Donald Trump's travel ban isn't actually about protecting Americans
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Donald Trump's latest travel ban isn't about making America safe. It's about making cruelty normal.
The administration wants us to believe this is a sober, considered security measure. Twelve countries blacklisted. Seven more partially restricted.
The justification? In Trump's words: 'We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.'
The accusation seems to be that these countries pose a threat to the United States based on historical precedent.
Let's take that at face value for a moment.
Myanmar, for example, is in a state of disarray. The UK Government advises against travel due to civil unrest, armed conflict, and arbitrary enforcement of local laws.
So, it is possible that it has no functioning national vetting system.
However, as far as I know, there has never been a single incident of a person from Myanmar carrying out a terrorist attack on US soil. Not one.
The people fleeing from Myanmar are escaping widespread violence, not inciting it. So what exactly is Trump protecting against?
The answer isn't found in intelligence briefings or airport protocols. It's found in a different kind of calculation – a political one.
It's a message to Trump's base that the world – especially those with different faiths or colours – is dangerous. That only he can protect them and that empathy is a threat to be eliminated, not a value to be upheld.
It comes after the Trump administration sought to end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans in the US. They were (and some still are, after a federal judge blocked the move) allowed to remain under a scheme that permits people to work and live there if their home countries are deemed unsafe.
The US Government's own assessment of Venezuela is that citizens and tourists are at risk of 'wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure'.
Cruelty isn't the side effect. It's the point.
It will tear apart families mid-airport transfer and strand people who have already sold everything for the chance of safety or opportunity.
Foreign students who want to study or take part in exchange programmes are on the chopping block – a move that, I'm sure, has nothing to do with the legal battle between Harvard and the Trump Administration who froze billions of dollars of federal funding after accusing it of failing to root out antisemitism on campus.
And let's talk about who's not on the list. Egypt, for example, where the suspect in the recent Boulder attack came from. Not included. This is despite Trump specifically mentioning this terrorist attack as a justification for implementing the new travel ban.
Saudi Arabia, whose nationals carried out 9/11? Also not included.
Those banned are often fleeing conflict, violence or persecution for their gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
All of which makes one thing clear: This isn't about risk, it's about optics.
By design or naivety, women and girls, whose reproductive rights have already been weaponised and criminalised by Trump, and LGBTQ+ individuals, whose protections have also been stripped away, are now the targets of this performative and punitive ban.
Even setting aside the moral argument, the legal case is clear.
No one is advocating complete open borders, but if travellers have the proper documentation, how can you justify turning them away?
When Trump introduced a similar order in 2017, targeting seven Muslim-majority countries, it was condemned as a 'Muslim ban' and tied up in endless legal challenges.
President Joe Biden repealed it in 2021.
This time, Trump says the rationale for the countries chosen is based on visa overstay rates or political instability. But, in my view, the evidence doesn't back this up.
The White House wants you to believe this is a temporary measure, a pause until things can be properly assessed, but there's no transparency, no end date, and no consistent criteria.
This is, as usual, theatre. Cruelty as a campaign tactic and the weaponisation of lives as a headline generator. More Trending
Theatre has become the new normal for US politics, but we should still call it what it is.
Punitive. Senseless. And above all, ineffective.
A policy that punishes students, bans refugees, and abandons families is not national security. It's moral submission.
This isn't border control; it's moral control in Trump's America, where kindness is weakness.
Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing jess.austin@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
MORE: The Virgin Island hate is atrocious – season 2 will prove me right
MORE: In defence of Meghan Markle's twerking pregnancy video
MORE: Double decker bus roof ripped off after crashing into railway bridge in South Norwood
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
33 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump is free to bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces' and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The White House and a lawyer for the Associated Press did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with 'any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy.' The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
Glasgow Times
39 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029 (Jordan Pettitt/PA) Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump says Elon Musk ‘has lost his mind'
Donald Trump has escalated his public feud with Elon Musk, stating he is "not even thinking about" him and suggesting he may sell his Tesla Model S. The renewed hostility follows a social media spat where Musk criticised Trump's tax-cut and spending bill, complicating its passage in Congress. On Friday in Washington, Trump was asked about reports of a peacemaking phone call with Musk, to which he responded: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind? Shares in Tesla have dropped 14% after Trump threatened to cut off government contracts with Musk's companies, leading to a $150 billion loss in value. A prolonged feud could impact Republican control of Congress in the midterm elections if Musk withholds financial support, though Musk has indicated he plans to curtail his political spending.
