SEATTLE—In 2017, when President Donald J Trump signed Executive Order 13769 (better known as the “Muslim ban”) into law, it was a decision by Seattle federal court judge James Robart that initially shot down the travel ban, forcing Trump and his senior adviser Stephen Miller back to the drawing board.
Eight years later, concern has resurfaced among Muslim Americans and legal advocates nationwide that Trump’s travel ban could see a Project 2025 revival.
On March 4, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release regarding “the impact of a potential new Muslim travel ban”, offering “guidance” relating to immigration law and civil rights.
“The Trump administration has set March 21, 2025, as the deadline for federal agencies to submit a report to the White House identifying countries with ‘deficient’ visa vetting practices,” CAIR representative Ibrahim Hooper stated via email. “This report is expected to pave the way for a renewed travel ban, potentially affecting nationals from multiple Muslim-majority countries.”
Although federal judge Robart killed the first travel ban in 2017, its eventual successor, Presidential Proclamation 9645, was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2018 case Trump v Hawaii. The new order additionally restricted travel from North Korea and Venezuela but was somewhat more lenient towards visa holders.
This third and final version of the travel ban existed until 2021, when the newly elected President Biden signed his “Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to The United States” proclamation.
The current Trump administration hasn’t officially reissued that travel ban yet, but advocacy groups like CAIR, as well as various publications and academics, suspect an early executive order is the first step within a bigger comeback.
Named “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” Trump’s January 20 order “lays the groundwork for a future ban by directing Trump’s Cabinet members to report back within 60 days on countries with ‘deficient’ vetting and screening procedures for travelers,” per Vox. Hooper at CAIR called it an excuse for “new entry restrictions under the guise of national security.”
By March 21, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence must submit their joint report naming “deficient” countries. Reporter Nicole Narea wrote that this could upturn the legal immigration status of green card and visa holders from those countries, claiming that “Trump’s executive order leaves open the possibility that those people already in the US could be deported.”
Specifics of the Trump administration’s immigration policy have been accused of being unconstitutional. Discussing pro-Palestinian student protests on Truth Social, President Trump wrote, “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came,” which legal groups have called a violation of the 1st Amendment. “We’re going to keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists, and socialists out of America,” Trump said last summer, without addressing the questionable legality of such policy.
Reuters quoted three anonymous sources that claimed a new version of the travel ban was being planned, specifically targeting Afghanistan and Pakistan. Affected by such a move would be “tens of thousands of Afghans who have been cleared for resettlement… because they are at risk of Taliban retribution for working for the U.S. during a 20-year war in their home country.”
CAIR advised those from potentially affected countries to take several precautionary steps. These include consulting an immigration attorney, avoiding international travel “unless absolutely necessary over the next 30 days, as re-entry may be denied if a new ban is enacted on March 21st,” and keeping copies of all important travel and immigration documents.
“We urge individuals, organizations, and allies to stand against this administration’s attempts to revive a Muslim Ban and weaponize immigration laws against political dissent,” the group’s statement concluded.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.
Author: Kayvon Bumpus
