New York based traveler Chloe Jade has set herself an ambitious goal to visit every country in the world, and she says she has already been to 167. But despite her passion for exploring, she recently revealed three places she does not plan to return to. Her reasoning is not about boredom or disappointment. Instead, she says going back would feel disrespectful to people living through extremely difficult conditions.
In a video she shared on Instagram, Chloe explained that travel can be more than chasing beautiful scenery, even though she has seen some of the most breathtaking landscapes on the planet, from the Peruvian Amazon to Antarctica. She believes it also matters to acknowledge the harsher realities of life in places widely considered unsafe. Still, she draws a line when the experience of a visitor feels too detached from what locals endure daily. As reported by the Daily Mail, she framed her choices as an ethical decision rather than a checklist moment.
The first country she mentioned was Afghanistan. Chloe described it as a beautiful place where she personally had a good experience, but she said that is exactly the problem. In her view, the relative freedom often granted to foreigners can highlight how restricted life is for local residents under Taliban rule, which returned to power in 2021. She suggested that treating the country like a typical holiday destination ignores the imbalance between what tourists can do and what many locals cannot.
Second on her list was the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Chloe said she genuinely enjoyed her time there, yet she does not want to return because of the risks faced by both residents and visitors. She pointed to a severe humanitarian crisis, mass displacement, and growing health dangers linked to escalating conflict. She also referenced the situation in the eastern provinces, where the M23 rebel group has taken key cities, as a sign that conditions remain far too volatile.
The third country she said she will avoid is Sudan. Chloe called it an incredible destination, but said the ongoing civil war makes repeat travel feel inappropriate. She emphasized the suffering civilians face, especially women, and noted that tourists are generally limited to attempting a visit to Port Sudan, often via a humanitarian visa. She encouraged others to think carefully about what their presence means in places experiencing profound trauma.
Her comments quickly sparked debate. Some followers praised her for prioritizing ethics, while others called the stance privileged and argued that visitors can still support local communities. One commenter who identified as Afghan said international attention can matter, while another accused her of overlooking how such trips can be used for propaganda.
What do you think responsible travel should look like in places facing conflict and oppression? Share your thoughts in the comments.
