Australia finds itself grappling with profound questions about national security, immigration, and the balance between openness and protection. The shooting, which targeted Sydney’s Jewish community and resulted in at least 16 deaths, has been classified as a terrorist act, reigniting debates on how to prevent individuals with harmful intentions from entering or remaining in the country.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded swiftly, praising first responders, visiting affected sites, and announcing plans to review migration laws and introduce hate-speech reforms that could lead to visa cancellations.
Yet, as the nation mourns and demands action, there’s an opportunity to look abroad for strategies—specifically to U.S. President Donald Trump’s revived and expanded immigration policies in 2025, which prioritize stringent vetting and targeted restrictions to safeguard against security threats.This isn’t about blindly copying another country’s playbook; Australia has its own unique context, with a points-based migration system and a history of bipartisan support for strong borders.
But Trump’s approach offers practical insights into proactive measures that could complement Albanese’s current efforts. Below, I’ll explore key lessons, weighing their potential benefits against challenges, in a bid to foster a more secure Australia without compromising our values of fairness and multiculturalism.1. Implementing Targeted Travel and Entry Restrictions from High-Risk AreasTrump’s 2025 policies, reinstated via Executive Order 14161 and expanded through proclamations in June and December, have broadened U.S. travel bans to 39 countries, many with histories of instability, terrorism, or inadequate information-sharing on migrants. whitehouse.gov
These include full bans on nationals from nations like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and now the Palestinian Authority territories (encompassing Gaza and the West Bank), citing risks from active terrorist groups and compromised vetting processes. The bans apply to both immigrants and non-immigrants, with limited exceptions for family reunification or humanitarian cases, and are set to take full effect on January 1, 2026.For Albanese, a similar framework could involve temporary suspensions or heightened scrutiny for entrants from regions linked to elevated terror risks, particularly in light of the Bondi attack’s apparent antisemitic motivations and connections to broader Middle Eastern conflicts.
Australia’s current system already includes character tests and visa refusals for those with criminal or security concerns, but it could be bolstered by data-driven lists of high-risk origins, informed by ASIO assessments.
This might mean expanding the use of electronic travel authorizations (ETAs) with real-time intelligence checks, akin to the U.S. ESTA system enhanced under Trump.Potential Upside: Such measures could deter potential threats at the border, as evidenced by U.S. claims of reduced entries from banned countries during Trump’s first term. In Australia, where net migration has surged to nearly 1.3 million under Albanese, tightening inflows from unstable areas could ease public anxieties without slashing overall numbers.
Critics argue Trump’s bans disproportionately affect Muslim-majority nations, risking perceptions of discrimination and straining international relations.
Albanese would need to ensure any adaptations are religion-neutral, transparent, and subject to parliamentary oversight to avoid alienating Australia’s diverse communities.2. Enhancing Vetting Through Ideological and Background Screening. A cornerstone of Trump’s strategy is “extreme vetting,” which includes ideological exclusions to bar those who support or have ties to extremist views.
whitehouse.gov This goes beyond criminal checks to scrutinize social media, affiliations, and even beliefs that could pose public safety risks. In the context of the expanded 2025 bans, this has led to denials for individuals from regions with active terrorist organizations.Albanese’s government is already moving in this direction with proposed hate-speech laws that empower authorities to cancel visas for those inciting violence or hatred.
Learning from Trump, Australia could integrate advanced AI-driven screening into visa applications, cross-referencing against global watchlists and online footprints. Post-Bondi, where the attack highlighted vulnerabilities in monitoring radicalization, this could extend to mandatory interviews or biometric data for high-risk applicants.Potential Upside: Proactive screening might have flagged risks earlier in similar incidents worldwide. With Australia’s humanitarian visa program set to hit one million issuances by late 2025, embedding stronger ideological filters could protect vulnerable communities without halting compassionate intakes.
Overly broad ideological tests raise free speech concerns and could lead to unfair rejections. Albanese should pair this with appeals processes and independent reviews to maintain trust, differing from Trump’s more unilateral style.3. Prioritizing National Security in Migration Planning and Enforcement Trump’s proclamations emphasize security as the overriding factor in migration decisions, overriding economic or diplomatic considerations when risks are high.
This has included rapid expansions of bans based on evolving threats, like adding African nations amid rising extremism.In Australia, Albanese has set the 2025–26 migration program at levels aimed at economic growth, but the Bondi attack has prompted a review. Adopting a Trump-like agility—perhaps through executive powers for temporary pauses—could allow quicker responses to global hotspots. This might involve closer ties with allies like the U.S. for shared intelligence on migrants.Potential Upside: It aligns with public sentiment post-attack, where calls for tougher borders are loud, and could prevent future tragedies by addressing migration surges tied to international instability.
Australia’s economy relies on skilled migration, and blanket restrictions could harm industries like tech and healthcare. A balanced approach, focusing on enforcement rather than reduction, would be key.A Path Forward: Security with Australian ValuesThe Bondi terror attack is a stark reminder that no nation is immune to global threats.
While Albanese’s leadership has been commendable in uniting the country and pushing for reforms, incorporating elements of Trump’s security-focused immigration tactics could provide a robust layer of defense. However, Australia must adapt these ideas thoughtfully—ensuring they’re evidence-based, non-discriminatory, and integrated with our commitment to multiculturalism.Ultimately, keeping harmful individuals out isn’t about closing doors but about smarter locks. By learning from Trump’s playbook while staying true to Aussie fairness, Albanese could turn tragedy into a turning point for safer shores. What do you think—should Australia go bolder on borders? Share your views in the comments.