Trump recently signed a revised executive order to restrict travellers from specified countries for 90 days.

What are some of the differences between the 2 executive orders (13769 and 13780)?

3 Answers 3


There are a few major difference between the two executive orders.

Basic information

Both executive orders share the same name, but has different numbers.

1. Iraq is now not included in the revised travel ban.

As quoted from the fact sheet provided by the White House:

On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the Government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States. As a result of this increased information sharing, Iraqi citizens are not affected by the Executive Order.

This is likely due to lobbying from the Iraqi government, as quoted from this CNN article:

Iraq was removed from the revised travel ban executive order after intensive lobbying from the Iraqi government at the highest levels, according to a senior US official.

That included a phone call between Trump and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on February 10 and an in-person conversation between Abadi and Vice President Mike Pence in Munich on February 18.

(emphasis mine)

2. Visas previously issued will be valid.

All visas that were issued before the effective date of the order will continue to be valid.

Text of the executive order:

(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;

(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and

(iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.

(emphasis mine)


Thus any individual who had a valid visa either on January 27, 2017 (prior to 5:00 PM) or holds a valid visa on the effective date of the Executive Order is not barred from entry.

(emphasis mine)

3. It will not go into effect immediately.

The effective date of the order is 12:01am EDT on March 16.

Technically, this means that citizens from the mentioned countries can continue to apply for visas for 10 days, though it is not mentioned if any applications will be approved.

4. Permanent residents are not included in the ban

Lawful permanent residents or green-card holders will not be included in the ban.

(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

[ ... ]

(emphasis mine)

Useful links:

  • 12
    For what it is worth, I was chatting with a lawyer last week (pre-exec order) who had been following this in the news. He said it was his understanding that the new executive order was intended to be as close to the first but with minor tweaks to strip detractors of [Standing] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) so that they could not challenge it in court. Based on what is listed here I think that seems to make sense.
    – user12841
    Mar 6, 2017 at 19:51
  • 7
    5. The first is hung up in court. The second is not (at least, not yet). :)
    – user1530
    Mar 6, 2017 at 23:49
  • 4
    @DanK: I suppose the administration's way of looking at that, is that the new order is as close as possible to the first, but with minor tweaks to make it legal. Not that I expect many of Trump's team to publicly admit that the orginal order wasn't legal. Mar 7, 2017 at 11:01
  • 3
    @SteveJessop The original entry ban was legal. Stupid, but legal. It's authorized by 8 USC 1182(f), which effectively gives the President the power to ban any class of (or all) non-U.S. citizens from entering the country whenever he wants to for however long he wants to if he deems it "to be in the national interest." It's an absurdly broad statute that really needs to be either reduced or eliminated by Congress. The part of the original EO that was likely illegal was the part that allowed religious discrimination for the refugee admission program, but that didn't affect the entry ban section.
    – reirab
    Mar 7, 2017 at 19:12
  • 5
    @reirab the fact that a statute authorizes something doesn't make that thing legal. Like every federal statute, 8 USC 1182(f) is subject to review by the courts where it conflicts with the constitution or with other statutes (such as 8 USC 1152). The other view is that the EO was illegal because it was motivated by religious animus, even if that was not inherent in the text. Court precedent holds that a discriminatory purpose is by itself sufficient to render an act discriminatory.
    – phoog
    Mar 8, 2017 at 6:01

Adding some points to Panda's answer:

  • The new order clarifies the situation for dual citizens. Travelers will be treated based on the passport they present; for instance, a British citizen can still enter even if she is also a Syrian citizen, as long as she is traveling on her British passport.
  • Anyone who had a visa when the last order took effect can travel; even if the visa was revoked based on the last order, the new order provides for them to get a document allowing them to travel to the US.
  • Anyone in the US when the order goes into effect is not affected, nor is anyone admitted after the order goes into effect (so if you get a waiver and travel to the US, you don't need to reapply for a waiver to come a second time).
  • Consular officers now have the authority to waive the suspension, and there are examples in the order of when a waiver may be justified.
  • The refugee program is still suspended, but there is no longer a priority for religious minorities.
  • 4
    So considering these changes, how is it intended to prevent terrorists from entering the country? It seems very easy to circumvent.
    – Dai
    Mar 6, 2017 at 18:56
  • 16
    Ding ding ding, @Dai wins the prize. Immigration control is inherently full of vagary. Any system tight enough to actually stop "the bad guys" will also screw up vast numbers of innocents; any system open enough to allow ordinary people through will never provide full protection.
    – Foo Bar
    Mar 6, 2017 at 19:59
  • 5
    @Dai likely based on the assumption that foreign terror attacks don't often occur on US soil anyways- in fact, since and including 9/11, there have been exactly three terror attacks by non-citizens in the United States.
    – Delioth
    Mar 6, 2017 at 20:27
  • 4
    @Delioth: If you're counting the 2009 Little Rock shooting in that total, it's worth noting that the perpetrator, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, was a U.S. citizen as well. As far as I can tell, he would have been allowed in under the new ban—or the old one, for that matter. (The attack is on that list because he was acting at the behest of a foreign organization, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.) Mar 6, 2017 at 22:11
  • 5
    @Delioth If he was born in Tennessee, then he's a citizen of the U.S., unless he had renounced his citizenship at some point. Citizens are not affected by the entry ban; it's not legal to issue an entry ban for citizens. The statute authorizing the President to issue entry bans applies only to 'aliens' (people who are not nationals of the U.S.) and the U.S. is party to treaties that require a country to grant entry to its own citizens.
    – reirab
    Mar 7, 2017 at 19:16

Two points in addition to those already made:

  • The new order applies to nationals of the indicated countries. The first order applied (ambiguously, vaguely, and confusingly) to aliens from the indicated countries.

  • The new order explicitly names six countries; the first order indicated the affected countries by reference to a section of the law that governs the Visa Waiver Program.

Here's the relevant part of the new order, emphasis added:

I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.

Here's the analogous part of the first order, emphasis added:

... pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

  • What exactly is the legal difference (in practical terms) as far as the first point? Are they both precisely defined but different sets; or is it more that one is precisely defined and another is vague wording that can be interpreted any which way?
    – user4012
    Mar 8, 2017 at 15:22
  • 2
    @user4012 "aliens from" is vague and would probably have caused the order to fail as "unconstitutionally vague" because it's not possible to determine with specificity who the order applies to. At some point, it was asserted (by a third party, granted) that it applied to those who were "traveling from" those countries regardless of nationality. Is someone born in one of those countries "from" that country? Does the answer change if the person formerly held that country's nationality, or never held it?
    – phoog
    Mar 8, 2017 at 16:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .