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