Alternate Ban

President Donald Trump’s travel ban remains stymied by the American Judicial System, and so his announcement that “a brand new [executive] order” could be issued as early as Monday or Tuesday was unsurprising.

“The unfortunate part is it takes time. We’ll win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.” Mr. Trump made these comments on Saturday to reporters on Air Force One, and when asked whether the potential new order will differ, Mr. Trump replied, “very little.” The executive order, which is titled, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” has largely (and rightly) been described as a Muslim Ban. President Trump, government officials, and supporters have described it as a ban, something they now deny ever doing, and refer to the order as allowing ‘extreme vetting’ measures. Thus, a ‘very little’ change from the original executive order will only result in the following: 1) The executive order will potentially be 2) The order will again be challenged and taken through court again. Therefore, a new executive order will either be a waste of time or be accepted, knowing full well that Mr. Trump’s intentions were a Muslim Ban from the start.

In the early days, after the executive order was announced on the 27th of January, President Trump, Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and a President Trump supporter and consultant, Rudy Giuliani, used the word ‘ban’ to describe the order. Press Secretary Spicer did so in two separate interviews, the second of which came after an interview where he specifically stated the executive was not a ban and coined the title ‘extreme vetting’ (Huffington Post). In a tweet, President Trump called it a ‘ban,’ and Rudy Giuliani, the day after the executive order was announced, had an interview on Fox News and told the reporter, “that when he [Mr. Trump] first told me, he said it was a Muslim ban. Put a commission together so it can be done legally” (Fox News). However, it was not until mass protests sprouted up across the world, from airports in the United States to marches in Australia, all demonstrating a vehement and ubiquitous public disgust for the ‘ban’ that the government rejected the notion that it was ever a ban, with Sean Spicer claiming that it was the ‘media’s word.’

What changes the potential new order will have remains unclear, but that does not prevent accurate conclusions from being drawn. Donald Trump and the government wanted a Muslim ban as a means to address Islamic terrorism. Whether a ban would prevent terrorist attacks in America, I am unsure, but the ban is obviously discriminatory and engages in profiling, which is an extreme measure that requires extraordinary evidence. This is evidence that the U.S District Court clearly does not see. With that said, if President Trump were to create a new executive order, the judicial system should not forget his true intention.

Latest posts by Harrison Brooks (see all)