Executive Order #13769

By: Catherine Lacanienta

Sources: The White House, State Department, Refugee Processing Center, THE WASHINGTON POST

Just days after his inauguration–on January 20, 2017– President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, officially named “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This administrative order, better known as the United States Travel Ban, instantly sparked controversy, confusion, and nationwide protests. But what was the exact effect of this order—and why did it cause such a strong reaction from the federal judges?

At its soul, Executive Order 13769 temporarily banned citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries— specifically Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - from entering the United States for 90 days (3 months!). Additionally, this order suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, and placed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. The goal, according to the Trump administration, was to protect the country from terrorist threats.

However, critics promptly pointed out that the ban appeared to unfairly target Muslims, raising serious concerns about religious discrimination. As the order was suddenly enforced at airports, people with valid visas and green cards were detained or turned away. Protesters fled airports, lawyers rushed to help, and the chaos led to a wave of lawsuits across the country.

In just two days, the legal pushback began. Judges in New York and other states issued emergency rulings to stop parts of the ban. Furthermore, on February 3rd, Judge James Robart in Washington issued a nationwide restraining order, temporarily blocking the travel ban. The federal appeals court—the 9th Circuit—upheld this ruling, agreeing that the government had not shown clear evidence that the ban was necessary for national security. 

Facing legal defeat, the Trump administration released a revised order, Executive Order 13780, in March 2017. This version removed Iraq from the list of banned countries and allowed people with valid visas to enter. However, it was met with even more legal resistance. Judges like Derrick Watson in Hawaii and Theodore Chuang in Maryland ruled against it, saying it clearly showed signs of anti-Muslim bias. 

What truly made this case unique was that courts did not just look at the text of the order—they also considered the president’s public statements, tweets, and past comments calling for a “Muslim ban.” That evidence helped prove the order's intent, which played a crucial role in the legal challenges to come. 

In the end, Executive Order 13769 revealed a deep conflict between national security concerns and the constitutional promise of religious freedom and equality. While its future remained tied up in legal limbo, one notion became clear: the

travel ban sparked a national debate on what it means to protect a country—without turning away the distinct values it is built on. 

Issitt, Micah L. “US Travel Ban (Executive Order 13769): EBSCO.” EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | Www.Ebsco.Com, 2021, US Travel Ban 

Homeland security, DHS. “Executive Orders 13769 and 13780: Homeland Security.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 5 Dec. 2023, Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 

v. Trump, IRAP. “Irap v. Trump: Continuing the Fight against Trump’s Executive Orders Banning Nationals from Certain Muslim-Majority Countries.” International Refugee Assistance Project, US 9th Circuit Court