Follow us on social

google cta
2008-02-25t120000z_47712723_gm1e42p1nmj01_rtrmadp_3_korea-north-concert-scaled

Extending the North Korea travel ban is a missed opportunity

President Biden let the Trump-era rule continue, which blocks people-to-people contact and humanitarian assistance.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Restrictions imposed on American passport holders over travel to North Korea were extended by the Biden administration after being set to expire on September 1. Extending these restrictions is a missed opportunity to remove an obstacle to principled engagement and humanitarian exchange with North Korea. 

These restrictions, introduced by the Trump administration in 2017 and renewed annually, made U.S. passports no longer valid for travel to, in, or through North Korea. Since then, individuals seeking to legally travel to North Korea on a U.S. passport have been required to apply for a special validation passport through the U.S. State Department. These one-time-use passports are “issued on an extremely limited basis” when the State Department deems the “trip is in the national interest.” 

As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden pledged to work “to reunite Korean Americans separated from loved ones in North Korea for decades.” Prior to the travel restrictions, some Korean Americans were able to travel to North Korea to visit their family members still living there. However, with the travel restrictions in place and lack of an agreement between the American and North Korean governments on family reunions, the options for Korean American divided families to reunite in person will be extremely limited.  

One impetus for these restrictions was the tragic death of Otto Warmbier, an American student arrested for allegedly stealing a propaganda poster while visiting North Korea as a tourist. Warmbier was held from January 2016 to June 2017 and died in the United States days after being released from North Korea in a coma.  

Warmbier was neither the first nor the last American detained in the country. At least one American was held in North Korea after the travel restrictions took effect, though he has since been released and deported after allegations that he entered North Korea illegally. Robert King, the former Special Envoy for North Korea Human Rights Issues notes that “[o]ver the last decade or so, some twenty Americans have been detained by the DPRK, in most cases for reasons that are consistent with North Korean laws, but not with those of democratic societies like the United States.” 

The travel restrictions have also limited the ability of some non-governmental organizations to provide medical, developmental, and other humanitarian assistance. Advocates for removing the travel restrictions note that the process is too often arbitrary and lacks transparency detailing why applications are denied. Even those individuals who have their applications for special validation passports approved by the State Department may face bureaucratic and financial burdens. 

Cultural exchanges, educational engagement, and other people-to-people exchanges are also valuable, especially given the general lack of direct contact between U.S. and North Korean citizens. This people-to-people engagement has been diverse, ranging from former American political leaders visiting North Korea to promote dialogue and understanding to the New York Philharmonic performing a concert in Pyongyang. 

Had the Biden administration chosen not to renew these travel restrictions, the initial effect would have been largely be symbolic due to North Korea’s strict self-imposed border controls arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. But easing the restrictions would have enabled direct people-to-people contact or humanitarian assistance in significant areas in the future. 

U.S. Special Representative for the DPRK Sung Kim recently wrote that “we are open to exploring meaningful confidence-building initiatives.” Unfortunately, this was a missed opportunity for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to that pledge by removing a significant barrier that could hinder the success of those very confidence-building initiatives.  


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Members of the New York Philharmonic pose for a group photograph after arriving in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang February 25, 2008, for a stay of about 48 hours which will culminate in a concert on Tuesday. The New York Philharmonic arrived in Pyongyang on Monday to play the symphony "From the New World" in an overture to thaw still frozen ties from the Cold War era between the United States and North Korea. REUTERS/David Gray (NORTH KOREA)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.