People walking through an airport.

What did Laos ever do to anyone? A closer look at Trump’s travel ban

On June 4, the White House announced travel restrictions on 19 different countries, but what was the reasoning?

Is there any rhyme or reason to the countries affected by Trump's travel ban?

tomispin - stock.adobe.com

Words by Anjana Pawa

President Donald Trump’s administration has enacted a sweeping travel ban barring citizens from a dozen countries from entering the United States, and imposing partial restrictions on seven additional nations. The announcement came June 4, with officials warning that more countries could be added to the list. According to the White House, the ban’s intent is to remove “terrorist threats and weak vetting procedures,” mainly aimed at countries with high visa overstay rates.

The ban follows an attack on June 1 in Boulder, Colorado, involving an Egyptian national who had overstayed a tourist visa. Though Egypt is not included in the current travel ban, the administration has pointed to the incident as evidence of gaps in immigration enforcement and a justification for tightening entry requirements across the board.

Among the 19 countries on the list, five Asian countries will be affected, with the full travel ban applying to Afghanistan and Iran, and partial restrictions and visa limitations imposed upon travelers from Laos, Myanmar, and Turkmenistan. The remaining countries affected by the full ban are Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. And the remaining countries with partial restrictions and visa limitations are Burundi, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Venezuela.

Among those five Asian countries, two are located in Southeast Asia: Myanmar and Laos. In a statement, the administration noted that Myanmar, which the U.S. government still refers to as Burma, has “historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.” As for Laos, the administration’s justification remains largely unarticulated, leaving people to wonder why it was included. Its inclusion signals a broader pattern of targeting countries with strained diplomatic ties to the U.S. government. Tensions between the two countries rose as Laos built its diplomatic ties to China, leading U.S. officials to believe that the nation is unaligned with Western diplomacy and security measures. Even with these tensions, punishing Laotian citizens, who often come to the United States for family reunification or education, is a deeply unjust response to diplomatic disagreements.

Since the 2021 military coup in Myanmar, the country has seen escalating violence and mass displacement, particularly against the Rohingya Muslim community. According to the United Nations, more than 2.5 million people have been displaced or have fled the country since 2021, and Myanmar remains one of the top countries of origin for asylum seekers and refugees worldwide. With legal migration pathways now restricted and the travel ban in place here in the United States, advocates warn that those fleeing violence may be left without options.

The new policy has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, civil rights groups, and globally, from national governments to human rights organizations. Amnesty International condemned the ban as "discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel," arguing that it targets individuals based on nationality rather than real security threats. Domestically, Democratic lawmakers have denounced the ban. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington state shared publicly on June 5 that the policy “will only further isolate us on the world stage” and criticized it for limiting legal immigration.

This latest directive from the administration echoes the original 2017 executive order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban,” which drew protests nationwide and was challenged repeatedly in court before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. While the list of targeted countries is not the same, it could be argued that the underlying intent remains the same: to restrict immigration from countries with majority non-white populations and fragile political ties with the United States and its allies, under the guise of national security.

And this is not the only front on which these core values are under attack—it’s also happening on American soil.

Just days after announcing the travel ban, Trump escalated tensions by deploying National Guard troops and federal agents to Los Angeles in response to widespread protests against the immigration crackdown and increasing number of ICE raids happening across the country. Despite no major incidents of violence reported at the LA protests, thousands of National Guard troops were activated under the Presidential Title 10 authority, meaning they were deployed under federal authority, not the state’s. California Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly condemned the deployment as “an unlawful militarization of our streets” and a dangerous escalation that bypassed the state’s governance.

Zooming out, a pattern emerges. The travel ban and the deployment of troops are not isolated incidents. They are part of a strategy to redefine what it means to be “American” under Trump’s administration. To call these policies controversial or partisan is to ignore the deeper threat they pose. By weaponizing immigration policy and militarizing dissent, the Trump administration is not protecting the nation, it is narrowing it. These actions aren’t about safety, they are about power and they mark a deep, and violent, departure from the democratic values that American claims to defend.

Published on June 12, 2025

Words by Anjana Pawa

Anjana Pawa is a Brooklyn-based culture reporter who regularly covers music, entertainment and beauty. You can find her on Twitter at @apawawrites.