Africa has borne the brunt of the Trump administration’s latest expansion of U.S. travel restrictions, yet public reaction across the continent remained restrained on Wednesday as governments assessed the scope of the policy and weighed their options.
The decision adds 20 countries to an existing list and significantly widens measures first announced in June. The updated restrictions are more sweeping than those imposed during Donald Trump’s first term, which largely focused on Muslim-majority nations and were rescinded in 2021.
African Union officials responded cautiously, urging the U.S. government to manage its border policies in a way that safeguards bilateral relations. The bloc called on the United States to protect its borders in “a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing ties and partnership” between the U.S. and Africa, according to spokesman Nuur Mohamu.
READ ALSO: Travel ban expanded again as Trump targets 20 additional countries
That position reflects the African Union’s response in June, when Trump reinstated elements of his earlier travel ban after returning to office.
Of the six new additions facing a full entry ban, four are African countries: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and South Sudan, which had already been subject to heavy restrictions. Syria and travelers holding documents issued by the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, were also included.
Several other countries were escalated from partial to full restrictions. Among them are Sierra Leone in Africa and Laos in Asia, both of which had faced limited measures during Trump’s first presidency and again earlier this year.
Africa also dominates the list of nations subject to partial restrictions. Twelve of the 15 affected countries are on the continent, including Angola, Benin, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The remaining three are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Tonga.
U.S. officials have tagged the expanded measures around concerns related to security, documentation standards and visa overstays.
The African Union warned that the policy could strain decades of engagement, citing the “potential negative impact of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchanges, commercial engagement, and the broader diplomatic relations” developed between Africa and the United States.
Sierra Leone, now facing a full ban, said it intends to seek dialogue with the U.S. government. In a statement on Wednesday, the West African nation said it hopes the U.S. will reconsider and stressed it would “remain committed to strengthening international cooperation and addressing immigration concerns raised by the U.S. government,” adding that officials are “actively engaged in ongoing, constructive dialogue with U.S authorities.”
Elsewhere, governments were slower to respond. In Mali, newly added to the full ban list, foreign ministry press officer Samuel Saye said it was “too early for us to comment”, a sentiment reiterated by officials in several other countries.
In an AP report, analysts and civil society figures were more outspoken, describing the move as disproportionate and potentially damaging to U.S.–Africa relations. Some warned it could create openings for rival powers such as Russia and China to deepen their influence across the continent.
Among the public, the reaction was marked by concern rather than protest.
“I believe this position is unfair because it paints all Nigerians with the same brush,” said Ramlah Ibrahim Nok, a business lawyer based in Abuja. Nigeria is subject to partial restrictions. She noted that many Nigerians travel to the United States for “education, business and tourism,” while also acknowledging that Nigerian authorities must address issues such as visa overstays.
Beverly Ochieng, an analyst with Control Risks Group in Dakar, said the ban is likely to make relations between Washington and African capitals “incoherent, unpredictable and challenging.”
She added that reduced cooperation could push some governments to seek partnerships elsewhere.
On the streets of Mali, residents voiced anxiety about the practical consequences. “It’s very unfortunate,” said Mohamed Keita, a 45-year-old resident, warning that Washington’s “decision may penalize Malians who do business with the United States.”
Another Malian, 31-year-old Abdoulaye Fofana, said he fears reciprocal measures, arguing that if authorities “apply the principle of reciprocity, it is the bi-national Malians who will be affected.”
The restrictions have also triggered concern among sports fans, particularly those planning to attend the 2026 World Cup, which the United States will co-host with Canada and Mexico.
In Dakar, taxi driver Pape Seye said he had heard of “FIFA exemptions for the players and staff of the qualified teams” but questioned whether “fans will be able to go as well” under the new rules.
In South Sudan, where a full ban has now been imposed, human rights activist Rajab Mohandis described the move as “an open expression of increasing frustration of the Trump administration with the government” in Juba.
He said the decision serves as “a way of invoking diplomatic consequences,” pointing to U.S. dissatisfaction with delays in implementing a 2018 peace deal that ended five years of civil war and left more than 400,000 people dead.
