In the aftermath of an attack perpetrated during a support march in Israel in the United States, President Donald Trump signed a new decree prohibiting the entry into American territory to nationals of twelve countries, mostly Muslims and Africans. A decision denounced as arbitrary, which reactivates the divisions of an already fractured America, and feeds criticism on the biased foreign policy of Washington, in particular vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A boulder attack as a political trigger
Sunday, June 1, 2025, in Boulder, in the state of Colorado, a march organized in support of Israeli hostages still detained in the Gaza Strip was violently interrupted. A 45 -year -old man of Egyptian nationality launched Molotov cocktails shouting “free Palestine”. Twelve people were injured. The attacker was quickly under control by the local police.
The next day, the presidential reaction was quick. Donald Trump, returned to power in January after his electoral victory, signed a decree temporarily prohibiting the entry of nationals of twelve countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. This measure will take effect on June 9.
Egypt, great absent
What surprises many observers is the notable exclusion of Egypt from this list. However, it is indeed an Egyptian national who was at the origin of the attack invoked as justification for the decree. This omission feeds questions about the real motivations of the White House. Several NGOs and associations for the defense of civil rights see a political maneuver more than a decision based on objective security criteria.
The National Iranian American Council (Niac) denounced a “deeply arbitrary” measure, recalling that the Trump administration “instrumentalizes fear to promote a xenophobic and opportunistic agenda”. The association also points to the manifest contradiction between the origin of the assailant and the countries targeted.
The return of a controversial banishment
This decree is reminiscent of the infamous “Muslim Ban” implemented from the first days of the Trump presidency in 2017. At the time, seven Muslim majority countries, including Iran, Libya and Yemen, had been affected. After a long legal battle, the Supreme Court had validated a modified version of the text in 2018.
The measure had been strongly criticized by the United Nations and many international NGOs, who saw it as direct damage to the principle of non-discrimination. The new decree of 2025 seems to follow the same logic, at the risk of aggravating diplomatic tensions and nourishing a climate of distrust within the American population of foreign origin.
A foreign policy aligned with Israel
Beyond the migratory question, this decree is part of an explosive diplomatic context. For several months, the United States systematically has been blocking any peace initiative at the UN Security Council concerning the Gaza Strip. On June 4, Washington vetoed a resolution claiming an immediate ceasefire, while the Israeli offensive, launched in the fall of 2024, continued to make thousands of civilian victims.
It is the fourth American veto in less than six months on this file. The White House spokeswoman justified this position by the need to “preserve the diplomatic efforts in progress”. But for many diplomats and analysts, this strategy reflects an unconditional alignment to Tel Aviv’s policy, to the detriment of international humanitarian law.
Between electoral strategy and security ideology
As the mid-term elections scheduled for November, Donald Trump seems to replay the security and identity card which had largely contributed to his victory in 2016. By mobilizing the fear of an external enemy, he strengthens his conservative electoral base and diverts the attention of burning economic and social files.
But this approach is not without risk. Critics are multiplying, including in certain moderate circles of the Republican Party, where there is a growing diplomatic isolation of the United States, as well as an increased fracture of American society.
By resuscitating the logics of exclusion, Donald Trump does not only make an ideological choice: he again engages the United States in a vision of the world where the fear of the other prevails over the principles of justice and equity. It remains to be seen whether this political bet will be successful this time.
