On the field, the 2026 World Cup is displaying the world at its best: 48 teams meeting as equals to play a game revered by hundreds of millions of people globally. Off the field, however, a contest is unfolding at consulates, airports and inspection rooms, as incredibly harsh U.S. rules leave traveling fans pondering whether their nationality and identity matter more than their ticket. In creating and unfairly enforcing this repressive new immigration system, the United States cannot celebrate its fellow countries' flags while treating those carrying them as presumptive threats.
For the first time, eight Arab teams — Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia — qualified for the World Cup, alongside many Muslim-majority nations like Iran, Senegal and Uzbekistan. The games represent a moment of pride for the citizens of these states, and one that should be celebrated globally. Yet many of these countries are experiencing repressive travel restrictions due to U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.
Some of those stories have gone viral. Somali referee Omar Artan was barred from entering the United States to officiate the games despite clearance from the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), which manages the games, following an intensive three-year vetting campaign. This week, the mother of Cabo Verde goalkeeper Josimar José Évora Dias, nicknamed "Vozinha" in homage to his grandparents who raised him, finally received a U.S. visa after his tearful account of her missing his debut due to travel hurdles went viral, prompting officials to intervene.
Simply put, a global event like the World Cup should not require a viral plea to open the gate.
The U.S. government is essentially inviting the Middle East and Muslim world onto the field while closing the gate to many of their people.
- Celine Atallah
When the United States agreed to host 78 of the World Cup's 104 matches, it did not give up border security. It accepted a responsibility: to secure a world event without turning nationality into guilt. Yet Iran's team entered under a sporting-event exception while most Iranian supporters seeking visas are barred, even as the team faced unfair and vindictive restrictions that harmed its ability to even participate in the games. Even the sporting exception has not protected every official participant: Several Iranian team officials and support staff were barred and Iraq's official team photographer was denied entry after hours of detention.
People traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued passports face a full suspension. Senegalese nationals have faced partial restrictions, including a suspension of visitor visas after January 1, 2026. The U.S. government is essentially inviting the Middle East and Muslim world onto the field while closing the gate to many of their people.
This approach reflects an extension of Middle East policy, conducted at the consulate and airport: collective suspicion, blunt instruments and a double standard between governments and people. Washington asks Arab partners to share intelligence, mediate conflicts, host American forces and trust its commitment to human rights, yet treats their people as suspects because of a passport, name, religion or peaceful political opinion. Every humiliating encounter rebuts diplomacy, just as every family turned away carries that story home.
Consider U.S. visa bonds. Citizens of 50 countries can be required to post $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 for a visa, based in part on country-level overstay concerns. Five affected countries — Algeria, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal and Tunisia — qualified for the 2026 World Cup, making the bond rule directly relevant to fans seeking to attend matches in the United States.
To be sure, the Trump administration deserves credit for waiving bonds for eligible ticket holders who bought tickets and opted into the FIFA Priority Appointment Scheduling System (FIFA PASS) by April 15, alongside its efforts to prioritize interviews. But an expedited appointment does not equate to visa approval, and a temporary waiver does not cure a system that prices suspicion according to passport. Rather, allowing the FIFA PASS exception proves that individualized screening is possible. It should be the rule.
Overstays and security threats are legitimate concerns, especially amid war. Every country has the right to protect itself. But the answer to these concerns is individualized investigation that respects people for who they are, not collective punishment that impacts entire nationalities and religions. The United States already uses fingerprints, travel histories, watchlists, criminal records and entry-and-exit data for non-citizen entry screening, which more than suffices.
A full or partial nationality-wide ban utilizes a net at the expense of real people and communities when a scalpel would suffice. It sweeps up families, professionals and fans who have done nothing wrong. Investigate the individual. Examine prior violations and credible intelligence.
I see the human cost in my immigration practice every day. Arab and Muslim clients, including naturalized Arab Americans, describe secondary inspections, hours of questioning and demands to unlock their phones. United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may send travelers to secondary inspection without individualized suspicion, and its policy permits manual review of information stored on a device. That approach risks exposing family conversations, medical information, photographs and intimate images.
Washington asks Arab partners to share intelligence, mediate conflicts, host American forces and trust its commitment to human rights, yet treats their people as suspects because of a passport, name, religion or peaceful political opinion.
- Celine Atallah
CBP's rules require reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or a national-security concern before officers may use specialized tools to copy and analyze a device. But what informs that judgment: credible evidence, or a traveler's passport, name, religion or peaceful political opinion? When broader immigration policies already sort people by nationality through travel suspensions and visa bonds, the danger is that individualized screening becomes profiling, with identity itself constituting the evidence. Officers may inspect information stored on the device, but not data only stored online. A legal threshold offers little protection if "national security" is defined broadly enough to swallow it.
Border officers have difficult jobs and the lawful authority to conduct them. However, that legal authority must not be contorted into permission to treat a person's private life as luggage. These officials represent America. Security without professionalism becomes humiliation, fear and anger, stories travelers take home.
The fear does not stop with visitors. I have seen naturalized Americans become afraid to criticize war, question U.S. policies or support Palestinian rights online. They worry that an airport inspection will turn opinion into evidence. Naturalized citizens are citizens, full stop, with the same First Amendment rights as Americans born in the United States. The Supreme Court has recognized free-speech protection for noncitizens residing in this country as well, although visa applicants abroad and people seeking initial admission stand differently.
A citizenship that feels conditional on silence is second-class citizenship. That status is deeply un-American.
These repressive policies and their evolution into threats to U.S. citizens start with immigrants because they are the easiest to isolate. As online-presence reviews expand, screening must distinguish advocacy from violence, opinion from material support and anger from intent to harm. America should never teach the world that freedom of speech ends when immigration law begins.
International visitors book hotels, eat at restaurants, ride taxis, shop and support American jobs. But it is diplomacy that is the World Cup's greater value. Foreign policy is more than what officials say. It is what a fan experiences at a consulate, what an American hears in secondary inspection and whether peaceful criticism is mistaken for disloyalty.
Protecting the country vigorously and welcoming lawful visitors confidently are not mutually exclusive policies. Judge conduct, not nationality. Investigate individuals, not passports. A World Cup with closed doors is not a World Cup, and an America that requires its citizens and those visiting for games designed to unite a global world afraid to speak is not a version of America that should be presented to the global community.
The views and positions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DAWN.
