Passport power – why the world’s most powerful passport isn’t American

Singapore is a city-state of six million people with no permanent seat on the UN Security Council, no nuclear arsenal, and a military budget measured in the low tens of billions. Its citizens can travel visa-free or with visa-on-arrival access to 192 countries. The United States authorized $886 billion for national defence in fiscal year 2024, maintains roughly 750 military bases across more than 80 countries, and sits at rank 10 on the same index — 179 destinations. The gap between those two numbers is thirteen destinations. The gap between the logic underlying each number is considerably wider.

If passport power were a function of military reach, the arithmetic would run the other way. It does not. Which means either the Henley Passport Index is measuring something other than what its name implies, or the assumption that national power translates reliably into national privilege requires revision. Both things are true. The second is where the argument lives.

What the Number Actually Measures

The Henley Passport Index has been published since 2006, built on data supplied by the International Air Transport Association — the same organisation that airlines use to determine which passengers require pre-boarding visa checks. Every quarter, Henley ranks 199 passports by the number of destinations their holders can enter without obtaining a visa in advance. The current version of the index covers 227 possible destinations. A country’s score is the count of destinations accessible without prior visa approval — which includes formal bilateral waiver agreements, visa-on-arrival facilities, electronic travel authorisations, and countries that have simply chosen to admit that passport’s holders without any pre-travel permission requirement.

The index does not measure diplomatic clout, military projection, economic output, or soft power in any of its commonly used forms. It measures one thing: the aggregate of decisions made by every other government about whether to require advance permission from that country’s citizens before letting them through an airport.

That distinction matters because it shifts the frame entirely. A government that grants another country’s citizens visa-free access is not endorsing that country’s politics or celebrating its achievements. It is making a bureaucratic risk assessment. The operative question is not “are we friends?” but “what is the likelihood that a holder of this passport will overstay their visa, seek unauthorised employment, or become a burden on public services?” Countries that score well on the Henley index are countries that other governments have collectively decided their citizens pose a low risk of any of those things. That is a form of trust. It is not the same as respect, and it is not the same as power.

Steffen Mau and colleagues, writing in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies in 2015, traced how visa policies evolved globally over the preceding decades and found that the visa-waiver system functions less as a measure of interstate friendship than as a distributed mechanism for managing perceived immigration risk — one shaped by GDP per capita, emigration pressure, diplomatic networks, and the asymmetries of geopolitical influence. Reciprocity plays a role, but the mobility gains of recent decades have been deeply unequal: citizens of wealthy OECD countries accumulated access while many others stagnated, in patterns that cannot be explained by symmetrical bilateral bargaining. The index, in that reading, is not a prestige ranking. It is an instrument that records, in aggregate, how confident other governments are that a country’s citizens will go home when they say they will.

The nineteen-year history of the index makes that function visible. Countries move. Some climb. Some fall. The movement is not random.

Competing indices

Henley is not the only organisation publishing a passport ranking. Arton Capital’s Passport Index weights destinations differently, sometimes excluding territories or microstates that Henley counts, and updates in real time rather than quarterly. The Nomad Passport Index introduces additional variables — tax burden, dual citizenship rules, perception of nationality — producing rankings designed to serve a different audience: high-net-worth individuals evaluating where to hold citizenship, rather than governments assessing bilateral visa policy. The methodological choices produce meaningfully different results: countries that rank highly on Henley sometimes fare less well on Nomad’s composite score, and vice versa. None of these indices is wrong, but they are answering different questions. Henley’s specific utility is that it uses a consistent, neutral dataset — IATA travel information — and has done so long enough to permit longitudinal analysis.

The Architecture of Bilateral Trust

Visa-free access is granted, not exchanged. Understanding how the Henley index works means understanding how that access accumulates — which is less a story about diplomacy in the romantic sense and more a story about actuarial logic applied to human movement.

Governments extend visa-free access when they believe the cost of doing so is lower than the friction of requiring visas. The calculation draws on several variables. GDP per capita is a proxy for whether citizens have financial incentive to stay once admitted — high-income populations are statistically less likely to overstay because the opportunity cost of not going home is lower. Historical refusal and overstay rates from that country’s citizens matter enormously, because they directly measure the risk that bureaucrats are trying to price. Bilateral trade volumes create political incentives for both sides to reduce travel friction. Membership in regional frameworks can shift the calculation wholesale.

That last point deserves emphasis. The European Union negotiates as a bloc: Schengen membership simultaneously opens dozens of bilateral relationships that a small member state might never have secured independently. When Bulgaria and Romania completed their full Schengen accession — air and sea borders from March 2024, land borders from January 2025 — their citizens did not accumulate one or two new destinations; they gained access to a framework that had already done the negotiating for them. ASEAN operates analogously, though less formally: membership signals regional embeddedness, a set of institutional relationships that other governments read as evidence of stability and accountability.

Singapore’s position at the top of the January 2026 index is the product of deliberate construction over sixty years. After separation from Malaysia in August 1965, Singapore joined in founding ASEAN two years later, positioning itself immediately within a cooperative regional architecture. The government of Lee Kuan Yew and its successors built a reputation for financial probity, low crime, and strict immigration enforcement — qualities that, counterintuitively, make other countries more willing to waive visa requirements, because a state known for controlling its own borders is also known for producing citizens unlikely to violate someone else’s. Singapore has since implemented more than two dozen bilateral and regional free trade agreements. Each FTA typically includes provisions facilitating business travel, which tend to anchor visa-waiver arrangements. The cumulative effect is 192 destinations.

The UAE’s trajectory illustrates the same logic in compressed form. In 2006, the UAE passport ranked outside the top 60. By January 2026, it had gained 149 visa-free destinations — the largest single-country gain in the index’s history. The mechanism was not accident: the UAE government invested heavily in diplomatic outreach, positioned the country as a global transit and financial hub, and systematically negotiated visa-waiver arrangements as instruments of foreign economic policy. Passport power, the UAE’s climb demonstrates, is built rather than inherited.

The same logic turns in the other direction, with equal precision, for any country that signals its citizens are an immigration risk or that it is unwilling to extend the access it asks others to extend.

A Ledger of Choices

In 2014, the United States jointly held the top rank on the Henley index alongside the United Kingdom and several other top-ranked nations. By January 2026, the US ranked 10th, with access to 179 destinations — seven fewer than the previous year alone. That is a fall of more than a decade’s worth of accumulated diplomatic goodwill, measured in the specific form that the index records.

The proximate causes are not difficult to identify. Brazil reinstated visa requirements for US citizens on April 10, 2025, citing the absence of reciprocity: Brazilian citizens have long been required to obtain visas before entering the United States, and the Brazilian government decided that arrangement no longer reflected a relationship of equals. Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and China each expanded visa-free access for other nationalities in 2025 without extending the same terms to the US. Several other destinations moved in the same direction over the same period. None of these decisions were made in isolation; each reflected an assessment of what Washington had signalled about its own priorities.

The underlying cause is visible in a different Henley metric: the openness index, which measures not how many destinations a country’s citizens can access but how many nationalities that country admits without a visa. The United States ranks 78th out of 199 countries on that measure — accepting 46 nationalities visa-free. Other governments read that score. A country that ranks 78th in openness is, in effect, signalling to 153 other governments that their citizens are not automatically trusted. The reasonable response, from those governments, is to extend similar caution in return.

This is not a polemical point. It is the reciprocity logic that governs a significant part of the system. The same mechanism that explains how Singapore built its passport score — sustained signalling of stability, reliability, and openness — applies in reverse to a country that has made different choices. The US decline in the Henley rankings is not a punishment or a conspiracy. It is the index functioning as designed: recording, without editorial comment, what other governments have decided.

What comes next

A policy proposal published by US Customs and Border Protection in December 2025 would require citizens of 42 Visa Waiver Program countries — including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan — to submit extensive personal data before travelling to the United States without a visa, including five years of social media history and a decade of contact information. The public comment period closed in February 2026 and the proposal is under agency review. Visa-waiver programme experts have warned that the compliance burden would be comparable to applying for a visa, which would effectively end visa-free travel to the US in all but name. If adopted, it would likely accelerate the reciprocal dynamic already visible in the rankings.

The Logic of Non-Threat

The countries at the top of the January 2026 Henley index are Singapore (192, rank 1), Japan and South Korea (188, rank 2), and a cluster of European states — Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland — at 186. The question worth asking about that list is not what these countries have in common in terms of power, but what they have in common in terms of how other governments perceive them.

Japan offers one illustration. Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 constitution renounces war and the maintenance of war potential. In practice, Japan maintains a Self-Defense Force and security partnerships with the United States, but it has not conducted military operations abroad in an offensive capacity since 1945. The result, over eight decades, is a country with dense trade networks — Japan’s economy is the world’s third or fourth largest, depending on measurement — and no recent history of using military reach to generate adversarial relationships. Other governments do not worry about Japanese tourists arriving with political objectives. South Korea’s case works analogously: a country that fought a devastating war on its own soil, then spent the following seven decades building trade networks and exporting culture rather than projecting force, has accumulated a very different set of international relationships than its postwar circumstances might have predicted.

Singapore’s case runs deeper because the non-threat premium it has accumulated is not a constitutional feature — it is a cultivated reputation, which is a more deliberate achievement. Singapore has security partnerships and maintains a well-equipped defence force relative to its size, but it is not perceived as a source of geopolitical pressure by the governments that matter for its passport score. It sits within a regional framework without dominating it. It maintains relations with countries that are otherwise in tension with each other. The position it has carved out is one of useful neutrality — not the formal neutrality of Switzerland, which carries its own historical freight, but a positioned openness that makes Singapore a place other governments want to remain on good terms with.

The concept that unifies these cases is the non-threat premium. A country whose citizens other governments have no political constituency to restrict — because the country generates no resentment, poses no perceived security risk, and creates no domestic political incentive to demonstrate firmness toward it — accumulates visa waivers almost by default. There is no minister in Copenhagen who needs to show voters that Singaporean tourists are being kept out. There is no political pressure anywhere to restrict Japanese travellers. The absence of threat, sustained over time, is itself a form of diplomatic capital.

The inverse describes the US position with some precision: a country that projects power, generates resentment, or signals that other countries’ citizens are not especially welcome creates conditions in which there is a political constituency for restricting its citizens. Not every government acts on that constituency, but enough do to move the numbers.

What the Bottom Looks Like

The gap between the most and least powerful passports in the January 2026 index is the largest in the index’s history. Singapore’s citizens can access 192 destinations. Afghanistan’s citizens can access roughly two dozen — the figure varies between quarterly updates, but the order of magnitude is consistent. The distance between those two numbers, measured in destinations, is approximately 168. That gap is the same system producing radically different outcomes from the same mechanism.

The average global passport score is 109 destinations. More than half the world’s passport-holding populations sit below that midpoint. The distribution is not random, and it does not track objective risk in any neutral sense.

Schengen visa rejection rates make the pattern legible. Between 2015 and 2024, the rejection rate for African applicants to the Schengen area rose from 18.6 percent to 26.6 percent — rising even as overall global rejection rates declined. In 2024, 11.7 million Schengen applications were submitted across EU and Schengen-associated countries. Algeria’s rejection rate was approximately 35 percent; China’s was 4.6 percent. Those are not random distributions. They track geography, and geography in this context is a proxy for something else.

Henley’s own Global Mobility Reports have used the phrase “conditional racial discrimination in visa policymaking” to describe what these rejection patterns reveal — a structure in which the nationality printed on a passport, rather than the behaviour of individual applicants, determines the probability of access. Independent scholars have documented the same pattern. Anam Soomro, writing in the Asian Journal of International Law in 2024, traces how the universalisation of the passport regime under the League of Nations did its work by twisting what had once been treated as an innate human entitlement — freedom of movement — into a system that ranks mobility through a hierarchy of national origins. John Torpey’s foundational study of the passport’s historical architecture, The Invention of the Passport (Cambridge University Press, 2000), establishes how the modern state monopolised legitimate movement through border control mechanisms that were never designed to be neutral.

The connection between that history and the present distribution requires care. The 1920 Paris Conference on Passports and Customs Formalities — twenty-two states, organised by the League of Nations across seven days in October — standardised the first international passport format at a moment when the states with the most influence over the process were also the states with the largest empires. What the conference built into the architecture of international travel was not a declaration of racial hierarchy; it was a technical system whose practical effects reproduced one. The technical system is still running. The rejection rate for Algerian applicants to the Schengen area in 2024 is one of its outputs.

The UAE exception

The UAE’s climb from outside the top 60 in 2006 to a top-five passport in 2026 — gaining 149 visa-free destinations over that period, the largest single-country gain in the index’s history — complicates any reading of the current distribution as a fixed hierarchy that cannot be moved. It can be moved. But the mechanism requires sustained, coordinated state-level investment in diplomatic outreach, FTA negotiation, and the active cultivation of a low-risk national profile. The UAE brought to that project oil wealth, a government capable of implementing long-range foreign policy objectives, and a city — Dubai — that gave it leverage as a global transit hub. Most Global South nations lack at least two of those three advantages. The UAE exception does not invalidate the structural argument; it specifies the price of climbing out of the lower tiers. For most of the countries whose citizens face Schengen rejection rates above 20 percent, that price is not currently payable.

What the Number Means

The argument that has been building across the preceding sections resolves here into something that may be stated directly: a passport score is not a fact about the country whose citizens carry it. It is a fact about every other government — their collective assessment, distributed across 198 bilateral decisions, of whether those citizens are welcome.

That inversion reorganises what the numbers mean. The US Openness Index score of 78th out of 199 countries is not merely a metric about American immigration policy. It is the upstream cause of the US passport score, because it is the signal other governments read when deciding whether to extend reciprocity. A country that ranks 78th in its own openness should not be surprised to find that 179 is not 192. The mirror is accurate.

The gap between Singapore’s 192 destinations and Afghanistan’s roughly two dozen reflects the same mechanism operating on different inputs. Singapore spent sixty years building the signals that other governments reward: stability, reliability, the absence of threat, embeddedness in cooperative regional frameworks. Afghanistan has spent much of the same period as a site of great-power contest, civil war, and externally imposed political rupture — conditions under which building any of those signals is essentially impossible. The gap is not a verdict on the people who hold either passport. It is a record of what circumstances those people were born into and what choices the governments around them have made.

The colonial-era architecture described in the previous section adds a further dimension. The structural patterns that shaped who could move freely and who could not were not assembled neutrally. They were assembled by governments with specific interests, at a specific historical moment, using technical mechanisms that appeared neutral but were not. The fact that those patterns remain visible in 2024 Schengen rejection data is not evidence that nothing has changed — the UAE’s climb alone refutes any simple continuity argument — but it is evidence that the architecture is not self-correcting. It reproduces its existing shape unless actively worked against.

What a passport ranking records is a distributed, uncoordinated verdict: the aggregate of 198 governments, each acting in its own interest, each responding to its own domestic politics, each making a calculation about perceived risk and expected reciprocity. The number that results from all those calculations answers a question no one government is trying to answer, but that all of them answer collectively: whether a country’s citizens are considered welcome in the world. The most powerful countries, by conventional measures, are not necessarily the ones that answer that question most favourably. The countries that answer it most favourably are the ones other governments have collectively decided they’re comfortable having around.

The full array of 199 passports sits in the index, each number the residue of thousands of individual bilateral calculations. At one end of that array, citizens can access 192 of the world’s 227 destinations without asking permission in advance. At the other end, roughly two dozen. That gap — approximately 168 destinations, the widest the index has recorded — is not a measurement of national achievement or national failure. It is a measurement of what the world, taken in aggregate, has decided. The instrument that produced it is not an opinion poll. It runs on the same data airlines use at check-in. The arithmetic is correct.

Avis de non-responsabilité de Gen AI

Certains contenus de cette page ont été générés et/ou édités à l'aide d'une IA générative.

Les médias

DΛVΞ GΛRCIΛ – Pexels

Principales sources et références

Henley & Partners. Henley Global Mobility Report January 2026. https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releases/henley-global-mobility-report-january-2026

Henley & Partners. “Global Mobility Hierarchy: EU Visa Reforms Reinforce Bias Against Africans.” Global Mobility Report, January 2026. https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/global-mobility-report/2026-january/global-mobility-hierarchy-eu-visa-reforms-reinforce-racial-bias-against-africans

Henley & Partners. Henley Passport Index (current rankings). https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking

Henley & Partners. “Henley Passport Index: 2014–2024 — A Decade of Global Mobility Shifts.” Global Mobility Report, July 2024. https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/global-mobility-report/2024-july/henley-passport-index-2014-2024

Henley & Partners. “Global Mobility Contradiction: Schengen Visa Discrimination in Numbers.” Global Mobility Report, January 2025. https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/global-mobility-report/2025-january/global-mobility-contradiction-schengen-visa-discrimination-numbers

Torpey, John C. (2000). The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Cambridge University Press.

Mau, Steffen, Fabian Gülzau, Lene Laube, and Natascha Zaun (2015). “The Global Mobility Divide: How Visa Policies Have Evolved over Time.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(8), 1192–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1005007

Soomro, Anam (2024). “People, Paper and Power: The Birth of the Passport in International Law.” Asian Journal of International Law, 14(2), 358–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251323000693

European Commission, Home Affairs. Visa applications reach 11.7 million in EU and Schengen associated countries. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/visa-applications-reach-117-million-eu-and-schengen-associated-countries-2025-05-20_en

European Commission, DG HOME. Short-Stay Visas Issued in Schengen Countries — Visa Statistics 2024. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/visa-policy/short-stay-visas-issued-schengen-countries_en

Agência Brasil. “Brazil starts requiring visas from citizens of USA, Canada and Australia.” April 10, 2025. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/internacional/noticia/2025-04/brazil-starts-requiring-visas-citizens-usa-canada-australia

European Commission, Home Affairs. “Bulgaria and Romania Join the Schengen Area.” January 3, 2025. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/bulgaria-and-romania-join-schengen-area-2025-01-03_en

US Customs and Border Protection. “Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision; Arrival and Departure Record (Form I-94) and Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).” Federal Register, December 10, 2025, Doc. No. 2025-22461. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22461/agency-information-collection-activities-revision-arrival-and-departure-record-form-i-94-and

Congressional Budget Office. Long-Term Implications of the 2024 Future Years Defense Program. October 2023. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59703

Vine, David (2015). Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. Metropolitan Books. See also: https://www.davidvine.net/bases.html

Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry. Free Trade Agreements. https://www.mti.gov.sg/Trade/Free-Trade-Agreements