Table of Contents
When did Trump announce plans to ban 3rd world countries?
On Thanksgiving day 2025, President Donald J. Trump announced plans to “permanently pause” all migration from “Third World Countries” to the United States, escalating his administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown amid national security fears. The sweeping proposal, which also calls for ending federal benefits for noncitizens and deporting those deemed incompatible with American values, comes just hours after the death of a National Guard member in a shooting linked to an Afghan immigrant. Critics warn the move could upend global migration patterns, strain U.S. alliances, and face fierce legal battles, while supporters hail it as a bold step to protect American sovereignty.
Trump’s announcement, posted on Truth Social shortly after 11 p.m. on November 27, marks a dramatic intensification of his second-term immigration agenda, building on a June travel ban that already restricted entries from 19 nations. As the nation grappled with the holiday’s traditional themes of gratitude and unity, the president’s words instead ignited a firestorm of debate over borders, security, and humanity.
The Announcement: A Thanksgiving Tirade on Truth Social
President Trump’s declaration arrived in a lengthy, unfiltered screed that began with the ironic salutation, “A very happy Thanksgiving.” Blaming his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, for “millions” of unchecked admissions that he claimed have overwhelmed the U.S. immigration system, Trump laid out a multi-pronged assault on what he described as a “broken” framework.
“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover,” Trump wrote, vowing to “terminate all the millions of Biden-era admissions” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to our Country.” He further pledged to “end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens,” “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility,” and “deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”
The post singled out Somali communities in Minnesota for criticism, accusing refugees of contributing to “high crime and America’s rising deficit” without providing evidence. Trump also promised to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis and other groups, framing the policy as a necessary recalibration to prioritize “national security and domestic tranquility.”
This rhetoric echoes Trump’s first-term playbook but amplifies it, targeting not just specific nations but an entire socioeconomic category of countries. The White House has not yet released formal executive orders, leaving the exact mechanics of implementation unclear, though U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow quickly signaled alignment by announcing an “immediate and indefinite suspension” of all immigration requests from Afghan nationals.
The Fatal Shooting That Sparked the Firestorm
The timing of Trump’s announcement was no coincidence. It followed a tragic shooting on November 26 near the White House that left two National Guard members—one dead and the other critically injured—in what authorities described as a targeted attack. The suspect, 28-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who entered the U.S. in September 2021 under a Biden-era evacuation program for Afghan allies, was granted asylum in April 2025 during Trump’s second term.
Lakanwal, who had worked with CIA-backed military units during the U.S. war in Afghanistan, was injured in the exchange of gunfire and remains in custody. National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom, 29, succumbed to her wounds on Thursday, while her colleague, Andrew Wolfe, 24, underwent emergency surgery and is listed in critical condition. The incident, the first fatal attack on National Guard personnel in the capital in over a decade, has been seized upon by Trump allies as Exhibit A in the case against lax immigration vetting.
Hours after the shooting, Edlow posted on X (formerly Twitter) that USCIS would “review every immigrant holding a Green Card from a ‘country of concern.'” Trump, in his post, tied the tragedy directly to broader migration failures, stating, “This horrific shooting reminds us of the national security priority to control who enters and remains in our Country.” In response, the president authorized the deployment of 500 additional National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., heightening the city’s security posture amid ongoing mass deportation operations.
What the Policy Entails: A Sweeping Overhaul of U.S. Immigration
At its core, the “permanent pause” would halt virtually all forms of immigration—visas, asylum claims, refugee resettlements, and family reunifications—from nations Trump labels as “Third World.” This includes students, skilled workers, and temporary visitors, potentially affecting millions worldwide. Beyond the entry ban, the proposal introduces draconian internal measures:
- Termination of Benefits: All federal subsidies, welfare programs, and tax credits for noncitizens would cease, impacting an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants and millions more legal residents.
- Mass Removals: Prioritizing deportations for those classified as “public charges” (reliant on government aid), “security risks,” or ideologically “non-compatible” with Western values—a vague criterion that could invite abuse.
- Denaturalization Drive: Revoking citizenship for naturalized immigrants accused of “undermining domestic tranquility,” a power rarely invoked but expanded under Trump’s first term via executive orders.
- Retroactive Reviews: Re-examination of all Green Cards and asylum grants from the Biden era, with a focus on “countries of concern.”
Unlike temporary travel bans, this “permanent” designation suggests an indefinite freeze, though legal experts predict it would require congressional approval or repeated executive actions to sustain.
Defining ‘Third World Countries’: A Term from the Cold War Era
The phrase “Third World Countries” harkens back to the Cold War, originally denoting nations aligned neither with NATO (First World) nor the Soviet bloc (Second World). Today, it colloquially refers to developing or least-developed countries (LDCs) marked by poverty, political instability, and limited infrastructure. No official U.S. list exists, but international bodies like the United Nations provide benchmarks.
As of 2025, the UN’s LDC roster includes 45 nations, primarily in Africa (32, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia), Asia (8, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nepal, Timor-Leste, and Yemen), the Caribbean (1: Haiti), and the Pacific (3: Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu). Broader “developing country” lists from the World Bank and others encompass over 130 nations, including India, Brazil, and Indonesia—though Trump has not clarified if economic powerhouses like India qualify as “Third World.”
Trump’s June 2025 travel ban already targeted 19 such countries, imposing full entry prohibitions on 12 (including Afghanistan, Burundi, Laos, Togo, and Turkmenistan) and partial restrictions on seven others (such as Venezuela and Sierra Leone). The new pause could expand this to dozens more, potentially encompassing powerhouses like Nigeria, Pakistan, and Haiti.
Historical Background: From Muslim Ban to Global Crackdown
This is not Trump’s first foray into nationality-based restrictions. In 2017, his so-called “Muslim Ban” targeted travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), sparking widespread protests, multiple court blocks, and a Supreme Court upholding of a revised version in 2018. Biden rescinded it on his first day in 2021.
Upon returning to office in January 2025, Trump swiftly reinstated elements, culminating in the June proclamation “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” That order cited “successful prevention” of threats but drew muted backlash compared to 2017, amid a polarized public weary of border debates.
The latest move builds on these foundations but introduces unprecedented scope, targeting socioeconomic status over religion—a shift that could evade some First Amendment challenges but invite equal protection lawsuits.
Immediate Actions and Implementation Challenges
USCIS moved with alacrity: By Wednesday night, all Afghan immigration applications were frozen, and a task force was greenlit to audit Green Cards from the 19 banned nations. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ramped up deportation flights, with over 500,000 removals reported since January 2025.
Implementation, however, faces hurdles. Congress must fund expanded enforcement, estimated at $20 billion annually, while courts could issue injunctions—as they did seven times against the 2017 ban. The policy’s vagueness on “Third World” definitions invites chaos, with diplomats warning of strained ties to key allies like India and Brazil.
Reactions: Muted Protests and Fierce Advocacy Backlash
Public response has been more subdued than in Trump’s first term, reflecting immigration fatigue and a divided media landscape. Polls from earlier this year showed 55% of Americans favoring stricter borders, though support dips among independents when specifics like family separations arise.
Immigration advocates decried the announcement as “cruel and un-American.” Lee Gelernt of the ACLU called it “a blueprint for bullying the most vulnerable,” vowing lawsuits to block denaturalizations. The American Immigration Council highlighted risks to U.S. innovation, noting immigrants from developing nations founded 55% of billion-dollar startups.
On the right, figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene praised it as “finally putting America First,” while business lobbies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, expressed quiet concerns over labor shortages in agriculture and tech.
Internationally, reactions were swift but measured. Afghan President Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi condemned the pause as “a betrayal of our shared sacrifices,” while the UN High Commissioner for Refugees warned of a “global refugee crisis exacerbation.”
Potential Impacts: Economic Ripples, Social Divisions, and Legal Battles
Economically, the ban could cost the U.S. $1.6 trillion over a decade, per the American Immigration Council, by shrinking the workforce in low-wage sectors and stifling innovation. Socially, it risks deepening divides, with Somali-American communities in Minnesota already reporting heightened fear.
Legally, experts predict a Supreme Court showdown, with the policy’s broad strokes vulnerable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Human rights groups flag violations of non-refoulement principles, potentially stranding refugees in peril.
Looking Ahead: A Nation at the Crossroads
As Thanksgiving plates clear, Trump’s words hang heavy, forcing America to confront its identity as a “nation of immigrants.” Will this pause heal perceived wounds or tear at the republic’s fabric? Only time—and the courts—will tell. For now, families from Kabul to Kinshasa wait in limbo, their American dreams deferred indefinitely.
This article will be updated as more details emerge. Sources include official statements, expert analyses, and UN data.
