In one of his first major moves after taking office in January 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order that rocked the world. Known unofficially as the “travel ban,” Executive Order 13769 suspended entry into the United States for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days. It also banned all refugees for 120 days and barred Syrian refugees indefinitely.

The backlash was immediate, fierce, and global.

Airport Protests and Confusion

Chaos erupted in airports across the United States and abroad. Travelers already en route to America were detained upon arrival. Some were sent back. Families were separated. Legal residents—green card holders—were initially caught in the crosshairs too, despite White House assurances that the policy would be “smooth” and “orderly” (Shear & Cooper, 2017).

Crowds swarmed major airports including JFK in New York, LAX in Los Angeles, and O’Hare in Chicago. Protesters carried signs reading “No Ban, No Wall” and “Refugees Welcome.” Volunteer attorneys rushed to airports to offer free legal aid to stranded travelers.

Even U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials appeared unsure how to implement the new directives, leading to different interpretations at different ports of entry. Lawsuits were filed within hours, accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional religious discrimination and due process violations.

Legal Challenges Multiply

Federal courts rapidly intervened. Within a day, judges in multiple jurisdictions issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) blocking parts of the executive order. The most notable early decision came from U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn, who barred deportations of individuals detained under the ban (Ainsley & Rosenberg, 2017).

The state of Washington soon filed a broad challenge. On February 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge James Robart issued a nationwide injunction temporarily halting the ban. In response, Trump famously lashed out on Twitter, calling Robart a “so-called judge,” drawing rebukes from across the political spectrum for undermining judicial independence (Trump, 2017).

The legal saga escalated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously upheld Robart’s injunction. The administration withdrew the original order, rewriting it in hopes of passing judicial muster.

The Revised Ban: New Version, Same Fury

The second version of the ban, issued in March 2017, dropped Iraq from the list and exempted current visa holders. It offered additional explanations, emphasizing national security risks. But critics argued that it remained a “Muslim ban” in all but name, pointing to Trump’s repeated campaign promises to bar Muslims from entering the United States (Liptak, 2018).

States like Hawaii and Maryland launched new lawsuits. Federal courts again blocked major portions of the policy, citing religious discrimination.

It wasn’t until June 2018 that the Supreme Court, now with Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench, upheld the third iteration of the travel ban (Presidential Proclamation 9645), which added North Korea and Venezuela to the list—moves the administration claimed showed it was not targeting Muslims. In a 5–4 decision, the Court found that the president had broad authority over immigration and that the ban was “facially neutral” regarding religion (Trump v. Hawaii, 2018).

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized deference to the executive branch on matters of national security. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared the Court’s reasoning to the infamous Korematsu v. United States ruling that upheld Japanese-American internment during World War II.

Global Outrage and Diplomatic Fallout

International condemnation was swift. Leaders from Germany, France, Canada, and beyond criticized the move as discriminatory and harmful to global cooperation. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith” (Trudeau, 2017).

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called the ban “mean-spirited” and “illegal under human rights law” (UN News, 2017). American businesses, including tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple, warned that the ban could damage the U.S. economy by restricting global talent.

Within Muslim-majority nations, protests erupted. Iran vowed “reciprocal measures,” and Iraq’s parliament called for American citizens to be banned in retaliation. Analysts warned that the move would be a propaganda gift to extremist groups, reinforcing narratives that the United States was at war with Islam.

Lasting Impacts on Immigration Policy

Beyond the immediate human toll, the travel ban reshaped U.S. immigration policy for years. Refugee admissions plummeted to their lowest levels since the program’s inception in 1980. Muslim immigration from the targeted countries dropped dramatically. The Trump administration also leveraged the legal rationale behind the travel ban to pursue a broader tightening of immigration rules, including family reunification and asylum restrictions (Pierce & Selee, 2017).

For critics, the travel ban symbolized what they saw as the chaos and cruelty of Trump’s broader immigration agenda. The hashtag #Chaos frequently trended on social media alongside #NoBanNoWall.

Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters hailed the policy as a fulfillment of a major campaign promise. They framed it as a vital national security measure protecting Americans from terrorism, even though none of the countries targeted had been responsible for deadly attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Conclusion: A Divisive Legacy

Today, the travel ban remains one of the most polarizing actions of the Trump presidency. For supporters, it stands as a necessary, if blunt, assertion of American sovereignty. For opponents, it’s a lasting stain—an emblem of religious discrimination, legal chaos, and institutional disregard for the norms of democratic governance.

As Trump once said in the early days of the controversy, “We have to be tough. We have to be safe” (Shear & Cooper, 2017). But for many, the price of that toughness was far too high.

References

Ainsley, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2017, January 28). U.S. judge temporarily blocks Trump’s travel ban. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com

Liptak, A. (2018, June 26). Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com

Pierce, S., & Selee, A. (2017). Immigration under Trump: A review of policy shifts in the year since the election. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org

Shear, M. D., & Cooper, H. (2017, January 28). Trump bars refugees and citizens of 7 Muslim countries. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).

Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, February 4). The opinion of this so-called judge… [Tweet]. Twitter.

Trudeau, J. [@JustinTrudeau]. (2017, January 28). To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you… [Tweet]. Twitter.

United Nations News. (2017, January 30). UN rights chief decries U.S. travel ban as “mean-spirited” and illegal under human rights law. https://news.un.org