January 22, 2022

News

News Network

Yemen Travel Advisory

16 min read

Do not travel to Yemen due to COVID-19, terrorism, civil unrest, health risks, kidnapping, armed conflict, and landmines.  

Read the Department of State’s COVID-19 page before you plan any international travel.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Level 3 Travel Health Notice for Yemen due to COVID-19.   

The U.S. Embassy in Sana’a suspended its operations in February 2015, and the U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in Yemen.

Terrorist groups continue to plot and conduct attacks in Yemen. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting public sites, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities. Additionally, there is a continuing threat of kidnapping/detention by terrorists, criminal elements, and/or non-government actors. Employees of western organizations may be targeted for attack or kidnapping.

Military conflict has caused significant destruction of infrastructure, housing, medical facilities, schools, and power and water utilities. This limits the availability of electricity, clean water, and medical care. This instability often hampers the ability of humanitarian organizations to deliver critically needed food, medicine, and water. Critical levels of violence, to include armed conflict, artillery shelling, and air strikes, persist throughout the country. There are also reports of landmines throughout Yemen.

Cholera is present throughout Yemen. There is a limited availability of medicine and medical supplies, and adequate medical treatment is unavailable.

There is a very high risk of kidnapping, and detention of U.S. citizens in Yemen, particularly dual national Yemeni-Americans. Rebel groups in Sana’a have detained U.S. citizens, including dual Yemeni-American citizens. U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, have faced difficulty – including lengthy delays – when attempting to depart Yemen.

Due to risks to civil aviation operating within or in the vicinity of Yemen, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and/or a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). For more information U.S. citizens should consult the Federal Aviation Administration’s Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices.

Read the country information page.

If you decide to travel to Yemen:

  • Visit the CDC’s webpage on Travel and COVID-19.  
  • Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas.
  • Consult the Centers for Disease Control’s webpage on Health Information for Travelers to Yemen.
  • Draft a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.
  • Discuss a plan with loved ones regarding care/custody of children, pets, property, belongings, non-liquid assets (collections, artwork, etc.), funeral wishes, etc.
  • Share important documents, login information, and points of contact with loved ones so that they can manage your affairs, if you are unable to return as planned to the United States. 
  • Establish your own personal security plan in coordination with your employer or host organization, or consider consulting with a professional security organization.
  • Develop a communication plan with family and/or your employer or host organization so that they can monitor your safety and location as you travel through high-risk areas. This plan should specify who you would contact first, and how they should share the information.
  • Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive Alerts and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
  • Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
  • Review the Crime and Safety Report for Yemen.
  • Prepare a contingency plan for emergency situations. Review the Traveler’s Checklist.

Last Update: Reissued with updates to COVID-19 information.

News Network

  • Justice Department Awards Nearly $444 Million to Support Violence Intervention Efforts
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) today announced nearly $444 million in grant awards to support a wide range of violence reduction efforts, including community-based violence intervention and prevention strategies, youth and school violence prevention programs and evidence-based police and prosecution practices. Funding will also support research on civil disturbances, school safety and violence against women.
    [Read More…]
  • Laredoan sentenced for importing meth inside tacos
    In Justice News
    A 31-year-old resident [Read More…]
  • Stafford County, Virginia, to Allow Islamic Cemetery in Response to Justice Department Lawsuit
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it is dismissing its Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) lawsuit against Stafford County, Virginia, because it achieved the relief it sought in the case. Specifically, in response to the department’s complaint, the County repealed ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for persons of the Islamic faith, approved the AMAA’s site plan for the cemetery, and, in a private settlement with the AMAA to resolve the AMAA’s lawsuit, agreed to pay $500,000 in damages to the AMAA.   
    [Read More…]
  • Remarks by Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim on the Future of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees
    In Crime News
    Good afternoon. Thank you very much to Vanderbilt Law School and in particular to the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law for hosting this event. I love Vanderbilt and I love Nashville, and I’m sorry not to be there in person with you today. Someday when COVID-19 is a memory and social distancing is something you do only with people you don’t like, I look forward to returning to Nashville and reconnecting with many of my old friends there. More importantly, I look forward to returning to some of my favorite honky-tonks and showing off my famous dance moves. I’ve been practicing at home in my free time, to make sure I’m ready.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Bahraini Foreign Minister al-Zayani
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Final Defendants Sentenced in Federal Dog Fighting Case
    In Crime News
    The last four of 12 defendants convicted on federal dog fighting charges were sentenced today in Albany, Georgia, by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Collectively, the court sentenced the defendants to a total of 272 months in prison.
    [Read More…]
  • Six Additional Individuals Indicted On Antitrust Charges In Ongoing Broiler Chicken Investigation
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado, returned a superseding indictment charging six additional defendants for their roles in a previously indicted conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products, and containing additional allegations against the previously charged defendants in the same conspiracy, the Department of Justice announced today.  The superseding indictment also charges one defendant with making false statements and obstruction of justice. 
    [Read More…]
  • Law Enforcement: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Review of Less-Lethal Force
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Less-lethal force includes tactics and weapons that are neither likely nor intended to cause death or serious injury such as physical tactics, batons, chemical spray and munitions (e.g., pepper spray and tear gas), and kinetic impact munitions (e.g., rubber bullets). Most of the 10 federal agencies that GAO reviewed have less-lethal force policies that apply to demonstrations. All 10 agencies provide their personnel with less-lethal force training that varied by the agencies' mission. The agencies reported that they equip their personnel on various types of less-lethal force. Further, all 10 agencies have policies and training related to ensuring that their use of less-lethal force minimizes unintended injuries. Examples of Less-Lethal Force The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is the only agency without a less-lethal force policy that applies to demonstrations. Its policy focuses exclusively on inmates in federal institutions. However, in recent years, BOP deployments beyond its institutions have occurred more often in response to civil disturbances and natural disasters. Updating its policy to address such situations will help ensure that their policy addresses all potential use of force situations facing its personnel. As shown in the photographs below, federal personnel responded to the demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon. Federal Personnel in Washington, D.C. (left), and Portland, Oregon (right) Eight of the 10 agencies used less-lethal force during the selected deployments. For those eight agencies, reporting requirements varied and reports often did not include basic information. Reporting requirements varied among agencies within the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ). This variance impairs departmental oversight. For example, while some agencies require personnel to report their use of a baton in all cases, others in the same department required doing so only if there were serious injury. Most agencies' less-lethal force reporting was missing information that would be useful for determining if the force was applied in accordance with agency policy. Specifically, reports from six agencies— Federal Protective Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Secret Service (USSS), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and U.S. Park Police (USPP)—were missing basic information, such as time, location, type of munition used, or circumstances surrounding the use of force. For example, some reports provided a high-level summary of the day but did not identify which officers used force or the types of force each officer used. Further, DHS's oversight over the quality and consistency of use of force reporting was impaired because the department has not established a body to monitor use of force reporting across all of its component agencies, as required by DHS policy. All 10 agencies had processes to determine if less-lethal force was applied in accordance with agency policy, but some of the eight agencies that reported using less-lethal force during selected deployments did not explicitly document their determinations. Specifically, USMS, ICE, and USSS did not document if force was used in accordance with policy. Documenting such reviews will help ensure that they review all reportable uses of less-lethal force. The remaining five agencies that did document less-lethal force determinations—Federal Protective Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; BOP; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and USPP—found that nearly all of their incidents were in accordance with policy. The remaining incidents were referred to the relevant Offices of the Inspector General or were pending further administrative actions as of July 2021. Demonstrators in Washington, D.C. (left), and Portland, Oregon (right) Several federal agencies deployed personnel to Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, in response to the demonstrations. Washington, D.C. At least 12 federal agencies deployed, collectively, up to about 9,300 personnel per day in response to the demonstrations from May 26, 2020, through June 15, 2020. Of these, six agencies reported a total of over 120 less-lethal force incidents during this period, including physical tactics, batons, chemical spray, and chemical and kinetic impact munitions. Three of these agencies (BOP, USPP, and USSS) reported using force as part of the effort to clear Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020. Portland, Oregon. At least five federal agencies deployed, collectively, up to about 325 personnel per day in response to the demonstrations from June 26, 2020, through September 30, 2020. Four agencies reported a total of over 700 less-lethal force incidents during this period, including batons, chemical spray, chemical and kinetic impact munitions, diversionary devices, and electronic control devices. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies deployed personnel and used less lethal force during demonstrations in response to the death of Mr. George Floyd and others. Two of the largest deployments were in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon. This report examines the extent to which federal agencies (1) developed policies, procedures, and training on the use of less-lethal force during demonstrations; (2) reported their use of such force during deployments to Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon; and (3) took action to review their use of less-lethal force for these deployments. GAO also presents information on the federal roles and activities during these deployments. To address these objectives, GAO identified 10 federal agencies that used less-lethal force or deployed large numbers of personnel in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, from May through September 2020. Specifically, GAO identified four agencies within DHS, four agencies within DOJ, the U.S. Park Police within the Interior, and the National Guard within the Department of Defense. GAO reviewed agency guidance on less-lethal force; analyzed use of force reports and determinations on whether the force was used in accordance with policy; and interviewed agency officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with EU High Representative Borrell
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Tajikistan Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Attorney General William P. Barr Announces Updates on Operation Legend at Press Conference in Kansas City, Missouri
    In Crime News
    At a press conference in Kansas City, Missouri, today, Attorney General William P. Barr announced updates on Operation Legend.
    [Read More…]
  • COVID-19: Selected Agencies Overcame Technology Challenges to Support Telework but Need to Fully Assess Security Controls
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Each of the 12 agencies GAO selected for review had information technology (IT) in place to support remote access for telework during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the agencies initially experienced IT challenges in supporting remote access for maximum telework, they generally overcame them. For example, seven agencies were challenged in providing sufficient bandwidth to provide remote access for teleworkers, but they increased bandwidth as needed to ensure networks could handle additional remote connections. In addition, while the increased number of remote connections brings additional cybersecurity risks, all of the selected agencies reported that they continued activities intended to help ensure the security of their information and systems. While the selected agencies had documented elements of a telework security policy, such as permitted telework devices and forms of remote access, not all agencies had fully addressed other relevant federal guidance for securing their systems that support remote access for telework (see figure). Specifically, two agencies had not fully documented relevant IT security controls to protect those systems. In addition, assessments for systems that five agencies relied upon for remote access did not address all relevant controls to ensure the controls were operating effectively. Further, four selected agencies had not fully documented remedial actions to mitigate weaknesses they had previously identified. Extent to Which 12 Selected Agencies Followed Federal Information Security Guidance in Implementing Their IT Systems That Support Remote Access for Telework Although one of the selected agencies subsequently resolved its shortcomings, others had not. For the agencies that did not fully follow federal information security guidance, agency IT security officials stated that these conditions existed for various reasons, such as out-of-date documentation, among others. If agencies do not sufficiently document relevant security controls, assess the controls, and fully document remedial actions for weaknesses identified in security controls, they are at increased risk that vulnerabilities in their systems that provide remote access could be exploited. Why GAO Did This Study In response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 the Office of Management and Budget directed federal agencies to maximize their use of telework to enable the workforce to remain safe while ensuring that government operations continue. Telework is essential to continuity of operations but also brings added cybersecurity risks. The CARES Act contains a provision for GAO to monitor the federal response to the pandemic. GAO was also asked to examine federal agencies' preparedness to support expanded telework. GAO's objectives were to determine (1) selected agencies' initial experiences in providing the IT needed to support remote access for maximum telework and (2) the extent to which selected agencies followed federal information security guidance for their IT systems that provide remote access. GAO selected 12 agencies for review that varied in their percentages of reported employee telework use and sent a questionnaire to solicit these agencies' perspectives on the use of IT in transitioning to maximum telework. GAO also reviewed the selected agencies' information security documentation and interviewed relevant officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Pennsylvania Doctor Sentenced for Unlawfully Distributing Oxycodone
    In Crime News
    A Pennsylvania man was sentenced today to three years in prison for his unlawful distribution of controlled substances.
    [Read More…]
  • Aviation Consumer Protection: Increased Transparency Could Help Build Confidence in DOT’s Enforcement Approach
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Transportation's (DOT) enforcement approach generally uses a range of methods to encourage compliance with consumer protection regulations, including conducting outreach and information-sharing, issuing guidance, and sending non-punitive warning letters for those violations that do not rise to the level that warrants a consent order. DOT usually enters into consent orders when it has evidence of systematic or egregious violations. Such orders are negotiated between DOT and violators (e.g., airlines) and typically include civil penalties. DOT officials see benefits from using consent orders, which can include credits for actions taken to benefit consumers or to improve the travel environment. Annual consent orders increased from 20 in 2008 to 62 in 2012, but then generally declined to a low of eight in 2019. GAO's analysis showed that the decline in consent orders was most marked among those issued against non-air carrier entities (e.g., travel agents), those addressing certain types of violations such as advertising, and orders containing smaller civil penalty amounts. DOT officials said that the agency did not change its enforcement practices during this time. Examples of DOT's Compliance Promotion and Enforcement Efforts Airlines and consumer advocates GAO interviewed said that DOT's enforcement process lacked transparency, including into how investigations were conducted and resolved and about when and why DOT takes enforcement actions. Moreover, DOT publishes limited information related to the results of its enforcement activities, notably information about the number and type of consumer complaints it receives as well as issued consent orders. DOT does not publish other information such as aggregated data about the number or nature of open and closed investigations or issued warning letters. DOT is taking some actions to increase transparency, such as developing a publicly available handbook, but none of those actions appears to fully address the identified information gaps such as information about the results of investigations. Some other federal agencies provide more information about enforcement activities, including publishing warning letters or data about such letters. Publishing additional information about how DOT conducts investigations and enforcement, and about the results of enforcement activities, could improve stakeholders' understanding of DOT's process and help build confidence in its approach. Consumer advocates, airlines, and other stakeholders have raised concerns about how DOT enforces aviation consumer protection requirements. DOT has the authority to enforce requirements protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive practices, discrimination on the basis of disability or other characteristics, and other harms. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 contained a provision for GAO to review DOT's enforcement of consumer protection requirements. This report examines: (1) DOT's approach to the enforcement of aviation consumer protections and the results of its efforts, and (2) selected stakeholder views on this approach and steps DOT has taken to address identified concerns. GAO reviewed DOT data on consent orders and consumer complaints; reviewed other DOT documentation related to its enforcement program; interviewed DOT officials and selected industry and consumer stakeholders, including advocacy organizations, which we identified from prior work and a literature review; and identified leading practices for regulatory enforcement. GAO is making two recommendations, including: that DOT publish information describing the process it uses to enforce consumer protections, and that DOT take additional steps to provide transparency into the results of its efforts. DOT concurred with these recommendations. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Mauricio Montalvo At a Joint Press Availability
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken to U.S. Mission Mexico
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • EU-U.S.: Joint Press Release by the EEAS and Department of State on the High-Level Consultations on the Indo-Pacific
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Combating Terrorism: Department of State Programs to Combat Terrorism Abroad
    In U.S GAO News
    Efforts to combat terrorism have become an increasingly important part of government activities. These efforts have also become important in the United States' relations with other countries and with international organizations, such as the United Nations (U.N.). The Department of State is charged with coordinating these international efforts and protecting Americans abroad. State has helped direct the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism abroad by building the global coalition against terrorism, including providing diplomatic support for military operations in Afghanistan and other countries. State has also supported international law enforcement efforts to identify, arrest, and bring terrorists to justice, as well as performing other activities intended to reduce the number of terrorist attacks. The State Department conducts multifaceted activities in its effort to prevent terrorist attacks on Americans abroad. For Americans traveling and living abroad, State issues public travel warnings and operates warning systems to convey terrorism-related information. For American businesses and universities operating overseas, State uses the Overseas Security Advisory Councils--voluntary partnerships between the State Department and the private sector--to exchange threat information. To disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations abroad, State has numerous programs and activities that rely on military, multilateral, economic, law enforcement, intelligence, and other capabilities. State uses extradition treaties to bring terrorists to trial in the United States and cooperates with foreign intelligence, security, and law enforcement entities to track and capture terrorists in foreign countries. If the United States has no extradition agreements with a country, then State, with the Department of Justice, can work to obtain the arrest of suspected terrorist overseas through renditions. The State Department leads the U.S. response to terrorist incidents abroad. This includes diplomatic measures to protect Americans, minimize damage, terminate terrorist attacks, and bring terrorists to justice. To coordinate the U.S. effort to combat terrorism internationally, State uses a variety of mechanisms to work with the Departments of Defense, Justice, and the Treasury; the intelligence agencies; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and others. These mechanisms include interagency working groups at the headquarters level in Washington, D.C., emergency action committees at U.S. missions overseas, and liaison exchanges with other government agencies.
    [Read More…]
  • Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Counselor for International Affairs Bruce C. Swartz Statement Before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control
    In Crime News
    Chairman Whitehouse, Co-Chairman Grassley, and distinguished members of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Justice. The topic of today’s hearing – the nexus between the illicit narcotics trade and corruption – is one of central importance to the Department of Justice.
    [Read More…]
  • F-35 Sustainment: Enhanced Attention to and Oversight of F-35 Affordability Are Needed
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found F-35 mission capable rates—a measure of the readiness of an aircraft fleet—have recently improved, but still fall short of warfighter requirements, as discussed in our draft report. Specifically, from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020, the U.S. F-35 fleet's average annual (1) mission capable rate—the percentage of time during which the aircraft can fly and perform one of its tasked missions—improved from 59 to 69 percent; and (2) full mission capable rate—the percentage of time during which the aircraft can perform all of its tasked missions—improved from 32 to 39 percent. Both metrics fall below the services' objectives. For example, in fiscal year 2020 the Air Force F-35A full mission capable rate was 54 percent, versus a 72 percent objective. Since 2012, F-35 estimated sustainment costs over its 66-year life cycle have increased steadily, from $1.11 trillion to $1.27 trillion, despite efforts to reduce costs. The services face a substantial and growing gap between estimated sustainment costs and affordability constraints—i.e., costs per tail (aircraft) per year that the services project they can afford—totaling about $6 billion in 2036 alone (see fig.). The services will collectively be confronted with tens of billions of dollars in sustainment costs that they project as unaffordable during the program. Gap between F-35 Affordability Constraints and Estimated Sustainment Costs in 2036 Note: Costs are in constant year 2012 dollars as that was the year when the F-35 program was most recently re-baselined. aSteady state years for the F-35 program are defined in each respective service's affordability analysis as: US Air Force/F-35A – 2036-2041; US Marine Corps/F-35B – 2033-2037; US Navy/F-35C – 2036-2043. Steady state refers to the program's peak operating point. The Air Force needs to reduce estimated costs per tail per year by $3.7 million (or 47 percent) by 2036 or it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford in that year alone. Cost reductions become increasingly difficult as the program grows and matures. However, GAO found there is no agreed upon approach to achieve the constraints. Without an assessment of cost-reduction efforts and program requirements (such as number of planned aircraft), along with a plan, the Department of Defense (DOD) may continue to invest resources in a program it ultimately cannot afford. Congress requiring DOD to report on its progress in achieving affordability constraints and making F-35 procurements contingent on DOD's demonstrated progress would enhance DOD's accountability for taking the necessary and appropriate actions to afford sustaining the F-35 fleet. Why GAO Did This Study The F-35 aircraft with its advanced capabilities represents a growing portion of DOD's tactical aviation fleet—with the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy currently flying about 400 of the aircraft. It is also DOD's most ambitious and costly weapon system in history, with estimated life-of-program costs exceeding $1.7 trillion. DOD plans to procure nearly 2,500 F-35s at an estimated total acquisition cost of just under $400 billion. The remaining $1.3 trillion in life cycle costs is associated with operating and sustaining the aircraft. This statement, among other things, assesses the extent to which (1) the F-35 has met warfighter-required mission capable rates; and (2) DOD has reduced the F-35's estimated life cycle sustainment costs and made progress in meeting its affordability constraints. This statement is largely based on GAO's draft report, which was provided to DOD in March for review and comment. For that report and this statement, GAO reviewed program documentation, analyzed performance and cost data, collected data from F-35 locations, and interviewed officials.
    [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.