The new ban on Trump dodges the traps confronted with the last attempt, say the experts

President Donald Trump has issued a new travel ban for people in 12 countries, revisiting a policy characteristic of his first mandate.

However, there are some key differences.

The original travel ban has undergone a series of legal defeats. This time, politics seems to have been designed to avoid the same traps.

His predecessor, which targeted seven countries with a Muslim predominance and was nicknamed “the Muslim ban” by criticism, was ordered just a week after Trump took office in 2017, during his first mandate in the White House.

The ban was modified twice to overcome judicial disputes, after the opponents argued that it was unconstitutional and illegal because it discriminated against travelers according to their religion.

A scale version was finally confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 2018, which is closely like this new ban.

Legal experts told the BBC that it seemed that Trump had learned the lessons of his first attempt.

Christi Jackson, an US Immigration Law Expert from the London firm Laura guesses immigration, said the new ban was more robust legally.

Although the first lacked “clarity”, the new restrictions were “wider” and had “clearly defined,” she said.

Although there are similarities in nations chosen by the 2017 ban and the 2025 ban, Muslim staffs are not the express objective of the last order.

Barbara McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan and former American lawyer for the Oriental District of Michigan, said the BBC World Service Newshour program which, on this basis, seemed likely to gain the approval of the Supreme Court if it was ever referred to this level.

The 12 countries subject to the most difficult restrictions of June 9 are mainly found in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean, especially in Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia.

There will be partial restrictions on travelers in seven other countries, including Cuban and Venezuelan nationals.

Trump said the strength of restrictions would be noted against the gravity of the perceived threat, including terrorism.

But in addition to Iran, none of the 12 countries struck by the outright ban is appointed to the list of state sponsors of the American government.

Trump quoted Sunday incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which a man was accused of having launched Molotov cocktails on demonstrators attending a walk for Israeli hostages, in a video announcing the ban on X.

The alleged striker was an Egyptian national. However, Egypt does not appear in any of the lists.

Trump has also specified high rates of people exceeding their visas as well as the list of certain countries.

However, Steven D Heller, an immigration lawyer based in the United States, said that there was a “lack of clarity” on what the threshold should be reached by the rate of exceeding a country for this country to be placed on Trump’s ban list. This could be the basis of a successful legal challenge, he suggested.

“If they rely on this notion of excessive surpassing rate … They must define what it really means,” he told the BBC.

But he noted that the existing American law had given the president large powers on immigration policy.

Unlike the first ban, which was to last only 90 to 120 days, today’s order has no end date.

He was faced with dismay in targeted countries.

Venezuela described the Trump administration as “supremacists who think that the world owns the world”, although Somalia has committed to “engage in dialogue to respond to the concerns raised”.

The original ban has stimulated mass manifestations and sowed chaos in American airports.

He was repealed in 2021 by Trump’s successor, President Joe Biden, who called politics “a stain on our national conscience”.

Immigration lawyer Shabnam Lotfi, who challenged the previous travel ban, said it would be a “difficult battle” to overthrow the news.

“The president has the power to determine who is eligible in the United States,” she said, adding that because of how the ban had been written, it was “more difficult to find a huge group of people who could file a collective appeal”.

“They said more about it.”

Ms. Lotfi noted that new restrictions could have consequences for students and other visa candidates abroad.

“Students who are trapped in administrative treatment are affected. The same goes for the winners of the diversity visa lottery who paid costs and went to interviews-it is unlikely to get visas now,” she said.

“Even EB -5 investors – people who have put more than a million dollars in the American economy – are affected. And H -1B visa holders are stuck abroad, waiting to return to their American employers, could also be blocked.”

Additional report by Leyla Khodabakhshi