President Donald Trump signed a proclamation banning travel to the US from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—while imposing partial restrictions on seven others, including Cuba and Venezuela. Citing national security concerns, Trump referenced a recent Boulder, Colorado attack, where an Egyptian national injured 12 people, as justification. The ban, effective June 9, aims to curb terrorism risks and visa overstays, with exemptions for existing visa holders, green card holders, and certain groups like athletes.
The move revives Trump’s controversial 2017 “Muslim ban,” which targeted Muslim-majority nations and faced legal challenges before Supreme Court approval. Critics, including Democrats and human rights groups, call it discriminatory, noting many banned countries are conflict zones, like Haiti, where citizens face severe crises. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and others argue it unfairly targets vulnerable populations.
Meanwhile, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed aid group, extended the closure of its Gaza aid sites for a second day on June 5, citing maintenance needs after deadly incidents near its Rafah and Netzarim Corridor facilities. Over 60 Palestinians were killed in recent attacks near these sites, with Israel claiming it targeted threats. The closures exacerbate Gaza’s starvation crisis, affecting 2.3 million people, as the GHF’s militarized aid model faces criticism for inefficiency and endangering civilians.
The timing of Trump’s travel ban, which includes Gaza-related rhetoric from his campaign, raises questions about its impact on humanitarian efforts. Trump previously pledged to block refugees from “terror-infested” areas like Gaza, though it’s not explicitly listed. The ban could disrupt aid workers’ mobility and worsen Gaza’s crisis, where 500,000 face imminent famine.
Critics argue the ban’s broad scope, targeting diverse nations with high visa overstay rates or weak vetting, lacks nuance and punishes refugees. Supporters, however, praise it as a bold security measure. Legal experts suggest it’s better crafted than the 2017 ban, reducing court challenges, but its humanitarian fallout remains contentious.
Sources: NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC, X posts
