Proposed US visa restrictions reignite debate over African sovereignty, Western coercion and the urgent need for a united response.
A proposed expansion of the travel ban US President Donald Trump originally rolled out during his first term in office – reportedly targeting 36 countries, including 25 in Africa – is threatening to redraw diplomatic lines and expose Africa’s enduring vulnerability to external pressure.
A classified memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and leaked to the media, outlines sweeping new visa restrictions on countries deemed “uncooperative” in deportation enforcement and security vetting.
The State Department cites several concerns:
- Failure by some governments to produce reliable identity documents
- Refusal to facilitate the return of deported nationals
- Visa overstays
- Alleged involvement in terrorism or antisemitic and anti-American activity
Unless the listed countries respond with corrective “action plans” within the next 60 days, they risk full or partial entry bans. The African countries named include:
Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
This would mark a significant expansion of a ban in effect since early June, which now applies to Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Togo.
‘A pressure strategy without strategy’
The policy appears more about domestic politics than foreign strategy, says Cameron Hudson, a former Bush Administration Africa official whose past employment includes the State Department, National Security Council and CIA.
Disrespect, because the Trump team doesn’t see the need to engage diplomatically. Desperation, because rather than negotiate, they are resorting to coercion
“This seems to be part of the Trump administration’s larger crackdown on illegal immigration,” Hudson tells The Africa Report. “But like many aspects of Trump’s approach, it comes across as entirely unstrategic and willfully ignorant of the second and third-order effects of such a far-reaching ban.”
For many African observers, the proposed blacklist is not about security but about control over mobility, influence and economic access. These concerns have little to do with individual migration cases and more to do with securing leverage on strategic resources and influence.
The US is also pushing infrastructure deals across the continent, including in Angola, Zambia and the DRC (Lobito Corridor). Restricting visas may be a way to force cooperation.
“It’s a message of disrespect and desperation,” says Ovigwe Eguegu, a policy adviser at Development Reimagined. “Disrespect, because the Trump team doesn’t see the need to engage diplomatically. Desperation, because rather than negotiate, they are resorting to coercion.”
Eguegu adds that the timing is no coincidence. With the next US-Africa Leaders Summit later this month and enthusiasm on the African side reportedly low, he sees the visa threat as a pressure tactic.
“This is pressure by visa,” Eguegu says. “An instrument of leverage dressed up as security policy.”
Madi Jobarteh, the executive director of the Gambian NGO Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights and Justice, says: “Trump is driven by an uninformed and racist perspective based on a self-conceited idea of himself and the US.”
Trump’s disdain for Africa is well-known. In 2018, he infamously referred to African nations as “shithole countries”. His original travel ban disproportionately affected African and Muslim-majority countries.
“These are deliberate efforts to delegitimise African leadership,” says Nigerian public affairs analyst Jide Ojo. “They work because our leaders are weak. They defer to the West for everything, from validating elections to shaping economic policy.”
How will Africa respond?
So far, African governments have remained largely quiet. Eguegu expects symbolic responses, perhaps a statement from the African Union, or a tit-for-tat visa move by countries like Chad.
“AoSS (Alliance of Sahel States) bloc members like Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso could respond symbolically, given their already strained ties with Washington,” he adds.
But countries with close ties to the US, including Egypt, Angola, Zambia and the DRC are likely to engage quietly through diplomatic channels to protect investment deals.
Hudson agrees. He sees a fractured response as more likely than coordinated AU action. “I could imagine certain powerful African states, with large American diasporas like Ethiopia and Nigeria, working bilaterally and lobbying in Washington to avoid being added to the list. This would likely undermine any collective action by the AU.”
And how much does Washington care?
“The Trump team clearly believes it can denigrate African states while still pursuing its strategic goals – whether on minerals, migration or trade. They’re betting African states will simply go along,” Hudson says.
“Trump is banking on the old adage: The strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must. It’s up to Africa to prove that wrong.”
For Jobarteh, African governments and the AU “are so dependent on the US and other foreign entities that Africa has been emptied of any iota of courage, dignity or idea to stand for itself”.
The AU did not respond to our request for comment.