The United States routinely admitted migrants from some of the most corrupt countries in the world before President Donald Trump halted much of that immigration through executive action last year, according to a new analysis.
The report, published by the Center for Immigration Studies, examined countries whose nationals have since faced full or partial visa suspensions under Trump-era executive orders. The findings raise concerns about the challenges of properly vetting applicants from nations plagued by widespread corruption.
Using corruption rankings from Transparency International, the analysis noted that South Sudan and Somalia rank as the two most corrupt countries globally. Despite those rankings, nearly 1,800 nationals from those two nations were issued visas to enter the United States in Fiscal Year 2024.
Venezuela, which has faced partial visa restrictions, ranks as the third most corrupt country in the world. Even so, nearly 2,600 Venezuelan nationals were granted visas and admitted to the United States during the same fiscal year.
The report argues that corruption at systemic levels makes effective screening of applicants extremely difficult. In nations where public institutions lack transparency and accountability, official records can be unreliable or easily manipulated.
Ronald Mortensen of the Center for Immigration Studies wrote that in highly corrupt countries, U.S. officials cannot be confident that the documents presented by visa applicants are authentic or accurate. Weak recordkeeping systems, bribery, fraud, and widespread administrative dysfunction undermine the integrity of birth certificates, law enforcement records, educational diplomas, passports, and financial documents.
According to the analysis, individuals in such environments may be able to obtain falsified or altered documents in exchange for bribes. That reality, the report contends, severely limits the ability of U.S. authorities to conduct meaningful background checks before granting entry.
The report further argues that suspending entry from highly corrupt nations was viewed as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the immigration system. With limited ability to verify documentation, the executive actions were framed as a way to prevent the importation of corruption and to reduce potential security risks tied to inadequate vetting.
Supporters of the restrictions maintain that immigration policy must account not only for humanitarian considerations but also for the reliability of foreign government records used in the screening process. Critics, however, have historically argued that broad visa suspensions can penalize individuals who are not personally responsible for their home countries’ institutional failures.
The data highlighted in the analysis adds to the broader debate over immigration enforcement, national security, and the standards required for lawful entry into the United States. As policymakers continue to weigh border security and visa policy, the reliability of foreign documentation remains a central issue in determining how the system operates moving forward.
