The Trump administration has sharply expanded a controversial visa bond requirement, nearly tripling the number of countries whose citizens must post refundable bonds of up to US $15,000 in order to apply for a U.S. visitor visa. The dramatic move marks one of the administration’s most expansive travel‑policy shifts ahead of the 2026 election year and is likely to reverberate across diplomatic, economic and migration policy debates worldwide.
On Jan. 6, the U.S. State Department announced that it has added 25 more countries to its visa bond list, bringing the total number of affected nations to 38. The expanded requirement — drawn from a pilot program that initially targeted just a handful of nations — will take effect on Jan. 21, according to notices posted on the department’s official travel site.
Under the policy, nationals from countries now on the list must, at the time of applying for a B‑1/B‑2 (tourism and business) visa, post a bond of US $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, as determined during the consular interview. The bond is refundable if the applicant does not overstay their visa or if the visa is denied. But critics note that in practice many applicants may never recover the funds, and the upfront cost itself presents a substantial barrier for families, students, business travelers and migrant workers.
U.S. officials defend the policy as a tool to curb visa overstays — a longstanding concern for U.S. border and immigration enforcement agencies. They argue that the financial commitment incentivizes travelers to comply with the terms of their visas. However, observers and advocacy groups say the bond program disproportionately affects citizens of developing countries and could render lawful travel to the United States unaffordable for most.
The newly added nations span Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, South Asia and the Pacific. The 25 additional countries now subject to visa bonds include:
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Nigeria, Senegal, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
These join a group of 13 countries previously added, most of them in Africa, including Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea‑Bissau, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Tanzania, Turkmenistan and Zambia.
Many of these countries have significant diasporas in the United States, and travel — for business, tourism, family visits or medical treatment — has traditionally been a lifeline for citizens unable to secure direct flights or migration pathways. The bond requirement introduces a new economic hurdle, potentially cutting off access for many who cannot secure funds at such levels.
The move is part of a broader suite of travel and border policies pursued by the Trump administration. In recent years, U.S. consulates have required in‑person interviews for citizens of all visa‑eligible countries, demanded extensive disclosure of applicants’ social media histories, and tightened scrutiny of international travel and residency records. Supporters say these measures enhance national security and help curb unlawful immigration.
But critics — including human rights groups, foreign governments and immigration advocates — argue that such policies unfairly target citizens of lower‑income nations and undermine the United States’ image as an open and welcoming destination. They also warn that the bond requirement could trigger reciprocal measures by other countries, potentially hurting U.S. citizens seeking visas abroad.
Where middle‑class incomes are far lower than in the United States, a $5,000 to $15,000 bond is not just a procedural requirement — it can be a prohibitive cost. Some analysts predict sharp declines in legitimate travel to the U.S. from affected countries, affecting tourism, international business and academic exchange programs.
dhakatribune.com
Visa bonds do not guarantee that a visa will be granted, and many applicants may view the requirement as a nonrefundable fee for entry, regardless of refund policies. This has raised concerns about potential legal challenges and diplomatic pressure from governments whose citizens are disproportionately impacted.
As the policy takes effect later this month, observers will be watching how consulates implement the program, how many applicants comply with the financial demands, and whether the expanded list will achieve its stated goal of reducing overstays without unduly restricting lawful travel.
