Speaker 1: President Donald Trump signed a new travel order this morning,
Speaker 1: temporarily halting entry into the US by people from six
Speaker 1: predominantly Muslim countries. The directive aims to address legal issues
Speaker 1: with the original order, which caused confusion at airport, sparked
Speaker 1: protests around the country, and was ultimately blocked by a
Speaker 1: federal court of appeals. Our guest is Eric Lawson, a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News legal reporter. Eric this news order. This new order,
Speaker 1: which is the first Trump has signed behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: addresses some of the legal concerns of the first, but
Speaker 1: it's still focused on Muslim countries. Will that be the
Speaker 1: basis of legal challenges sure to come? Most likely? We've
Speaker 1: spoken with a range of different legal experts, professors, lawyers, UH,
Speaker 1: and they still continue to say that this is a
Speaker 1: disguised Muslim ban um. They did try to address, like
Speaker 1: you said, some some of the problems by taking out
Speaker 1: the exemption for religious minorities, which was perceived to be
Speaker 1: giving Christians UH greater access to visas under this ban um.
Speaker 1: But there's still language in the in the order and
Speaker 1: in the analysis that was provided to the media that
Speaker 1: seems to continue to single out various aspects of Muslim culture,
Speaker 1: including highlighting honor killings and providing a list of honor
Speaker 1: killings and other types of violence against women that were
Speaker 1: the President will be highlighting going forward. The last time
Speaker 1: that the President did this, when you issue the initial
Speaker 1: executive order, there was a lot of chaos at the airports. Um.
Speaker 1: There have been some reports the White Huh, some in
Speaker 1: the White House wanted that chaos, although it's not really
Speaker 1: clear whether that's true or not, or if everybody agreed
Speaker 1: on that. But in any event, the the we now
Speaker 1: we're going to have litigation to challenge disorder, obviously, as
Speaker 1: we did on the last one. What kind of timing
Speaker 1: is there now for the implementation of this order and
Speaker 1: what can we expect in the meantime, Well, it takes
Speaker 1: effect March six, so there's sometime it's unclear whether or
Speaker 1: not anyone who wants to sue has to wait until then. Uh,
Speaker 1: they may they may be able to sue tomorrow. It's
Speaker 1: it's it's unclear. They still have to potentially find new plaintiffs,
Speaker 1: other people who are being impacted in different ways. Um.
Speaker 1: And but for example, we spoke with folks over the
Speaker 1: a c l U say they're going to continue to
Speaker 1: fight this no matter what. Um So, it really is
Speaker 1: round two and this is again just the start of
Speaker 1: another long legal case that's going to be in the
Speaker 1: headlines for quite a while. Eric. They did lay out
Speaker 1: a better case national security justification for the order, saying
Speaker 1: it was need because three hundred people who entered the
Speaker 1: country as refugees were the subject of counter terrorism investigations.
Speaker 1: But as I understand it, they didn't link those three
Speaker 1: hundred people to these countries that are in the order.
Speaker 1: That's correct. So the judges in some of these case
Speaker 1: his already pointed out to the government that they had
Speaker 1: failed to really give any indication of why people from
Speaker 1: these then seven countries were a particular threat. And in
Speaker 1: one case, a federal judge in Alexandria said on the
Speaker 1: bench that she had begged them to give some evidence
Speaker 1: and that they never did. Um So. Uh, And like
Speaker 1: you say, it does it doesn't say exactly where there's
Speaker 1: three people come from, although there is in the guidance
Speaker 1: that the government provided um a reference to a Somali
Speaker 1: refugee who became a naturalized citizen and who was accused
Speaker 1: of trying to blow up the Christmas tree lighting ceremony
Speaker 1: in Portland, Oregon in two thousand ten. Sort of an
Speaker 1: interesting example that they highlighted eric they've now moved from
Speaker 1: having seven countries to six on the list the president
Speaker 1: has and he Iraq is the country that was removed.
Speaker 1: Is there any explanation ast who UM even if they
Speaker 1: didn't link the terror the terrorist incidents that were being
Speaker 1: investigated or possible terrorist instants being investigated to these kind trees.
Speaker 1: Do they explain why it is that Iraq is no
Speaker 1: longer one of the countries included in the order They do?
Speaker 1: They say that they were in negotiations with the Iraqi
Speaker 1: government UM since basically since last month, and that they
Speaker 1: got assurances about their screening procedures, about improvements and how
Speaker 1: they would be tracking people who would come to the
Speaker 1: US from Iraq H. And also they highlighted today and
Speaker 1: at the press conference that you know, they're an ally
Speaker 1: of ours in fighting ISIS and that we need to
Speaker 1: have close cooperation with them, And I think that was
Speaker 1: part of the driving driver for that potentially. But but
Speaker 1: the other countries do have a roadmap as well for
Speaker 1: getting off the list, at least it seems that way.
Speaker 1: On the Q and A that was provided, uh, that
Speaker 1: they will be given fifty days to address shortcomings and
Speaker 1: their procedures and that potentially that's how they'll get off
Speaker 1: the list. Well, that might take care of one of
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuits objections. Thanks so much for being with us,
Speaker 1: and you are following this every day. I know Eric Larsen,
Speaker 1: he's Bloomberg News legal reporter, talking and writing about the
Speaker 1: Trump travel ban.