
The proposed expansion builds on an existing travel restriction affecting 12 nations. The administration has given targeted countries a 60-day window to comply with revised security and immigration standards, with an initial action plan due by June 18.
For Ethiopia—whose diaspora in the United States is estimated at half a million—the consequences could be significant.
RELATED POSTS
The move marks a sharp revival and expansion of a contentious policy first enacted during Trump’s initial term in office. That original travel ban — colloquially dubbed the “Muslim ban” by critics — targeted several predominantly Muslim-majority countries, citing national security concerns and insufficient cooperation with US immigration and security protocols.
The new policy would dramatically widen the scope.
The administration’s June 2025 proclamation already imposes full travel bans on a dozen countries and partial restrictions on seven others, citing concerns such as poor identity verification systems, high visa overstay rates, and lack of cooperation in accepting deported nationals. Now, the expanded list reportedly includes 25 African nations, among them key US allies like Egypt and Djibouti, as well as countries in Central Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.
Legal experts and community advocates warn the consequences could be far-reaching.
Tesfalem Berhe, a lawyer, said the proposed ban risks severing familial and economic ties between Ethiopians in the U.S. and those at home. “It contradicts the principle of freedom of movement, enshrined in Ethiopia’s constitution and international agreements like the ICCPR.” Speaking to The Reporter Magazine, Tesfalem called the measure “misguided” and warned that if the implementation mirrors previous bans—such as those placed on Eritrea during Trump’s first term—the impact could be deeply disruptive. “The full effect,” he noted, “won’t be known until enforcement begins.”
The State Department memo outlines a series of justifications for the proposed restrictions. Among them: some countries allegedly lack competent civil registries capable of issuing verifiable identity documents; others are plagued by systemic fraud. Additional concerns cited include citizenship-for-investment programs with minimal residency requirements, and what the memo vaguely refers to as “anti-Semitic or anti-American activities” by nationals residing in the US.
Nations can potentially avoid restrictions, the memo states, by agreeing to repatriate deported individuals or by entering “safe third country” agreements that address US asylum policy concerns.
Mulualem Adgeh, a US-based immigration attorney, says that Ethiopia’s inclusion on the list appears to stem from systemic weaknesses in its identity verification processes. “According to the memo and Rubio’s supporting report, widespread document fabrication in Ethiopia compromises background checks,” he said.
He added that the form the restrictions will take remains uncertain. “The administration may impose a partial ban—limiting certain visa categories—or a full ban, which could suspend entry for nearly all visa holders except US citizens, lawful permanent residents, and diplomats. Even valid visa holders could find themselves barred,” he said.
The administration is expected to release formal guidelines within 60 days — a window that may determine whether Ethiopia and others can take corrective action, or face what could be a sweeping and consequential shift in U.S. immigration policy.
Mulualem believes that the proposed travel restrictions appear aimed primarily at curbing visa overstays—an issue that has long frustrated US immigration authorities.
“The United States struggles to repatriate individuals who remain after their visas expire because some governments, including Ethiopia’s, often refuse to accept deported nationals,” Mulualem said. He explained that many Ethiopians initially enter the US on short-term visas—typically for tourism, study, or business—but stay beyond their authorized period. Some seek asylum, others marry US citizens, and many remain due to persistent political and economic instability at home.
Unlike the Trump administration’s first-term travel ban, which disproportionately affected Muslim-majority countries on national security grounds, the current proposal is rooted in immigration enforcement priorities.
He added that economics plays a crucial role in shaping US immigration policy. “Countries like China and India, which send large numbers of immigrants to the US, are unlikely to face travel bans due to their significant economic relationships,” he said. By contrast, countries like Ethiopia, which are seen as contributing less to the US economy, are viewed less favorably.
Mulualem also pointed to systemic challenges within Ethiopia that complicate efforts to meet US standards. “There’s no robust infrastructure to combat document fraud or monitor visa overstays,” he said. “Even something as basic as issuing reliable birth certificates requires administrative and financial capacity that the country currently lacks. These aren’t problems that can be fixed in six months—or even six years.”
Reflecting on prior bans, he recalled that 41 countries were once under consideration, with restrictions ultimately imposed on 12. “Just because a country is listed doesn’t mean it will be sanctioned,” he said, leaving open the possibility that Ethiopia might avoid inclusion—if it acts swiftly.
Still, the legal path forward appears narrow. Mulualem noted that the US Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s first travel ban on national security grounds, a precedent that could shield this new policy from major legal challenges.
For Ethiopians planning to travel to the United States, Mulualem advised urgent action. “Unless you have legal grounds to remain—such as a US citizen spouse or children over 21—start your green card process now,” he urged.
Roughly 500,000 Ethiopians and Ethiopian-born individuals currently live in the United States. Many face immigration-related challenges, including threats of deportation, unresolved visa overstays, or the legal limbo that comes with navigating a tightening immigration system. The situation is further complicated by fraudulent documentation and, in some cases, controversial citizenship-by-investment schemes offered by other countries—factors that fuel skepticism within US immigration enforcement agencies.
For Tilahun Zewde, a former diplomat at Ethiopia’s embassy in Washington and a legal researcher, if the ban is enforced, it will have a significant adverse impact—not only on individuals seeking to travel to the US but also on trade, investment, and broader bilateral relations. He recalled similar tensions during Trump’s first term, when Ethiopia was threatened with sanctions for refusing to cooperate with deportation orders—though no penalties were ultimately applied.
Tilahun acknowledged the humanitarian concerns raised by critics but stopped short of calling the proposed measure an outright violation of international law.
International law does not grant an unlimited right to travel to another sovereign nation. “Nations remain sovereign and have their own laws,” he said, including those governing border entry.
