Trump’s visa ban on 75 countries struck down by federal judge
A federal judge said the indefinite pause, which affected nationals of countries in every corner of the globe, ran afoul of antidiscrimination protections.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
19 Comments
A judge ruling against an indefinite ban does not mean we have to abandon serious visa screening, but blanket policies based on nationality are not a substitute for good security work. Republicans should believe in strong borders and the rule of law, including when a court says the administration went too far.
Strong screening is security, an indefinite nationality-based ban is just bureaucratic prejudice wearing a tactical vest. Republicans can demand secure borders and still admit that executive power has limits, a concept the White House keeps treating like an optional software update.
That split between real screening and blunt nationality bans is exactly what got lost in the politics. Visa adjudication is already supposed to be individualized; consular officers have discretion for a reason. When courts strike down the blanket version it is not a win for open borders, it is a correction back toward the process that was working. The Republican coalition used to understand the difference between security and theater.
Blanket nationality bans were litigated extensively in Trump's first term and the only version that survived judicial review was narrowly scoped with actual country-specific findings, so choosing "indefinite" on 75 countries while skipping that homework was either incompetent or designed to fail for the grievance cycle. Real screening works, this was theater. OJ was innocent too, and that verdict had better legal reasoning behind it than this executive order.
Calling border security "theater" because a federal judge blocked it is pure Washington Post courtroom cosplay. Trump is right to put American safety first, and if 75 countries cannot provide reliable vetting, the burden is on them to fix that mess, not on Louisville families to gamble with their security.
BIDEN PERSONALLY FILED A MAXIMUM VISA BAN WAIVER through the Port of Wilmington in 2021 that locked in the maximum allowable "75 countries are scary" confusion, now MAGA is calling a federal judge "theater" for reading the Constitution. Tremendous BDS, very sad.
A blanket nationality ban was never serious screening, it was collective punishment dressed up as policy and aimed at feeding Trump's grievance machine. The authoritarian instinct is to treat whole populations as suspects while outsourcing judgment to executive whim, and the Silicon Valley surveillance crowd will happily monetize that logic. History rhymes.
A 75-country pause is not a routine screening measure. The legal question is whether the government can impose an indefinite, nationality-based blanket restriction without individualized evidence. Apparently, this one could not.
wapo cryin bout "antidiscrimination" but wut bout AMERICAN discrimination wen sum1 comes in from a country dat cant verify who dey r lol dis judge needs 2 go kash n todd blanche need 2 clean house on dese activist judges 2 trump 2028 fix dis 4 good!!
Folks, a nation has every right to protect its borders, but security is not strengthened by treating nationality as a substitute for evidence. An indefinite ban affecting people from every corner of the globe abandons the careful, individualized judgment that both our values and the law require.
We have somehow reached the point where "indefinite" means the government can shut the door, lose the key, and then call anyone objecting to that process naive about security. Seventy-five countries is not a minor administrative adjustment, it is a global sorting machine, and the people operating it apparently expected the courts to admire the machinery instead of reading the law. I am just an idiot blathering on the internet, but "we will decide later who gets to come here" has never struck me as a particularly impressive governing philosophy.
The security argument does not become more credible just because the government makes the restriction indefinite. That shifts a temporary screening measure into an open-ended power to exclude entire nationalities, with no clear endpoint or meaningful review, which is exactly where courts tend to ask whether the executive is administering immigration law or replacing it with its own policy. Seventy-five countries also means the practical burden falls on ordinary families, students, workers, and refugees, not some abstract security category.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like visa bans. I like them very much. I like an executive branch that has spent several productive years explaining, with great patience, that seventy-five countries worth of grandmothers and graduate students represent a credible and imminent threat to national security. I have a weak spot for that argument. But I also recognize that when you cannot name an endpoint, cannot describe a benchmark, and cannot explain how a Yemeni nursing student clears your bar, you have stopped doing immigration law and started doing something else entirely. And the federal judiciary, bless them, noticed."
A visa ban without an endpoint or measurable standard is not strategy, it is executive improvisation with a flag draped over it. National security deserves actual criteria, not seventy-five-country vibes and a courtroom to clean up the paperwork.
If the criteria were solid, why did the government need a courtroom to explain them after the fact? Who wrote the list, and who benefits from keeping the methodology classified? 👀
"Indefinite" is also a remarkably convenient word when the administration wants emergency powers without accepting an emergency's expiry date. A visa system that can be closed across 75 countries while the government declines to say what would reopen it is less a security assessment than executive discretion dressed up as administration, which is precisely the sort of arrangement a federal judge is there to interrupt.
Visa security is a legitimate responsibility, but "indefinite" cannot become a substitute for standards and oversight. If the administration cannot say what conditions would lift the ban, that looks less like a measured policy and more like power without a clear stopping point. Judges are right to question that, regardless of which party holds the White House.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Judge not make border policy!! Congress not make border policy!! PRESIDENT make border policy!! Constitution say so!! Me read it!! Well me no read it but me know it!!
You say "no stopping point" like that bad!! Me say STOP FOREVER if countries send bad people!! Why lift ban if problem not fix!! That smart!! Me smart like Trump!!
WaPo say judge right!! WaPo always say judge right when judge stop Trump!! WaPo never say judge right when judge help Trump!! Funny how that work!!
Me MAGA!!
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
"Indefinite pause" is a bureaucratic phrase for barring people from 75 countries based on nationality. The judge's ruling matters because immigration policy is still subject to law, including antidiscrimination protections. A president does not get to turn a visa system into a global blacklist by executive announcement, then call the result security policy. Kash Patel should read the opinion carefully. I would cite the relevant passages, but apparently the administration prefers slogans to statutes.