Trump Administration Proposes $15,000 Bond for Visa Applicants from High Overstay Countries

The U.S. State Department is contemplating a new initiative to mandate visa applicants for business and tourism purposes from specific countries to post a security bond of up to $15,000 as a condition for entry into the United States.

In a forthcoming announcement in the Federal Register, the department has planned a 12-month pilot program that will target nations exhibiting high overstay rates and weak internal document security controls. Under this program, such applicants may be obligated to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 along with their visa applications.

This development is an extension of the Trump administration’s efforts to intensify visa application requirements. Last week, the State Department announced that many applicants seeking visa renewals would be subjected to additional in-person interviews. Additionally, the department has proposed stringent measures for applicants of the Visa Diversity Lottery program, such as requiring valid passports from their respective countries of origin.

The Federal Register notice, previewed on Monday, specifies that the pilot program will become effective within 15 days of its formal publication and aims to shield the U.S. government from any financial liability in case a visitor breaches the terms of their visa. The affected nations will be identified once the program is launched. However, the bond may be waived based on individual circumstances.

It is noteworthy that the bond requirement will not apply to citizens of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travel for business or tourism purposes for up to 90 days. The majority of the 42 nations partaking in this program are from Europe, with others hailing from Asia, the Middle East, and other regions.

While visa bonds have been proposed previously, they have yet to be implemented due to the complicated process associated with posting and discharging a bond, as well as potential public misconceptions. However, the department’s current stance on this matter is that “previous concerns are not substantiated by any recent examples or evidence.”