Hello everyone, I know everyone in this group is facing some kind of immigration(National Visa Center) issue. It’s bizarre that we pay the money to start the process of bringing our loved ones and the legal process which you think would be faster, it’s taking forever. I am sure someone if not many of you are doing things to get the President or Marco Rubio’s attention but I was thinking with midterms around the corner, if everyone can send the White House an email expressing our deepest disappointments in the slowness and no proactive measures to speed up the process, maybe there will be some internal conversations to address these issues. The White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

I am not saying this will change anything but imagine if the White House receives 500-1000+ more inquiries on Monday about the same issues from people who has loved ones i multiple different countries. Just imagine that! Whether you like the president or not, this is not about him but rather the lack of proactive measures his Department of State is taking to help legal immigration

I want to clear something up about the “180-day review,” because I keep seeing two completely different claims:

1. “The government was required to do the review.”

2. “The government was required to publicly tell us what happened.”

Those are NOT the same thing.

📌 THE ACTUAL RULE

The 180-day requirement is found in:

Presidential Proclamation 10998

Section 7(a)

90 Fed. Reg. 59717 (Dec. 19, 2025)

PP 10998 was signed December 16, 2025.

Section 7(a) says that:

“Within 180 days of the date of this proclamation, and every 180 days thereafter,”

the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence,

“shall submit a report to the President”

through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.

That report is supposed to recommend whether the restrictions imposed under Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be:

• continued

• terminated

• modified

• supplemented

So no, the 180-day review was not something people on the internet invented.

The proclamation itself requires the report.

The word used is “shall.”

The first 180-day point fell on approximately June 14, 2026.

And the proclamation says this process repeats every 180 days afterward.

📌 BUT HERE IS WHERE PEOPLE KEEP GETTING MIXED UP

The proclamation says the report must be SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT.

It does NOT say:

• the report must be published online

• the State Department must issue a press release

• the White House must announce that the review was completed

• every country’s individual findings must be released

• Congress must receive the report

• the public must receive a copy

• the President must make a public decision exactly on the 180th day

• a new proclamation must be issued every 180 days

• countries must automatically be removed or added after every review

Those requirements simply are not written into Section 7(a).

The required action is the REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT.

That is different from a PUBLIC REPORT.

📌 SO DID THE REVIEW ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

This is where we have to be careful.

As of September 25, 2026, I have not found a publicly released copy of the first PP 10998 180-day report from the White House, State Department, or Federal Register.

But the absence of a public copy does NOT prove that the report was never submitted.

Why?

Because PP 10998 does not require the report itself to be publicly released.

That means there are really three different statements:

✅ “The proclamation required a report.”

That is documented.

✅ “I have not found that report publicly released.”

Also true.

❌ “Therefore the government definitely never performed the review.”

That conclusion does NOT automatically follow.

We simply do not have enough public information to say that.

📌 WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PREVIOUS EXAMPLE OF THIS

This is important.

Before PP 10998, there was Presidential Proclamation 10949 from June 2025.

That proclamation also required the Secretary of State to assess the restrictions and submit a report to the President.

The timing was slightly different:

PP 10949 required a report within 90 days, and then every 180 days afterward.

When PP 10998 was later issued in December 2025, the new proclamation specifically said that the Secretary of State had presented the earlier report and that the President reviewed it.

That review helped produce changes.

Some restrictions were continued.

Some countries were added.

Some restrictions were modified.

For example, Turkmenistan’s nonimmigrant restrictions were partially lifted after the proclamation said the country had made progress in identity management and information sharing.

But we did not receive some giant public country-by-country version of the underlying review beforehand.

We learned about the result because the President ACTED on recommendations from the review.

That distinction matters.

📌 SECTION 7(b) MATTERS TOO

There is another part people should know about.

Section 7(b) says the Secretary of State, in consultation with the other agencies, shall continue engaging the affected countries on measures needed to satisfy U.S. screening, vetting, immigration, and security requirements.

So the proclamation does not describe the process as:

“Review everybody once and forget about them.”

It specifically calls for continued diplomatic engagement.

That is why we keep watching things like:

• diplomatic meetings

• identity-management reforms

• passport/security improvements

• information-sharing agreements

• overstay-rate concerns

• cooperation with U.S. screening and vetting

• statements from foreign governments

• changes to individual countries’ restrictions

Those things can matter to future recommendations.

But again — Section 7(b) does not say the U.S. government must publicly give us a running play-by-play of those negotiations.

📌 WHAT ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

PP 10998 itself addresses this.

Section 1(k) says that some additional information used in making the country determinations cannot be publicly disclosed because the administration says disclosure could seriously damage national security, and that many of those details are classified.

So we should not expect every country’s complete assessment, evidence, intelligence, security concern, or negotiation to necessarily become public.

That does NOT mean the public should never ask questions.

It simply means the proclamation itself anticipates that some of the underlying information may remain nonpublic.

📌 IS THE 180-DAY REQUIREMENT “LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE”?

This is another place where people are talking past each other.

There IS a directive in the proclamation.

Section 7(a) says the Secretary of State “shall submit” the report.

But Section 11(c) of PP 10998 also says the proclamation does not create a substantive or procedural right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity by individuals against the United States or its officers.

So these two statements can both be true:

➡️ The proclamation DIRECTS the executive branch to submit the 180-day report.

➡️ That does not necessarily mean an individual applicant has a private legal right under PP 10998 to sue and force publication of that report.

That is why saying simply:

“There was no legal obligation”

is too broad.

And saying:

“They legally had to tell all of us what happened at 180 days”

is also too broad.

The actual text sits in between those two claims.

📌 DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO CHANGE THE BAN AFTER 180 DAYS?

No.

The report is supposed to make recommendations about whether restrictions should be:

• continued

• terminated

• modified

• supplemented

“Continued” is one of the possible recommendations.

So the existence of an 180-day review was never a guarantee that countries would come off the list.

It was a mechanism for reassessment.

That distinction is really important.

A review does not equal automatic relief.

A review does not equal automatic continuation either.

It means the restrictions are supposed to be reassessed and recommendations made.

📌 DOES SILENCE MEAN NOTHING HAPPENED?

Not necessarily.

If June 14 passes and there is no announcement, that tells us one thing:

We did not receive a public announcement.

It does NOT, by itself, tell us:

• whether the report was submitted

• exactly what the report recommended

• how Nigeria was evaluated

• how Haiti was evaluated

• how Senegal was evaluated

• whether a particular country made enough progress

• whether additional diplomatic discussions are happening

• whether the President has decided to act on any recommendation

• whether any future modification is being prepared

Those are separate questions.

Until there is documentation, we should not fill those gaps with assumptions in either direction.

📌 WHAT SHOULD WE BE WATCHING NOW?

The 180-day review process did not disappear after June.

PP 10998 says it repeats every 180 days.

That means another review cycle falls in December 2026.

Between now and then, the things worth watching are:

• any new presidential proclamation

• White House statements

• Department of State guidance

• Federal Register notices

• country-specific diplomatic developments

• changes in visa restrictions

• official statements from affected governments

• litigation affecting how PP 10998 is implemented

• evidence that a country has addressed the concerns listed in the proclamation

And if we find something official, we will post it here.

📌 THE SIMPLE VERSION

YES — there was an actual 180-day requirement.

YES — Section 7(a) uses the word “shall.”

YES — the Secretary of State was directed to submit a report to the President.

NO — PP 10998 does not say that report must be released publicly.

NO — it does not require the White House to give us an announcement on exactly Day 180.

NO — a review does not automatically mean restrictions must change.

And NO — the absence of a public report is not enough evidence to say the review definitely never happened.

There is a huge difference between:

“We have not been shown the report.”

and

“There was no report.”

Right now, based on the public information I can verify, the first statement is supportable.

The second one is not.

That is why I try very hard in this community to separate what we KNOW from what we THINK happened.

Because families affected by this deserve better than rumors going in either direction. ❤️

⚠️ I am not an immigration attorney. This post is based on the text of Presidential Proclamation 10998 and publicly available federal information. It is general information, not individualized legal advice.

SOURCES:

Presidential Proclamation 10998 — Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States

White House

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/

Federal Register / GovInfo

Proclamation 10998, 90 Fed. Reg. 59717

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-12-19/pdf/FR-2025-12-19.pdf

U.S. Department of State — Presidential Proclamation 10998

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/Intercountry-Adoption-News/presidential-proclamation-10998-on-restricting-and-limiting-the-.html

U.S. Department of State — Suspension of Visa Issuance under PP 10998

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-visa-issuance-to-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states.html