Here is what US politicians are saying about the case

US politicians have been divided in their response to the return of Ábrego García. Democrats cast it as a victory for due process while Republicans commented on the smuggling charges announced by prosecutors against him.

Maryland’s US Senator Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, said Ábrego García “should not have been deported. Even the Supreme Court demanded this President follow the law and return him to the U.S. It is right that due process will be afforded to him.”

Fellow Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett of Missouri said of the return: “The GOP broke the law to deport this man—then decided to indict him … This is Trump’s America: lawless, reckless, and cruel.”

Republican Alabama Senator Katie Britt reposted a version of the charges against Ábrego García She added: This is who Democrats are fighting for. This is who Senate Republicans are fighting to protect American families from.”

Republican Representative Brandon Gill of Texas said this was part of a Democrat strategy.

“Liberals want illegal aliens to stay in our country and be given amnesty, so that they can then vote Democrat.”

Glenn Ivey, a Democrat from Maryland, rebuffed the accusations and said advocacy for Ábrego García’s return wasn’t about him personally. “I went to El Salvador and advocated for Kilmar’s return because he was entitled to due process under our constitution,” he said. “Kilmar will now get his day in court. I hope he receives the fair trial that he is guaranteed.”

Washington DC – President Donald Trump ‘s administration hit back Wednesday at accounts Iran may have moved enriched uranium before US bombing, as a row grew on how much the strikes set back Tehran’s nuclear program.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the US “had no indication” that uranium was moved before the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. © alex wroblewski / AFP alex wroblewski / AFP

Trump, seeking credit for ordering military action and then quickly announcing a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, has lashed out angrily at media accounts of a classified report that doubted the extent of damage to Iranian nuclear sites.

Another key question raised by experts is whether Iran, preparing for the strike, moved out some 880 pounds of enriched uranium – which could now be hidden elsewhere in the vast country.

“I can tell you, the United States had no indication that that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes, as I also saw falsely reported,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News.

“As for what’s on the ground right now, it’s buried under miles and miles of rubble because of the success of these strikes on Saturday evening,” she said.

Vice President JD Vance, asked about the uranium on Sunday, had sounded less definitive and said the US would discuss the issue with Iran.

“We’re going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel,” Vance told ABC News program This Week.

The quantity of uranium had been reported by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, with which Iran is considering severing cooperation after the Israeli and US strikes on its nuclear program.

“The IAEA lost visibility on this material the moment hostilities began,” the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi, told France 2 television.

But he added: “I don’t want to give the impression that it’s been lost or hidden.”

Summary LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

Israeli prime minister, Iran president both claim victory

US airstrikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months, initial US intelligence assessment finds

US tells UN Security Council that strikes ‘degraded’ nuclear program

WASHINGTON/TEL AVIV/ISTANBUL, June 24 (Reuters) – U.S. airstrikes did not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability and only set it back by a few months, according to a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment, as a shaky ceasefire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump took hold between Iran and Israel.

Earlier on Tuesday, both Iran and Israel signaled that the air war between the two nations had ended, at least for now, after Trump publicly scolded them for violating a ceasefire he announced at 0500 GMT.

Sign up here.

As the two countries lifted civilian restrictions after 12 days of war – which the U.S. joined with an attack on Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities – each sought to claim victory.

Trump said over the weekend that the U.S. deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. But that claim appeared to be contradicted by an initial assessment by one of his administration’s intelligence agencies, according to three people familiar with the matter.

One of the sources said Iran’s enriched uranium stocks had not been eliminated, and the country’s nuclear program, much of which is buried deep underground, may have been set back only a month or two. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.

The White House said the intelligence assessment was “flat out wrong.” According to the report, which was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities, but did not collapse underground buildings, said one of the people familiar with its findings.

Some centrifuges still remained intact after the attacks, the Washington Post said, citing an unnamed person familiar with the report.

Trump’s administration told the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday that its weekend strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had “degraded” Iran’s nuclear program, short of Trump’s earlier assertion that the facilities had been “obliterated.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that the attack on Iran had removed the threat of nuclear annihilation and was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its weapons program.

“We have removed two immediate existential threats to us: the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles,” Netanyahu said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country had successfully ended the war in what he called a “great victory,” according to Iranian media. Pezeshkian also told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Tehran was ready to resolve differences with the U.S., according to official news agency IRNA.

Israel launched the surprise air war on June 13, attacking Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military commanders in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

Iran, which denies trying to build nuclear weapons, retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites and cities.

‘GREAT VICTORY’

Israel’s military lifted restrictions on activity across the country at 8 p.m. local time (1700 GMT), and officials said Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s main airport near Tel Aviv, had reopened. Iran’s airspace likewise will be reopened, state-affiliated Nournews reported.

A White House official said Trump brokered the ceasefire deal with Netanyahu, and other administration officials were in touch with the Iranian government.

Item 1 of 21 A satellite overview shows the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility, along with damage from recent airstrikes, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, near Qom, Iran, June 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS [1/21] A satellite overview shows the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility, along with damage from recent airstrikes, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, near Qom, Iran, June 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

The truce appeared fragile: Both Israel and Iran took hours to acknowledge they had accepted the ceasefire and accused each other of violating it.

Trump scolded both sides but aimed especially stinging criticism at Israel, telling the close U.S. ally to “calm down now.” He later said Israel called off further attacks at his command.

Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said he told his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth, that his country would respect the ceasefire unless Iran violated it. Pezeshkian likewise said Iran would honor the ceasefire as long as Israel did, according to Iranian media.

Whether the Israel-Iran truce can hold is a major question given the deep mistrust between the two foes. But Trump’s ability to broker a ceasefire showed Washington retains some leverage in the volatile region.

Israeli armed forces chief of staff Eyal Zamir said a “significant chapter” of the conflict had concluded but the campaign against Iran was not over. He said the military would refocus on its war against Iran-backed Hamas militants in Gaza.

Iran’s military command also warned Israel and the U.S. to learn from the “crushing blows” it delivered during the conflict.

Iranian authorities said 610 people were killed in their country by Israeli strikes and 4,746 injured. Iran’s retaliatory bombardment killed 28 people in Israel, the first time its air defenses were penetrated by large numbers of Iranian missiles.

Oil prices plunged and stock markets rallied worldwide in a sign of confidence inspired by the ceasefire, which allayed fears of disruption to critical oil supplies from the Gulf.

CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS?

Earlier in the day, Trump admonished Israel with an obscenity in an extraordinary outburst at an ally whose air war he had joined two days before by dropping massive bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s underground nuclear sites.

Before departing the White House en route to a NATO summit in Europe, Trump told reporters he was unhappy with both sides for the ceasefire breach but particularly frustrated with Israel, which he said had “unloaded” shortly after agreeing to the deal.

“I’ve got to get Israel to calm down now,” Trump said. Iran and Israel had been fighting “so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

Netanyahu’s office acknowledged Israel bombed a radar site near Tehran in what it said was retaliation for Iranian missiles fired three-and-a-half hours after the ceasefire was due to begin.

It did not explicitly say whether the strike on the radar site took place before or after they spoke.

The Islamic Republic denied launching any missiles and said Israel’s attacks had continued for an hour-and-a-half beyond the time the truce was meant to start.

“Who mediated or how it happened doesn’t matter,” said Reza Sharifi, 38, heading back to Tehran from Rasht on the Caspian Sea, where he had fled with his family. “The war is over. It never should have started in the first place.”

Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay and Reuters bureaus; writing by Andy Sullivan, Mark Heinrich, Peter Graff and Jonathan Allen; editing by Timothy Heritage, Ross Colvin, Joe Bavier, Cynthia Osterman and Stephen Coates

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Share X

Facebook

Linkedin

Email

Link Purchase Licensing Rights

Presidential Actions RESTRICTING THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld. In Executive Order 14161 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), I stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

I also stated that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests. More importantly, the United States must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States. The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.

I directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). After completing that process, the Secretary of State determined that a number of countries remain deficient with regards to screening and vetting. Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals.

As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety.

Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations. I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, 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 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 sections 2 and 3 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 national security or 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. These protocols enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat, and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the United States.

(b) Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States. Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share their identity and threat information with the immigration screening and vetting systems of the United States.

(c) Section 2(b) of Executive Order 14161 directed the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, within 60 days of the date of that order, to jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, a report identifying countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)).

(d) On April 9, 2025, the Secretary of State, with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, presented the report described in subsection (c) of this section, recommending that entry restrictions and limitations be placed on foreign nationals of several countries. The report identified countries for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full suspension of admissions and countries that warrant a partial suspension of admission.

(e) In evaluating the recommendations from the Secretary of State and in determining what restrictions to impose for each country, I consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, appropriate Assistants to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals. And I further considered various factors, including each country’s screening and vetting capabilities, information sharing policies, and country-specific risk factors — including whether each country has a significant terrorist presence within its territory, its visa-overstay rate, and its cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals.

I also considered the different risks posed by aliens admitted on immigrant visas and those admitted on nonimmigrant visas. Persons admitted on immigrant visas become lawful permanent residents of the United States. Such persons may present national security or public-safety concerns that may be distinct from those admitted as nonimmigrants. The United States affords lawful permanent residents more enduring rights than it does to nonimmigrants. Lawful permanent residents are more difficult to remove than nonimmigrants, even after national security concerns arise, which increases the costs and aggravates the dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals. And although immigrants are generally subject to more extensive vetting than nonimmigrants, such vetting is far less reliable when the country from which someone seeks to emigrate maintains inadequate identity-management or information-sharing policies or otherwise poses risks to the national security of the United States.

I reviewed these factors and assessed these goals, with a particular focus on crafting country-specific restrictions. This approach was designed to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances. The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are, in my judgment, necessary to prevent the entry or admission of foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United States. The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are necessary to garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.

(f) After reviewing the report described in subsection (d) of this section, and after accounting for the foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives of the United States, I have determined to fully restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 12 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants.

(g) I have determined to partially restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 7 countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants.

(h) Sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation describe some of the identity-management or information-sharing inadequacies that led me to impose restrictions. These inadequacies are sufficient to justify my finding that unrestricted entry of nationals from the named countries would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Publicly disclosing additional details on which I relied in making these determinations, however, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States, and many such details are classified.

Sec. 2. Full 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 the categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers described in section 5 of this proclamation:

(a) Afghanistan

(i) The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Afghanistan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(b) Burma

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent. Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Burma as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(c) Chad

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent. According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent. The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(d) Republic of the Congo

(i) According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of the Republic of the Congo as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(e) Equatorial Guinea

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Equatorial Guinea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(f) Eritrea

(i) The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals. Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Eritrea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(g) Haiti

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration. This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats. As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(h) Iran

(i) Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.

(i) Libya

(i) There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya. The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(j) Somalia

(i) Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States. The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement. Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(k) Sudan

(i) Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Sudan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

(l) Yemen

(i) Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. The government does not have physical control over its own territory. Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active United States military operations.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.

Sec. 3. Partial Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.

(a) Burundi

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Burundi as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Burundi to the extent permitted by law.

(b) Cuba

(i) Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States. Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Cuba to the extent permitted by law.

(c) Laos

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent. Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Laos as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Laos to the extent permitted by law.

(d) Sierra Leone

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent. Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Sierra Leone as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Sierra Leone to the extent permitted by law.

(e) Togo

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Togo as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Togo to the extent permitted by law.

(f) Turkmenistan

(i) According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Turkmenistan as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Turkmenistan to the extent permitted by law.

(g) Venezuela

(i) Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals. According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.

(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Venezuela as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B‑1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.

(iii) Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Venezuela to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 4. Scope and Implementation of Suspensions and Limitations. (a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any exceptions made pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the suspensions of and limitations on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the United States on the applicable effective date of this proclamation; and

(ii) do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date of this proclamation.

(b) Exceptions. The suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any dual national of a country designated under sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a country not so designated;

(iii) any foreign national traveling with a valid nonimmigrant visa in the following classifications: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6;

(iv) any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State;

(v) immediate family immigrant visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5) with clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g., DNA);

(vi) adoptions (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4);

(vii) Afghan Special Immigrant Visas;

(viii) Special Immigrant Visas for United States Government employees; and

(ix) immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.

(c) Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made for certain individuals for whom the Attorney General finds, in her discretion, that the travel by the individual would advance a critical United States national interest involving the Department of Justice, including when individuals must be present to participate in criminal proceedings as witnesses. These exceptions shall be made only by the Attorney General, or her designee, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(d) Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made case-by-case for individuals for whom the Secretary of State finds, in his discretion, that the travel by the individual would serve a United States national interest. These exceptions shall be made by only the Secretary of State or his designee, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee.

Sec. 5. Adjustments to and Removal of Suspensions and Limitations. (a) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director for National Intelligence, devise a process to assess whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented. Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, describing his assessment and recommending whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented.

(b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately engage each of the countries identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation on measures that must be taken to comply with United States screening, vetting, immigration, and security requirements.

(c) Additionally, and in light of recent events, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide me an update to the review of the practices and procedures of Egypt to confirm the adequacy of its current screening and vetting capabilities.

Sec. 6. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of this proclamation.

(b) In implementing this proclamation, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.

(d) This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CAT). Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT, consistent with the laws of the United States.

Sec. 7. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, foreign policy, and counterterrorism interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 8. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 12:01 am eastern daylight time on June 9, 2025.

Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

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

DONALD J. TRUMP

President Trump signed several executive orders on Wednesday aimed at reshaping American schools, including restricting how racism is taught in classrooms, curbing antisemitism and allowing taxpayer dollars to fund private schools.

The orders are designed to advance the Trump administration’s goal of shaking up the nation’s education system, which Mr. Trump has long derided as fostering left-leaning ideologies.

One of the orders, titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” sought to withhold funding from any schools that teach that the United States is “fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.” It directed agencies to produce an “ending indoctrination strategy” that would focus on uprooting instruction about transgender issues, “white privilege” or “unconscious bias” in schools, and to “prioritize federal resources, consistent with applicable law, to promote patriotic education.”

Another laid the foundations to deport international students accused of “antisemitic harassment and violence” in connection to protests over the war in Gaza, part of a wider crackdown on what the administration has deemed antisemitic speech.

And a third directed agencies to search for grants and discretionary programs that could be repurposed for use by states to fund voucher programs. Such programs allocate public funds to families to pay for children’s education at home or at private and religious schools.

The orders on Wednesday unleashed the Education Department to enforce penalties against schools that stray from the themes of “patriotic education” that Mr. Trump has said should be the underpinning of American history classes. And they appeared designed to send schools scrambling to check course catalogs for any content that could invite the government to rescind federal funds.

The order related to antisemitism was broad and enlisted many federal agencies in an effort to identify and punish demonstrators who caused disruptions amid nationwide protests against Israel and the war in Gaza — a group that could include students involved in campus protests.

It directed the State Department, Education Department and Homeland Security Department to guide colleges to “report activities by alien students and staff” that could be considered antisemitic, so that they could be investigated or deported.

Conservative lawmakers have urged universities to crack down on demonstrations against Israel. A report released by House Republicans in December floated the idea of deporting international students who it said expressed support for Hamas, whose attack on Israelis in October 2023 ignited more than a year of war.

The order cited existing law, under which the government is authorized to deport a person on a visa who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization,” which the report said should include expressing sympathy for Hamas.

Under the Biden administration, the Education Department investigated dozens of colleges and public school districts over complaints of antisemitism or anti-Arab and anti-Muslim discrimination. The department consistently sided with complainants, directing colleges to take a firmer stance against antisemitism and other forms of harassment or intimidation on campus.

Legal scholars and civil rights groups have regularly warned that federal investigations into schools over antisemitism can have a chilling effect on protected speech. But a growing number of universities, including N.Y.U. and Harvard, have changed their policies to try to respond to criticism and curb protests. Among other policies, some have adopted a definition of antisemitism that considers some criticisms of Israel — such as calling its formation a “racist endeavor” — to be antisemitic.

“It’s just crystal clear that they’re targeting people based on their viewpoint and their speech supporting Palestinian rights,” Radhika Sainath, a senior staff attorney with the group Palestine Legal, said Wednesday after the order was released. “And they’re trying to drag all federal departments into it.”

The second order on Wednesday directed the Education Department to end what it said were efforts in American schools to compel children “to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics.” It also condemned classroom instruction that it said had led children to “question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed.”

The order further warned that K-12 schools that defy the order could face investigation by the Education Department and ultimately a loss of federal funding.

The order also revived an effort to rewrite history syllabuses that Mr. Trump pursued during his first term. The effort, known as the 1776 Commission, is a road map created by a group of right-wing Trump allies meant to challenge how slavery is taught and portray left-wing social and political movements as subversive. The order reinstated the commission and directed the Education Department to fund it to the extent that was legal.

The bulk of federal funding to public school districts comes through the Title I program, which provides grants that help prop up high-poverty and rural schools in areas with weaker tax bases. That funding is set by Congress, and using it to enforce the president’s orders could present an uphill and possibly unwinnable battle.

But the Department also provides a slew of discretionary grants aimed at helping low-income students and minority groups, as well as students with disabilities. Many of those programs are currently under review by the agency to determine whether they defy Mr. Trump’s executive order to rid the government of “diversity, equity and inclusion” and other efforts.

Mr. Trump’s orders showed how he plans to leverage the education agency’s Office for Civil Rights, which has wide-ranging power to enforce the nation’s civil rights laws, as he seeks to empower his conservative base. The office is charged with enforcing some of the nation’s bedrock civil rights laws, and can withhold federal money from schools that don’t comply with the administration’s interpretation of them.

In the first week of Mr. Trump’s new term, the Education Department has been among the most vocal among federal agencies about its support of his plans to eradicate programs seen as “radical” and “wasteful.”

The department has sent a series of releases touting actions it had taken to comply with an earlier order to purge efforts to increase diversity, racial equity in hiring and accessibility across the government. Among other moves to, as it said, “end discrimination based on race and the use of harmful race stereotypes,” it took steps toward firing staff and identified 200 websites that it would take down.

And in an extraordinary step, the Education Department announced that the Office for Civil Rights had dismissed pending complaints people had filed to the office over efforts to ban books about race and gender. The office — which under Mr. Trump’s previous administration bolstered its stated mission to be an apolitical “a neutral fact-finder”— announced last week that it had ended what it called “Biden book ban hoax.”

The moves have been applauded by right-leaning groups. Nicole Neily, founder and president of Parents Defending Education, called the executive order a “vindication” of parents concerned about the way racism is taught about in schools, and a “tremendous first step in rooting out this poison from the American education system.”

The group had filed several complaints to the office under the previous administration alleging that schools’ diversity programs violated federal civil rights laws.

An array of organizations slammed the president’s order on classroom instruction on Wednesday, saying that it promotes distorted views of history and condemns practices that do not reflect the reality facing public students.

James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, said the executive order misrepresented how American history and civics are being taught. The group’s recent survey of educators “found little evidence that teachers are doing any of the things that are being banned in this executive order,” he said.

In a statement on Wednesday, Lambda Legal, an L.G.B.T.Q. legal advocacy organization, described the promotion of patriotic education as “whitewashing the chapters of our nation’s documented history related to race, gender, sexism, homophobia and related injustices.”

Mr. Trump’s third order on Wednesday directed agencies, in their review of discretionary spending, to find ways to allocate more federal funds to “expand education freedom” through voucher programs.

The order cited a National Assessment of Educational Progress report, also released on Wednesday, as evidence that public schools are failing students and that the government should fund alternative options. The report found that students’ proficiency in reading had floundered.

“Too many children do not thrive in their assigned, government-run K-12 school,” the order stated.

Expanding school choice programs has been a key conservative education policy for years, and was a main priority of Mr. Trump’s first education secretary, Betsy DeVos.

Many states already have policies in place allowing families to home-school their children or enroll them in private or religious institutions using public funds. Proponents say the programs allow parents to find the education options that are best for their children and to opt out of public schools that haven’t served them well.

Critics blame the programs for hurting the public school system and diverting badly needed funding to schools that are rarely required to meet state performance standards and often produce poor student achievement.

“Instead of stealing taxpayer money to fund private schools, we should focus on public schools,” said Rebecca Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, a teachers’ union.

Anemona Hartocollis and Dana Goldstein contributed reporting from New York.