On April 5, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the revocation of all visas for South Sudanese passport holders and halted future issuances. The decision responds to South Sudan’s refusal to accept citizens deported from the US, aligning with the Trump administration’s strict immigration agenda. The policy coincides with the impending expiration of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals in the US on May 3, 2025, raising humanitarian concerns for vulnerable populations.
The visa ban reflects the US’s use of immigration tools to pressure South Sudan’s transitional government, which faces internal instability and accusations of human rights abuses. By linking visa sanctions to deportation compliance, the US signals a hardline approach to immigration enforcement as a foreign policy lever. This risks further destabilizing South Sudan, where political tensions threaten a fragile peace agreement.
The policy marks an unprecedented invocation of 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f), which allows visa restrictions for nations refusing deportations. By targeting all passport holders—not just officials—it expands regulatory reach, setting a precedent for future immigration enforcement. This complicates bilateral relations and raises legal questions about proportionality, as ordinary citizens bear the brunt of governmental disputes
Over 100,000 South Sudanese nationals in the US, including 2,300 TPS beneficiaries, face heightened uncertainty. Revoking visas disrupts family reunification, education, and employment, while the TPS expiration could force returns to a nation ill-equipped to support returnees. The policy disproportionately impacts women and children, who comprise 65% of South Sudan’s displaced population, exacerbating equity gaps.
Why This Matters
The visa ban illustrates how immigration enforcement intersects with global diplomacy, amplifying humanitarian crises in fragile states. It challenges the balance between national security and human rights, urging scrutiny of policies that penalize civilians for governmental failures.
This policy could disrupt the lives of South Sudanese families in the US, many of whom contribute to local economies and communities. It may also set a precedent for stricter immigration measures that could affect other immigrant groups, sparking broader debates about fairness and the human impact of such policies.
