The US State Department announced a new pilot program requiring some visa applicants to pay bonds of up to $15,000. This initiative, set to begin on August 20, is part of the Trump administration's broader effort to crack down on migration and discourage visa overstays. The 12-month program will mandate that nonimmigrant B-1 (business) and B-2 (tourism) visa applicants from certain countries deemed to have high visa overstay rates or deficient internal document security controls post a collateral sum. The required bond will be no less than $5,000, with potential amounts of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000.

Funds paid as collateral will be returned to applicants if they comply with the terms of their stay in the United States, but will be forfeited if they remain in the country past their authorized deadline. While the initial notice did not specify which countries would be impacted, subsequent reports indicated that nations like Malawi and Zambia could be targeted. Additionally, those required to pay bonds will have to enter and depart from a list of pre-selected US airports.

The State Department justified the program by calling it "a key pillar of the Trump Administration's foreign policy to protect the United States from the clear national security threat posed by visa overstays." However, the bond scheme has drawn strong criticism, with opponents denouncing it as a 'legalized shakedown' that could make the visa process unaffordable for many legitimate, vulnerable travelers.

This pilot program aligns with other recent measures by the Trump administration to tighten visa requirements, including new stipulations for additional in-person interviews for many visa renewal applicants and the proposal that Visa Diversity Lottery program applicants possess valid passports from their country of citizenship. It is noted that the bond requirement will not apply to citizens of countries enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program. Historically, the State Department had discouraged visa bonds due to their cumbersome administrative process and potential for public misperception, but this view has been dismissed by the department in the context of the new policy.