The Trump administration has quietly expanded a controversial visa bond scheme, adding seven countries, including five in Africa, to a list whose passport holders must post bonds of up to 15,000 dollars when applying for US visitor visas.

The change, which took effect on January 1, 2026, significantly widens the scope of a pilot program launched last year and is already prompting concern from governments, travel industry leaders and civil liberties advocates who warn it could deter tourism, business travel and family visits to the United States.

More News

New Countries Added and How the Policy Works

According to a State Department notice updated in late December, nationals of Bhutan, Botswana, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia and Turkmenistan are now subject to the bond requirement when applying for B-1 business or B-2 tourist visas.

The seven join an existing group of countries already included in the pilot, bringing the total to 13, all but two of them in Africa. The updated list is the latest step in a broader tightening of US entry rules under the Trump administration, which has prioritized combating visa overstays and enhancing traveler screening.

Under the program, consular officers may require applicants from designated countries to post a refundable bond of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 dollars as a condition of visa issuance. The bond is in addition to standard visa fees and a recently introduced “visa integrity” surcharge.

Payment of the bond does not guarantee that the visa will be granted, and not all applicants from covered countries are automatically required to post the bond; consular officers retain discretion based on individual circumstances and perceived overstay risks.

The bond is held by the US government for the duration of the authorized stay. If the traveler leaves the country on time and otherwise complies with visa conditions, the bond is returned. Those who overstay or violate visa terms risk forfeiting the entire amount.

The pilot, currently scheduled to run through August 5, 2026, is framed by US officials as a targeted enforcement tool aimed at a small slice of global travelers, but the new designations dramatically increase the number of people who could be affected.

The State Department has not published estimates for how many applicants are likely to be asked for bonds under the expanded list, and officials stress that the scheme is not intended to affect legitimate travelers who follow the rules.

Yet immigration lawyers and travel agents say the costs are so high relative to average incomes in many of the affected countries that the practical effect will be to discourage even well-qualified visitors from applying.

The visa bond program is rooted in long-standing authority embedded in US immigration law but had rarely been used in a systematic way. Section 221(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows consular officers to require a financial guarantee as a condition of granting a visa, intended to ensure a foreign national’s timely departure. Historically, such bonds were used sporadically, usually in complex cases or where prior immigration violations raised red flags.

In August 2025, the Trump administration transformed that discretionary authority into a structured pilot program. Under a temporary final rule, the State Department began directing consular posts to apply bond requirements to certain applicants from countries deemed to have high overstay rates, weak travel-document systems or, in some cases, citizenship-by-investment schemes perceived as vulnerable to abuse.

Initially, the rule was framed as a 12-month experiment, though it was paired with a broader multi-year overhaul of visa fees, vetting and interview procedures.

The first phase of the pilot, which took effect on August 20, 2025, targeted nationals of Malawi and Zambia seeking B-1 or B-2 visas. Within weeks, the list was expanded to include The Gambia, and then, on October 23, 2025, Mali, Mauritania, Sao Tome and Principe and Tanzania.

Officials cited Department of Homeland Security overstay data and concerns about documentation standards to justify the choices, although some analysts noted that several other countries with higher overstay rates were not included.

The January 1, 2026 expansion to seven more countries marks the second major enlargement of the program. Immigration attorneys note that by formalizing the bond system in regulation and repeatedly updating the list, the administration is signaling that it sees financial guarantees as a central enforcement mechanism, rather than a rarely used last resort. That shift has raised alarms among migrant-rights advocates who argue that immigration control is being outsourced to travelers’ bank balances.

Africa-Centered List Raises Equity and Access Concerns

The geography of the expanded bond list is striking: of the 13 countries currently covered, 11 are in Africa. The others are Bhutan, in South Asia, and Turkmenistan, in Central Asia. For many observers on the continent, the concentration of African states reinforces a perception that US border policies increasingly single out African travelers for heightened scrutiny, additional fees and, in some cases, outright suspensions of visa processing.

Several African governments have already criticized the earlier phases of the pilot. Zambia’s foreign minister warned last year that bonds of up to 15,000 dollars represented an “excessive” financial strain in a country where average monthly household income is a tiny fraction of that amount.

Civil-society groups in Malawi and The Gambia issued similar statements, arguing that the costs would hit students, small business owners and diaspora families hardest, while so-called high-risk actors would likely find ways around the system.

The addition of Botswana and Namibia, two upper-middle-income countries with relatively stable institutions and significant tourism ties to the United States, has also puzzled some analysts. Officials in Gaborone and Windhoek have yet to issue formal responses, but tour operators say they are bracing for cancellations.

Safari outfitters, conference planners and education agents who depend on two-way travel predict that many of their clients will reconsider trips if asked to immobilize tens of thousands of dollars for months at a time.

African travel and tourism associations warn that the perception of being collectively branded as high-risk could have long-term reputational effects. Even countries not currently on the list may worry they could be added in future updates, injecting uncertainty into planning for trade fairs, academic exchanges and code-share airline partnerships that rely on predictable cross-border mobility.

Impact on Tourism, Business Travel and the Travel Industry

For the global travel industry, the expanded bond requirements arrive at a sensitive moment. Airlines, hotels and tour operators are still rebuilding after years of pandemic-related disruption and volatile demand. Any new barrier that discourages discretionary travel to the United States, especially from emerging markets with growing middle classes, is viewed with unease by companies that depend on long-haul international bookings.

Industry experts point out that a 15,000 dollar bond can easily exceed the total budget of a typical leisure visitor from many of the affected countries, including flights, accommodation and spending money.

Even wealthier travelers may balk at tying up that much capital, especially when the timing of refunds can be uncertain. For small businesses, the requirement could mean postponing or canceling trips to US trade shows, supplier meetings or training programs that ordinarily play a key role in fostering economic links.

US-based destination marketing organizations, which promote cities and regions to international travelers, fear that the signal sent by the bond program will extend beyond the 13 affected countries.

Travel advisers report that clients from neighboring states are asking whether they might be added to the list and whether it would be wiser to prioritize destinations in Europe or Asia that do not carry comparable financial conditions. Some also voice concern that the policy undercuts recent efforts to court high-spending visitors from Africa and Central Asia through targeted advertising campaigns.

Within the United States, hospitality groups and convention planners are closely watching for ripple effects on large events that traditionally draw delegates from across Africa and the global South.

Organizers of medical conferences, technology expos and academic symposiums say that adding a steep bond requirement on top of visa fees, flights and registration costs could sharply reduce attendance from key regions, undermining the diversity and reach of such gatherings.

Refunds, Procedures and Traveler Experiences

For would-be visitors from the 13 affected countries, the practical steps involved in posting a bond add an additional layer of complexity to an already demanding visa process.

Applicants who are instructed to provide a financial guarantee must arrange payment through official channels, typically using a Department of Homeland Security bond form and an approved electronic payment platform. The bond must be fully paid before the visa can be issued, and documentation of the bond is then tied to the traveler’s record.

Immigration lawyers say that while the rules on paper promise full refunds when travelers comply with visa conditions, the real-world experience can be more uneven.

Delays in processing departure records, data mismatches and backlogs in refund units can all slow the return of funds. For low- and middle-income applicants who may have borrowed money or liquidated savings to post the bond, even a few extra weeks of waiting can represent a stressful financial strain.

Another concern is transparency. Some travelers have reported difficulty understanding why they were required to post a bond while others from the same country, or even the same family, were not. Because consular decisions are discretionary and often opaque, there is little recourse for applicants who feel they were singled out unfairly.

Advocacy organizations argue that such discretionary systems are prone to inconsistency and can inadvertently entrench biases, even when officers strive to apply criteria objectively.

Travel advisers are encouraging clients from affected countries to build in extra time when planning US trips, both to navigate possible bond instructions and to allow for any refund lag after departure. They also recommend meticulous record-keeping, such as retaining boarding passes and exit stamps, in case travelers need to demonstrate proof of timely departure if refund questions arise later.

Diplomatic Fallout and Reciprocal Measures

The bond program’s expansion has already begun to reverberate in diplomatic circles. Some governments have criticized the initiative as unilateral and discriminatory, arguing that it undermines long-standing visa facilitation agreements and people-to-people ties.

In at least one case, an African country has announced a reciprocal bond requirement for US citizens, signaling that Washington’s effort to deter visa overstays could trigger tit-for-tat measures that complicate travel in both directions.

Regional blocs and pan-African organizations are also weighing in, with some calling for collective responses and others urging Washington to consult more closely with partner governments before imposing measures that affect tourism and business links.

Analysts note that many of the newly added countries are strategically important to US policy in areas ranging from energy to conservation and counterterrorism, and they question whether imposing steep financial barriers on ordinary travelers aligns with broader diplomatic goals.

US officials counter that the program is narrowly tailored and based on data, not politics. They argue that high overstay rates pose genuine challenges for immigration enforcement and public confidence in the visa system, and that traditional tools such as information-sharing agreements and document training have not always yielded rapid improvements.

By linking financial consequences directly to overstay risks, they say, the bond scheme creates a concrete incentive for both travelers and foreign governments to improve compliance.

Nonetheless, some former diplomats and policy analysts warn that focusing predominantly on financial deterrents risks overshadowing deeper structural issues, such as lengthy processing backlogs, limited legal migration channels and lack of capacity in partner countries’ civil registration and passport systems.

They suggest that any evaluation of the pilot at its scheduled end date in 2026 will need to consider not only overstay metrics but also the broader impact on US soft power and international mobility.

What Travelers and Agents Should Watch Next

As of early January 2026, the bond program is in force and actively expanding, but its long-term fate remains uncertain. The rule that established the pilot set a clear sunset date in 2026, but also left open the possibility that the administration could seek to extend or codify the scheme beyond that window if officials deem it effective.

Much will depend on internal assessments of overstay rates among participants and the administrative burden on consular posts and Department of Homeland Security units that manage bond payments and refunds.

Visa applicants from the 13 designated countries are advised to consult current State Department guidance before initiating travel plans, as conditions and country lists can change with little public notice.

Travel agents and corporate travel managers are increasingly building scenario planning into their services, warning clients that a bond requirement may emerge late in the process, even after interview appointments have been scheduled.

Immigration advocates in the United States are pressing for greater transparency around the program’s performance metrics, including how many applicants have been asked to post bonds, the total value of bonds held and forfeited, and demographic breakdowns that might reveal patterns in who bears the brunt of the policy.

They argue that such data will be crucial for evaluating whether the program serves its stated purpose of deterring overstays, or simply functions as a barrier that prices out lower-income travelers.

For the wider travel community, the expansion underscores a broader trend toward financial and procedural tightening at US borders. Alongside bond requirements, travelers now face more extensive interview questions, social media history checks and scrutiny of prior travel.

While the vast majority of visitors still enter and leave the United States without incident, the rising complexity of the rules means that planning a trip increasingly requires not only time and paperwork, but, for some, a substantial financial guarantee.

FAQ

Q1. Which countries are now subject to the US visa bond requirement of up to 15,000 dollars?
Nationals of 13 countries are currently covered, including Malawi, Zambia, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Sao Tome and Principe, Tanzania, Bhutan, Botswana, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia and Turkmenistan. Only certain applicants from these countries may actually be asked to post a bond.

Q2. Does every traveler from those countries automatically have to pay a bond?
No. The decision is discretionary. Consular officers assess each applicant’s circumstances and risk profile. Some applicants from listed countries receive visas without bonds, while others may be required to post 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 dollars as a condition of issuance.

Q3. What types of visas are affected by the bond program?
The bond requirement applies to B-1 business visitor and B-2 tourist visitor visas. It does not generally apply to student visas, immigrant visas or other categories, though separate security or documentary requirements may still be in place for those.

Q4. How and when is the visa bond refunded?
If the traveler complies fully with the terms of the visa, including departing the United States on time, the bond is eligible for a full refund. The refund is processed after US authorities confirm the departure in their records, which can take several weeks or, in some cases, longer.

Q5. Can paying the bond guarantee that my visa will be approved?
No. Payment of the bond does not guarantee visa issuance. Applicants must first qualify for the visa under normal rules. If a bond is required, it is imposed only after the officer has found the applicant otherwise eligible, and the bond becomes an additional condition for issuing the visa.

Q6. Why are most of the countries on the list in Africa?
US officials say they rely on overstay statistics and assessments of travel-document and border-control systems when designating countries. Critics argue that in practice the designations disproportionately target African states and raise broader questions about equity and regional bias in US visa policy.

Q7. How does the bond requirement affect tourism and business travel?
The high sums involved mean that many individuals and small businesses simply cannot afford to travel if required to post a bond. Travel companies report that the measure is already discouraging leisure trips, conference attendance and trade missions from affected countries to the United States.

Q8. Are any countries introducing reciprocal measures for US travelers?
Some governments have signaled that they may impose similar bond requirements or other additional conditions on US citizens in response. Such reciprocal measures could increase travel costs and complexity for Americans visiting those destinations.

Q9. How long will the visa bond pilot program last?
The current pilot is scheduled to run until August 5, 2026. The administration can decide to end it earlier, allow it to expire, extend it or seek to make it permanent, depending on how it evaluates the program’s impact on visa overstays and administrative workloads.

Q10. What should travelers from affected countries do if they plan to visit the United States?
Travelers should check current State Department guidance before applying, prepare for the possibility of a bond requirement, and allow extra time for both the visa process and any post-trip refund. Many are advised to consult experienced travel agents or immigration counsel to understand the financial and procedural implications before committing to a trip.