A week ago, Reuters and the New York Times reported that Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia will be given 60 days to address US security concerns, failing which citizens of these countries may not be able to enter the US. In journalism circles, such corroboration is usually a sign that there’s some truth to a story.
Unsurprisingly, the news reports have elicited much concern within and without the US. Practically every adult Saint Lucian or Caribbean citizen is connected to the US in some way, shape or form. Many have family there or travel there for business, health, pleasure and education.
The Governments of the listed countries strongly and swiftly denied having been notified by the US of such impending action. Prime Minister, Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda instructed his country’s Ambassador to the US (Sir Ron Sanders) to dispatch a Diplomatic Note to the US State Department seeking clarification on the matter. Other leaders raised the reports with the US Embassy in Barbados. In their public comments on the matter, they all shared their appreciation of the friendly relations their countries share with the US and indicated their eagerness to meet with US Government authorities to learn about their concerns and to address them as quickly as possible.
Lo and behold, a few days later, a US State Department spokesperson pushed back on the story. While admitting a review is ongoing, she insisted that “THERE’S NO LIST” (emphasis mine). However, such denial gives small comfort. The fact remains that a review is ongoing. In the “fullness of time,” we will know what actions are recommended and whether the information published in the Reuters and NYT stories is correct.
The leaders of the four reportedly “listed” countries must be commended for their measured responses to the news stories. It would have been unpardonable folly on their part to have done otherwise. A tenet of international relations is official communication between Governments. Equally, it would be folly for the leaders to fully dismiss the news reports. While they await formal notification from the US, they must prepare to consult, defend defensible, debate the debatable, agree to implement the implementable, and request adequate time and technical and financial assistance to do what cannot immediately be done.
While the cited news stories identify several possible reasons for the reported travel ban, President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) issued on 20 January 2025, entitled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats” leaves little doubt about the purpose of the review. In summary, it aims at “…protecting the US from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten national security, espouse hateful ideology or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” Further, the EO calls for vigilance during the visa-issuance process to ensure that admitted aliens and those already in the US will not: (1) harm Americans or its national interests; (2) bear hostile attitudes towards its citizens; (3) advocate for aid and/or support designated foreign terrorist and other threats to US national security. Instructively, the Review is also expected to “…identify countries throughout the world whose (immigration) vetting and screening information are so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries.”
These features of the EO gel with the NYT story which reported that US concerns could include “…failing to share with the US information about incoming travelers, purportedly inadequate security practices for issuing passports, or the selling of citizenship to people from banned countries.”
Grenada’s exclusion from the list supports this view. While Grenda has a CBI, since 1989 it has been participating in the US’s E2 Treaty Investor Visa programme. Presumably, this special relationship has helped to reassure the US, that Grenda’s CBI does not/will not present any threats to its national security/interests.
The leaders of all CBI countries in the OECS would be entitled to be surprised that the US would contemplate imposing travel restrictions on their citizens, given that since 2023, they have been locked in regular, high level discussions on their CBI programme with the US and the EU. According to the PM of St. Kitts and Never, Dr. Terrance Drew, at the fourth and most recent meeting with senior US State and Treasury Department officials, held in the United Kingdom in January 2025, it was agreed that a consultant would be engaged to draft a “Sub-Regional Regulatory Framework for CBI programmes across the five OECS countries. Before this, the countries agreed to appoint an Interim Regulatory Commission.
If the news reports are accurate, this could mean: (1) the US is aware of the meetings and the agreed actions but wishes the countries to speed up implementation; or (2) the meetings influenced the US to not place the countries in a category that would subject their citizens to tighter and more immediate restrictions.
With so much at stake, I have no doubt the CBI countries reportedly being targeted will do all they can to quickly assuage the US’s concerns. Hopefully, they will feed into their discussions with the US Department of State, the fact that the security of their countries is being compromised by the unfettered flow of guns and ammunitions from the US into their countries. While Caribbean Governments are not able to impose travel bans on US citizens, without exposing their countries to severe social and economic upheaval, in an ideal and empathetic world, the US would be as concerned about the safety and security of Caribbean citizens, as it is about its own citizens, millions of whom visit the region every year. The leaders might seek to convince the US that CBI revenue is being used to strengthen the capacity of their countries to curb the illegal importation of arms and ammunition from the US into their countries and that a travel ban would only weaken their ability to keep their citizens and US visitors safe.