The government is evaluating its visa-free entry policy, potentially reducing the permitted stay from 60 days to 30 days, as concerns rise over illegal activities and national security. Deputy government spokeswoman Airin Phanthurat announced on February 10, 2026, that the Cabinet is reviewing a report from the Foreign Affairs Ministry. The report highlights security issues and possible misuse of the current 60-day visa-free policy.

Get today's headlines by email

The visa-free policy has been in place since July 15, 2024, allowing visitors from 93 countries and territories a 60-day stay. Officials have noted violations, such as visitors working illegally or using Thailand for criminal transit. In response, the prime minister has established a new Visa Policy Committee to reassess these measures, potentially shortening stays.

Permanent tourism and sports secretary Natthriya Thaweevong stated that reducing the allowed stay to 30 days should not significantly impact tourism, as most tourists stay under 21 days. Longer stays can be accommodated through visa extensions. The Immigration Bureau supports these changes to prevent misuse, and the caretaker government is authorized to implement them.

This policy initially aimed at boosting tourism was introduced by former Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin. The move to alter it underlines ongoing efforts to balance tourism promotion with national security concerns.

Looking ahead, the Visa Policy Committee will further study the situation and submit its proposals. Any adjustments will be aligned with security goals while considering economic impacts. Stakeholders await the committee's recommendations expected soon, reported Khaosod.

Key Takeaways

• The government may reduce visa-free stays from 60 to 30 days citing security issues.

• Officials assert the change will not heavily impact tourism, given current visit durations.

• A new committee is set to review the policy, with changes expected to prevent misuse.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Khaosod · 13 Feb 2026

View full record

The question that should be asked is if The Tourism and Sports Ministry don't think reducing visa free access from 60 to 30 days will significantly affect tourism, why did they bother increasing it in the first place ?

Exactly how will that help?

Maybe take a look at the 93 countries, rather than the calendar.

25 minutes ago, kinyara said:

The question that should be asked is if The Tourism and Sports Ministry don't think reducing visa free access from 60 to 30 days will significantly affect tourism, why did they bother increasing it in the first place ?

They didn't. A former PM did it.

21 minutes ago, Peabody said:

Exactly how will that help?

It will make things more inconvenient for the ne'er-do-wells.

You know who you are.

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It will make things more inconvenient for the ne'er-do-wells.

You know who you are.

I would say that those who have to stay permeantly in Thiland are the ne'er-do-wells.

International travellers who come and go and the ones doing well

21 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

Maybe take a look at the 93 countries, rather than the calendar.

Good point. Take the countries off the list whose citizens have committed most crimes and other illegal activities here. No prizes for picking the winner there.

Leave the visa exempt at 60 days but remove the extension option. Also, like Vietnam initially did when they rolled out visa-exempt entry, they can't be used consecutively or back-to-back. I recall it was a 45-day window before you could use visa exempt again in Vietnam. You could still get a Vietnam eVisa if you wanted to come back sooner.

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I would say that those who have to stay permeantly in Thiland are the ne'er-do-wells.

International travellers who come and go and the ones doing well

Yes, I'm still an international gypsy too.

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, I'm still an international gypsy too.

Who are the ne'er-do-wells. ?

30 days is for "normal" tourists" enough.. Of course I read special cases but that all can be solved by applying a longer visa at the Embassy in the country they live in.. Than indeed it will be more clear who is tourist and who want to stay here for other reasons. When the visa is used it should not be possible to enter for 90 days or so. The problem however is that people who want to be here illegal will do anyway.. Same as the 90 days report or annual renewing ... The normal people will follow the procedures, but the overstayers not...a visa free 30 days stay will not solve the security reasons and work mentioned in the article...

The 30 days visa free allowance will not affect the tourism, as there is always a possibility to apply for another visa for longer stay...But than you have to proof were you live and how you fund your stay... Maybe that is for several people a problem, or maybe by invitation of a familymember... Possibilities enough..

that'll solve the foreigner crime problem. just like closing the gas stations at 6pm solved the pollution problem.

i don't care what the time limit is, but let's have some valid, evidence supported justification.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Who are the ne'er-do-wells. ?

The illegal workers, like the three Chinese nabbed after crossing over from Cambodia who were headed for work in Bangkok. No passports or ID but it must be dead easy to find a job here, being Chinese.

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The illegal workers, like the three Chinese nabbed after crossing over from Cambodia who were headed for work in Bangkok. No passports or ID but it must be dead easy to find a job here, being Chinese.

So, the 30 day visa would nt effect them .

No passport , no visa, = 30/60 day visa doesn't effect them

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

So, the 30 day visa would nt effect them .

No passport , no visa, = 30/60 day visa doesn't effect them

Correct, it wouldn't.

17 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Correct, it wouldn't.

So, it wouldn't make it more inconvenient for them ?

It will make things more inconvenient for the ne'er-do-wells.

You know who you are.

people working illegally mostly use education visa

9 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

So, it wouldn't make it more inconvenient for them ?

You're free to offer a more appropriate suggestion as to who the ne'er-do-wells are. I'm sure they're out there.

Meanwhile, @smedly seems to have a clue.

1 hour ago, smedly said:

people working illegally mostly use education visa

Cooking or Muay Thai?

11 hours ago, it is what it is said:

that'll solve the foreigner crime problem. just like closing the gas stations at 6pm solved the pollution problem.

i don't care what the time limit is, but let's have some valid, evidence supported justification.

An increase in the amount of Chinese nationals using safe entry services?

Won't affect genuine tourists, who come for holidays, then go home but will affect those attempting to live here all year round on free entries, who pose as tourists.

16 hours ago, NanLaew said:

They didn't. A former PM did it.

You don't think they are being supplied with the same data to back up the decision making process.

1 minute ago, kinyara said:

You don't think they are being supplied with the same data to back up the decision making process.

There's no doubt that the same data that convinced former PM Srettha will be used to convince Anutin.

There's nothing wrong with the data itself. Data is harmless. It's the subsequent decision making that's questionable.

Not sure this guy came in on a 60-day tourist visa rather than 30...

https://visaguide.world/news/british-man-arrested-in-thailand-for-overstaying-tourist-visa-by-25-years/

I can't find any evidence that changing the visa-free duration would make any difference. In fact all I found is the opposite.

15 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Not sure this guy came in on a 60-day tourist visa rather than 30...

https://visaguide.world/news/british-man-arrested-in-thailand-for-overstaying-tourist-visa-by-25-years/

I can't find any evidence that changing the visa-free duration would make any difference. In fact all I found is the opposite.

It's certainly a very lazy way to try and stimulate a small market, those with the ability to stay longer than 30 days. When you don't have the will or vision on how to improve the tourist offering to increase revenue, it seems to be a case of needing to be seen to do something even if they likely knew it would be counter productive.

Is this a coincidence that Anutin gets elected and within days they're reducing the length of tourist visas? I know a countless number of tourists who come for more than a month, and this just makes things more difficult for them, and makes it a far easier choice to just pick another country. Just more incredibly ignorant policy and more decimation to the economy.

Thailand needs to begin realizing that they need tourists infinitely more than tourists need them, and this nation is not only is not the center of the universe, but offers considerably less to a tourist than it did 10 or 20 years ago.

The hubris, the arrogance, and the ignorance must stop.

18 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I would say that those who have to stay permeantly in Thiland are the ne'er-do-wells.

International travellers who come and go and the ones doing well

The problem is some don't leave?

Someone thinks that any bad activities done in 90 days can't be done in 30 days, with an extension.

Could be wrong but can't customs check the passports when entering the country and they will see the number of entries if too many in a certain period deny entry. Maybe to simple a solution.

It would be interesting (compelling?) to see the data listing criminals charged and their 'type of entry' (ASEAN short stay, 30 day, 60 day, non immigrant long stay).

I have doubts that the 60 day visa has led to attracting a group of people who attend for criminal purposes (compared to other entry types), but I could accept data.

1 hour ago, Watawattana said:

In fact all I found is the opposite.

You did? Where?