Trump Ban BLOCKS Afghan Girl’s Escape?
An Afghan man and his wife face the possibility that a renewed travel ban is stopping them from reuniting with their niece and securing her a safer future.
At a Glance
A new travel ban from President Trump, signed June 4, restricts entry from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, effective June 9, 2025.
The proclamation contains limited exceptions, but extended family members like nieces are not guaranteed entry.
The Sharafoddins, an Afghan refugee family in South Carolina, had planned to bring their niece from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Refugee advocates warn this ban could deepen humanitarian suffering and fracture family ties for vulnerable populations.
Critics argue the policy is discriminatory and echoes previous “Muslim ban” measures from Trump’s first term.
Background and policy details
President Trump issued a proclamation on June 4, 2025 placing a full entry ban on citizens from 12 countries—including Afghanistan—and partial restrictions on seven more, citing “national security” concerns such as poor vetting and high rates of visa overstays. The directive builds on Executive Order 14161 from January 20, aimed at tightening immigration and refugee policies. While exemptions exist for green card holders, diplomats, special immigrant visa (SIV) holders, and immediate family members (spouses, children, parents), extended relatives such as nieces are notably not included in the carve-outs.
An exception for Afghan nationals on government-issued SIVs does not extend to their extended families. Mohammad Sharafoddin, an Afghan refugee now resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, after fleeing Taliban rule, expressed shock at the policy’s implications—particularly for vulnerable women and girls under Taliban governance. The Sharafoddins had hoped to bring their niece to the U.S. to continue her education and escape persecution, but the ban now may permanently shut that option.
Watch a report: Afghan refugees in America plead for niece’s release.
Humanitarian fallout and legal pushback
Refugee advocates and U.S. lawmakers are raising alarm. Jim Ray, representing immigrant support groups, warns that the ban’s breadth could “sever families and worsen humanitarian situations.” Opposition leaders across the aisle argue the restrictions risk worsening suffering in authoritarian regimes and may replicate the socially damaging effects of the earlier 2017 “Muslim ban”. Critics highlight the disproportionate effect on women and girls, particularly in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan where educational access is severely restricted.
Legal challenges are anticipated. The Supreme Court upheld a prior version of Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), establishing precedent for executive discretion. However, opponents say this version’s expansive reach and impacts on family reunification may raise fresh constitutional issues.
Political divide and international response
Republicans largely defend the measure as a safeguard for national security, pointing to patterns of visa noncompliance and inadequate vetting systems in the affected nations. Meanwhile, Democrats, immigrant advocacy groups, and international partners have condemned the move as discriminatory. Many view the expanded country list and its heavy emphasis on Muslim-majority nations as evidence of revived anti-Muslim sentiment, even with legal loopholes included.
Afghan officials and global human rights advocates echo these concerns, warning the policy will disproportionately harm women and minors already facing repression under Taliban rule. Critics argue that by excluding extended family reunification, the U.S. risks undermining both its humanitarian credibility and diplomatic influence.
In sum, the Sharafoddin family’s dream of reuniting with their niece has collided with a shift in policy that excludes extended relatives, highlighting wider tensions between national security priorities and America’s humanitarian legacy.