Trump admin drops visa bombshell on South Sudanese nationals amid fears of civil war return

In a sweeping policy shift aimed at pressuring foreign governments to comply with immigration obligations, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has revoked all visas held by South Sudanese passport holders. The move, confirmed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on April 5, 2025, marks a significant escalation in Washington’s enforcement of repatriation mandates. According to Rubio, the decision stems from South Sudan’s persistent refusal to accept the return of its citizens who are subject to removal from the United States.

The immediate visa ban halts the entry of all South Sudanese nationals using government-issued passports. Rubio stated that the U.S. Department of State would also suspend the issuance of any new visas to South Sudanese citizens. The administration had previously warned that non-cooperative countries would face consequences including visa sanctions and potential economic measures such as tariffs.

Rubio emphasised that every sovereign nation is obligated under international norms to accept repatriated citizens. He accused South Sudan’s transitional government of exploiting U.S. immigration leniency and declared that the sanctions would remain until full cooperation is restored. The South Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. has not yet issued a public response.

What are the political tensions behind this move?

The visa revocation comes at a time of heightened instability in South Sudan, where tensions are rising amid fears of a renewed civil conflict. The African Union has sent mediators to the capital, Juba, to facilitate emergency talks after the controversial detention of First Vice President Riek Machar. South Sudanese President Salva Kiir’s government placed Machar under house arrest last week, accusing him of inciting rebellion.

Machar, a long-standing political rival to Kiir, previously led rebel forces during South Sudan’s 2013–2018 civil war, a brutal ethnic conflict that left an estimated 400,000 people dead. During that war, fighters from the country’s largest ethnic group, the Dinka, largely supported Kiir, while members of the Nuer group, South Sudan’s second-largest, backed Machar. The fighting had a deeply polarising effect on the young nation, which only gained independence from Sudan in 2011.

Recent clashes in the Upper Nile state between government forces and the White Army militia—a group historically aligned with Machar—have reignited fears that the fragile peace may collapse. Though Machar’s faction denies links to the current violence, the government insists he has been attempting to destabilise the region.

How does this affect South Sudanese nationals in the United States?

The immediate fallout from the visa revocation policy could be severe for South Sudanese nationals currently residing in the United States. Thousands of students, professionals, and families may find themselves suddenly out of status, without access to re-entry rights or legal protections. Among the most high-profile individuals affected is Duke University basketball standout Khaman Maluach. As a South Sudanese national, Maluach’s legal ability to remain in the U.S. could be jeopardised by the visa revocation, despite his prominence in American collegiate sports.

This move aligns with a broader pattern of Trump administration policies designed to enforce stricter immigration control, particularly through bilateral pressure. In the past, countries such as Cambodia, Eritrea, and Sierra Leone have faced similar punitive measures when they refused to repatriate deportees. These policies are part of a long-standing legal principle that allows the U.S. to impose visa restrictions on nations that obstruct immigration enforcement.

What are the implications for international law and diplomacy?

By revoking South Sudanese visas, the United States is exercising its sovereign authority to manage foreign nationals within its borders. However, the action also highlights the delicate balance between immigration enforcement and diplomatic relations. Countries that rely on good bilateral ties with Washington may feel compelled to comply, while others, especially those grappling with internal instability, may struggle to respond effectively.

Experts in international law note that while nations are expected to take back their citizens under customary law, the enforcement mechanisms are largely unilateral. The U.S. has frequently used visa sanctions as a non-military tool to coerce compliance. However, such moves risk further isolating fragile governments and could inadvertently worsen humanitarian conditions.

In the case of South Sudan, the visa ban comes amid a precarious political environment. The country has faced chronic governance challenges, exacerbated by ethnic divisions, corruption, and underdeveloped infrastructure. Any further diplomatic strain could undermine ongoing peace talks or efforts to stabilise the economy, which remains heavily reliant on oil exports and foreign aid.

Could this trigger broader immigration or policy shifts in Africa?

This U.S. policy decision may reverberate across Africa, especially among nations with large diaspora populations in the United States. It sets a precedent that visa access is conditional upon cooperation with U.S. immigration policy, even if the targeted country is experiencing internal conflict. Countries in similar positions may now be prompted to strengthen their repatriation protocols to avoid potential fallout.

In South Sudan’s case, however, enforcing repatriation obligations is complicated by weak institutional capacity. Many returnees may face unsafe conditions, including political persecution, displacement, or lack of basic services. Human rights groups have often criticised forced returns to countries like South Sudan as potentially inhumane, particularly when done without individual safety assessments.

As the African Union mediators attempt to de-escalate the political crisis in Juba, the U.S. visa ban adds another layer of urgency. It signals to South Sudan’s leaders that international patience is wearing thin and that broader diplomatic consequences could follow.

What’s next for South Sudan–U.S. relations under the Trump administration?

The revocation of all South Sudanese visas marks one of the Trump administration’s most forceful foreign policy moves in Africa this year. It comes as part of President Trump’s continued emphasis on immigration enforcement and sovereign control over entry to the U.S. The administration has used similar strategies in past disputes, including trade negotiations and international aid allocations, often tying them to compliance on immigration matters.

Whether South Sudan’s transitional government will respond constructively remains to be seen. The internal political crisis, punctuated by Machar’s house arrest and ethnic militia clashes, complicates any diplomatic outreach. However, Rubio has made it clear that the door remains open for policy reversal if South Sudan begins to cooperate.

This development also invites broader scrutiny over the Trump administration’s Africa strategy, which has been criticised for lacking consistency and prioritising punitive measures over long-term development partnerships. As U.S. officials weigh future engagement with South Sudan, the outcomes of the AU-led peace mediation may prove decisive in shaping the next phase of relations between the two nations.