Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking via official channels and in a statement posted to the State Department’s X (formerly Twitter) account, declared that the United States would immediately revoke all existing visas held by South Sudanese citizens and halt the issuance of new ones. The action, Rubio explained, stems from “the failure of South Sudan’s transitional government to accept the return of its repatriated citizens in a timely manner.”
This measure represents a notable escalation in diplomatic pressure on Juba, Sudan’s capital, and reflects the Trump administration’s broader emphasis on strict enforcement of immigration statutes and reciprocal obligations among nations. Rather than relying solely on customary diplomatic protests or incremental sanctions, the administration has opted for a direct restriction on travel—one that carries both symbolic weight and real‐world consequences for individuals and families divided by conflict and displacement.
In parallel, the Department of State issued its own statement urging South Sudan’s leadership to “stop taking advantage” of U.S. laws and to cooperate fully in repatriation efforts. The department emphasized that visa restrictions “will be prepared to be reviewed when South Sudan is in full cooperation,” signaling a potential pathway for reinstatement contingent on compliance.
This article examines the legal authority for such visa revocations, the historical context of U.S.–South Sudan relations, the humanitarian and security considerations at play, and the domestic policy parallels that illuminate how the current administration is reshaping American immigration enforcement.
2. Legal Authority for Visa Revocation
2.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Provisions
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), the Secretary of State has broad discretion to issue, deny, or revoke nonimmigrant and immigrant visas “for any reason deemed in the national interest” (8 U.S.C. § 1104(a)). The INA further empowers the Secretary to prescribe standards for visa eligibility, including requirements for repatriation cooperation by foreign governments.
Specifically, Section 222(f) of the INA authorizes the Department of State to cancel or annul visas if a visa holder “is determined to be ineligible to receive a visa” or if “any provision of [the INA] has not been complied with.” Moreover, Section 243(d) permits rescission of status for individuals whose continued presence in the United States poses a threat to public policy or safety.
2.2 Reciprocity and Cooperative Obligations
Longstanding U.S. policy holds that countries must accept the return of their nationals when the United States seeks to remove them. Failure to do so can trigger reciprocal restrictions—ranging from enhanced passport controls to visa suspensions. This principle is rooted in the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which mandates that consular officers be able to communicate with their nationals in the host state, and that diplomatic channels facilitate the issuance of new travel documents for repatriation.
By invoking these authority strands, Secretary Rubio’s order aligns with past instances in which the United States has leveraged visa policy to enforce bilateral obligations—such as suspensions against Venezuela in response to delays on deportations and similar measures against nations stalling repatriation of their citizens held in U.S. immigration detention.
U.S.–South Sudan Relations: Historical Context
3.1 South Sudan’s Independence and U.S. Recognition
South Sudan emerged as an independent state on July 9, 2011, following decades of civil war with Sudan. The United States recognized the new nation immediately and invested heavily in its stabilizing institutions—supporting peace negotiations, providing humanitarian aid, and sending advisors to assist in governance and security‐sector reform.
3.2 Civil Conflict and Displacement
Despite hopes for lasting peace, South Sudan quickly descended into renewed violence in late 2013, when political tensions between President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar exploded into an ethnic‐fueled conflict. Over the next decade, intermittent fighting resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the displacement of more than four million people—both internally and as refugees to neighboring Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, and beyond.
3.3 Transition Government and Repatriation Agreements
Under international mediation, South Sudan’s warring parties agreed to a transitional government in February 2020. One component of the revitalized peace deal called for concessions on security, power‐sharing, and, crucially, facilitation of refugee repatriation. While South Sudan’s leaders have publicly committed to accepting returnees, implementation has lagged amid persistent insecurity, dilapidated infrastructure, and bureaucratic bottlenecks.
By early 2025, tens of thousands of South Sudanese who had been processed for return by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and U.S. resettlement partners remained in protracted limbo—unable to obtain exit clearances or travel documents from Juba. The United States, bearing the logistical and financial burden of temporary holds and humanitarian assistance for these individuals, has increasingly called on South Sudan to fulfill its obligations.
4. The Rubio Visa Revocation Order: Key Provisions
On the day of the announcement, Secretary Rubio issued the following directives:
-
Immediate Revocation: All valid U.S. visas (nonimmigrant and immigrant) held by South Sudanese passport holders are to be canceled forthwith.
-
Issuance Suspension: Consular posts worldwide must refuse new visa applications from South Sudanese nationals, absent an explicit waiver from the Secretary of State.
-
Repatriation Pressure: The order explicitly ties the reversal of these measures to South Sudan’s “full cooperation” in timely issuing travel documents for returnees, including those processed through U.S. or UNRWA systems.
In tandem, the State Department’s public affairs office released a statement reaffirming the importance of enforcing U.S. immigration laws, citing national security and public‐safety imperatives. The statement emphasized that reciprocity is “critically important”—not simply punitive—and that the Department remains open to “reviewing these actions when South Sudan is in full cooperation.”
5. Humanitarian and Security Considerations
5.1 Impact on Individuals and Families
-
Students and Professionals: South Sudanese nationals in the United States on student (F-1) or employment (H-1B) visas will face immediate uncertainty, potentially jeopardizing educational pursuits and professional assignments.
-
Family Reunification: Immigrant visas for spouses, children, and parents of lawful permanent residents could be delayed or revoked, disrupting family unity.
-
Refugees and Asylees: Though refugees and asylees possess distinct protection statuses, any travel documents issued by South Sudan for reboarding could be unavailable, hindering international travel and resettlement processes.
5.2 National Security and Public Safety Rationale
-
Counter‐terrorism Concerns: The State Department cited “national security” justifications, noting that a lack of reciprocal cooperation impairs the United States’ ability to remove individuals identified as security threats.
-
Detention Management: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on travel documents from foreign governments to repatriate detainees. Prolonged detention without repatriation options strains agency resources and detention‐center capacities.
-
Border Control: Revoking visas may dissuade new arrivals from South Sudan, thereby reducing pressure on border processing systems and asylum adjudication backlogs.
By linking visa policy to repatriation efficacy, the administration aims to close loopholes that allow nationals of uncooperative countries to remain in the United States indefinitely.
6. Precedents: Embassy Suspension in Sudan and TPS for Venezuelans
6.1 U.S. Embassy Suspension in Khartoum, April 2023
On April 22, 2023, amid escalating violence and humanitarian collapse in Sudan, the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum temporarily suspended operations—halting visa processing, passport services, and consular functions. Though driven by immediate security concerns, the suspension underscored how conflict can abruptly sever routine diplomatic and citizen‐services links. While services resumed months later under challenging conditions, the episode illustrated the vulnerability of U.S. foreign‐affairs apparatus to instability in host nations.
6.2 Revocation of TPS for Venezuelans, February 2023
The Trump administration’s early 2023 decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status—an immigration relief program—afforded to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans living in the United States similarly leveraged administrative power to remove humanitarian protections. The Department of Homeland Security announced plans to revoke TPS for more than 300,000 Venezuelan nationals, citing an improved human‐rights and security environment in Venezuela.
These parallel measures—TPS rescission for Venezuelans and visa revocation for South Sudanese—demonstrate a broader policy trend: using discretionary immigration avenues to press foreign governments on parallel issues (political reform in Caracas; document issuance in Juba).
7. The Trump Administration’s Broader Immigration Enforcement Strategy
7.1 Day One Border Emergency and Mass Deportations
Upon assuming office, President Trump issued a national emergency proclamation at the U.S.-Mexico border, directing the deployment of additional troops and federal resources. He simultaneously initiated policies aimed at reducing asylum claims and expediting deportations. Within the first 50 days, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported over 32,000 arrests of undocumented migrants.
7.2 Use of the Alien Enemies Act
In one of the administration’s most unorthodox moves, federal authorities invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport foreign nationals—including alleged members of Venezuelan criminal organizations—directly to El Salvador, bypassing standard criminal or removal proceedings. Seventeen suspected members of MS-13 and the Tren de Aragua gang were flown out in shackles, despite legal challenges from civil‐liberties groups.
7.3 Deportation Totals and “Trump Effect”
By mid‐2025, the administration reported more than 100,000 removals of undocumented migrants. Officials credited stringent policies with sharply reducing illegal border crossings to multi-decade lows—coined the “Trump effect” by DHS sources. While critics argue that these measures compromise due‐process and international protection obligations, proponents underscore declines in entry attempts and argue that deterrence is a key component of effective border management.
8. Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
8.1 Reciprocity as a Diplomatic Lever
The visa revocation order reinforces the concept that immigration policy can serve as a powerful diplomatic instrument—encouraging states to cooperate on issues ranging from citizen return to transnational crime. By conditioning visa privileges on foreign government actions, the United States signals both the value it places on cooperative relationships and its willingness to impose tangible consequences for noncompliance.
8.2 Balancing Humanitarian Concerns
While visa restrictions may incentivize South Sudan’s government, they also risk deepening hardship for individuals—particularly those caught mid‐process or with valid reasons for travel (medical treatment, academic research, family emergencies). The administration has indicated that humanitarian exceptions will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, but the logistical and bureaucratic challenges of securing such waivers remain significant.
8.3 Regional Stability and U.S. Credibility
South Sudan’s fragile peace and worsening food crises hinge in part on stable international partnerships. Unilateral U.S. visa sanctions could be viewed by Juba’s leaders as punitive, prompting them to seek alternative alliances (e.g., with China or Gulf states) that may undermine American strategic interests in East Africa.
9. Assessing the Path Forward
9.1 Conditions for Reversal
The State Department’s statement leaves open the prospect of lifting visa restrictions once South Sudan demonstrates “full cooperation.” Key benchmarks may include:
-
Timely Issuance of Travel Documents: Clear and efficient procedures for exit visas and consular certifications.
-
Reduction in Pending Repatriations: A measurable decrease in the backlog of returnees awaiting departure.
-
Transparent Reporting: Regular data sharing between Juba and Washington on repatriation rates and delays.
9.2 Monitoring and Compliance Mechanisms
To ensure accountability, the United States may deploy:
-
Diplomatic Channels: Engaging through U.S. Embassy Juba and special envoys to convey technical assistance and track progress.
-
Multilateral Oversight: Coordinating with UNHCR and the African Union to verify South Sudanese compliance with repatriation agreements.
-
Reporting Requirements: Mandating periodic briefings to Congress on the status of repatriation and visa enforcement.
10. Conclusion
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decision to revoke all visas for South Sudanese nationals and suspend new issuances marks a significant escalation in the use of immigration policy as a tool of diplomacy. Grounded in statutory authority and decades‐old principles of reciprocity, the move underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to stringent enforcement and holds foreign governments to their repatriation obligations.
However, the order also presents substantial humanitarian, legal, and diplomatic challenges. Individuals with valid reasons for travel—students, professionals, family members—may find themselves abruptly stranded. The measure risks straining U.S. relations with a strategically important, yet fragile, partner on the Nile. And it adds another chapter to a broader narrative of aggressive immigration enforcement that has included TPS rescissions for Venezuelans, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and high‐volume deportations—all framed under the banner of national security and rule‐of‐law enforcement.
As the administration and South Sudan’s transitional government navigate this impasse, the conditions laid out for cooperation—and the mechanisms for monitoring—will determine whether the visa revocation proves a temporary spur to action or a longer‐term rupture in bilateral relations. In a geopolitical landscape marked by shifting alliances and acute humanitarian needs, the efficacy of such hard‐line measures will test the balance between principle and pragmatism in U.S. foreign policy.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.