Have any other countries warned their citizens about travel to the u.s. due to ride in authoritarianism/fascism?
Executive summary
Multiple foreign governments have updated travel guidance for citizens heading to the United States, citing concerns such as stricter immigration enforcement, detentions at ports of entry, violent crime and terrorism — not explicit, broad warnings that the U.S. has descended into “authoritarianism” or “fascism.” Countries including Germany, the U.K., Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada and others have issued cautions or higher-level advisories noting risks around border enforcement, crime and civil unrest [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Which countries have warned citizens — and why they say so
Several Western governments updated U.S. travel guidance in 2024–25. Germany, the U.K., Denmark and Finland publicly cautioned travelers about unpredictable border entry and stricter immigration enforcement after incidents of detained visitors; their notices emphasize that a visa or ESTA does not guarantee admission [1]. New Zealand moved the U.S. to a Level 2 “Exercise Increased Caution” primarily over terrorism and violent crime concerns [2] [5]. Canada has similarly amended guidance to reflect new U.S. registration and entry rules, and Ottawa warned of strict enforcement and possible penalties [6] [4]. These updates focus on practical risks at borders, crime, and terrorism — not formal declarations that the United States is an authoritarian state [1] [2].
2. Detentions and a travel-ban backdrop that spurred the advisories
Advisories intensified amid a string of U.S. policy moves and high-profile detentions. The 2025 U.S. travel ban and executive actions restricting entry from multiple countries prompted foreign governments to tell citizens to be cautious or prepare for additional screening and denials; the White House text and reporting on the ban show why partners flagged entry unpredictability [7] [8]. Media accounts of foreign nationals detained at U.S. airports, and governments’ concerns that visas or ESTA approvals do not guarantee entry, were direct triggers for several updated advisories [3] [4].
3. What governments actually said — nuance matters
Most advisories fall into two categories: practical caveats about entry and public-safety warnings. Germany and the U.K. reminded citizens that border officials have discretion to deny entry and stressed compliance with visa and admission rules [4]. Finland and Denmark urged normal or increased caution, not outright prohibitions [1]. New Zealand specified terrorism and higher rates of violent crime as reasons for its Level 2 warning [2]. Condé Nast and Newsweek reporting compiled these varied national positions, showing alarm about enforcement and safety but not a coordinated claim that the U.S. is a fascist or authoritarian regime [6] [1].
4. Political framing: some foreign officials used stronger words
Not every statement from abroad was narrowly procedural. Venezuelan officials, responding to a U.S. travel proclamation, labeled the U.S. government “fascist” and warned Venezuelans against being in the United States — rhetoric reflecting Caracas’s adversarial politics rather than standard travel-advice language [9]. That statement sits apart from the measured travel advisories issued by Western ministries, and it exposes an implicit diplomatic agenda: authoritarian or anti-U.S. governments may use harsh labels to rally domestic audiences [9].
5. What these advisories do — and do not — mean for claims of U.S. “authoritarianism”
Travel guidance is a safety and consular tool, not a legal or ideological judgment. Ministries cite concrete hazards — crime, terrorism risk, detention and immigration policy changes — and advise precautions or procedural steps, such as registering long stays or ensuring documentation meets REAL ID standards [6] [5]. Available sources do not report any major democratic government issuing formal travel bans for its citizens to avoid the U.S. on the basis that America has become an authoritarian or fascist state; instead, the documents and coverage show concern over specific policies and risks at U.S. borders [1] [2].
6. Competing perspectives and the media ecosystem
Some commentators and NGOs portray U.S. policy moves — travel bans, expanded detentions, designations of groups — as signs of democratic erosion or authoritarian tactics [10] [11]. Others, including columnists skeptical of “fascism” labels, argue the term is misapplied to U.S. politics and caution against conflating illiberal measures with classic fascist regimes [12]. Reporting collected here shows both strands: policy-driven travel warnings and political actors using charged language for influence [7] [12] [9].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s not said
Available sources do not mention any country formally telling citizens they must not travel to the U.S. because it has become a fascist or authoritarian regime; the documented advisories emphasize safety, immigration enforcement and terrorism [1] [2]. They also do not provide a comprehensive global list of every government notice—coverage focuses on Western allies and a few adversaries, so other governments’ messaging may exist but is not in these sources [3] [5].
Bottom line: Governments from New Zealand to several European capitals have warned citizens to exercise caution when traveling to the U.S., but the official language and documented reasons center on border enforcement, crime and terrorism risk — not a unified international finding that the United States has become authoritarian or fascist [2] [1] [4].