If it's unsafe to come from there, it's unsafe to send people there
In the shadow of a spreading Ebola outbreak, a Colombian woman named Adriana Zapata sits stranded in Kinshasa — deported there by American officials, then abandoned when a federal judge ordered her return. The Trump administration has paused new deportations to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, citing the very danger it created for her, revealing a policy whose internal contradictions expose not a public health logic but a political one. Her story is one of at least thirty-seven people caught in a system that has outsourced its enforcement to other nations while refusing to reckon with the human and epidemiological consequences of doing so.
- A 55-year-old Colombian refugee is stranded in Kinshasa with unmet medical needs, defying a federal judge's order for her return — the government claims it cannot bring her back safely, but experts say the will, not the capacity, is what's missing.
- The administration's own travel ban on the DRC exposes the contradiction at the heart of its policy: if the outbreak makes the country too dangerous for arrivals, it cannot simultaneously be safe enough to receive deportees.
- At least 37 people have already been forcibly relocated to Ebola-affected or bordering countries, with no official count of the thousands sent to third nations under this enforcement regime.
- Public health experts warn that if detainees contract Ebola and are then deported onward to Central or South America, the virus could reach regions with little capacity to contain an outbreak.
- The administration has not answered questions about Zapata's case, ongoing flights to Uganda, South Sudan, and Rwanda, or its broader deportation plans during the crisis — leaving advocates, lawyers, and a federal judge without answers.
Adriana Zapata, fifty-five, is stranded in Kinshasa. The Colombian woman came to the United States seeking safety, but immigration officials deported her to the Democratic Republic of the Congo — a country that had already told the US it could not meet her complex medical needs. When a federal judge ordered her return, the administration refused, citing a new travel ban on the DRC issued in response to a worsening Ebola outbreak.
The contradiction is not subtle. Jeremy Konyndyk, who led the US Ebola response at USAID during the 2014–15 outbreak and now heads Refugees International, put it plainly: if it is unsafe for people to travel from the DRC to the United States, it is equally unsafe to send people there. The administration's pause on deportations to the region appears designed more to deflect legal challenges than to protect public health.
Zapata's lawyer, Lauren O'Neal, said she fears losing her client before she can be brought home. Independent journalist Gillian Brockell, who tracks third-country removals, suspects the travel ban is being used as cover — a convenient excuse to avoid returning someone the government sent away in the first place. She was direct: the administration could return Zapata; claiming otherwise is simply not true.
The expertise and infrastructure for high-risk medical evacuations exist. The US has evacuated people from Ebola zones before, including active cases. Public health experts say returning Zapata poses minimal risk — CDC screening protocols are in place at Dulles, and Kinshasa has no known active transmission sites. The obstacle is not logistical.
Meanwhile, a broader danger grows. If detainees contract Ebola and are later deported to Central or South America, they could carry the virus to regions with little capacity to respond. Immigration lawyer Camille Mackler noted that the US is effectively exporting its enforcement to other nations with no consideration of the ripple effects. Estimates suggest between eight thousand and fifteen thousand people have been sent to third countries under this policy — with no official count.
Advocates are calling on the administration to restore humanitarian funding gutted across Africa, extend temporary protected status to affected countries, and halt deportation flights to the region. The Department of Homeland Security has not answered questions about Zapata's case or its plans going forward. She waits in Kinshasa, caught between a court order and a government that has found in a public health emergency a reason to ignore it.
Adriana Zapata, fifty-five, is stuck in Kinshasa with no clear way home. The Colombian woman fled to the United States seeking safety, but immigration officials sent her to the Democratic Republic of the Congo over a month ago—a country that had already told the US it could not meet her complex medical needs. When a federal judge ordered her return, American officials refused. They cited a travel ban on the DRC, announced Monday in response to a spiraling Ebola outbreak. The ban, they said, made it impossible to bring her back.
But the logic crumbles under scrutiny. If the outbreak makes the DRC unsafe enough to ban arrivals from there, how can it be safe to send people there? Jeremy Konyndyk, who led the US Ebola response at USAID during the 2014-15 outbreak and now heads Refugees International, posed the question plainly: "By the government's own logic, if it is not safe for people to come from there to here, it is equally unsafe to send people there." The Trump administration's pause on deportations to the region, reported by Politico, appears designed partly to shield the government from legal challenges—not to protect public health.
Zapata's lawyer, Lauren O'Neal, expressed the human weight of the contradiction. "I'm just really worried about losing her," she told the Gothamist. "I don't want her to die before we can get her back here." Zapata is not alone in this limbo. At least thirty-seven people have been forcibly relocated to countries affected by or bordering the outbreak in recent months, according to Gillian Brockell, an independent journalist who tracks third-country removals. Brockell suspects the administration is weaponizing the travel ban as cover—using Ebola as an excuse to avoid returning someone they sent away in the first place. "To publicly take one of their main scare tactics off the table, they are only going to do that if it helps them in some way," she said.
The government claims it cannot safely evacuate Zapata, but the claim does not hold. The US has evacuated people from Ebola-affected regions before, including patients with active cases. William Walters, one of the world's leading experts on high-risk medical evacuations and a former State Department official, now works as an ICE contractor. The expertise exists. The infrastructure exists. What appears to be missing is the will. Brockell was direct: "The Trump administration could absolutely return Adriana Zapata to the US; telling the judge it can't be done just isn't true."
Public health experts agree that returning Zapata poses minimal risk. The CDC has established screening protocols at Washington-Dulles International Airport for all passengers from the affected regions. Alexandra Phelan, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the proper course would be to bring Zapata to the US under the judge's order and subject her to the same health protocols as any returning citizen—screening, and quarantine if warranted. Since Zapata has remained in Kinshasa, which has no known active transmission sites, high-risk exposure is unlikely. The CDC's Ebola response lead, Satish Pillai, confirmed that entry screening and layered public health measures make it very unlikely that travelers from the region will bring the virus into the United States.
Yet the administration's refusal to return detainees already sent abroad creates a different kind of risk. If the outbreak expands and people in detention contract Ebola, then are deported to their countries of origin in Central and South America, they could introduce the virus to regions with minimal outbreak response capacity. Camille Mackler, an immigration lawyer, framed the broader problem: the US is essentially exporting its immigration enforcement to other nations. "We're taking no protections for them, and then not thinking about the ripple effect that can have," she said. Experts estimate that between eight thousand and fifteen thousand people have been flown to third countries under this policy. No official count exists.
The Department of Homeland Security said it follows all applicable health and safety guidelines when conducting removals. It did not answer questions about Zapata's case, about whether flights to Uganda, South Sudan, and Rwanda would continue, or about the agency's third-country removal plans during the outbreak. Yael Schacher, director for the Americas and Europe at Refugees International, called for the administration to restore humanitarian funding gutted across Africa, designate temporary protected status for the affected countries, and halt all deportation flights to the region. For now, Zapata waits in Kinshasa, caught between a judge's order and a government that has found in a public health crisis a convenient reason to ignore it.
Citações Notáveis
By the government's own logic, if it is not safe for people to come from there to here, it is equally unsafe to send people there.— Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and former top Ebola response official at USAID
The Trump administration could absolutely return Adriana Zapata to the US; telling the judge it can't be done just isn't true.— Gillian Brockell, independent journalist tracking third-country removals
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would the administration pause deportations but refuse to bring people back? That seems contradictory.
It is. The pause protects them legally—if they keep sending people to an Ebola zone, they're vulnerable to lawsuits. But bringing people back would mean admitting the original deportation was wrong. So they're stuck in a logical trap of their own making.
Can they actually not evacuate someone like Zapata? Or is that just what they're claiming?
They can. The US has evacuated people with active Ebola before. There's expertise, there's infrastructure. What's missing is the political will to reverse a deportation decision.
What happens if someone in detention there gets sick?
If they're deported to Central or South America with the virus, those countries have almost no capacity to handle an outbreak. It could spread to places completely unprepared for it.
So the travel ban is really just a cover story?
It looks that way. The ban solves a legal problem for the government—it gives them a reason to say they can't bring people back. But it doesn't actually protect public health. It just protects the administration from accountability.
What would the right move be?
Bring Zapata back under the judge's order, screen her at the airport like anyone else, and stop sending people to outbreak zones in the first place. Public health experts say that's both safe and feasible.