New immigration proposal would ban travelers from several Muslim-majority countries

A new Republican proposal in Congress would sharply restrict who can enter the United States by targeting travelers from a list of Muslim-majority countries and other nations labeled as adversaries. The plan comes on top of an already sweeping set of executive travel and immigration limits and would harden a security-first approach that critics argue is effectively a religion-based ban.

The measure would test how far lawmakers are willing to go in writing nationality-based exclusions into statute at a moment when the executive branch has already used proclamations to shut down visa processing for wide swaths of the world.

What the new proposal would do

Representative Andy Ogles, identified in his own office materials as Andy Ogles, R Tenn., has promoted a forthcoming bill that would halt entry from what he calls Islamic countries and United States adversaries in response to a recent shooting in Texas. In a press statement circulated through his office and highlighted in conservative media, Ogles framed the plan as a homeland security measure that would block immigration from a roster of Muslim countries and governments he describes as hostile to the United States, language that tracks with his branding as a MAGA hardliner on immigration policy, according to his own press release.

The proposal would sit alongside, not replace, the existing presidential travel restrictions that already govern who can receive a visa or board a flight to the United States. Its practical effect would depend on how Congress writes any overlap or new categories into law and on whether courts allow them to stand.

Layering a statutory ban on top of existing restrictions

The executive branch has already locked in a far-reaching system of nationality-based limits through a series of proclamations. A key step came when President Trump issued Proclamation 10949, which took effect in early June, followed by Proclamation 10998, which extended and broadened those measures, as summarized in federal guidance that tracks each Proclamation.

Immigration specialists describe the December order as an Expanded Travel and Immigration Ban that reaches far beyond the original 2017 restrictions. Advocacy groups say this expanded system affects people from multiple regions, including those who seek immigrant visas and some categories of nonimmigrant travel, and they refer to it as the Expanded Travel and.

Immigration law firms that track consular practice report that, as of early 2026, President Trump has imposed a revised system that either fully or partially blocks visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries. One legal analysis notes that the December order expanded the list so that visa processing is now restricted for nationals of exactly 39 countries, with varying degrees of severity by visa type.

Separate guidance for universities and international students explains that these restrictions have direct consequences for campus communities. One advisory aimed at students and scholars lists which nationalities face new travel hurdles and urges careful planning, presenting the information as up to date Travel Restrictions for the 2026 academic year.

Policy analysts have placed the current regime in a broader political context. One international affairs briefing notes that U.S. immigrant visa processing has been shut down indefinitely for 75 countries and describes the move as part of a series of actions that followed earlier disputes over National Guard deployments in Washington, DC, linking the expanded list to a broader strategy by The Donald Trump administration.

Another advocacy explainer stresses that both the June Ban and the December expansion are set to remain in place until at least January 21, 2026, absent new action, and again refers to the December order as the Expanded Travel and that now defines the legal landscape for many families.

Immigrant rights groups in New York have tried to quantify the human impact. One coalition estimates that the Trump Admin Expands Muslim and African Ban, Putting 420K New Yorkers at Risk, language that underscores how many residents of a single state have ties to countries swept into the new categories and that criticizes the Proclamation for sharply reducing options for refugees and other immigrants, as described in a statement titled Trump Admin Expands Muslim, African Ban, Putting, New Yorkers, Risk.

Video explainers aimed at a general audience emphasize that President Trump has more than doubled the number of countries facing travel bans or restrictions compared with the original list. One such piece states that in December Trump more than doubled the count, reinforcing the impression that Trump has leaned heavily on nationality-based controls.

Travel media have tried to translate the legal jargon into practical advice. One overview notes that President Trump issued a sweeping new proclamation that expanded U.S. travel restrictions to include 20 additional countries and offers a guide for travelers on how the updated policy affects itineraries and bookings, highlighting how President Trump has reshaped cross-border movement even for short-term visits.

Legal commentators have also mapped the formal steps behind these changes. One analysis titled President Trump Issues Expanded Travel Ban Effective January explains that On December 16, President Trump signed the expanded order that built on an earlier directive issued on January 20, 2025, and that this December action cemented the multi-tier system of restrictions, as summarized in a briefing labeled President Trump Issues.

Another immigration advisory for employers and travelers reiterates that President Trump has issued a new travel ban that either fully or partially bars visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries and that the December 16 adjustment revised who could qualify for waivers or limited exceptions, framing it as a major expansion by President Trump.

Within that framework, the list of targeted states includes several Muslim-majority countries that have become shorthand for the policy debate. U.S. materials that summarize the restrictions consistently cite Iran as a key example, along with Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya as countries whose nationals face heightened scrutiny or outright visa bans.

Additional references in policy and advocacy documents point to other Muslim-majority states and conflict zones that interact with the ban system. Background materials mention Egypt, Pakistan, and Iraq in discussions of how security vetting and refugee resettlement have changed for travelers from the broader region.

Other sources track how the ban architecture intersects with states that are not Muslim-majority but are categorized as adversaries or crisis zones. Official and advocacy materials reference North Korea, Venezuela, and disputed territories governed by the Palestinian Authority, which are addressed in sections of the December Proclamation that spell out how nationality and residence interact.

In this context, Ogles’s push for a statutory ban would move the policy debate from the realm of executive discretion into explicit congressional endorsement of broad nationality-based exclusions. Supporters argue that the Texas shooting and other security incidents justify closing the door to travelers from governments they see as unwilling or unable to vet their citizens properly, a view reflected in the language of the Ogles announcement.

Civil liberties advocates counter that the existing Expanded Travel and Immigration Ban already functions as a de facto Muslim and African ban and that codifying a new layer in statute would make it harder for future administrations to unwind. They point to the 420K New Yorkers at risk figure and to the indefinite shutdown of immigrant visa processing for 75 countries as evidence that the current system already reaches far beyond any narrow security rationale.

Whether Ogles’s bill advances or stalls, the debate around it highlights how normalized nationality-based restrictions have become in U.S. immigration law. With Proclamation 10949, Proclamation 10998, and the December expansion all still in force, the proposal signals that some lawmakers want to go even further and make such limits a permanent feature of the legal code rather than a temporary tool of a single administration.

Like Fix It Homestead’s content? Be sure to follow us.

Here’s more from us:

• I made Joanna Gaines’s Friendsgiving casserole and here is what I would keep
• Pump Shotguns That Jam the Moment You Actually Need Them
• The First 5 Things Guests Notice About Your Living Room at Christmas
• What Caliber Works Best for Groundhogs, Armadillos, and Other Digging Pests?
• Rifles worth keeping by the back door on any rural property

*This article was developed with AI-powered tools and has been carefully reviewed by our editors.