SUMMARY
- The White House has vowed to overturn a court ruling that temporarily halted Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim nations.
- The ruling by a Seattle court put a temporary stop to the travel ban across the country.
- A White House statement said the Department of Justice intended to challenge the court’s decision.
- The US Customs and Border Protection agency reportedly told airlines to board passengers previously affected by the travel ban.
- The ruling followed another court decision in a Massachusetts which lifted a temporary injunction against Trump’s travel ban, so the ban could resume on Sunday, prompting accusations of legal chaos.
- Court challenges have been mounted in seven states across the country.
- President Trump has not commented on the halting of his travel ban and is on a weekend break with his wife in Florida.
Updated
President Trump has been unusually quiet on his Twitter @POTUS account given the furore surrounding his presidential travel ban order. Not a peep from him from on his weekend getaway at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. But there were photos of him and Melania arriving there. US magazine websites said the couple was “reuniting for the weekend”.
Updated
Bob Ferguson, Washington state attorney general, has placed himself in the spotlight with his legal challenge to the Trump administration’s “unconstitutional and unlawful” order.
Here he is talking to the media on Friday:
Updated
Democratic senator Chuck Schumer hails ruling
Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has hailed the Seattle judge’s order to impose a temporary halt on the travel ban.
“This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer,” he said in a statement.
President Trump should heed this ruling and he ought to back off and repeal the executive order once and for all.
Updated
Students have been protesting the travel ban in Indonesia and the Philippines.
In Jakarta, Associated Press reports that dozens of students and activists from several rights groups called on the Indonesian government and the international community to help stop Trump’s order. Banners waved by demonstrators included “I’m angry with Trump” and “No ban, no wall”.
Organiser Veronica Koman said Trump’s “xenophobic” policy would hurt people fleeing war-torn countries who are currently in Indonesia.
A similar rally was held outside the US embassy in the Philippine capital, Manila.
Updated
The Washington state attorney general, Bob Ferguson (@AGOWA) who brought the case in Seattle, has tweeted a photo the judge’s temporary restraining order on the travel ban.
— WA Attorney General (@AGOWA) February 4, 2017
Media and lawyers waited outside the Seattle court for the ruling which has temporarily stayed the president’s travel order.
Long line of lawyers, media, others waiting for Seattle federal court hearing on @AGOWA lawsuit against @POTUS #ImmigrationOrder pic.twitter.com/1JRN4ZudPZ
— Jim Brunner (@Jim_Brunner) February 3, 2017
Updated
Iranian baby in need of heart surgery allowed to enter US
A four-month-old Iranian girl in need of an emergency heart surgery has received an emergency waiver for Donald Trump’s 90-day travel ban on Iranian citizens, New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced late on Friday.
“This evening we were pleased to learn that the federal government has now granted Fatemeh Reshad and her family boarding documents to come to the United States,” Cuomo said in a statement Friday night. He said that a team of pediatric cardiac doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York had agreed to help the family pro bono, and that a law firm was funding the travel.
You can read the full story here
Anti-Trump protests in Australia
Australians concerned that the country’s refugee resettlement deal with the US may be in doubt have held protests across the country.
It follows a fraught phone call over the issue between the Australian prime minster, Malcolm Turnbull, and President Trump this week, in which the president described the deal for the US to take in refugees from Australia’s offshore detention centres as a “dumb deal”.
Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017
You can read the full story on the protests in Australia here from our correspondent, Ben Doherty.
Here’s a flavour of what he says:
Australia’s fragile refugee resettlement deal with the US has brought thousands of people on to city streets, decrying the US president’s immigration ban and demanding an end to Australia’s offshore processing policy of asylum seekers.
The deal, purportedly, is for the US to resettle up to 1250 refugees from Australia’s offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru, where refugees have been held for more than three years, and which are the subject of sustained criticism over systemic violence by guards, sexual assaults, including of children, and deaths from murder, suicide and inadequate medical care.
The refugee agreement has spent the week in furious on-again, off-again debate. Trump has spent the week railing against the “dumb deal” and the “worst deal ever”, followed by his officials then quietly rowing back his comments and promising the deal, struck with the Obama administration, would be upheld.
The president’s fraught phone call over the issue with the Australian prime minster, Malcolm Turnbull, briefly dominated the international news agenda.
But the deal does not oblige the US to actually accept a single refugee, only to allow them to “express an interest” in resettlement. All the refugees from the Australian-run camps will be subject to “extreme vetting”, the US president said. Australia has legal responsibility for the refugees after they landed in its territory, but has moved them offshore and refuses to accept them for fear of encouraging more arrivals.
The US customs and border protection agency has reportedly told airlines to resume operation as normal – that is, as if the Trump travel ban order never existed. But you could be forgiven for being confused by the statement on its website, which gives information about the 27 January executive order “Protecting the National from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. There doesn’t seem to be any information on the court ruling in Seattle which has put a nation-wide stop on Trump’s ban.
Updated
Passengers who are affected by the travel ban have been asked to check airline websites for information before travelling. But I’m not sure how much luck they are going to have. I’ve looked at several and can’t see any reference to the court ruling or what it means for anyone.
New US sanctions on Iran
On what’s turning out to be a major news day in the Trump administration, the White House announced it was imposing sanctions on companies and individuals suspected of involvement in Iran’s missile programme and its support for foreign armed groups, warning there will be more pressure on Tehran to come.
Donald Trump accused Iran of “playing with fire”.
“They don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” he said in an early morning tweet.
Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how "kind" President Obama was to them. Not me!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017
Here’s the full report by the Guardian’s Julian Borger and David Smith in Washington:
The sanctions announced on Friday targeted on a dozen companies and 13 individuals, including Chinese firms suspected of supplying parts used in Iran’s missile development programme. The measures were invoked in response to a January missile test by Iran and the country’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen.
“The Trump administration will no longer tolerate Iran’s provocations that threaten our interests,” Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, said in a statement. “The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over.”
A senior administration official described the measures as “initial steps” while a broader review of Iran policy was under way.
“Iran has a choice to make,” the official said. “We are going to continue to respond to their behaviour in an ongoing way at an appropriate level, to continue to pressure them to change their behaviour.”
Iran said it would retaliate with its own blacklist of American nationals and companies it said gave support to terrorists.
“The Islamic Republic will proportionately and reciprocally confront any action that targets the Iranian people’s interests,” the foreign ministry said.
Sanctions experts said the new measures appeared to be in line with the Obama administration’s approach of incrementally expanding sanctions as procurement and influence networks are uncovered, but a senior Trump administration official said the decision to impose the new sanctions had been triggered by the 29 January Iranian test of a medium-range ballistic missile.
The sanctions were also declared to be in retaliation for a Houthi attack on a Saudi warship on 31 January. In a statement on Friday, Flynn referred to the Houthis as one of Iran’s “proxy terrorist groups”, although the Yemeni Shia militia is not designated by the state department as terrorist. It has fought a long-running insurgency in and seized the capital Sana’a by early 2015, triggering a full-scale war against the Yemeni president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, and a Saudi-led coalition supporting him.
The people and companies targeted in the new sanctions list are suspected of being parts of networks that import dual-use items that have been used in Iran’s nuclear programme, or transfer funds abroad for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to foreign armed groups. The measures do not reimpose any sanctions that were lifted as a result of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran.
“It is an appropriate response and consistent with the approach that the Obama administration took in dealing with missiles and terror,” said Elizabeth Rosenberg, a former senior sanctions adviser at the treasury department. “It doesn’t look that it is a major departure. What we see is a page from the playbook we know.”
Tyler Cullis, legal fellow at the National Iranian American Council, said: “Trump has imposed targeted sanctions aimed at low-level individuals and entities alleged to be involved with Iran’s ballistic missile programme. These sanctions are intended to evidence US pushback without sacrificing the nuclear accord. I wouldn’t have expected a President Clinton to act any differently.”
US officials said that the missile test was “inconsistent” with UN security council resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal and “calls on” Iran not to develop or test missiles “capable of delivering nuclear weapons” but does not ban such activity outright.
The Iranian defence minister, Hossein Dehghan, has insisted that the 29 January test did not violate the resolution and declared: “We will not allow foreigners to interfere in our defence affairs.”
A senior administration official insisted on Friday that the tested missile was nuclear-capable.
“Those are ballistic missiles that can travel a certain distance and carry a certain payload and this ballistic missile falls within that parameter,” the official said.
Michael Elleman, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said it was not clear what Iran had launched, but said most likely it was a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile based on the North Korean Nodong missile, and which was first tested in 1998.
Trump’s attempt to shock and awe both allies and adversaries in his first two weeks in office has deepened global uncertainty as Trump has taken an abrasive approach to diplomacy from Australia to Mexico.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said the administration was in the midst “of a full review of all US policies towards Cuba”, with a focus on its human rights policies, as part of a commitment to such rights for citizens throughout the world.
It also emerged that more than 100,000 visas may have been revoked as a result of Trump’s fiercely contentious ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. The number was revealed by a government attorney during a lawsuit brought on behalf of two Yemeni brothers who arrived at Dulles International Airport near Washington on Saturday, only to be put on a return flight to Ethiopia.
But the state department contradicted the attorney’s figure, saying that fewer than 60,000 visas had been cancelled under Trump’s order.
In a highly provocative move last month, Trump signed an executive order that affects people holding passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and also halts temporarily the entry of refugees into the country. The White House contends the moves are necessary for national security but Democratic attorneys general in several states have called them unconstitutional.
In a separate case, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that US green card holders should not be affected by Trump’s travel ban following a suit by the Arab-American Civil Rights League. The nonprofit argued in US district court that the president’s executive action is unconstitutional and targets immigrant communities.
Criticism of the White House’s misrepresentation of the issue intensified after Kellyanne Conway, counselor to Trump, was forced to issue a correction after blaming two Iraqi refugees for a massacre that never happened.
Conway cited the fictitious “Bowling Green massacre” in an interview in which she backed the travel ban. Interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball programme on Thursday evening, Conway compared the executive order issued by Trump in his first week in the White House to what she described as a six-month ban imposed by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
This claim has been debunked by commentators who have pointed out that the 2011 action was a pause on the processing of refugees from Iraq after two Iraqi nationals were arrested over a failed attempt to send money and weapons to al-Qaida in Iraq.
Conway told Matthews: “I bet it’s brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalised and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”
The two Iraqi men arrested in 2011 did live in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and arecurrently serving life sentences for federal terrorism offences. But there was no massacre, nor were they accused of planning one. The US Department of Justice, announcing their convictions in 2012, said: “Neither was charged with plotting attacks within the United States.”
After a barrage of mockery on social media, Conway tweeted on Friday: “I meant to say ‘Bowling Green terrorists’ as reported here,” and she linked to a 2013 news report about the men.
Trump met business leaders at the White House and promised to roll back financial regulations that resulted from the 2007-08 financial crisis. He was set to issue directives targeting the 2010 Dodd-Frank law on Wall Street reform, although only Congress can rewrite it.
The Department of Labor announced that the economy added a total of 227,000 jobs in January, while wages rose by 2.5% over the last year. Democrats hailed it as an “emphatic capstone” on the economic legacy of Barack Obama.
House Democrats will gather for a conference in Baltimore next week, strategising a way forward for the party after Trump’s stunning election defeat of Hillary Clinton and the helter skelter start to his presidency. They are under pressure from an energetic base to shift to the left and, for example, oppose Trump’s supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch at all costs.
Updated
Protests over ban continued in US on Friday
Protests over the travel ban continued in the US on Friday, including a large group that gathered in a parking lot of Kennedy International Airport in New York for the Friday Prayer.
According to the New York Times, is is not unusual for district courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions. It says the “federal government must obey such injunctions even when other district courts have declined to issue injunctions in similar cases.”
You can see the full NYT story here
US Airlines told to allow in previously banned travellers
One of our correspondents in the US, Alan Yuhas, has just filed a story on US airlines being told to let in people previously banned under the executive order. He says the Seattle court ruling opens the path for states to sue the White House.
Here’s are top lines from Alan’s report:
After a federal judge in Seattle ordered a temporary halt on Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and people from seven predominantly-Muslim nations, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reportedly told US airlines that they could board travelers who had been barred.
Trump administration offers conflicting numbers of revoked visas after travel banRead more
District judge James Robart granted a temporary restraining order on Friday after hearing arguments from Washington state and Minnesota that the president’s order had unlawfully discriminated against Muslims and caused unreasonable harm.
It was not immediately clear whether authorities would comply with the broad order, especially after officials reacted in confusion a week earlier, detaining valid visa holders and arguing with lawyers. But the justice department said it would not immediately file for an emergency stay, at least on Friday night, and reports said Customs and Border Protection (CBP0 had informed US airlines that they should board travelers who had been barred by an executive order last week.
“We are a nation of laws. Not even the president can violate the constitution,” Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson told reporters outside the courtroom. “No one is above the law, not even the president.”
“This decision shuts down the executive order immediately, shuts it down,” he added. “That relief is immediate, happens right now. That’s the bottom line.”
Updated
China accuses US of putting stability of Asia-Pacific at risk
Trump’s defence secretary has put the cat among the pigeons on his visit to Japan. James Mattis said today that the US would defend Japan if it got into a conflict with China over the disputed South China Sea islands.
The Chinese foreign ministry says the US should avoid complicating the issue and “bringing instability to the regional situation”.
Our man in Tokyo, Juystin McCurry, has filed a report on this and here’s the top lines:
China has accused the US of putting the stability of the Asia-Pacific at risk after Donald Trump’s defence secretary said Washington would come to Japan’s defence in the event of a conflict with Beijing over the disputed Senkaku islands.
James Mattis, on a two-day visit to Japan, said the islands, which are controlled by Japan but also claimed by China, fell within the scope of the Japan-US security treaty, under which Washington is obliged to defend all areas under Japanese administrative control.
Mattis also made clear that the US opposed any unilateral action that risked undermining Japan’s control of the Senkakus, a group of uninhabited islets that are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and potentially large natural gas deposits.
“I want to make certain that Article 5 of our mutual defence treaty is understood to be as real to us today as it was a year ago, five years ago - and as it will be a year, and 10 years, from now,” Mattis, a retired marine general who has served in South Korea and Japan, told Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, on Friday evening.
We’ll launch Justin’s full report very soon ...
Updated
The executive order signed by Donald Trump on 27 January suspended the entire US refugee admissions system, already one of the most rigorous in the world, for 120 days. It also suspended the Syrian refugee program indefinitely, and banned entry to the US to people from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for 90 days.
A district judge in the state of Virginia ordered the White House to provide a list of names of “all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States” – a total that tops at least 60,000 people, according to the state department.
Department of Justice won't rule tonight
The Department of Justice has reportedly said it will not act tonight to counter the Washington state court ruling, so there won’t be any legal challenge until Saturday at the latest. It’s unclear on what grounds the justice department might appeal the ruling.
"Keep 'evil' out of our country" – Trump
President Trump has not commented so far on the Washington court’s ruling to stop his travel ban, but earlier on Friday he denounced the attempted knife attack on soldiers guarding the Louvre Museum in Paris. He tweeted that “We must keep ‘evil’ out of our country!
A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017
We must keep "evil" out of our country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017
The ruling in Washington has created confusion about travellers about which ruling applies to them. The US Customs & Border Protection agency told American airlines that they can once again board travellers who had been barred by an executive order last week. But it’s unclear what it means as yet to travellers who are stuck overseas.
Legal challenges in seven states
Legal challenges challenging the travel ban have been taking place in seven states across America, including Washington, where the temporary stay on the ban was handed down, Massachusetts, where a judge ruled the travel ban could re-start on Sunday, Hawaii, New York, Virginia, Michigan and California. You can read the full story on the challenges here.
Politico website says the conflicting court rulings prompted a “typically combative reaction from the Trump White House but in a departure from recent patterns, the most confrontational language was quickly dialled back.” That’s a reference to the fact that the White House originally called the court ruling to temporarily stop the travel ban “outrageous”.
White House hits back after judge issues broad block against @realDonaldTrump's travel ban https://t.co/5SPV025m9R via @joshgerstein pic.twitter.com/GSGWaxEzot
— POLITICO (@politico) February 4, 2017
Trump's nominee for Army Secretary withdraws nomination
In the middle of the legal questions over the travel ban, Trump’s pick for secretary of the army has withdrawn his name for consideration for the job. The Military Times reported that Vincent Viola, an army veteran and founder of a high-speed trading firm, cited his inability to get around Defence Department rules concerning his family businesses. In a statement, Viola told the Military times he was “deeply honoyred” to be nominated for the post, but concluded that he would not be able to successfully navigate the confirmation process.
More big news— Trump's pick for Army Secretary, Vincent Viola, has withdrawn his name from consideration tonight https://t.co/hjyeHHtvu5
— ALT DOJ (@ALT_DOJ) February 4, 2017
Updated
The legal controversy comes as President Trump takes a weekend break at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with his wife Melania.
'No one is above the law'
Washington attorney general, Bob Ferguson hailed the court decision as “the first order of its kind” and declared that it “shuts down the executive order immediately”. Ferguson said: “No one is above the law – not even the president.”
Updated
Washington state governor Jay Inslee’s impassioned comments about the ruling has, not surprisingly, divided opinion on social media.
@JayInslee is dangerous for this country.
— kilmer (@kekilme) February 4, 2017
@JayInslee Bravo!! Thank you for doing the right thing!! As former residents of WA state, so proud!! #factsmatter
— Karen Mann (@ksl_mann) February 4, 2017
@VickyBrush @JayInslee @realDonaldTrump you own any attack on our country. why cant we suspend immigration to set new policy and questions
— Valerie (@DaizyChains) February 4, 2017
Let's all move to Washington State tomorrow with @JayInslee @OUGradPolitico @Lowe1966
— Susan Sooner (@SusanSooner) February 4, 2017
Updated
Washington court temporarily halts travel ban
The Washington court granted the stay on the travel ban after a request from lawyers for the state asked him to stop the government from acting on critical sections of the presidential order. Trump’s executive order barred US citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering America as well as refugees.
Updated
Debate is raging amongst lawyers about how two federal courts in two states can make conflicting rulings.
The US state department issued a statement a short time ago saying that it had been informed by the justice department about Judge Robart’s ruling.
It said it was working with the department of homeland security to determine how the ruling affected its operations and would announce any changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that information is available.
We’ve not heard from homeland yet though. CNN said they were expecting that department to make a statement. But no word as yet.
Here are the two statements from the White House deriding the judgement in Seattle to stay the travel ban. The second one has the word “outrageous” removed.
The White House has just released an updated statement about the travel ban ruling— it removes the word "outrageous", talking abt the order. pic.twitter.com/Jse8PiPw8c
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 4, 2017
Washington state’s governor, Jay Inslee, said he felt heartened by the court ruling his his state.
We should feel heartened by today’s victory and more resolute than ever that we are fighting on the right side of history.
— Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) February 4, 2017
Conflicting court rulings on travel ban
Court challenges against the travel ban have been taking place in seven states across America. On Friday a federal court judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary injunction against Trump’s travel ban. According to that ruling, a temporary injunction against the ban would expire on Sunday. But the Washington state ruling in Seattle institutes a nationwide temporary restraining order. The two conflicting rulings have created legal chaos.
Updated
You can see the original statement by the White House press secretary here.
The White House had described the temporary order halting the travel ban from Washington state as “outrageous”. But a second statement from the White House has removed the word “outrageous”, suggesting a change of tone.
Reports out of the United States say the US Customs and Border Protection agency has told airlines to board travellers affected by President Trump’s travel ban. It follows a ruling in Washington state on Friday in which a federal court judge ordered a temporary halt on Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim nations, opening the path for states to sue the White House over his order. You can read the full story here:
A statement from the White House says the Department of Justice intends to file an “emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate.”
It said the president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people.
“As the law states: ‘Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Updated
