Trump pulls the wrong trigger to ban citizens of 12 countries from coming to US

In another move that has drawn global attention, US President Donald Trump has unveiled a sweeping travel ban targeting citizens from twelve countries, by banning their entry to the United States.

The ban, which completely bars entry for individuals from nations including Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, and Yemen, is part of what Trump claims is a broader effort to prevent terrorism and protect American lives.

In addition to these full bans, partial visa restrictions have been imposed on citizens from seven more countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Turkmenistan, limiting their access to specific types of visas.

This comes as Trump justifies his move by referring to the recent attack in Colorado, allegedly carried out by a foreign national who, he claimed, bypassed proper vetting procedures.

More from World

How Donald Trump's travel ban on certain countries will impact cricket, football, Olympics & other sports Trump’s ban on travellers from 12 countries begins early Monday

However, critics were quick to highlight a key flaw: the attacker’s home country—Egypt—is not among the listed nations.

These partial restrictions will limit the ability of citizens from affected countries to obtain certain types of visas, while allowing for limited exceptions in specific circumstances.

Why:

Trump justified the new ban by raising concerns over foreign nationals entering the US without being “properly vetted.” In his statement, he cited the recent deadly attack in Colorado as an example of the danger posed by individuals who manage to circumvent the immigration system.

The suspect in the Colorado attack, he argued, was a foreign national who had entered the US without undergoing adequate security checks. As a result, he claimed, stronger vetting protocols are necessary to safeguard American citizens and prevent future attacks.

The wrong trigger:

However, a glaring issue with the travel ban has come to light: the suspect in the Colorado attack, identified as an Egyptian national, is not included in the new restrictions. This omission has led many to question whether the Trump administration has targeted the wrong countries in its attempt to bolster national security.

Egypt, despite being the attacker’s country of origin, is notably absent from both the complete and partial bans—prompting criticism that the administration’s rationale behind the travel ban is fundamentally flawed.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

‘The cries of this widow will echo’: In first public remarks, Erika Kirk warns Charlie’s killers they’ve ‘unleashed a fire’

Trump urges Nato to back sanctions on Russia, calls for 50–100% tariffs on China

The reason:

So why has Egypt been spared from the ban? The answer lies in the longstanding defence alliance between the United States and Egypt. The US has consistently regarded Egypt as a key partner in the Middle East, referring to the relationship as a “pillar of regional stability.” This military and diplomatic partnership has created a delicate balancing act between security concerns and geopolitical interests.

Despite the Egyptian link to the attack, the Trump administration appears to have prioritised maintaining its strategic alliance with Egypt—even if that means compromising on the stated goal of enhancing national security. This partnership, which includes joint military operations and intelligence sharing, seems to have shielded Egypt from inclusion in the travel restrictions.

Public backlash:

The decision to exclude Egypt from the ban has sparked backlash from critics, who argue that the move is politically driven—placing international alliances above the safety of American citizens. Many have pointed out the inconsistency in the logic of the ban, which disproportionately targets countries with limited US diplomatic ties while sparing those of greater strategic importance.

Conclusion:

While the administration maintains that the travel ban is a necessary measure to prevent terrorist attacks, the omission of Egypt raises significant doubts about the true motivations behind the policy. With the Colorado attack cited as the justification, critics are questioning whether political and military considerations have been prioritised over a coherent and effective security strategy.

As tensions rise, many argue that President Trump may have pulled the wrong trigger—targeting the wrong countries and potentially undermining the very goal the ban was meant to achieve.