Why does the US still have a Level 1 travel advisory warning despite the chaos?
- Written by: Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney
No travel can be considered completely safe. There are inherent risks from transportation, criminal activity, communicable diseases, injury and natural disasters.
Still, global travel is booming — for those who can afford it.
To reduce the chances of things going wrong, governments issue official travel advisories: public warnings meant to help people make informed travel decisions.
Sometimes these advisories seem puzzling – why, for example, does the US still have the “safest” rating despite the ongoing volatility in Los Angeles?
How do governments assess where is safe for Australians to travel?
A brief history of travel advisories
The United States pioneered travel advisories in 1978, with other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland following.
Australia started providing travel advisories in 1996 and now runs its system under the Smart Traveller platform.
To determine the risk level, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) draws on diplomatic reporting, assessments from Australian missions overseas about local security conditions, threat assessments from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and advice from Five Eyes intelligence sharing partners (Australia, the US, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada).
The goal is to create “smart, responsible informed travellers”, not to restrict tourism or damage foreign relationships.
DFAT has stressed its system is not influenced by “commercial or political considerations”.
Soft power and safety
In theory, these advisories are meant to inform travellers, keep them safe and reduce the burden on consular services.
However, they can also subtly reflect politics and alliances.
While travel advisories are presented as neutral, fact-based risk assessments, they may not always be free from political bias.
Research shows governments sometimes soften their warnings for countries they are close with and overstate risks in others.
A detailed analysis of US State Department travel warnings from 2009 to 2016 found only a weak correlation between the number of American deaths in a country and the warnings issued.
In some cases, destinations with no record of US fatalities received frequent warnings, while places with high death tolls had none.
In early 2024, Australia issued a string of warnings about rising safety concerns in the US and extremely strict entry conditions even with an appropriate visa.
Yet, the US kept its Level 1 rating – “exercise normal safety precautions” – the same advice given for places such as Japan or Denmark.
Meanwhile, Australia’s warning for France was Level 2 — “exercise a high degree of caution” — due to the potential threat of terrorism.
Experts have also criticised Australia’s travel warnings for being harsher toward developing countries.
The UK, a country with lower crime rates than the US, also sits at Level 2 — putting it in the same risk level as Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua and South Africa.
Inconsistencies and grey areas
The problem is, the advisory levels themselves are vague: a Level 2 warning can apply to countries with very different risk profiles.
It’s used for places dealing with terrorism threats like France, or vastly different law and respect for human rights such as Saudi Arabia, or countries recovering from political unrest such as Sri Lanka.
Until early June 2025, Sweden was also rated Level 2 due to localised gang violence, despite relatively low risks for tourists. Its rating has since been revised down to Level 1.
Travel advisories often apply a blanket rating to an entire country, even when risks vary widely within its borders.
For instance, Australia’s Level 1 rating for the US doesn’t distinguish between different regional threats.
In June 2025, 15 people were injured in Boulder, Colorado after a man attacked a peaceful protest with Molotov cocktails.
Earlier in 2025, a major measles outbreak in West Texas resulted in more than 700 cases reported in a single county.
Despite this, Australia continues to classify the entire country as a low-risk destination.
This can make it harder for travellers to make informed, location-specific decisions.
Recent travel trends
Recent data indicate a significant downturn in international travel to the US: in March 2025, overseas visits to the US fell by 11.6% compared to the previous year, with notable declines from Germany (28%), Spain (25%) and the UK (18%).
Australian visitors to the US decreased by 7.8% compared to the same month in 2024, marking the steepest monthly drop since the COVID pandemic.
This trend suggests travellers are reassessing risk on their own even when official advisories don’t reflect those concerns.
The US case shows how politics can affect travel warnings: the country regularly experiences mass casualty incidents, violent protests and recently has been detaining and deporting people from many countries at the border including Australians, Germans and French nationals.
Yet it remains at Level 1.
What’s really going on has more to do with political alliances than safety: increasing the US travel risk level could create diplomatic friction.
What travellers can do now
If you’re a solo female traveller, identify as LGBTQIA+, are an academic, come from a visible minority or have spoken out online against the country you’re visiting, your experience might be very different from what the advice suggests.
So, here are some tips to stay safe while travelling:
Check multiple sources: don’t rely solely on travel advisories – compare travel advice from other countries
Get on-the-ground updates: check local news for coverage of events. If possible, talk to people who’ve recently visited for their experiences
For broader safety trends, tools like the Global Peace Index offer data on crime, political stability and healthcare quality. If you’re concerned about how locals or police treat certain groups, consult Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or country-specific reports from Freedom House
Consider identity-specific resources: there are travel guides and safety indexes for LGBTQIA+ travellers like Equaldex, women travellers (Solo Female Travelers Network) and others. These may highlight risks general advisories miss.
Travel advisories often reflect whom your country trusts, not where you’re actually safe. If you’re relying on them, make sure you understand what they leave out.
Authors: Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney
