travel ban meaning definition

What is the travel ban? What does it mean for refugees?

The United States has historically welcomed refugees fleeing war and persecution, and given them a chance to rebuild their lives in safety. The Trump Administration’s executive orders on refugee travel, however, have hindered these efforts.

Breaking, Jan 31, 2020: The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds today to reports of the Trump Administration’s policy decision to expand the Travel Ban . 

While the Trump travel ban officially expired on Oct. 24, it isn’t over . Arbitrary new vetting measures effectively extend the ban for 90 days for refugees from 11 countries. These procedures will lengthen the resettlement process for thousands of people escaping violence and conflict.

President Trump first instated the travel ban on Jan. 27—his first week in office. This executive order suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred refugees fleeing the war in Syria from entry to the U.S. indefinitely. It also barred entry to refugees from six other countries— Iraq , Iran, Sudan, Libya , Somalia and Yemen —for 90 days. The order resulted in chaos at airports across the country as refugees who were already in the air were detained and, in some cases, sent back to the crises they had fled.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

After the travel ban was hit by a barrage of legal opposition and challenged in federal courts, President Trump issued a revised order on Mar. 6. This new order excluded restrictions on travelers who hold green cards in the U.S. It also removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the ban, and it removed the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

A Pakistani family is to arrive in the US next week as refugees with an IRC tie. Will they be allowed to stay? https://t.co/3Beqsc3eUp pic.twitter.com/Vfm60suJbO — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 29, 2017

This second travel ban was also challenged in federal courts. On Jun. 26, however, the Supreme Court put a partial stay on the rulings against the travel ban, effectively reinstating the order and immediately impacting already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.

The Trump Administration followed this decision with new guidelines on the travel ban , stipulating that people who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. can enter the country. These arbitrary guidelines raise more questions than answers. For example, travelers with a child or parent will be allowed entry; those with a grandchild or grandparent will not.

This limited travel ban went into effect on July 13 , leaving thousands of vulnerable refugees who were not already on flights to the United States stranded. It was challenged the same day by a federal judge in Hawaii who ordered the Trump administration to expand the number of people who are exempt from the travel ban to include grandparents and other relatives, as well as refugees without family ties to the U.S. 

Courts narrowed the scope even further on Sept. 7, ruling that there is a bona fide relationship between a resettlement agency and a refugee. But on Sep 12, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to stop refugees from entering the U.S. ahead of plans to hear arguments on the lawfulness of the travel ban on Oct. 10. These hearings were later cancelled as the Oct. 24 expiration date for the 120-day travel ban period approached, rendering the case moot.

The ban came at a time when more people are uprooted by violence than at any time since World War II—leaving innocent lives in danger or adrift.

“Legal uncertainty must not obscure that a ban on refugees is both bad and unnecessary policy,” said David Miliband , President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said in January. “We should look no further than the last six months as proof: the current system works well. It is harder to get to the U.S. as a refugee than through any other route, so this ban remains wholly unnecessary.”

IRC resettlement and policy experts have answered some of the questions you may have about the executive order: 

What is the travel ban?

The travel ban is an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27 and revised on Mar. 6. It suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred entry to refugees from six countries – Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – for 90 days. Iraq was removed from the list in March.

Is the travel ban over?

No. It expired on Oct 24, but new vetting procedures introduced by the Trump administration continue to thwart the resettlement process for refugees living in dire situations. According to Reuters, these new processes will “determine what additional safeguards, if any, were necessary to ensure that the admission of refugees from these countries of concern does not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.” For example, refugees will need to provide additional information such as addresses, phone numbers and email addresses for themselves and potentially their family members

Why did the White House want to halt refugee resettlement for 120 days?

The Trump administration has an unfounded belief that there is no proper security screening for refugees. It said it needed four months to review  existing security procedures .

But aren’t refugees already extremely vetted?

Yes. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the U.S. The resettlement process can last anywhere from 18-24 months after rigorous vetting by over a dozen federal agencies .  

A reminder of how the U.S. refugee vetting & resettlement process really works: https://t.co/mjMd8XzCo2 #StandWithRefugees #RefugeesWelcome pic.twitter.com/RBASDGxjUg — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 28, 2017

Refugees undergo biographic and biometric checks, medical screenings, forensic document testing, and in-person interviews. Syrian refugees must go through an additional layer of screening.

Who is exempt from the travel ban?

People who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the U.S. are exempt from the travel ban.

U.S. citizens and legal residents, such as green card holders and visa holders, are also exempt from the travel ban.

Who is considered to have a “bona fide relationship” with a person under the Trump administration’s guidelines? Who is not?

On Sept. 7, a federal appeals court ruled travelers with not only a close family relationship—child, spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling or half sibling—but also other relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins will be allowed entry into the U.S. But the Supreme Court reversed this ruling a few days later.

Out of 2,500 people the IRC was scheduled to resettle in 2017, roughly 1,950 do not meet the arbitrary definitions imposed by the administration—either because they do not possess U.S. ties or because they do not meet a near-nuclear family definition.

The banning of grandmothers—of unaccompanied children—from America’s shores is a disgrace.

Resettlement agencies like the IRC partner with the U.S. State Department and the U.S. government, which handpick and vet refugees to be matched with these agencies. This rigorous process can take up to two years.

As the travel ban took effect, the IRC urged the administration to speak about the legal justifications for their interpretation, and to provide additional guidance to resettlement agencies.

In his July 13 ruling, Judge Derrick Watson  of Hawaii not only loosened the travel ban restrictions to exempt grandparents and other relatives but ordered the Trump administration to admit refugees without family ties in the U.S. who had an assurance from a resettlement agency.

"An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court's touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades," Watson explained. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that." 

Why has the travel ban been challenged in multiple federal courts?

The travel ban has been challenged in multiple federal courts because it is seen as blatantly unconstitutional and it discriminates against people based on their religion and nationality. It was also hastily issued without any input from government bodies—such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State—that oversee immigrant and refugee travel.  

What did the Supreme Court's decision to hear the travel ban case in the fall—while partly reinstating the ban—mean for refugees?

The implementation of a partial stay by the Supreme Court on rulings against the Trump administration’s travel ban immediately impacts already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.  

This will have a disastrous impact on refugees. The IRC is gravely concerned about the humanitarian consequences, and the policy consequences, of the decision reinstate the administration’s travel ban.

We’ve seen some of the dire impacts of this policy in action: urgent medical conditions blocked, innocent people left in unimaginable circumstances. The ban remains a counterproductive measure: coming to the United States as a refugee is, by far, the most difficult route an individual can take. This is a system strengthened by successive presidential administrations, both republican and democratic. Slamming the door puts innocent lives at risk and does nothing to make us safer.

“The Court’s decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the U.S.,” said IRC president David Miliband.

How many refugees does the U.S. take in each year compared to other countries?

The U.S. is just one of 28 resettlement countries. Out of the nearly 20 million refugees in the world, less than 1 percent are considered for resettlement worldwide. Only a fraction of that 1 percent is invited to resettle in the United States.

How many refugees were to be admitted in 2017?

The lowest number in a decade: Although the U.S. was scheduled to admit up to 110,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017, the Administration slashed that number to 50,000. The fiscal year for resettlement ended in September.

How many refugees will be admitted in 2018?

President Trump set a cap of 45,000 for fiscal year 2018. 

How many people will the travel ban affect?

The Trump Administration policy will exacerbate the suffering of an estimated 60,000 vulnerable refugees who have been security vetted and are awaiting resettlement to the U.S.

Some 65 million people are currently displaced around the world. We are facing the most serious displacement crisis we’ve known since World War II.

For example, after six years of war in Syria, its neighbors can no longer absorb more refugees. The need for resettlement in safe third states is more necessary than ever— so President Trump’s refugee policies will affect the lives of the few given this chance in the U.S.

What will happen to refugees already approved for resettlement who haven't yet arrived?

The impact of cancelling refugees’ journeys to the U.S. is life and death for those with urgent medical conditions. It is acutely dangerous for refugee children who are on their own; it derails the progress of young refugee families who have quit jobs and vacated apartments in the countries where they found temporary asylum, all while pursuing better lives for their children through resettlement.

The temporary halt in the resettlement program may force refugees who already went through the rigorous screening process and who were set to arrive in the U.S. soon to instead wait months and even years to go through fingerprinting, interviews, health screenings, and multiple security checks all over again, all while their lives are in danger.

In addition, the travel ban is harmful to resettlement agencies who have made extensive preparations, financial and otherwise, for refugees who were expected to arrive.  

What does the travel ban mean for refugees already in the U.S.?

Refugees already in the U.S. who have been waiting to be reunited with family members still in danger may never have that opportunity, or their reunion may be delayed for months or years. The  Supreme Court ruling on Jun. 26, however, stipulates that those with a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. may be admitted. For instance, step-siblings and half-siblings will be admitted, but nieces and nephews will not.

Why did the travel ban name Syrian refugees, specifically?

On the campaign trail and now in the White House, Trump has made unfounded claims that refugees from war-torn Syria are a security threat. He has called them “a Trojan Horse” that would make America vulnerable to terrorism.

In fact, refugees coming to the U.S. are fleeing the same violent extremism that the U.S. and its allies are fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere. Based on recent data, the majority of those selected for resettlement in America are women and children.

Approximately 10,000 of the refugees who arrived in the U.S. in 2016 were from Syria. Syrian refugees must already go through an additional layer of screening on top of the already-rigorous vetting all refugees go through. This "enhanced review" process creates extra review steps with intelligence agencies and Department of Homeland Security officers who have particular expertise and training in conditions in Syria and the Middle East.

These additional reviews must take place before the refugee officer conducts the final in-person interview. This means that not only is there an extra layer of scrutiny—which the government believes is necessary because of the complexity of the conflict in Syria—but the process may also take longer due to this extra step.

This enhanced review makes it even more difficult for those who would do America harm to get through, while making it a more arduous process for all of the innocent refugees.

Are other countries part of the ban?

The original travel ban executive order barred both citizens and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries that have been linked to concerns about terrorism from entry into the United States for 90 days. The countries originally included in the ban were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Iraq, however, was removed from the list in May 2017.

New guidelines issued in September effectively extend the ban for people from 11 countries, which the Trump administration did not name.    

The president has talked about a “Muslim ban.” Is that in his refugee policies?

This question is central to some of the legal challenges that faced the travel ban.

The original executive order indicated that the U.S. will prioritize religious minorities over all other refugees. Barring refugees from certain countries like Syria and showing a narrow preference for religious minorities is tantamount to a Muslim ban.

What about refugees who have helped the U.S. military?

There are thousands of Iraqis and Afghans whose lives are at risk because of the assistance they offered U.S. troops stationed in their countries. This Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) population makes up one quarter of all the refugees the IRC would be resettling this year.

Among those with SIV status who arrived shortly after the first executive order was signed was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked for the U.S. Army for a decade. He was separated from his wife and children and detained at JFK airport in New York until a federal judge ordered his release on Jan. 28 following the ACLU suit. 

What's wrong with barring refugees from certain countries or religions if it makes us feel safer?

These bans fly in the face of America’s best values of freedom, fairness, and compassion, and they represent an abandonment of America’s role as a humanitarian leader.

By relinquishing its responsibility to some of the world’s most vulnerable people, the U.S. forgoes its moral authority to call upon  Europe as well as poorer countries  to provide shelter.

Will the refugee ban make America safer?

No. According to the Cato Institute, the chances are one in 3.6 billion that a U.S. citizen will be killed by a refugee; an American is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack executed by a foreigner.

Refugees are already the most vetted group to enter the U.S. and the bans outlined in the executive order will not improve national security.

Chances of being killed by a refugee in the US = 1 in 3.64 BILLION. Lightning is more dangerous. RT to spread the facts. #StandWithRefugees pic.twitter.com/M1rVrjF0D3 — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 30, 2017

In fact, barring certain groups from entry because of their religion or country of origin could have the opposite effect: Far from protecting America from extremism, a ban on Syrian and Muslim refugees is a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to the U.S.

Also, we must remember that support for refugees is not charity; it is a contribution to the global stability on which all countries depend. In fact, evidence shows that refugees are good for the economies that host them .

What comes next?

The IRC is calling on the Trump Administration to learn about who refugees are, and the dismal situations that require this life-saving resettlement program—including the violence that has forced over 600,000 Rohingya refugees out of Myanmar in recent months.

Resettlement is a critical system established in its current form by the Reagan administration, and strengthened by both Democratic and Republican administrations afterward.

“The human toll on families who have patiently waited their turn, done the vetting, given up jobs and prepared to travel is wrong," said IRC president David Miliband in a July 13 statement . "After decades of leading with its gold standard resettlement program, this defective policy shifts the goal posts and sees America turn its back on— and break its promise to— the world’s most vulnerable.”

What can I do to fight the ban?

We need your help to fight back and remind Congress that the Trump Administration’s refugee policies DO NOT represent American values. Take action.  

How else can I help refugees?

Make a donation today to support the International Rescue Committee in our work helping refugee families in the U.S. and around the world to survive and rebuild their lives.

Here are some more ways to help refugees in the U.S. right now.

Support our work

Explore related topics:.

• #RefugeesWelcome
• Take Action
• Syrian Refugees
• Where We Work
• How To Help
• Code of Conduct
• Ethics Hotline
• 87% Program services
• 8% Management and general
• 5% Fundraising

Get the latest news about the IRC's innovative programs, compelling stories about our clients and how you can make a difference. Subscribe

• U.S./Global
• Phone Opt Out
• Respecting Your Privacy
• Terms and Conditions
• Fraud Prevention

What the science says on travel bans, as experts warily eye new COVID-19 variants

Some people, including the quebec premier, want the prime minister to ban all non-essential flights.

Social Sharing

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has advice if you're making travel plans for spring break: ditch them, now.

Some, including Quebec Premier François Legault, want the prime minister to go a step further and ban non-essential foreign flights altogether.

The merits of travel bans are once again being debated widely. Much of that has to do with epidemiologists who are fretful about highly contagious COVID-19 variants from the United Kingdom , South Africa and Brazil.

But does sealing borders work to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Based on the available scientific evidence, the short answer is: yes, it can, though it has a lot to do with timing.

Here's a look at some of the main questions in the Quebec debate over travel bans.

Are flights returning from holiday destinations driving viral spread in Quebec?

No. The novel coronavirus arrived here in early 2020 because of international travel — as one might intuit — but the main problem now is community spread. Contagious carriers are infecting their friends, family, schoolmates or work colleagues.

According to Dr. Mylène Drouin, the director of public health for the Montreal region, "we have [current] cases that are imported from travellers, but it is not an important proportion of new cases."

One major study in 2020 found international travel is likely responsible for between one and 10 per cent of active cases in any given country. An interim report from a study conducted at Toronto's airport last fall detected coronavirus in one per cent of travellers arriving from abroad.

Incoming travel is an issue, but nowhere near the most pressing one.

What does the science say about whether travel bans are effective?

An international panel of researchers led by Dr. Karen Grépin, a Canadian-born public health professor at the University of Hong Kong, conducted a detailed review of the various travel restrictions employed around the world last year.

The panel found that implementing travel restrictions early in an epidemic did reduce transmission, but the researchers also concluded that "the effectiveness of these measures was short-lived," adding the caveat that the overall body of evidence remains thin.

As Dr. Kelley Lee, a Canada Research Chair at Simon Fraser University's faculty of health sciences and a co-author of the study, put it, "timing matters a lot; geography also matters a lot."

A mathematical model published in the Lancet last month also found travel restrictions are only likely to be effective in certain circumstances.

According to the model, travel restrictions will help reduce transmission in countries where there are few cases of COVID-19 and a lot of people arriving from abroad. Restrictions will also help in places "where epidemics are close to tipping points for exponential growth."

In that case, why shut down airports at this point?

Mainly because of variants of COVID-19 that are thought to be more contagious than earlier versions of the virus .

The key phrase in the Lancet paper is "close to tipping points for exponential growth." If the alarming infection curves in England and Ireland are any indication, Quebec may be closer to that point than anyone realizes.

"What worries us a lot about travellers is these new variants," Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, said Thursday. 

Tighter travel restrictions, said Lee, are perhaps best thought of as an extension of social distancing. It's not about keeping the new, more infectious variants of the disease entirely at bay. It's about slowing down their proliferation and buying time for the health-care system to absorb new patients.

"The main thing is: we have to stop spreading this virus around. The way you do that is by stopping people from moving around," said Lee.

Hotel quarantine could help discourage non-essential travel, public health professor says

What about the land and sea borders.

Flights are only a small part of the problem, according to COVID Strategic Choices, a coalition of more than 100 health-care experts and workers.

Even with the current border restrictions, as many as 300,000 truckers and 50,000 essential workers cross the Canada-U.S. border each day.

The group is calling for the establishment of a "Canadian Shield," a  near-zero COVID approach that includes strict travel restrictions, vaccination and screening for workers who do cross the border, closely monitored quarantines and more robust genomic testing for variants.

"There is a brief window to prevent what is happening in the U.K.," the group said  in a petition , unveiled earlier this month, which urges the federal government to undertake swift action.

The way forward, the petition says, is to stop all but absolutely essential travel.

How does one define 'essential' travel?

That's an important question. Canada has already closed its border to "non-essential" foreign travellers, and since November has imposed a mandatory quarantine that is monitored remotely.

But Ottawa has cited constitutional considerations that prevent it from banning Canadians from travelling abroad.

In any case, "essential" is a slippery concept. Quebec has had well-documented issues with defining it in terms of economic activity, and the goal-posts have shifted as the epidemiology has evolved.

Lee said the best way to define essential is to build on what other jurisdictions have done.

Here's Australia's definition: "The Australian Government has banned overseas travel, unless necessary for business, aid assistance or compassionate reasons."

Compare and contrast with the U.S., where the definition includes and is not limited to: all American nationals returning to the country, people travelling for school, work or medical reasons, and "individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade." 

Experts like Lee would prefer Canada hew to the most restrictive definition possible, bolstered by more vigilant quarantine monitoring. That's the approach the research indicates can have the greatest impact.

What about inter-provincial and intra-provincial travel?

In an ideal world, that would stop too. Or at least be reduced to a faint trickle.

"The problem when people talk about travel restrictions is it's often in terms of what happens at the border. It's not just that; it has to be more," said Lee.

It's still possible to find Ontarians and Quebecers on the slopes in Whistler, she said. That shouldn't happen. Nor should non-essential travel between regions of the same province.

As it stands, the Quebec government isn't banning inter-regional travel, simply recommending against it.

"The capacity to control people's movements is limited, of course. The point is to reduce the number," Lee said, adding that smaller numbers are more easily tested and their contacts traced.

Even if one assumes it's not legally possible to stop people from travelling altogether, governments are certainly able to make it more difficult and more expensive.

Given the threat posed by new variants of the virus, Lee said, every little bit helps.

Related Stories

• Canadian doctors are using 'outdated' guidelines to screen for cancer, experts warn
• Sask. officials knew COVID-19 was spreading at an 'exponential' rate in 2021, but refused restrictions
• Ontario tightens rules on cellphone use, bans vaping in schools

CBC Newsletters

Add some “good” to your morning and evening.

A variety of newsletters you'll love, delivered straight to you.

Closed borders, travel bans and halted immigration: 5 ways COVID-19 changed how – and where – people move around the world

Ph.D. Student in Political Science, University of Notre Dame

Disclosure statement

Mary A Shiraef received funding from the Nanovic Institute at the University of Notre Dame when launching the COVID Border Accountability Project in April 2020.

University of Notre Dame provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Trips canceled: 2.93 billion . International border closures : 1,299. Lives interrupted: Countless.

After the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic , most countries in the world closed their borders – though public health experts initially questioned this strategy for controlling the spread of disease .

I study migration , so I began tracking the enormous changes in how and where people could move around the world. The COVID Border Accountability Project , founded in May 2020, maps travel and immigration restrictions introduced by countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here is how our world shuttered – and how it’s starting to reopen.

1. March 11: It begins

Travel restrictions peaked right after the World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11. That week, our data shows a total of 348 countries closing their borders, completely or partially.

Complete closures restrict access to all noncitizens at international borders. Partial closures – a category encompassing border closures and travel bans – restrict access at some borders, or bar people from some, but not all, countries.

2. Fully closed borders

Most countries stopped all foreign travelers from entering at some point last year.

From Finland to Sri Lanka to Tonga, 189 countries – home to roughly 65% of the world’s 7.7 billion people – put a complete border closure in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to our database . The first to isolate itself from the world was North Korea, on Jan. 22, 2020 . The last was Bahrain, on June 4, 2020 .

Most countries eventually eased border restrictions, and many opened their borders only to close them again as COVID-19 cases spread globally. By the end of 2020, roughly half of all countries remained completely closed to noncitizens and non-visa holders except for essential travel related to health emergencies, humanitarian or diplomatic missions, commerce or family reunification.

3. Targeted bans and partial closures

Last year 193 countries closed down partially, restricting access to people from specific countries or closing some – but not all – of their land and sea borders.

Among these, 98 countries introduced targeted bans, which restricted entry to specific groups of people based on their recent travel or nationality. The first travel bans targeted China, followed soon by other countries that experienced the earliest known outbreaks of the novel coronavirus.

For instance, the United States was quick to pass a string of targeted travel bans , barring travelers from China first , then Iran , and then 26 European countries .

Most countries added land border closures to air travel bans, including the United States. In March the Trump administration closed its borders with Canada and Mexico .

4. Restrictions on US residents

Americans faced serious restrictions on their movement last year, too. People in the U.S., with its high COVID-19 spread, were barred from 190 countries either specifically – via a travel ban – or generally, due to closed borders.

The U.S. passport, usually one of the world’s most powerful for travel access to other countries, ranked 18th place in 2020 . Regions newly off-limits to Americans include most of Europe and nearly all South America.

5. Visa seekers and immigrants

Of the 98 countries that implemented targeted bans, 42 specifically restricted all visa seekers from entering the country. The week following the U.S. closure of immigration offices worldwide, 20 countries, including the Philippines , Benin and Nepal , stopped issuing all visas. More than 100 visa bans barred visa seekers from specific countries or groups.

In September, the Trump administration halted the U.S. asylum program, barring refugees from seeking asylum. The only other country that explicitly targeted immigrants and asylum seekers with a COVID-19 travel ban was Hungary .

The world today

I initially wondered whether international travel restrictions would stay in place after the pandemic ended, leading to more permanent restrictions on freedom of movement.

[ Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter. ]

But, by and large, the world is reopening. By the end of last year, 137 of the world’s 189 complete closures had been lifted, and 66 of the 98 targeted bans had ended.

In addition to the staggering numbers of closures and the occasional international spats, I’ve been struck by the level of cooperation between countries, especially within the European Union. Virtually every EU country complied with the bloc’s travel recommendations – a testament to its ability to manage crisis as a unified region.

Travel restrictions will continue to emerge, end and evolve, dependent on context. As wealthier countries vaccinate their populations at rapid speed, less equipped countries continue to suffer severe outbreaks . International travel may soon require a COVID-19 “ vaccination card .” New targeted travel bans could emerge.

“Normal” is a long way away.

Nikolas Lazar, Thuy Nguyen and the COBAP Team assisted with this story.

• Immigration
• Global pandemic
• Asylum-seekers
• Travel bans
• Coronavirus pandemic
• Post-COVID world
• border closures
• Pandemic1Year

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Regional Engagement Officer - Shepparton

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Search form

• ISIL (Da'esh) & Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee
• Exemptions to the Measures

I. Relevant Security Council resolutions Guidelines of the Committee

The exemptions to the travel ban are provided for by the following:

• Committee Guidelines : Section 12

II. What types of travel ban exemptions exist?

There are two possible exemptions from the travel ban measure:

• The travel ban does not apply where entry or transit is necessary for the fulfillment of a judicial process;
• The Committee may determine on a case-by-case basis only that entry or transit is justified.

III. Who is entitled to submit the request for exemptions from the travel ban?

Member States

The State(s) of destination, the State(s) of transit, the State of nationality, and the State of residence may submit a request through their Permanent Mission to the United Nations. If no effective central government exists in the country in which the listed individual is located, a United Nations office or agency in that country may submit the request for exemption on the listed individual’s behalf.

Listed individuals

IV. What should be included in the request for exemption from the travel ban?

• the permanent reference number on the ISIL (Da'esh) & Al-Qaida Sanctions List, full name, nationality, passport number or travel document number of the listed individual;
• the purpose of and justification for the proposed travel, with copies of supporting documents, including specific details of meetings or appointments;
• the proposed dates and times of departure and return;
• the complete itinerary and timetable, including for all transit stops;
• details of the mode of transport to be used, including where applicable, record locator, flight numbers and names of vessels;
• all proposed uses of funds or other financial assets or economic resources in connection with the travel. Such funds may only be provided in accordance with the procedures for obtaining an exemption to the assets freeze, which can be found here [hyperlink to assets freeze exemption], and in section 11 of the Guidelines .
• Each travel ban exemption request shall be received by the Committee Chair or the Focal Point as early as possible but not less than fifteen working days before the date of the proposed travel, except where humanitarian consideration requires a shorter period.

V. How to make requests for exemptions from the travel ban?

Member States are encouraged to use the travel ban exemption request form available online in all official languages. Travel Ban exemption request form for use by Member States

Please send the requests for exemptions from the travel bans to:

• The Chair of the Committee, Her Excellency Mrs. Vanessa Frazier, through the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations

With a copy to:

• The Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Kiho Cha, Email : [email protected]
• Address : Room DC2 2034, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017, United States of America
• Fax : +1 212 963 1300
• Email : [email protected]
• The Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Kiho Cha, Email : SC-1267 [email protected]

Once the Committee has approved a request for exemption from the travel ban, the Secretariat will notify in writing the Permanent Missions to the United Nations of the State in which the listed individual is resident, the State of nationality, the State(s) to which the listed individual will be traveling, and any transit State, as well as any United Nations office/agency involved, to inform them of the approved travel, itinerary and timetable.

VI. Request for an extension of the exemption from the travel ban

Any request for an extension of the exemption is subject to the procedures set out above and need to be received by the Chairman in writing, with a revised itinerary, no less than five working days before the expiry of the approved exemption .

VII. Changes to the approved exemption from the travel plan

Any changes to the information provided in the request, including with regard to points of transit, require further consideration by the Committee and need to be received by the Chairman no less than three working days prior to the commencement of the travel.

The submitting State (or United Nations office/agency) will inform the Chair immediately and in writing of any change to the departure date for any travel for which the Committee has already issued an exemption.

VIII. After the travel

Written confirmation of the completion of the travel by the listed individual needs to be provided to the Chair within five working days following the expiry of the exemption by the State (or United Nations office/agency) in which the listed individual has stated he will be resident after completion of the exempted travel.

• UN Social Media

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Immigration History

Muslim Travel Ban

The "Muslim Ban" refers to a series of the Trump administration's executive orders that prohibited travel and refugee resettlement from select predominately Muslim countries. After several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of a third version of the ban.

Discussion Questions

How has the Trump administration justified its travel bans?

On what grounds might they be viewed as discriminatory?

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that banned travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–and suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees. The order sparked protests around the country at airports and immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations undertook several legal challenges to the order on the grounds that it constituted religious discrimination. The suits against the travel bans resulted in court injunctions temporarily blocking the order and groups in opposition to the ban also blocked a second iteration of the executive order. Nevertheless, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ultimately allowed a third version of the executive order to go into force, which expanded the list of barred travelers to include nationals from Venezuela (limited to government officials) and North Korea. In 2020, the Trump administration expanded visa restrictions on six more countries–Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania–citing screening and national security concerns in those countries. Nationals of thirteen countries are currently subject to various travel restrictions.

Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

Issued on: September 24, 2017

. . . . As President, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people. I am committed to our ongoing efforts to engage those countries willing to cooperate, improve information-sharing and identity-management protocols and procedures, and address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Some of the countries with remaining inadequacies face significant challenges. Others have made strides to improve their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until they satisfactorily address the identified inadequacies, I have determined, on the basis of recommendations from the Secretary of Homeland Security and other members of my Cabinet, to impose certain conditional restrictions and limitations, as set forth more fully below, on entry into the United States of nationals of the countries identified in section 2 of this proclamation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 2 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats. Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy . . . .

Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions and case by-case waivers . . . . [Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

© 2019 Immigration History

A project of the immigration and ethnic history society.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of ban

 (Entry 1 of 3)

transitive verb

intransitive verb

Definition of ban  (Entry 2 of 3)

Definition of ban  (Entry 3 of 3)

• imprecation
• malediction
• winze [ Scottish ]

Examples of ban in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'ban.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Middle English bannen "to summon (troops) by proclamation, assemble (an armed force), gather (arms), curse, anathematize, prohibit, outlaw," going back to Old English bannan (class VII strong verb) "to summon by proclamation, call to arms," going back to Germanic *bannan- "to speak formally, call on, order" (whence also Old Frisian bonna, banna "to call upon, command, place under a ban," Old Saxon & Old High German bannan "to summon, order," Old Norse banna "to prohibit, curse"), going back to Indo-European *b h o-n-h 2 -e-, presumed o-grade intensive derivative (with gemination from a present formation with *-nu̯-e- ?) from a verbal base *b h eh 2 - "speak, say," whence also Latin for, fārī "to speak, say," Greek phēmí, phánai, Armenian bay "(s/he) says, speaks," and with extensions Eastern Church Slavic baju, bajati "to tell (stories), cast a spell, cure," Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian bȁjati "to tell tales, practice sorcery," Sanskrit bhánati "(s/he) speaks, says, (it) sounds"

Note: The senses "curse, anathematize, prohibit," etc., in Middle English are not attested in Old English and are generally thought to reflect influence of the cognate Old Norse verb. The English verb has also been influenced in sense by Medieval Latin bannīre and Old French banir (see banish ). — The reconstruction of the source of Germanic *bannan- in Indo-European terms is from G. Kroonen, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Brill, 2013), though any number of alternative reconstructions are possible that result in the new verbal base *bann-. Indo-European *b h eh 2 - "speak, say" is phonetically identical with and probably a semantic offshoot of the base *b h eh 2 - "shine, give light, appear" (see fantasy entry 1 ); the presumed sense in shift would be "shine, give light" > "make bright, illuminate" > "make clear, clarify" > "speak, say."

Middle English ban, bane, banne "proclamation by an authority, summons, one of the marriage banns, troop of warriors summoned by their overlord," in part noun derivative of bannen "to summon (troops) by proclamation," in part borrowed from Anglo-French ban, baan "proclamation, edict, jurisdiction, one of the marriage banns" (also continental Old French, "summons to arms by a lord, proclamation commanding or prohibiting an action"), going back to Old Low Franconian *banna-, going back to Germanic (whence also Old Frisian bon, ban, bān "order commanding or prohibiting under pain of a fine, authority, summoning of the army, banishment," Old Saxon bann "command, summons, fine, excommunication," Old High German ban "command by an authority, order, legal extension or withdrawal of protection"), noun derivative of *bannan- "to speak formally, call on, order" — more at ban entry 1

Note: The Middle English noun may also continue Old English gebann, gebenn "edict, proclamation, command," a derivative of gebannan, similar in meaning to unprefixed bannan. The negative senses "prohibition, condemnation," etc., though present to a limited degree already in early Medieval Latin, do not appear in English (or French) until the sixteenth century, and are in part derived from the verb ban entry 1 . The Germanic etymon appears in Latin as bannus (or bannum ), from the sixth century in Gregory of Tours' Historia Francorum, and the seventh century in the Lex Ripuaria, the laws of the Ripuarian Franks; the Latin word went on to develop a broad range of meanings (compare the entries in J.F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus and Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources ).

Romanian, money, coin, small coin

12th century, in the meaning defined at transitive sense 3

13th century, in the meaning defined at sense 5

1880, in the meaning defined above

Phrases Containing ban

• arrière - ban
• trigger ban

Articles Related to ban

The Words of the Week - Jan. 13

Dictionary lookups from politics, more politics, and even more politics

'Shadowban' Emerges from the Dark

If you can see this post, it’s not happening here.

Dictionary Entries Near ban

Cite this entry.

“Ban.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of ban.

 (Entry 1 of 2)

Kids Definition of ban  (Entry 2 of 2)

Legal Definition

Legal definition of ban.

Legal Definition of ban  (Entry 2 of 2)

More from Merriam-Webster on ban

Nglish: Translation of ban for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of ban for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about ban

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 26, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, fan favorites: your most liked words of the day 2023, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, games & quizzes.

Example sentences travel ban

Six senior officials were also subjected to a travel ban and asset freeze.

On his release in 2015 those terms included a travel ban to last at least five years.

It has imposed a worldwide travel ban on its employees and has split up broker teams in an effort to protect staff.

But before they could arrange their flight the air travel ban was imposed.

They will have their assets frozen and are likely to face a travel ban but most of all they will be brought out of the shadows.

Definition of 'ban' ban

Definition of 'travel' travel

Related word partners travel ban

Browse alphabetically travel ban.

• travel allowance
• travel alone
• travel arrangements
• travel book
• travel booking
• travel brochure
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'T'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• ABBREVIATIONS
• BIOGRAPHIES
• CALCULATORS
• CONVERSIONS
• DEFINITIONS

  Vocabulary      

What does travel ban mean?

Definitions for travel ban trav·el ban, this dictionary definitions page includes all the possible meanings, example usage and translations of the word travel ban ., wikipedia rate this definition: 0.0 / 0 votes.

A travel ban is one of a variety of mobility restrictions imposed by governments. Bans can be universal or selective. The restrictions can be geographic, imposed by either the originating or destination jurisdiction. They can also be based on individual status, such as health or vaccination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments banned entry by residents of some or all other countries. For example, if New Zealand decides not to allow travel to the country, the government stops issuing travel visas. Without a valid visa, citizens of other countries cannot enter.

How to pronounce travel ban?

Alex US English David US English Mark US English Daniel British Libby British Mia British Karen Australian Hayley Australian Natasha Australian Veena Indian Priya Indian Neerja Indian Zira US English Oliver British Wendy British Fred US English Tessa South African

How to say travel ban in sign language?

Chaldean Numerology

The numerical value of travel ban in Chaldean Numerology is: 2

Pythagorean Numerology

The numerical value of travel ban in Pythagorean Numerology is: 5

Examples of travel ban in a Sentence

Jeff Flake :

I have a chapter in there about some doctors that saved my father-in-law. They came from majority-Muslim countries that under the current travel ban , they probably wouldn't be here, so I think we ought to look as Republicans, I hope we are always welcoming of immigrants.

Michael Osterholm :

What we need to do is have a way that we can make certain when people get on a plane that causes a border, they are not infected when they get on. They should be vaccinated fully. They should be tested. Then when they arrive [that] there’s a way to test them again and to follow up with them, this is something we desperately need. I think that will replace the travel ban in short order.

Josh Blackman :

If the court upholds the travel ban on statutory grounds, it will signal that Congress has for decades vested the president with the flexibility to respond to an unforeseeable national security dynamic.

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying :

Most countries appreciate and support China's efforts to fight against the novel coronavirus, and we understand and respect them when they adopt or enhance quarantine measures at border entry. But in the meantime, some countries, the US in particular, have inappropriately overreacted, which certainly runs counter to WHO advice, the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying government hasn't provided any substantial assistance to us, but it was the first to evacuate personnel from The US government consulate in Wuhan, the first to suggest partial withdrawal of its embassy staff, and the first to impose a travel ban on Chinese travelers. All The US government has done could only create and spread fear, which is a bad example.

Guy Reschenthaler :

He has been wrong, intentionally deceptive, and inconsistent throughout this entire pandemic. A few examples of Fauci’s failures include : claiming there was very little risk to Americans in January of 2020, opposing President Trump’s China travel ban then crediting it with saving lives, and wrongly predicting an explosion of cases in Texas after Gov. Abbott lifted the state mask mandates, it is long past time for Dr. Fauci to stop talking to the American public. Fauci should resign or be fired immediately.

• ^  Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Ban

Word of the Day

Would you like us to send you a free new word definition delivered to your inbox daily.

Please enter your email address:

Citation

Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:.

Style: MLA Chicago APA

"travel ban." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2024. Web. 29 Apr. 2024. < https://www.definitions.net/definition/travel+ban >.

Discuss these travel ban definitions with the community:

Report Comment

We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.

You need to be logged in to favorite .

Create a new account.

Your name: * Required

Your email address: * Required

Pick a user name: * Required

Username: * Required

Password: * Required

Forgot your password?    Retrieve it

Are we missing a good definition for travel ban ? Don't keep it to yourself...

Image credit, the web's largest resource for, definitions & translations, a member of the stands4 network, free, no signup required :, add to chrome, add to firefox, browse definitions.net, are you a words master, steering mechanism for a vessel; a mechanical device by which a vessel is steered, Nearby & related entries:.

• travel agent noun
• travel allowance noun
• travel along verb
• travel and entertainment account noun
• travel back and forth
• travel bargain noun
• travel behavior
• travel bureau
• travel by verb

Alternative searches for travel ban :

• Search for travel ban on Amazon

Updated Biden administration rules will soon affect students across US: What to know

Students and school employees across America will be impacted in the fall by new changes to a rule that affects all federally-funded schools.

Practically, it's a sweeping update to how schools will have to handle sex discrimination and abuse cases. Politically, it's a part of a power struggle between the Trump and Biden administrations.

What's new? The Biden administration released a new set of rules this week overhauling the Trump administration's Title IX rules – which gave more rights to alleged perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment. The new rules also stipulate further protections for LGBTQ+ students as well as parenting and pregnant students.

What is Title IX? Title IX is a civil rights law that bans sex discrimination against students, employees and others at public schools, colleges and universities that receive federal funding.

What were some of the old rules? For cases of sexual assault, they stipulated that schools only had to investigate claims that met a certain threshold of sex discrimination and were made through a formal reporting process. It also raised the bar of proof for sexual misconduct on college campuses. They prohibited investigations of cases that occurred off campus.

Why does the change matter? Critics argued the Trump-era rules prevented people accused of sexual harassment, assault or discrimination from facing repercussions. Supporters contended the rules rightly strengthened due-process protections for accused students or faculty members.

Biden's new Title IX rules will affect people on the nation's school campuses starting in August.

What happened this week?

The Biden administration's new set of guidance overhauls Trump-era rules that in part narrowed which and how schools could investigate sex discrimination cases. President Joe Biden in his 2020 presidential campaign vowed to overturn the changes made under Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

The new rules expand the definition of sexual assault and harassment. That means schools could investigate more cases of discrimination, abuse or harassment filed by people on school campuses under the scope of the law.

College student survivors will no longer be required to attend live hearings or go through cross examinations. And people will be given the right to "prompt and equitable grievance procedures," the rule reads.

LGBTQ+ students will be guaranteed protection under the law if they are discriminated against for their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Pregnant and parenting students who might receive unwanted sexual attention, shame or punishment at schools will also be granted more protections from sex discrimination in the admissions process and on campus.

“These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights," said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.

Who is impacted by the changes to Title IX?

The rule changes have a wide range of effects on students, among the most notable examples:

• Sexual assault survivors : The new rules will have sweeping effects on survivors of sexual misconduct and those accused of crimes. Among the changes: The definition of sexual assault will be expanded in K-12 schools and colleges.
• LGBTQ+ students : Biden's Title IX update stipulates protections from sex discrimination based gender identity for the first time.
• Pregnant and parenting students : The new regulations extend the definition of "sex-based harassment" to include pregnant people on campuses.

Ruling on transgender student participation in sports remains unsettled

The Biden administration did not rule on whether transgender and nonbinary students can participate on the sports teams that align with their gender.

The administration released a proposed rule in April 2023 that said schools and colleges largely could not ban nonbinary and transgender students from sports teams in the new Title IX rules.

Contact Kayla Jimenez at [email protected] .  Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of travel ban in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• The UN Security Council imposed a travel ban , restricting foreign travel by the country's officials , to punish its government for harbouring members of a terrorist organization .
• Trump's first travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries was declared unconstitutional .
• Once the air travel ban is lifted , it's expected to take airlines several days to get operations back to normal .
• Two England fans defying a travel ban were put on a plane back home after arriving in Istanbul for the match .
• abolitionist
• anti-censorship
• decertification
• disqualification
• out of bounds idiom
• unauthorized
• unsanctioned

Translations of travel ban

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

under lock and key

locked away safely

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

Add travel ban to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

California Today

Why California Banned State-Funded Travel to Florida and Elsewhere

Tuesday: Officials are expanding a ban on taxpayer-funded travel to places that have enacted anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation.

By Jill Cowan

Good morning.

California will ban state-funded travel to Arkansas, Florida, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia in response to anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in those places, officials announced on Monday.

“There has been a coordinated attack on fundamental civil rights,” Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said at a news conference. “It’s about aligning our dollars with our values.”

There are now 17 states under California’s ban, including Texas, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina.

The law, approved by the State Legislature in 2016, requires California to add states to the list if they enact laws that discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. It was enacted amid a backlash against states where lawmakers were trying to pass “ bathroom bills ” to prevent transgender people from using restrooms that aligned with their gender identity.

Bonta, a progressive ally of Gov. Gavin Newsom , said that “a wave of discriminatory new bills” was sweeping across the country and that he was required to take action.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who wrote the ban, said it was meant to keep state workers safe and out of situations where they might be discriminated against.

“The current culture war is not a game,” he said.

In 2017, Low acknowledged that banning state-funded travel to Texas was largely symbolic . Still, he said this week that he hoped California’s moves would prompt big businesses to follow suit.

Officials didn’t say how much money the state had withheld as a result of the ban, and the attorney general’s office said it didn’t track anything related to the law beyond the list of states.

But Richard C. Auxier, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center , said that while the amount might be relatively small, the effects could snowball.

He cited North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which prompted a national outcry after it was enacted in 2016. In addition to travel bans like California’s, the N.C.A.A. and the N.B.A. moved tournaments in protest, and performers refused to play gigs there. The law was repealed, and the state’s Republican governor was ousted in part because of frustration over the economic fallout.

The question is how much state lawmakers respond to economic pain felt by local businesses and governments as they try to coax back visitors lost during the pandemic.

“These cities are all dying for people to come back — to go to the bars, to go to events,” Auxier said, so if other organizations take their cues from California, local tourism groups or businesses could be hurt enough to prompt them to push back against their leaders.

“‘Will it work?’ is a giant political question,” he said.

Ryland Whittington, a 13-year-old from San Diego whom officials invited to speak at Monday’s news conference, said that the ability to feel safe, play sports and get any care he needed wasn’t political, in no small part because of where he lives.

“Being trans is just a small part of who I am,” he said. “I know I’m lucky to live in California.”

He asked lawmakers to “give all kids the opportunity to be happy, healthy and to live their lives in freedom and peace.”

Read this story from 2017 about when California announced its ban on state-funded travel to Texas .

Get to know Bonta and his priorities .

See the full list of states where state-funded travel is banned and read about exceptions to the ban from the attorney general’s office.

Here’s what else to know today

Compiled by Jonathan Wolfe

CalMatters has a list of five things you should know about the state’s final (for now) record-busting budget deal.

One of the biggest barriers to mass immunity in the U.S. is persuading skeptical young adults to get the coronavirus vaccine .

Some 4,000 nonviolent federal offenders who were sent home early in the pandemic to help slow the spread of the coronavirus could be forced to return to prison .

State Democrats want the option to speed up the recall election to take advantage of what they see as favorable conditions for Newsom, The Associated Press reports.

A federal court threw out the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust complaint against Facebook, a major setback to the government’s push to break up the social media giant.

A new report found that California’s white and Black populations are declining , while its Asian and Hispanic populations continue to grow, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

At least eight homeless people died while they were living at the Airtel Plaza Hotel, one of the hotels used in Project Roomkey, The Los Angeles Times reports.

Teviston, a community in the Central Valley, is without running water during a heat wave , CalMatters reports.

Many “hotshot” firefighters who battled the state’s wildfires last year are quitting , The Mercury News reports.

There’s only one drug designed to treat postpartum depression . KQED asks: “Why does Kaiser Permanente make it so hard to get?”

Californians are fueling Austin’s housing boom , The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

A visit to Nobu in Malibu, writes Tejal Rao, The Times’s California restaurant critic, “should seem predictable and dated and maybe even mildly embarrassing, like coming across an old photo of yourself in a dress over bedazzled jeans. But somehow — and this is a part of Nobu Malibu’s magic — it doesn’t. ”

Real estate: What $730,000 gets you in California.

And finally …

This year, across California, the biggest Pride parades were canceled because of the pandemic. But thousands of L.G.B.T.Q. Californians have still celebrated in ways large and small.

Just this past weekend, hundreds of revelers descended on Dolores Park in San Francisco .

And in Los Angeles, Boyle Heights hosted its inaugural Orgullo Fest, which organizers said they hoped would become a home for the city’s Latinx L.G.B.T.Q. community.

“Bienvenidos a casa,” Luis Octavio, an organizer of the Pride event, told The Los Angeles Times . “You no longer have to leave your community to celebrate yourself.”

California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: [email protected] . Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here .

Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter .

Jill Cowan is the Californ ia Today correspondent, keeping tabs on the most important things happening in her home state every day. More about Jill Cowan