On Monday morning, President Donald Trump finally signed the conspicuously delayed, revised version of his judicially discredited travel ban aimed at citizens of predominantly Muslim countries.

While the new ban, officially dubbed the "Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," differs slightly from its predecessor (Iraq, for example, is no longer on the list of banned nations), it is—as the administration itself admitted—essentially a rehash of the same policy set forth by Trump's first order. And, like its predecessor, this latest ban has been met with a resounding chorus of protest from critics across the country.


"This replacement order is the same hate and fear with new packaging," explained Amnesty International executive director Margaret Huang. "It will cause extreme fear and uncertainty for thousands of families by, once again, putting anti-Muslim hatred into policy. No amount of editing can make this executive order anything but what it is – blatant bigotry. There are real threats to security, but this bigoted order will do nothing to make the country safer"

Huang's harsh critique was echoed by the ACLU's Omar Jadwat, who credited the Trump administration for acknowledging the indefensible nature of their initial Muslim Ban.

"Unfortunately," Jadwat said in a statement, "[The White House] has replaced it with a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws. The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban."

Mark Hetfield, president of the HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees, slammed the revision, saying that while "the language of the ban is slightly changed, but the results for refugees are the same."


"There is nothing ‘temporary’ about leaving innocent families stranded and at grave risk while their government-issued security clearances expire, or crippling America’s domestic refugee resettlement infrastructure while fixing a system that is not broken," Hetfield continued.

Lawmakers, too, wasted no time speaking out against President Trump's new order.

In an emailed statement, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) said the White House is using this ban to frame "immigrants and refugees – those fleeing from violence –  as scapegoats for global terrorism."


This ‘updated’ Muslim ban is still a Muslim ban," Schatz continued. "It may be more carefully constructed, but it is still racist and counterproductive. It's a violation of American values that only damages our national security."

On Twitter, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ban "mean-spirited & un-American," and demanded its repeal.


Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also blasted the ban as the same as its predecessor in both intent—and illegality.


Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, also took aim at the bill, saying simply, "Trump's Muslim Ban is still a Muslim Ban." He also pointed out several instances in which the President and his advisors called the Muslim ban just that, before the administration's latest pivot away from any religion-based explanation for the order.


While the president's new order is slated to go into effect on March 16, it's likely that civil rights groups around the country are already planning to challenge the ban in court before it even begins.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter