How the new Trump travel ban differs from his previous ‘Muslim ban’

Which countries are included in the ban?

Citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be banned. The proclamation also partially restricts people travelling from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

A White House Fact Sheet said the country-specific bans would “encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances”. Each country could seek talks with the US to ease the restrictions — a process similar to the trade deals being negotiated after Trump’s tariff announcements.

The countries were identified based on:

• A perceived threat to US national security from their limited screening and vetting processes
• A “disregard” for US immigration laws through high visa overstay rates
• Presence of terrorist actors (some even state-sponsored)
• Unwillingness to accept their removable nationals.

The fact sheet explicitly termed Iran and Cuba “state sponsors of terrorism”, and Somalia a “terrorist safe haven”. It mentioned that Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban – a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group”.

Further, the document claimed that “hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration”, and cited “national security threats.” During his election campaign last year, Trump had said immigrants were “eating the pets”, including cats, in the city of Springfield, Ohio. Unsubstantiated claims of Haitian immigrants “abducting” pets were also repeated by his running mate and now Vice President, JD Vance.

The ban exempts certain categories of individuals, including those already holding their visas, permanent residents, and dual nationals.

Is there a precedent to the ban?

In the run-up to the 2016 US elections, Trump repeatedly expressed his desire to impose a “Muslim ban” and a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” This was accompanied by incendiary rhetoric, with Trump saying “Islam hates us” and that the US was “having problems with Muslims coming into the country.”
Trump enacted his first travel ban on January 27, 2017, a week after his inauguration, barring entry to citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days. A federal judge overturned it the next month.

A second attempt at a ban was made in March, and it exempted people with a green card or a valid visa. This was overturned by two federal judges that month, who ruled that it was illegal to ban travel from half a dozen countries.

A third travel ban was announced in September 2017, barring entry to most citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The move exempted Iranian nationals with valid student and exchange visitor visas. Chad was removed from this list after its government reached out to the US. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018, which said the president has authority over national security concerns stemming from immigration.

In January 2020, the entry of immigrants from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania was banned, but tourists and visitors were allowed.

Upon assuming the presidency in 2021, Joe Biden repealed the bans, calling them “a stain on our national conscience”.

How is this ban different?

For one, it must be viewed in the context of Trump’s larger, systematic crackdown on immigration, which has been a significant aspect of his political platform. Since his return to the White House in January, he imposed a national emergency at the country’s southern border, denied entry to asylum-seekers, authorised nationwide immigration raids, and barred international admissions to Harvard University.

In an executive order signed on his first day, Trump authorised national security agencies to conduct “a robust assessment of the risk that countries posed to the United States, including regarding terrorism and national security.”

Legal experts told The New York Times that the ban could withstand legal scrutiny better. “They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,” Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told The NYT. “But a lot will depend upon how it’s actually enforced — and whether it’s applied in ways that are themselves unlawful or even unconstitutional.”

Vladeck noted that the announcement came after several months of Trump’s inauguration, indicating possible deliberations within the administration to strengthen its case. The ban also does not single out Muslim-majority nations, but focuses on a range of administrative issues.