Presidential Proclamation 10998: Full and Partial Visa Suspensions for 39 Nations
Presidential Proclamation 10998 has fundamentally altered US border access, splitting 39 nations into full and partial visa suspensions. While a recent federal court ruling unblocked domestic immigration processing, the international travel ban remains a complex hurdle for global tourists and families.
Share this story
In short
- Presidential Proclamation 10998 splits 39 countries into full and partial visa suspension tiers.
- 19 countries face a total block on all new immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.
- 20 countries face a partial block, restricting tourist and student visas while allowing some work visas.
The tension at the heart of global travel in 2026 is a collision of open invitations and locked doors. On one hand, the United States is preparing to co-host the FIFA World Cup, projecting an image of international welcome and global celebration. On the other, the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 10998 has fundamentally rewritten the rules of entry, suspending or severely limiting visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries.
For travelers, families, and businesses navigating this landscape, the confusion often stems from a misunderstanding of how the restrictions actually function. The proclamation is not a single, blanket ban; it is a highly structured, two-tiered system that treats different passports—and different visa categories—in vastly different ways.[3][4]
To resolve this confusion, it is necessary to look at the mechanics of the policy, which took effect at the beginning of the year. The proclamation divides the 39 affected nations into two distinct categories: a "full suspension" list and a "partial suspension" list. For the 19 countries on the full suspension list—which includes nations like Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, and Syria—the door is effectively closed.
All immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories are blocked for individuals applying from outside the United States who did not already hold a valid visa. For these travelers, routine tourism, business trips, and family visits are currently off the table unless they possess dual citizenship with a non-restricted country.[2][4]
The second tier, the partial suspension list, covers 20 countries and introduces a more nuanced set of hurdles. This group includes populous nations with high volumes of outbound travel, such as Nigeria, Angola, and Venezuela. For these nationals, the restriction is surgical: it blocks the issuance of B-1/B-2 visitor visas, as well as F, M, and J student and exchange visas.
However, certain employment-based visas may still be processed. This creates a complex reality for international professionals. A business owner in Lagos might qualify for a specialized work visa but find themselves entirely blocked from obtaining the standard tourist visa required to attend a conference or a World Cup match as a fan.[2][3]
The travel industry is already feeling the ripple effects of these partial suspensions, particularly in regions where group travel is culturally significant. In West Africa, for example, international trips are frequently organized in large groups of friends, colleagues, or supporters' clubs. If one member of a travel party holds a passport subject to the B-1/B-2 suspension, the entire itinerary can unravel.
Furthermore, while exemptions exist for essential personnel—such as the "athlete exemption" that allows sports teams and key staff to travel for major tournaments—these carve-outs do not extend to the general public. Programs designed to expedite visa interviews for event ticket holders cannot override the underlying eligibility restrictions imposed by the proclamation.[3]
While the international travel restrictions remain firmly in place, the domestic application of the policy recently faced a significant legal reversal. Following the proclamation's rollout, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) placed a sweeping hold on the processing of immigration benefits—including green cards, work permits, and naturalization applications—for nationals of the 39 countries who were already inside the United States. This internal freeze left thousands of legal residents in a state of administrative limbo, unable to renew their status or finalize their citizenship.[1]
While the international travel restrictions remain firmly in place, the domestic application of the policy recently faced a significant legal reversal.
That domestic freeze was struck down on June 5, 2026, when a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled the USCIS policy unlawful. The court determined that the agency lacked the legal authority to indefinitely suspend the processing of domestic immigration benefits based on nationality.
The ruling ordered USCIS to resume adjudicating the stalled applications, unblocking the pipeline for hundreds of thousands of individuals already living and working within the country. However, legal experts emphasize a critical distinction: the court's decision only applies to USCIS processing inside the United States. It does not invalidate the State Department's consular restrictions abroad.[1][4]
This bifurcated reality—where domestic processing has resumed but international visa issuance remains suspended—requires travelers to approach US entry with meticulous planning. A national of a restricted country who is already inside the US can now proceed with adjusting their status, but a relative in their home country remains barred from obtaining a tourist visa to visit them.
As the global travel industry adapts to these mechanics, the emphasis has shifted from standard itinerary planning to rigorous passport and eligibility auditing, ensuring that travelers understand exactly which tier of the proclamation applies to their journey.[1][3][4]
The broader diplomatic consequences of the proclamation are still unfolding. By utilizing the "public charge" rule and national security directives to reshape legal immigration, the administration has signaled a long-term shift in border policy. Analysts project that these combined measures will significantly reduce overall legal immigration over the next several years. For the everyday traveler, the immediate takeaway is clear: the era of frictionless global entry has been replaced by a highly structured, nationality-based framework that demands careful navigation.[2][4]
Jargon, explained
- Presidential Proclamation 10998
- An executive action that fully or partially suspended US entry and visa issuance for nationals of 39 specific countries.
- B-1/B-2 Visa
- The standard US nonimmigrant visa issued for temporary business (B-1) or tourism and visiting (B-2).
- USCIS
- US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that oversees lawful immigration and processes applications for benefits within the United States.
- Consular Processing
- The procedure of applying for a US visa at a US embassy or consulate outside the country.
Common questions
What is the difference between the full and partial visa suspensions?
The full suspension blocks all immigrant and nonimmigrant visas for nationals of 19 countries. The partial suspension, applying to 20 countries, blocks tourist (B-1/B-2) and student visas, but may still allow certain employment-based visas to be processed.
Does the June 2026 court ruling mean the travel ban is over?
No. The federal court ruling only struck down the domestic freeze on processing applications for people already inside the United States. The international suspension on issuing new visas at consulates abroad remains in effect.
Can travelers from restricted countries still attend major sporting events in the US?
While there are specific exemptions for athletes and essential team staff, general fans and tourists from restricted countries are barred from obtaining the necessary B-1/B-2 visitor visas to attend.
Competing readings
Immigration Advocates' View
Legal experts and advocacy groups argue the restrictions are an overreach that unfairly penalizes legal residents and their families.
Immigration advocates view the dual-layered restrictions as a blunt instrument that causes unnecessary administrative chaos and human hardship. They point to the domestic freeze implemented by USCIS—which stalled green cards and work permits for people already legally residing in the US—as evidence that the policy's execution was arbitrary. While they celebrated the June 2026 court ruling that struck down the domestic freeze, advocates continue to challenge the international consular bans, arguing that they separate families, deprive the US economy of needed labor, and violate the spirit of equal treatment under immigration law.
National Security Proponents' View
Supporters of the proclamation maintain that strict, nationality-based vetting is required to protect the homeland and public resources.
From a national security and border enforcement perspective, the proclamation is defended as a necessary recalibration of US entry standards. Proponents argue that the 39 countries were identified due to deficiencies in their own information-sharing and security protocols, making it impossible for US consular officers to properly vet applicants. By utilizing executive authority and the 'public charge' rule, supporters believe the administration is fulfilling its mandate to ensure that new arrivals do not pose a security risk or become a long-term financial burden on American taxpayers.
International Travelers' View
Global tourists and expatriates emphasize the logistical nightmare of navigating partial bans and the disruption of major life events.
For the travelers directly caught in the crosshairs, the mechanics of the ban translate into canceled plans and lost investments. Travelers from partially suspended countries, such as Nigeria, express frustration over the surgical nature of the restrictions, where a highly qualified business professional might be approved for a work visa but denied a tourist visa to attend a family wedding or a World Cup match. This perspective highlights the lack of transparency in the rollout and the cascading effect the rules have on group travel, connecting flights, and international commerce, turning routine trip planning into a high-stakes legal gamble.
- Immigration Advocates
- Argues that the sweeping suspensions disrupt families, harm the economy by reducing the labor supply, and unfairly target specific nationalities.
- National Security Proponents
- Maintains that the restrictions are a necessary tool to enforce rigorous vetting, protect public resources, and ensure border security.
- Affected International Travelers
- Focuses on the practical logistical hurdles, financial costs, and the disruption of global events and family reunification caused by the sudden visa blocks.
Perspectives this story doesn't cover
- US University Admissions Officers
- Multinational Corporate HR Departments
Sources
[1]American Immigration CouncilImmigration AdvocatesUSCIS suspended the processing of immigration benefits for nationals of 39 different countries
Read on American Immigration Council →
[2]ForbesNational Security ProponentsUsing The Public Charge Rule To Restrict Immigration
Read on Forbes →
[3]TravelTankAffected International TravelersWhat the US ban list means for West Africans
Read on TravelTank →
[4]Factlen Editorial TeamSynthesis by Factlen editorial team
Read on Factlen Editorial Team →
More in Travel
See all →Consular Policy
The Four-Level Scale and the C, T, U, H, N, E, K, D, and O Risk Indicators: How the US State Department Actually Quantifies Travel Risk
3 sources
Aviation Safety
The 50-Meter Threshold: How Runway Visual Range (RVR) Actually Dictates Low-Visibility Landings
6 sources
VAT Refunds
The 12% Threshold: How Tourists Actually Claim VAT Refunds on Purchases in the European Union
6 sources
Aegean Logistics
The 40-Million Visitor Push: How Greece is Stretching Its Island Tourism Into the Winter
5 sources
Comments
Every angle. Every day.
Get Travel stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns, free every day.




