Why Border Closures Became COVID-19 Security Theater

Why Governments Closed Borders?

Catherine Worsnop investigates a striking global pattern from the COVID-19 pandemic: despite early World Health Organization advice against them, governments around the world widely adopted international border restrictions—quarantines, entry bans, and import controls—that disrupted economies but offered limited public-health benefit. Drawing on historical precedents (cholera, HIV/AIDS, H1N1, Ebola), Worsnop frames the puzzle as a political one: why would states choose measures that often fail to stop disease but appear to reassure domestic audiences?

What Is “Security Theatre”?

Worsnop adopts the term security theatre—“measures that provide not security, but a sense of it”—to capture policies that signal protection more than they deliver it. The article treats border restrictions as potentially performative tools that governments can deploy to associate disease with foreigners and demonstrate decisive action to skeptical publics.

Cross-National Data and U.S. Case Study

• The analysis uses an original cross-national dataset recording states’ first international border restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and employs quantitative models to assess which governments adopted restrictions and how quickly.
• Complementing the statistical work, a focused case study of the United States traces how political incentives and rhetoric shaped the choice and timing of border measures.

Key Findings

• Adoption of border restrictions was not explained solely by epidemiological risk or public-health need.
• Nationalist governments were more likely to impose international border restrictions and did so faster than other regimes.
• Those same nationalist governments tended to adopt domestic public-health measures more slowly, consistent with a prioritization of outward-facing, symbolic policies.
• The U.S. case study illustrates the security-theatre logic in practice, showing how political framing and signaling can drive policy choices separate from technical effectiveness.

What This Means for Global Health Cooperation

The findings suggest political incentives—not just scientific guidance—shape states’ choices during pandemics. Reducing the appeal of security theatre or channeling it toward genuinely effective measures could improve prospects for international cooperation and better public-health outcomes in future global health emergencies.