Abdul-Rahman Edward Koroma, a disability rights activist from Sierra Leone, was eagerly anticipating his trip to New York last week to participate in a United Nations session.
For months, he had scheduled meetings and events to discuss the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in his country, including a documentary addressing the vulnerability of the disability community to climate-related disasters such as flooding and landslides.
However, on June 5, Koroma received the disappointing news that he would not be allowed to travel to the U.S. due to travel bans imposed by the administration of President Donald Trump.
Sierra Leone is one of the 19 nations affected by these restrictions, which the Trump administration justifies by citing high rates of visa overstays.
President Trump stated, “We will restore the travel ban…, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Along with Sierra Leone, travelers from several other countries including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, and Yemen face either total bans or restrictions on their entry into the United States.
The current bans could expand further; a memo from the State Department has indicated that 36 additional countries, mostly in Africa, may be added to this list.
As stories like Koroma’s emerge, global health advocates, researchers, and workers from these affected countries are likely to find themselves unable to share their expertise and collaborate on critical health issues.
Many global health specialists warn that these travel restrictions pose a significant risk to U.S. interests.
Judd Walson, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, expressed concern that closing off the U.S. from potential allies will have long-term negative consequences.
“We are closing ourselves off from the active participation of potential allies,” Walson said. “That will only lead to negative consequences in the long term.”
He emphasized that such restrictions could eventually expose the U.S. to greater global health threats.
The travel ban follows the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid and its withdrawal from the World Health Organization, moves that have disrupted vital frameworks for worldwide health response.
According to Walson, dialogue and collaboration with global partners is essential for effectively identifying and responding to emerging infectious diseases.
He highlighted that threats could arise from any of the restricted countries.
“Our inability to engage with partners from those places, who can serve as eyes and ears on the ground to identify threats, just hampers our ability to have a coordinated response,” Walson added.
Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University, voiced worries that future travel restrictions could hinder research efforts regarding the Marburg virus, a severe hemorrhagic fever typically found in bats.
His team aims to study the dynamics of how this virus transfers from animals to humans by examining antibodies in populations near past outbreaks on the Uganda-Kenya border.
Karan noted that part of their research depends on expertise at the Ugandan Viral Research Institute, which could be affected if Uganda becomes subject to similar travel restrictions.
While remote collaboration via Zoom is a viable option, Karan stated that it does not replicate the depth of engagement that occurs in face-to-face interactions.
He reminisced, “Many of the best conversations and ideas that we had happened during our drives, during meals, or unplanned moments.”
Trump’s travel restrictions are not only limiting participation in scientific research but are already impacting scientific gatherings.
A biomedical scientist from Yemen, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, described being unable to attend an important cancer management conference in California this fall due to the ban.
She remarked, “Such an absolute restriction for all people is not wise.”
The implications for U.S. scientific prominence are significant as organizers of training sessions and conferences increasingly consider alternative locations.
Walson mentioned that his research team opted to hold a planning meeting in London instead of the U.S., citing concerns with visa issues and the general climate regarding immigration.
The economic ramifications of canceled conferences in the U.S. are vital to consider.
Furthermore, a reduced American presence at international conferences may yield intangible effects on collaborations and informal exchanges of ideas that are crucial for innovation and problem-solving.
“Diseases don’t respect borders, and infections travel faster than diplomacy,” stated Walson, underlining the interconnected nature of global health.
He asserted, “Whether we want to or not, we have to understand the reality of the global community as it is today. If we don’t engage, we will suffer the consequences.”
image source from：https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/06/17/nx-s1-5428139/trump-travel-ban-doctors-scientists-researchers-global-health
