The Travel Ban’s Statistical Gaps and Strategic Costs
When the United States chooses to bar entire nations from entry, it does more than simply close borders. The travel ban introduced in Executive Order 14161 revived the logic of the 2017 “Muslim ban” (EO 13769) and is currently shaping the character and image of U.S. foreign policy. The executive order banned twelve countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, the Republic of Congo, and Yemen, and restricted seven: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Although presented as a national security measure countering illegal immigration, the order fails to address fundamental drivers of this issue. Instead, at a time of global realignment, the travel ban misapplies statistics to justify exclusion and undermines both national interest and global standing.
Visa overstay is one of the central issues used to justify the ban. The administration claims that the targeted countries have the highest rate of overstayed visas, but relying on this metric alone does not adequately address the problem. Compared to the whole of the problem, the twelve banned nations contribute minimally to the total number of overstayed visas, collectively comprising less than 7% of overstays in 2023. For example, the Trump administration cited Chad’s “unacceptable” overstay rate of 49.27%, but this amounts to just 451 individuals. Numerous countries not included in the ban, such as Mexico (with 52,116 overstays) and Colombia (42,573) had significantly more overstayed U.S. visas than each of the banned nations, except Haiti. These figures specifically represent air and sea entries as only Canada and Mexico have access to land entry.
While countries in Latin America contribute significantly to the total number, other regions also have considerable figures. 11 European nations like Spain (18,383) individually exceed the total number of visas of the seven banned African countries combined, yet no European country was banned or restricted. Analyzing visa overstay rates is not without value but relying on them without considering the scale of entry leads to distortion. The rate of overstayed visas indicates the probability that someone from a given nation might overstay their visa. While this is a relevant statistic, nations with fewer total entries are more likely to have higher rates, just as nations with larger numbers of entries are likely to have more overstays in absolute terms. Apart from Haiti, the countries targeted by the ban averaged fewer than 3,000 entries each which makes the overstay rates appear inflated compared to countries with much higher entry volumes. Effective immigration policy should use multiple indicators over time to assess risk and develop solutions. Banning entire nations that individually account for a franction of a percent of the total overstayed visas in 2023 will not meaningfully address overall illegal immigration.
In June 2025, the Trump administration announced plans to add 36 countries to the list, including 25 African nations like key strategic partners Egypt and Djibouti. Meanwhile, western U.S. allies remain off the list. The African continent experiences the most restrictions on visa entries and African countries experience the highest student visa denial rates averaging 57% and some as high as 61%, indicating a generally more restrictive process for African applicants across visa categories. Disproportionate targeting by selective use of overstay rates of African nations under the guise of national security affirms this ban is likely driven by optics. It creates an impression that U.S. immigration policy lacks consistent principles.
The travel ban is not an appropriate solution to addressing immigration. It relies on an overstay rate that does not reflect volume, regional context or comparative impact. The list of countries itself can be debated using the same data it was built upon. Effective immigration policy should prioritize bilateral enforcement agreements, enhanced visa tracking and coordination with foreign governments to reduce overstays without cutting off entire populations. When the U.S. imposes entry bans it restricts soft power that relies on elements like educational exchange, policy dialogue and civil society engagement. Public diplomacy is vital to national security and in regions such as Africa, China and Russia are rapidly moving to strengthen ties as American influence erodes. A principled approach that is based off both data and diplomacy will strengthen national security and U.S. global influence.
Overstayed visas are a central issue in discussions about immigration enforcement. However, targeting countries that pose little statistical impact does not address the systematic causes or patterns of overstays. It creates the illusion of action and reduces trust in American leadership while restricting educational, cultural and diplomatic connections that serve long-term strategic interests. Security can be achieved without sacrificing the American principles and values that make it a global power.
