Frédéric Dimanche, Toronto Metropolitan University and Kelley A. McClinchey, Wilfrid Laurier University

With an upcoming FIFA World Cup being staged across the nation, 2026 was supposed to be a bumper year for tourism to the United States, driven in part by hordes of arriving soccer fans.

And yet, the U.S. tourism industry is worried. While the rest of the world saw a travel bump in 2025, with global international arrivals up 4%, the U.S. saw a downturn. The number of foreign tourists who came to the United States fell by 5.4% during the year – a sharper decline than the one experienced in 2017-18, the last time, outside the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the industry was gripped by fears of a travel slump.

Policy stances from the Trump administration on everything from immigration to tariffs, along with currency swings and stricter border controls, have seemingly proved a turnoff to travelers from other countries, especially Canadians – the single largest source of foreign tourists for the United States. Canadian travel to the U.S. fell by close to 30% in 2025. But it is not just visitors from Canada who are choosing to avoid the United States. Travel from Australia, India and Western Europe, among others, has also shrunk.

We are experts in tourism. And while we don’t possess a crystal ball, we believe that the tourism decline of 2025 could well continue through 2026. The evidence appears clear: Washington’s ongoing policies are putting off would-be travelers. In other words, the tourism industry is in the midst of a “Trump slump.”

Fewer Canadians heading south

The impact of Donald Trump’s policies are perhaps most pronounced when looking north of the U.S. border. According to the U.S. Travel Association, Canadian visitors generated approximately 20.4 million visits and roughly US$20.5 billion in visitor spending in 2024, supporting about 140,000 American jobs.

The economic impact of fewer Canadian visitors in 2025 affects mostly border states that depend heavily on people driving across the border for retail, restaurants, casinos and short-stay hotels.

The sharp drop in return trips by car to Canada is a direct indication that border economies might be facing stress. This has led elected officials and tourism professionals to woo Canadians in recent months, sometimes with “Canadian-only deals.”

And it isn’t just border states. In Las Vegas, some hotels are now offering currency rate parity between Canadian and U.S. dollars for rooms and gambling vouchers in a bid to attract customers.

Winter-sun states, such as Florida, Arizona and California, are facing both fewer short-stay arrivals and an emerging drop-off in Canadian “snowbirds.” Reports indicate a noticeable increase in Canadians listing U.S. properties in Florida and Arizona for sale and canceling seasonal plans, threatening lodging, health care spending and property tax revenue.

Economic and safety concerns

Economic policies pursued by the Trump administration appear to be among the main reasons visitors are staying away from the U.S. Multiple tariff announcements – pushing tariffs to the highest levels since 1935 – along with tougher border-related rhetoric and an aggressive foreign policy have contributed to a negative perception of the U.S. among would-be tourists.

Many foreigners report feeling unwelcome or uncertain about travel to the U.S., and some public leaders from Canada and Europe have urged citizens to spend domestically, instead. This significantly reduced intent to travel to the U.S. in 2025.

Meanwhile, exchange rates and inflation have further affected some aspiring travelers, especially Canadians. The Canadian dollar was weakened in 2025, making U.S. trips more expensive. This disproportionately affected day-trip and shopping-driven border crossings.

Travelers are also staying away from the U.S. because of safety concerns. Several countries have posted travel advisories about the risks of traveling to the U.S., with Germany being the latest. Although most worries are related to increased border controls, recent aggressive tactics by immigration agents have added to potential visitors’ decisions to avoid the U.S.

A wake-up call for the US

The current tourism outlook is reason for concern. Julia Simpson, president and CEO of the industry association World Travel and Tourism Council, has described the situation as a “wake-up call” for the U.S. government.

“The world’s biggest travel and tourism economy is heading in the wrong direction,” she said in May 2025. “While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the ‘closed’ sign.”

According to estimates, the U.S. stood to lose about $30 billion in international tourism in 2025 as travelers chose to travel elsewhere.

The disappointing figures for U.S. tourism follow a longer trend. The share of global international travel heading to the U.S. fell from 8.4% in 1996 to 4.9% in 2024 and was expected to drop to 4.8% in 2025. Meanwhile, arrivals to other top tourism destinations, including France, Greece, Mexico and Italy, are set to increase.

The decline is also being felt by the business tourism sector, with every major global region sending fewer people to the U.S. for work.

A World Cup bump?

So what does that mean for the upcoming FIFA World Cup, with 75% of the soccer matches being hosted across the United States? Traditionally, host nations benefit from sports events, although impacts are often overestimated. After a disappointing year, the U.S. tourism sector expects the World Cup to boost visits and revenue.

But Trump’s foreign policy may undermine those expectations.

A new visa integrity fee of $250 and plans for social media screening of some visitors make travel to the U.S. less attractive. And there are growing calls for a boycott of the U.S. following some of Trump’s policies, including his aggressive stance about Greenland.

Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter has suggested that fans avoid going to the U.S. for the World Cup.

It remains to be seen whether fans will follow his call. Bookings for flights and hotels were up after the dates and venues of games were announced in December.

But current political rhetoric is affecting travel decisions, especially given that fans from some specific countries may not be able to get visas. The U.S. government has imposed travel bans on Senegal, Ivory Coast, Iran and Haiti, all of which have qualified for the World Cup.

European soccer leaders have even discussed the possibility of a boycott, although such an action is unlikely to happen, given the revenue at stake for national teams and football associations.

Will the ‘Trump slump’ continue?

White House policies look unlikely to drastically change in the next few months. And this causes concern for tourism professionals, although most have remained silent about the recent immigration crackdown.

To make matters worse, federal funding for Brand USA, the national destination marketing organization, was cut deeply in mid-2025, leading to staff shortages that have reduced the country’s capacity to counter negative sentiment through positive promotion.

Soccer fans tend to be passionate about following their national side. And this could offset some of the impact of the Trump travel slump.

Yet, with sky-high match ticket prices and the international reputation of the U.S. as a tourism destination damaged, we believe it is unlikely that the tourism industry will recover in 2026. It will take a long time and good strategies to repair the serious damage done to the nation’s image among travelers in the rest of the world.

Frédéric Dimanche, Professor and former Director (2015-2025), Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Toronto Metropolitan University and Kelley A. McClinchey, Teaching Faculty, Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Caleb H. Wheeler, Cardiff University

The release of more Jeffrey Epstein files has again brought Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his friendship with the convicted paedophile sex offender back into the spotlight.

The tranche of files contains emails between the former prince, his wife Sarah Ferguson, and Epstein, including after the latter’s house arrest for soliciting a minor for prostitution. Also included is a photo of Mountbatten-Windsor kneeling over an unidentified woman on the ground.

A second woman, said to be in her 20s at the time, has now come forward with allegations that Epstein sent her to the UK for a sexual encounter with Mountbatten-Windsor. The first, Virginia Giuffre, died by suicide in early 2025.

Mountbatten-Windsor continues to deny any allegations of wrongdoing related to Giuffre and Epstein. He was stripped of all his official titles in October 2025.

The latest developments have prompted calls for the former prince to testify in front of the US Congress as part of their investigation into Epstein’s crimes. Last year, a congressional panel wrote to Mountbatten-Windsor to ask him to submit to questioning. Now, ministers including Keir Starmer have suggested that he should voluntarily testify.

This is unlikely to happen, for several reasons.

The first, and most straightforward reason, is that Mountbatten-Windsor can’t be compelled to testify in the US. Typically, when potential witnesses refuse to appear voluntarily, the US Congress or a court can issue a subpoena for their testimony.

This is essentially a demand that a person come testify even if they don’t want to, and if they don’t then they can be subject to some form of punishment (being held in contempt of Congress or court, and possible civil penalties).

However, under US federal law, subpoena power only extends to US citizens or residents, not foreign nationals.

One possible option might be found in the application of a mutual legal assistance in criminal matters treaty that exists between the UK and the US. It calls for one state to assist the other when the latter state is conducting a domestic criminal investigation or prosecution.

The sort of assistance required can include the taking of testimony or a statement from a witness located in the country assisting with the investigation. Should the witness refuse to testify, they would then face punishment under the law of the country providing assistance.

Under this treaty, the US could request that the UK government compel Mountbatten-Windsor’s testimony so that it might then be shared with Congress. The difficulty with this approach is that the UK is permitted to refuse the request for various reasons, including national security interests or other public policy concerns. Past practice regarding secrecy about the monarchy would suggest that either or both bases for refusal could be exercised in this case.

If he testifies

If Mountbatten-Windsor were to voluntarily testify in the US Congressional investigation, could it spell trouble for the rest of the royals?

He is accused of actions that were allegedly done in his private capacity and not as a representative of the crown, so it’s unlikely they could be attributed back to monarchy. In any case, the king is likely more concerned about embarrassment to the institution of the monarchy than to any tangible negative repercussions.

He would likely object to Mountbatten-Windsor testifying, but those objections would more probably revolve around the monarchy’s traditional desire for privacy and not wanting their dirty laundry aired in public (any more than it already has been).

Theoretically, the king may want to reserve the possibility of his brother testifying as a future bargaining chip, should the UK want some form of concession from the US. However, there is no evidence of that happening.

Whether the former prince himself is more exposed, legally, now that he is no longer a royal is a slightly complicated question. Some state officials are protected from prosecution for crimes by personal immunity (immunity ratione personae).

This essentially means they can’t be prosecuted by a foreign court during the time they hold office (but can be prosecuted after leaving office). This principle is applicable in both the UK and the US as customary international law, which means it is binding due to consistent state practice.

Whether this applies with regard to Mountbatten-Windsor really turns on whether his role as prince made him a government official eligible for this sort of immunity. It is usually reserved for very senior members of government and heads of state, so it is highly unlikely that being a “working royal” would qualify.

He might attempt to claim diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. It could be argued that he is entitled to immunity, either in his capacity as UK special trade envoy between 2001-11, or as a “working royal” representing the UK while abroad.

However, there is no precedent for finding that a member of the monarchy is the functional equivalent of a diplomat – particularly where they lack power to negotiate and make deals with foreign governments.

Other legal possibilities

The real danger to Mountbatten-Windsor is that if he were to voluntarily travel to the US to testify as a witness, he could accidentally incriminate himself and end up getting arrested. Such a case, however, seems unlikely. Presumably, he would obtain legal advice before testifying, giving him a clear idea of what he should or should not say.

The most immediate legal peril he could face is the possibility of prosecution in the UK. Police have announced that they intend to investigate a woman’s claims that she was trafficked to the UK for the purpose of having sex with Mountbatten-Windsor. Should they find sufficient evidence that a crime took place, Mountbatten-Windsor could find himself in the dock.

Despite that, under UK law he still cannot be compelled to testify. However, refusing to do so could be seen by a judge or jury as a mark against him when considering all of the evidence.

Caleb H. Wheeler, Senior Lecturer in Law, Cardiff University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.