On January 1, 2026, the United States redefined who gets to move. Through Presidential Proclamation 10998, Washington imposed visa bans and restrictions on citizens from 39 countries, many of them in Africa.

Officially, it is a domestic security measure and an administrative filter intended to protect Americans. Unofficially, I see it differently: this is a signal that mobility is no longer earned solely by individuals, but granted, or denied, based on how the world judges an entire state.

ALSO READ: What Paul Kagame has taught me about leadership

The message is plain: movement to the US is no longer determined solely by individual merit, intent, or personal conduct. It is increasingly shaped by how an entire state is assessed, judged, and ranked. Mobility has become collective. A passport now carries the weight of a country’s governance, security record, and institutional credibility, burdens that no individual achievement can fully offset.

ALSO READ: Governance matters: Rwanda’s place in the world

For countries on the list, the consequences are immediate and personal. Education and career paths will be paused. Family reunifications will face long delays. Communities must navigate uncertainty that is entirely beyond their control. These are not numbers on a paper; they are futures disrupted, ambitions stalled, and lives reshaped by decisions taken far from those who bear their costs.

ALSO READ: 'A standard of good governance’: Reflections on Rwanda at 31

This logic reinforces a message that President Paul Kagame has articulated consistently over the years: good governance, accountability, safety, and security are no longer only domestic priorities.

They are the basis upon which countries are trusted, or distrusted, internationally. Institutional discipline is not simply about internal order; it determines how a state is perceived and whether it is considered a reliable partner in an unpredictable global system.

In practical terms, this means that how a nation manages itself at home now directly affects the opportunities available to its citizens abroad. In America’s view, stability is no longer judged solely by domestic calm. It is assessed by how legible, transparent, and credible a state appears to distant decision-makers. Even countries widely regarded as capable are reminded that credibility cannot be assumed; it must be continuously demonstrated.

In Africa, this creates political strain. In the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and parts of West Africa, governments must explain to their citizens why doors have closed and whether they can be reopened. These are not only diplomatic challenges but legitimacy tests for states already navigating economic pressure and public discontent.

At the same time, disparities in institutional strength risk deepening divides across the continent. Countries with stronger governance frameworks, reliable civil registration systems, and effective border management will retain access, influence, and mobility. Those without may find themselves increasingly marginalised. Over time, exclusion risks becoming self-reinforcing, compounding existing inequalities in migration, investment, and security.

The economic consequences, though less immediate, are no less significant. Remittance flows may slow as mobility narrows. Entrepreneurs could face reduced access to U.S. markets, finance, and professional networks. Academic exchange programmes are likely to thin, limiting the circulation of skills, research, and innovation. None of these impacts arrives as a dramatic shock, yet together they reshape long-term growth and competitiveness.

Socially, the burden is uneven. Those with diplomatic passports or dual citizenship will continue to move. Ordinary citizens will not. For young Africans in particular, personal effort and talent risk being overshadowed by the country they come from, the documents they carry, and how their nation is perceived abroad.

Perception, in this context, matters as much as policy. Many of the countries most affected are Muslim-majority, and many are former French colonies. The proclamation does not explicitly reference religion or colonial history, yet patterns are visible and widely noted. How policies are interpreted can be as consequential as how they are written.

Yet there is a potential upside. Faced with tighter restrictions and greater uncertainty, African countries may accelerate trends already underway. Governments must broaden their inter-regional and international partnerships, not in search of new patrons, but to reduce dependence on any single country and build resilience.

Seen in this light, visa bans are not simply about who can board a plane. They reflect judgments about trust: who is considered credible, who is viewed with suspicion, and who must repeatedly prove legitimacy, not as individuals, but collectively as nations.

For African governments, the lesson is unavoidable. When access to opportunity is shaped by perceptions of state capacity, the only durable response is to put national houses in order.

Strengthening institutions, improving governance, investing in data integrity, and maintaining security are no longer optional reforms. They are prerequisites not only for safeguarding mobility, influence, and opportunity abroad, but for ensuring that citizens do not feel compelled to leave home in search of basic livelihoods or dignity.

In today’s interconnected world, domestic governance and international mobility are inseparable. How a nation manages its institutions, upholds accountability, and delivers for its people directly influences whether its citizens can study, work, trade, or feel secure enough to stay.

The deeper test for Africa lies in building systems that work, restoring public trust, and demonstrating credibility consistently.

The United States has, intentionally or not, reminded the continent that good governance at home is now a decisive factor not only in global access and respect, but in whether Africans can build viable futures within their own countries.

The writer is a management consultant and strategist.