Skip Navigation
Report

The Islamophobic Administration

Donald Trump’s vitri­olic anti-Muslim campaign rhet­oric was a preview for an unpre­ced­en­tedly Islamo­phobic admin­is­tra­tion. In a new analysis, the Bren­nan Center iden­ti­fies how the pres­id­ent and his White House staff and advisors have targeted Muslims through both speech and policy, tangibly harm­ing the Amer­ican Muslim community, in at least five forms: the use of anti-Muslim rhet­oric; the elev­a­tion of Islamo­phobic staff members to key posi­tions in the White House; the ban on visit­ors from seven Muslim-major­ity coun­tries from enter­ing the coun­try; the goal of making vetting proced­ures “extreme” for poten­tial visit­ors and immig­rants; and a lack of response to the rise in hate crimes targeted at Muslims and other groups.

Intro­duc­tion

This report exam­ines the Trump pres­id­ency through the lens of its impact on Amer­ican Muslims. During the campaign, Pres­id­ent Donald Trump traf­ficked in anti-Muslim rhet­oric, and proposed laws and policies target­ing Amer­ican Muslim communit­ies. The first few months of his admin­is­tra­tion have seen sustained attempts to put those propos­als into action. Within a week of taking office, Trump issued an exec­ut­ive order banning entry to the U.S. by trav­el­ers from seven Muslim coun­tries, along with all refugees. Stymied by court rulings halt­ing imple­ment­a­tion of the order, he revised the ban to remove its obvi­ously discrim­in­at­ory provi­sions (such as a de facto exemp­tion for Chris­ti­ans), but the latest version of the ban has also been enjoined by federal courts. In the mean­time, the admin­is­tra­tion has moved to develop a system of “extreme vetting” that is likely to apply with partic­u­lar intens­ity to Muslim trav­el­ers. 

Upon taking office, Trump quickly installed notori­ous Islam­a­phobes — includ­ing Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Sebastian Gorka — in the White House. Trump’s own blatantly anti-Muslim rhet­oric has emboldened people to act on their preju­dices, and hate crimes against Muslims have soared. In sum, Trump has created the most Islamo­phobic admin­is­tra­tion our coun­try has seen.

This agenda should not, however, be viewed as a complete aber­ra­tion. In some ways, it is an ampli­fic­a­tion and exten­sion of prac­tices and policies that became par for the course in post-Septem­ber 11 Amer­ica. Pres­id­ent George W. Bush built, and Pres­id­ent Barack Obama allowed to stand, national secur­ity laws and policies that treat Amer­ican Muslims as suspects, subject­ing them to wide­spread surveil­lance and pree­mpt­ive prosec­u­tion. Travel to the U.S. from most major­ity Muslim coun­tries was never easy, and extreme vetting has long been a real­ity for Amer­ican Muslims, espe­cially after the 9/11 attacks. Islamo­phobes have trained our soldiers and law enforce­ment officers and regu­larly test­i­fied at Congres­sional hear­ings. Hate crimes against Muslims have been an ongo­ing prob­lem, with rates spik­ing after the attacks of 9/11 and show­ing an over­all increase since 2010.1

Trump’s actions have galvan­ized a robust resist­ance move­ment, with thou­sands of people taking to the streets and airports across the coun­try to protest his ban on Muslims enter­ing the coun­try. His person­nel choices have been criti­cized across the polit­ical spec­trum, as has his silence on attacks on Muslims. All this is heart­en­ing, but the continu­ity between Trump’s policies and those of his prede­cessors must inform efforts both to push back against his blatant discrim­in­a­tion against Muslims and to shape new laws and policies that ensure equal­ity and secur­ity for all Amer­ic­ans.

Trump Anti-Muslim Speech

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Rhet­oric 

Trump’s inflam­mat­ory rhet­oric on Islam, and more gener­ally on immig­rants and foreign­ers, defined much of his campaign and laid the found­a­tion for the policies he would imple­ment, the advisors he would put into place, and the grow­ing fears that Amer­ican Muslims have for their safety and the safety of their famil­ies. To be sure, there is a long and sorry history of politi­cians ginning up fear and base­less preju­dice against the Muslim community, but now it has made its way to the White House. During the campaign, Trump consist­ently expressed suspi­cion and fear of Islam and Muslims: 

He stated categor­ic­ally that “Islam hates us,” and refused to dismiss the possib­il­ity that hate was “in Islam itself.”2

He called for a prohib­i­tion on Muslims enter­ing the coun­try, as described in more detail below. 

He proposed surveilling “certain mosques” and referred approv­ingly to the New York City Police Depart­ment’s (NYPD’s) program of mosque surveil­lance in the years after the 9/11 attacks, undeterred by the fact that its consti­tu­tion­al­ity had been chal­lenged in three lawsuits, one of which was recently settled with the police agree­ing to changes in the way they conduct invest­ig­a­tions and accept­ing more robust external over­sight.3

He repeated a disproven canard that Muslims in New Jersey cheered when the World Trade Center build­ings fell on 9/11 — even claim­ing, impossibly, that he saw it on tele­vi­sion.4

He insinu­ated that “the Muslim community does not report” terror­ists in their midst, a charge that the FBI itself says is flatly contra­dicted by the evid­ence.5

He endorsed the idea of requir­ing Muslims in the United States to register in a special data­base — a proposal he backed away from after criti­cisms that it resembled regis­tra­tion of Jews in Nazi Germany.6 One of his surrog­ates sugges­ted that Japan­ese intern­ment camps served as a suit­able preced­ent for the Muslim registry, despite the fact that the camps and the Supreme Court decision uphold­ing them have been repu­di­ated by a bipar­tisan Congres­sional commis­sion, bipar­tisan legis­la­tion signed by Pres­id­ent Reagan, and numer­ous judges and legal schol­ars.7

Trump has carried his suspi­cion of Amer­ican Muslims into office. Most recently, his admin­is­tra­tion signaled that it planned to rebrand the govern­ment’s program on Coun­ter­ing Viol­ent Extrem­ism, or CVE, to focus solely on Islamic extrem­ism.8  Even when CVE was ostens­ibly targeted at all forms of viol­ent extrem­ism, it was highly contro­ver­sial because in prac­tice it was direc­ted mainly at Muslims and provided ample oppor­tun­it­ies for law enforce­ment to spy on these communit­ies.9 Remov­ing the veneer of neut­ral­ity would only increase the stigma asso­ci­ated with CVE and the like­li­hood that it would be used by law enforce­ment agents as an intel­li­gence gath­er­ing tool. 

Trump’s unre­lent­ing hostil­ity towards Muslims is partic­u­larly strik­ing in light of the very differ­ent approach taken by other Repub­lican pres­id­ents. Pres­id­ent George W. Bush observed that “Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my coun­try,” and emphas­ized that “we respect people of all faiths and welcome the free prac­tice of reli­gion.”10 Not long after sign­ing legis­la­tion requir­ing the collec­tion and public­a­tion of data about hate crimes, his father, Pres­id­ent George H.W. Bush, publicly condemned anti-Muslim discrim­in­a­tion and urged Amer­ic­ans to “join together to rid our communit­ies of the poison of preju­dice, bias, and discrim­in­a­tion.”11 Pres­id­ents Gerald Ford and Dwight D. Eisen­hower simil­arly recog­nized the contri­bu­tions of the Islamic world and the links between Muslims and other people of faith.12

Islamophobes in the white house

Islamo­phobes in the White House

For more than a decade, fringe voices have sought to demon­ize Islam, a reli­gion prac­ticed by 1.5 billion people, includ­ing millions of Amer­ic­ans. Three themes have been prom­in­ent in this discourse: first, that Islam is not a legit­im­ate reli­gion, but a danger­ous polit­ical ideo­logy. Second, that the United States and other West­ern coun­tries are engaged in an exist­en­tial war with Islam. And third, that Amer­ican Muslim civil soci­ety organ­iz­a­tions and prom­in­ent Muslim public figures serve as fronts for the Muslim Broth­er­hood, which itself is a broad social and polit­ical move­ment that has never been desig­nated as a foreign terror­ist organ­iz­a­tion by the United States.13

These theor­ies justify aggress­ive milit­ary action abroad and the repres­sion of Amer­ican Muslims at home through invas­ive surveil­lance, reli­gious and ethnic profil­ing, and the jettis­on­ing of funda­mental consti­tu­tional protec­tions for reli­gious free­dom. Indi­vidu­als hold­ing these once fringe views now occupy cent­ral roles in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and appear to have a major hand in shap­ing blatantly discrim­in­at­ory policies such as the Muslim ban and the “extreme vetting” proced­ures being developed by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secur­ity (DHS). 

A trio of men exem­plify anti-Islam voices in the White House: Steve Bannon, the Pres­id­ent’s Senior Advisor; Michael Flynn, who until recently served as the Pres­id­ent’s National Secur­ity Advisor; and Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assist­ant to the Pres­id­ent. Their Islamo­phobic views have been widely repor­ted:

Steve Bannon has said that “Islam is not a reli­gion of peace. Islam is a reli­gion of submis­sion,” and has claimed that the West is “at war with Islam.”14

Michael Flynn has called Islam a “vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people” that must be “excised” and said that “fear of Muslims is rational.”15

Sebastian Gorka has argued that admit­ting Muslim refugees would be “national suicide” and claims that Islam and the Koran serve as the basis for much of terror­ism.16

All of these men are closely connec­ted to Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Secur­ity Policy, a think tank known for promot­ing an anti-Muslim agenda based on shoddy research.17 For example, Gaffney has promoted legis­la­tion to ban Sharia — which can loosely be defined as Islamic law and customs, includ­ing the basic tenets of prayer, fast­ing, char­ity, pilgrim­age, and avow­ing faith in Allah — in U.S. courts.18 Anti-Sharia legis­la­tion is a solu­tion in search of a prob­lem: Islamic law is used in U.S. courts in adju­dic­at­ing a small number of cases, such as contract disputes where the parties have chosen it as the applic­able law, but only when it does not conflict with funda­mental prin­ciples of Amer­ican law.19 Indeed, federal courts have found anti-Sharia bills to be uncon­sti­tu­tional because they target one faith.20 Gaffney, however, claims Islam is not a reli­gion entitled to protec­tion under the First Amend­ment but a total­it­arian ideo­logy.21 He is also a lead­ing proponent of the outland­ish theory that the Muslim Broth­er­hood controls Amer­ican Muslim civil soci­ety groups, a posi­tion that is derided as fantasy even by staunch crit­ics of the Broth­er­hood.22

Flynn has been fired, and there are rumblings that Bannon and perhaps even Gorka may be on their way out — all for reas­ons appar­ently unre­lated to their Islamo­pho­bia. Most recently, Bannon was removed from the National Secur­ity Coun­cil. But two members of Trump’s cabinet also have troub­ling records. Mike Pompeo, the new Director of the Cent­ral Intel­li­gence Agency, has appeared on Gaffney’s radio program over a dozen times in the past four years and has falsely claimed that “Islamic advocacy organ­iz­a­tions and many mosques across Amer­ica” do not condemn terror­ism and are “poten­tially compli­cit” in “extrem­ism.”23 Attor­ney General Jeff Sessions has a long record of hyping alleged threats from Muslim immig­ra­tion.24 Peri­odic staff changes aside, Trump appears to have built a team char­ac­ter­ized by its determ­in­a­tion to view Islam itself as a threat to the United States.


Banning Muslims from Amer­ica

Exactly a week after his inaug­ur­a­tion, Trump took the first step in deliv­er­ing on his campaign prom­ise of a “complete shut­down of Muslims enter­ing the United States.”25 He signed an exec­ut­ive order banning the nation­als of seven Muslim-major­ity coun­tries from enter­ing the coun­try; the order also halted the entry of refugees for 120 days, while barring Syrian refugees indef­in­itely.26 The order applied even to legal perman­ent resid­ents, many of whom had lived in the United States for years, as well as students and others hold­ing valid visas. Evid­ence of the intent to bar Muslims was found on the face of the order, which allowed exemp­tions for reli­gious minor­it­ies from the seven Muslim coun­tries — that is, non-Muslims. 

Federal courts quickly stopped imple­ment­a­tion of the order. A second version of the Muslim ban was issued on March 6, 2017.27 This time, legal perman­ent resid­ents and those hold­ing valid visas were exempt. Iraq was dropped from the list of coun­tries covered by the ban and the expli­cit pref­er­ence for non-Muslims was removed. The new rule did not pass muster with the courts either, with two federal courts block­ing the govern­ment from imple­ment­ing key parts. 

Trump’s travel bans were enjoined because courts recog­nized that — despite the admin­is­tra­tion’s claims of national secur­ity — they were aimed at exclud­ing Muslims from the United States. This contra­venes the Estab­lish­ment Clause of the First Amend­ment to the Consti­tu­tion, which prohib­its the govern­ment from favor­ing one faith over another. Courts did not have to look far to find evid­ence of the intent behind the orders. Trump’s own state­ments and those of his close advisers provided plenty of fodder. For example:

Trump Press Release, Dec. 7, 2015: “Donald J. Trump is call­ing for a total and complete shut­down of Muslims enter­ing the United States.”28

Trump on CNN’s 360 Degrees with Ander­son Cooper, March 6, 2016: “I think Islam hates us.” His spokes­per­son Katrina Pier­son added that the United States had “allowed this propa­ganda to spread all through the coun­try that [Islam] is a reli­gion of peace.”29

Trump in Fox Busi­ness inter­view, March 22, 2016: in reit­er­at­ing his call for a ban on Muslim immig­ra­tion, he explained that “we’re having prob­lems with the Muslims, and we’re having prob­lems with Muslims coming into the coun­try.”30

Trump during the second Pres­id­en­tial Debate, Oct. 9, 2016: “The Muslim ban is some­thing that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.” When asked to clarify whether “the Muslim ban still stands,” Mr. Trump said, “It’s called extreme vetting.”31

Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani explain­ing on tele­vi­sion how the Exec­ut­ive Order came to be, Jan. 28, 2017: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commis­sion together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”32

 Evid­ence like this led a federal district court in Hawaii to conclude that the state­ments that were made 

in the months lead­ing up to and contem­por­an­eous with the sign­ing of the Exec­ut­ive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Exec­ut­ive himself, betray the Exec­ut­ive Order’s stated secu­lar purpose. Any reas­on­able, object­ive observer would conclude … that the stated secu­lar purpose of the Exec­ut­ive Order is, at the very least, ‘sec­ond­ary to a reli­gious object­ive’ of tempor­ar­ily suspend­ing the entry of Muslims.33

Simil­arly, a federal district court in Mary­land found that:

These state­ments, which include expli­cit, direct state­ments of Pres­id­ent Trump’s animus towards Muslims and inten­tion to impose a ban on Muslims enter­ing the United States, present a convin­cing case that the First Exec­ut­ive Order was issued to accom­plish, as nearly as possible, Pres­id­ent Trump’s prom­ised Muslim ban.34

Both the Hawaii and Mary­land decisions were entered in prelim­in­ary proceed­ings where the courts were asked to prelim­in­ar­ily judge the like­li­hood that chal­lenges to Trump’s order would succeed. Other courts have looked at the same state­ments by Trump and his advisers and nonethe­less allowed the exec­ut­ive order to stand.35 The decisions enjoin­ing the orders are currently being appealed, and ulti­mately the matter will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Extreme Vetting

As noted above, shortly after becom­ing the offi­cial Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial nominee, Trump rolled out a new plan: “extreme vetting” for Muslims enter­ing the the United States.36  He proposed that the United States admit only those “who share our values and respect our people.” One campaign offi­cial explained that people who have “atti­tudes about women or atti­tudes about Chris­ti­ans or gays that would be considered oppress­ive” would be barred.37   

Soon after taking office, Trump seized the oppor­tun­ity to begin carry­ing out this campaign prom­ise, incor­por­at­ing into the first travel ban exec­ut­ive order a require­ment that a new vetting process be developed. While the bans have been stayed for now, the work on the vetting proced­ures appears to be continu­ing apace, and the clues that have emerged paint a picture of a system custom-made to discrim­in­ate against Muslims. Islamaphobia timeline

Perhaps most alarm­ingly, proponents of the ban describe the process as insti­tut­ing “a kind of ideo­lo­gical screen­ing.”38 While cloaked in a secur­ity rationale, the emer­ging proced­ure appears to be targeted specific­ally at Muslims: Depart­ment of Home­land Secur­ity offi­cials have indic­ated, for instance, that the proced­ure currently under discus­sion for visa applic­ants would query trav­el­ers about honor killings, the role of women in soci­ety, and legit­im­ate milit­ary targets.39 It is diffi­cult to see the connec­tion between a visit­or’s view of the role of women in soci­ety and terror­ism, but the connec­tion between such ques­tions and criti­cisms of the rights of women in Muslim soci­et­ies is plain.40 Relatedly, trav­el­ers have already begun to field invas­ive ques­tions about their beliefs, with some reportedly being asked whether they are Sunni or Shiite and why they are carry­ing a Quran in their luggage.41

Recent reports suggest the extreme vetting proced­ures may be insti­tuted for trav­el­ers from a number of coun­tries, includ­ing many of Amer­ica’s closest allies; these proced­ures could include, as a precon­di­tion for receiv­ing even a visitor visa, require­ments that applic­ants show immig­ra­tion offi­cials the contacts in their phones and reveal their social media handles and pass­words.42 And while the policy may be facially applic­able to visit­ors from all coun­tries, the focus on ideo­lo­gical issues that are often asso­ci­ated with Islam means that it is almost certain to be dispro­por­tion­ately targeted at Muslims. 

To be sure, ideo­lo­gical vetting has a long history. Anarch­ists were banned begin­ning in the early 20th century, and Commun­ists have been on the banned list as well.43 But concerns about ideo­lo­gical exclu­sion led Congress to add a provi­sion to the immig­ra­tion law banning certain instances of the prac­tice. 44 Not only is ideo­lo­gical vetting at odds with our coun­try’s history as an open demo­cracy that welcomes robust debate, it relies on the disproven assump­tion that certain beliefs them­selves consti­tute a secur­ity threat.45

Moreover, aspir­ing immig­rants and refugees are already subjec­ted to rigor­ous checks. Applic­ants for immig­rant visas are inter­viewed and gener­ally require a full medical exam and the collec­tion of biomet­ric data, a process that can take, in extreme cases, up to ten years.46 The process also includes secur­ity screen­ings, which can occupy an exten­ded period of time for applic­ants coming from coun­tries with an elev­ated risk of terror­ism.47 Refugee visas are even more time-intens­ive, involving as many as 20 steps, includ­ing “multiple inter­views and a secur­ity vetting by nine U.S. law enforce­ment, intel­li­gence and secur­ity agen­cies that check their back­grounds, social media activ­ity and the reas­ons they fled their coun­tries,” a process that can take up to two years — a long wait for vulner­able popu­la­tions flee­ing desper­ate situ­ations.48 And any visa applic­ant can expect to be checked against data­bases admin­istered by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secur­ity, Federal Bureau of Invest­ig­a­tion, and other agen­cies to confirm that they do not pose a secur­ity risk.49

In addi­tion, many of the proposed tests are likely to be inef­fect­ive. As a former Commis­sioner of the Immig­ra­tion and Natur­al­iz­a­tion Service has poin­ted out, ideo­lo­gical tests do not accur­ately predict how people will actu­ally behave.50 Like­wise, demands for access to would-be trav­el­ers’ cell phones will inev­it­ably drive bad actors to change their prac­tices by buying “clean” phones or under­tak­ing other meas­ures, under­min­ing any possible util­ity of the initi­at­ive. These tests are there­fore likely to be highly coun­ter­pro­duct­ive, under­min­ing the histor­ical tradi­tion of the U.S. as a plur­al­istic, welcom­ing coun­try without making Amer­ic­ans any safer.

Hate Crimes

Anti-Muslim rhet­oric ampli­fied by Trump himself during the campaign and since the elec­tion and inaug­ur­a­tion has coin­cided with a rise in hate crimes. Accord­ing to the FBI, during 2015, the year the pres­id­en­tial campaign season kicked off, hate crimes against Muslims soared nearly 67 percent — to the highest level since 9/11.51 A soon-to-be-published report from the Coun­cil on Amer­ican-Islamic Rela­tions is expec­ted to show that 2016 was the worst year on record for incid­ents in which mosques were targets of bias.52 In the first three months of 2017, viol­ence, vandal­ism, and aggres­sion toward mosques doubled compared to the previ­ous year.53

Follow­ing the elec­tion, reports of anti-Muslim incid­ents moun­ted. The South­ern Poverty Law Center, an organ­iz­a­tion that tracks hate groups and hate crimes, collec­ted anec­dotes about hundreds of incid­ents of hate and intim­id­a­tion towards a range of groups in the five days post-elec­tion.54 These included an account of a Muslim woman on an Oregon commuter train who was confron­ted by a group of teen­agers who called her a terror­ist, threatened that Trump was going to deport her, and told her she could not wear her hijab anymore; in Gwin­nett County, Geor­gia, a Muslim high school teacher received a note saying that her head­scarf “isn’t allowed anymore” and that she should hang herself with it. The stor­ies have not abated; from the end of Janu­ary 2017 through the end of March, there were approx­im­ately 32 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incid­ents, or an aver­age of one every other day.55

And while suggest­ing that Trump’s rhet­oric “caused” hate crimes is much too simplistic,  some perpet­rat­ors have not been not shy about invok­ing the pres­id­ent as their inspir­a­tion. In March, a note left at an Islamic Center in Des Moines, Iowa, threatened that the “new sher­iff in town — Pres­id­ent Donald Trump” was “going to cleanse Amer­ica” and would “start with you Muslims”; other Islamic centers have received similar notes.56 Last Decem­ber, a motor­ist called a Muslim Uber driver a “scum­bag” and “terror­ist,” yelling at him that because Trump had been elec­ted pres­id­ent, “you can kiss your visa good­bye” because “they’ll deport you soon.”57

At the same time, even in the face of entreat­ies from the affected communit­ies, Trump has been notably silent in response to bias-motiv­ated crimes. A week after an Indian engin­eer was killed in Olathe, Kansas, by a man who mistook his nation­al­ity for Iranian, Trump had yet to issue a state­ment.58 Simil­arly, after a wave of post-inaug­ur­a­tion incid­ents target­ing Jewish cemeter­ies and community centers, he waited weeks to address and finally condemn the events, draw­ing criti­cism from the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect and Jewish lead­ers.59

Perhaps the starkest example of the “Trump effect,” however, comes from the spike in hate crimes after he announced his proposal to ban Muslims enter­ing the United States. On Decem­ber 7, 2015,  Trump posted a state­ment on his campaign website call­ing for a “complete and total shut­down of Muslims enter­ing the United States until our coun­try’s repres­ent­at­ives can figure out what is going on.”60 He followed up the online post­ing with tweets and a public announce­ment at a campaign rally that even­ing. In the subsequent five days, anti-Muslim incid­ents in the United States rose nearly 90 percent as compared to the five days prior to the announce­ment.61

By contrast, on Septem­ber 17, 2001 — six days after the attacks of Septem­ber 11 — George W. Bush visited an Islamic Center in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. to meet with Amer­ican Muslim lead­ers. He gave a speech titled “Islam is Peace,” laud­ing the contri­bu­tions of Amer­ican Muslims and urging Amer­ic­ans to treat each other with respect. In the follow­ing days, anti-Muslim hate crimes dropped by a substan­tial margin as compared to the days before the speech.62 While Trump may not be respons­ible for every incid­ent of hate and intol­er­ance that occurs in his Amer­ica, history shows that words do matter.  

* * * * *

Well before the 100-day mark of his pres­id­ency, Pres­id­ent Trump and his asso­ci­ates have shown them­selves will­ing to turn anti-Muslim rhet­oric and policy ideas into action. We can anti­cip­ate more meas­ures focus­ing on these communit­ies, some of which may be obvi­ous and overt (such as the registry he once sugges­ted), while others will likely be more insi­di­ous and harder to expose (such as increased surveil­lance of Muslim communit­ies). In order to ensure safety, liberty and justice for all Amer­ic­ans, we must keep a keen watch and stand ready to oppose laws, polices and prac­tices anim­ated by preju­dice against Muslims.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Endnotes

1 Katayoun Kishi, “Anti-Muslim assaults reach 9/11-era levels, FBI data show,” Pew Research Center, Novem­ber 21, 2016, http://www.pewre­search.org/fact-tank/2016/11/21/anti-muslim-assaults-reach-911-era-levels-fbi-data-show/; Veron­ica Rocha, “San Fran­cisco man threatened to shoot Muslim woman in alleged hate crime, police say,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-fran­cisco-hate-crime-muslim-woman-20170323-story.html. 

2 Theodore Schleifer, “Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam hates us’,” CNN, March 10, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/polit­ics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/.

3 Maggie Haber­man, “Donald Trump Calls for Surveil­lance of ‘Cer­tain Mosques’ and a Syrian Refugee Data­base,” New York Times, Novem­ber 21, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/polit­ics/donald-trump-syrian-muslims-surveil­lance.html; Clayton Young­man, “Trump says NYPD used to spy on mosques,” Poli­ti­fact.com, Novem­ber 20, 2015,  http://www.poli­ti­fact.com/truth-o-meter/state­ments/2015/nov/20/donald-trump/trump-says-nypd-used-spy-mosques/; Philip Bump, “Surveilling Mosques? The NYPD has already tried the things proposed by 2016 Repub­lic­ans,” Wash­ing­ton Post, Novem­ber 23, 2015, https://www.wash­ing­ton­post.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/23/surveil­ing-mosques-the-nypd-has-already-tried-the-things-proposed-by-2016-repub­lic­ans/?utm_term=.9d57c9180fe4; Chris Fuchs, “Judge Approves Settle­ment Over Post-9/11 NYPD Muslim Surveil­lance,”NBC News, March 22, 2017, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-amer­ica/judge-approves-settle­ment-over-post-9–11-nypd-muslim-surveil­lance-n737101. 

4 Lauren Carroll, “Fact-check­ing Trump’s claim that thou­sands in New Jersey cheered when World Trade Center tumbled,” Poli­ti­fact.com, Novem­ber 22, 2015, http://www.poli­ti­fact.com/truth-o-meter/state­ments/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-check­ing-trumps-claim-thou­sands-new-jersey-ch/.

5 Kristina Cooke and Joseph Ax, “FBI to Trump: You’re wrong about Muslims report­ing extrem­ist threats,” Reuters, June 16, 2016, http://www.busi­ness­in­sider.com/r-us-offi­cials-say-amer­ican-muslims-do-report-extrem­ist-threats-2016–6.

6 Trip Gabriel, “Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Abso­lutely’ Require Muslims to Register,” New York Times, Novem­ber 20, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/polit­ics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-abso­lutely-require-muslims-to-register/.

7 David Sklansky, “Japan­ese Intern­ment Case Not ‘Good Law’,” Stan­ford Law School Blogs, Novem­ber 18, 2016, https://law.stan­ford.edu/2016/11/18/korematsu-is-not-good-law/.

8 Julia Ains­ley, Dustin Volz, and Kristina Cooke, “Exclus­ive: Trump to focus counter-extrem­ism program solely on Islam,” Reuters, Febru­ary 2, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extrem­ists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO. 

9 Faiza Patel and Megan Koushik, Coun­ter­ing Viol­ent Extrem­ism, Bren­nan Center for Justice, 2017, 9–10.

10 “Back­grounder: The Pres­id­ent’s Quotes on Islam,” White House Archives, accessed April 11, 2017, https://georgew­bush-white­house.archives.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html.

11 “Hate Crimes Timeline,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed April 11, 2017, http://www.hrc.org/resources/hate-crimes-timeline; “George H.W. Bush on Discrim­in­a­tion Against Muslims in White House Ques­tion-and-Answer Session,” Berkley Center for Reli­gion, Peace & World Affairs at Geor­getown Univer­sity, accessed April 11, 2017, https://berkley­cen­ter.geor­getown.edu/quotes/george-h-w-bush-on-discrim­in­a­tion-against-muslims-in-white-house-ques­tion-and-answer-session.

12 “Gerald Ford on Ramadan in a White House State­ment,” Berkley Center for Reli­gion, Peace & World Affairs at Geor­getown Univer­sity, accessed April 11, 2017, https://berkley­cen­ter.geor­getown.edu/quotes/gerald-ford-on-ramadan-in-a-white-house-state­ment; “Dwight Eisen­hower on the Cultural Contri­bu­tions of Muslims at Cere­mon­ies Open­ing the Islamic Center,” Berkley Center for Reli­gion, Peace & World Affairs at Geor­getown Univer­sity, accessed April 11, 2017, https://berkley­cen­ter.geor­getown.edu/quotes/dwight-eisen­hower-on-the-cultural-contri­bu­tions-of-muslims-at-cere­mon­ies-open­ing-the-islamic-center. 

13 Michael German and Faiza Patel, “What Does it Mean to Desig­nate the Muslim Broth­er­hood a Foreign Terror­ist Organ­iz­a­tion?”, Just Secur­ity, Janu­ary 26, 2017, https://www.just­se­cur­ity.org/36826/desig­nate-muslim-broth­er­hood-foreign-terror­ist-organ­iz­a­tion/.

14 Andrew Kaczyn­ski, “Steve Bannon in 2010: ‘Islam is not a reli­gion of peace. Islam is a reli­gion of submis­sion’,” CNN, Janu­ary 31, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/polit­ics/kfile-bannon-on-islam/; Clark Mindock, “Steve Bannon allegedly said he ‘believes the West is at war with Islam’,” Inde­pend­ent, Febru­ary 14, 2017, http://www.inde­pend­ent.co.uk/news/world/amer­icas/steve-bannon-war-islam-muslims-alt-right-donald-trump-a7580336.html; Scott Shane, “Stephen Bannon in 2014: We Are at War with Radical Islam,” New York Times, Febru­ary 1, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/inter­act­ive/2017/02/01/us/stephen-bannon-war-with-radical-islam.html. 

15 Andrew Kaczyn­ski, “Michael Flynn in August: Islam­ism is a ‘vicious cancer’ in body of all Muslims that ‘has to be excised’,” CNN, Novem­ber 22, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/polit­ics/kfile-michael-flynn-august-speech/; Alle­gra Kirk­land, “5 Points on Trump’s Anti-Muslim National Secur­ity Adviser Michael Flynn,” Talk­ing­Points­Memo.com, Novem­ber 18, 2016, http://talk­ing­points­memo.com/five­points/michael-flynn-trump-national-secur­ity-adviser-what-you-need-to-know.

16 Laura Stampler, “Trump’s Deputy Assist­ant, Sebastian Gorka, Has Frequently Denounced Islam,” Teen Vogue, Febru­ary 22, 2017, http://www.teen­vogue.com/story/trumps-deputy-assist­ant-sebastian-gorka-has-frequently-denounced-islam; Alle­gra Kirk­land, “How did Sebastian Gorka Go From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To White House Aide?,” Talk­ing­Points­Memo.com, Febru­ary 9, 2017, http://talk­ing­points­memo.com/dc/sebastian-gorka-wash­ing­ton-experts-dc-anti-islam-ties.  

17 Josh Harkin­son, “Campaign CEO Was a Big Promoter of Extrem­ists,” Mother Jones, Septem­ber 15, 2016, http://www.mother­jones.com/polit­ics/2016/09/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-muslims-fear-loath­ing; Kirk­land, “How did Sebastian Gorka Go From the Anti-Muslim Fringe to White House Aide?”; Stephen Piggot, “Trump’s National Secur­ity Advisor’s Twit­ter Account Shows Extent of Anti-Muslim Beliefs,” South­ern Poverty Law Center, Decem­ber 20, 2016, https://www.splcen­ter.org/hate­watch/2016/12/20/trumps-national-secur­ity-advisors-twit­ter-account-shows-extent-anti-muslim-beliefs; Philip Bump: “Meet Frank Gaffney, the anti-Muslim gadfly reportedly advising Donald Trump’s trans­ition team,” Wash­ing­ton Post, Novem­ber 16, 2016, https://www.wash­ing­ton­post.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/meet-frank-gaffney-the-anti-muslim-gadfly-who-produced-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-poll/. 

18 Andrea Elli­ott, “The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Move­ment,” New York Times, July 30, 2011, https://nyti.ms/2k8q4YD. 

19 Faiza Patel, Matthew Duss, and Amos Toh, Foreign Law Bans: Legal Uncer­tain­ties and Prac­tical Prob­lems, Bren­nan Center for Justice, 2013, 6–7. 

20 Huma Khan, “Oklaho­ma’s Ban on Sharia Law Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court,” ABC News, Janu­ary 11, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/polit­ics/2012/01/oklaho­mas-ban-on-Sharia-law-struck-down-by-federal-appeals-court/. 

21 Sarah Posner, “Welcome to the Shar­i’ah Conspir­acy Theory Industry,” Reli­gionDis­patches.org, March 8, 2011, http://reli­giondis­patches.org/welcome-to-the-Shariah-conspir­acy-theory-industry/; Peter Bein­art, “The Dena­tion­al­iz­a­tion of Amer­ican Muslims,” The Atlantic, March 19, 2017, https://www.theat­lantic.com/polit­ics/archive/2017/03/frank-gaffney-donald-trump-and-the-dena­tion­al­iz­a­tion-of-amer­ican-muslims/519954/. 

22 Bein­art, “The Dena­tion­al­iz­a­tion of Amer­ican Muslims.” 

23 CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speak­ing on H. 3258, on June 11, 2013, 113th Cong., 1st sess. Congres­sional Record 159. 

24 Adam Serwer, “Jeff Session­s’s Fear of Muslim Immig­rants,” Atlantic, Febru­ary 8, 2017, https://www.theat­lantic.com/polit­ics/archive/2017/02/jeff-sessions-has-long-feared-muslim-immig­rants/516069/; Alan Neuhauser, “Sessions Voices Oppos­i­tion to Muslim Immig­ra­tion Ban,” U.S. News, Janu­ary 10, 2017, https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017–01–10/trump-nominee-jeff-sessions-voices-oppos­i­tion-to-muslim-immig­ra­tion-ban; Betsy Wood­ruff, “Trump Attor­ney General to Pick Jeff Sessions Argued for Reli­gious Test to Ban Muslims,” Daily Beast, Novem­ber 19, 2016, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/19/trump-attor­ney-general-pick-jeff-sessions-argued-for-a-reli­gious-test-to-ban-muslims.html.   

25 “Donald J. Trump State­ment on Prevent­ing Muslim Immig­ra­tion,” last modi­fied Decem­ber 7, 2015, https://www.donald­jtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-state­ment-on-prevent­ing-muslim-immig­ra­tion. 

26 Exec­ut­ive Order 13769 of Janu­ary 27, 2017, Protect­ing the Nation From Foreign Terror­ist Entry Into the United States, Federal Register  82, no. 20 (Febru­ary 1, 2017): 8977, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017–02–01/pdf/2017–02281.pdf.

27 Exec­ut­ive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017, Protect­ing the Nation from Foreign Terror­ist Entry Into the United States, Federal Register 82, no. 45 (March 9, 2017): 13209, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017–03–09/pdf/2017–04837.pdf.

28 “Donald J. Trump State­ment” (see note 25 above). 

29 Schleifer, “Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam hates us’” (see note 2 above). 

30 Mark Hensch and Jesse Byrnes, “Trump: ‘Frankly, we’re having prob­lems with the Muslims,” The Hill, March 22, 2016, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres­id­en­tial-races/273857-trump-frankly-were-having-prob­lems-with-the-muslims.

31 Daniel Strauss, “Trump defends proposal for Muslim ban as call for ‘extreme vetting’,” Politico, Octo­ber 9, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/2016-pres­id­en­tial-debate-donald-trump-muslim-ban-extreme-vetting-229468.

32 Amy Wang, “Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says – and ordered a commis­sion to do it ‘leg­ally’,” Wash­ing­ton Post, Janu­ary 29, 2017, https://www.wash­ing­ton­post.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commis­sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.b4c6902e4963. 

33 State of Hawai’i and Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 219 Civ. 00050 (D.Haw Mar. 15, 2017). 

34 Inter­na­tional Refugee Assist­ance Project, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., TDC-17–0361 (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2017) (memor­andum opin­ion). 

35 Linda Sarsour, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:17 Civ. 00120 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) (memor­andum opin­ion); Arghavan Louhghalam, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:17 Civ. 10154 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017). 

36 Jeremy Diamond, “Trump proposes values test for would-be immig­rants in fiery ISIS speech,” CNN, August 15, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/polit­ics/donald-trump-isis-fight/.

37 Ibid. 

38 Deborah Amos, “Trump Back­ers Want Ideo­logy Test for Extreme Vetting,” NPR, Febru­ary 4, 2017, http://www.npr.org/sections/paral­lels/2017/02/04/513289953/trump-back­ers-want-ideo­logy-test-for-extreme-vetting.

39 Laura Meck­ler, “Trump Admin­is­tra­tion Considers Far-Reach­ing Steps for ‘Extreme Vetting’,” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-admin­is­tra­tion-considers-far-reach­ing-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602. 

40 Faiza Patel, “Reflec­tions on the preju­dice in the draft Exec Order’s vetting of ‘pre­ju­dice’,” Just Secur­ity, Janu­ary 27, 2017, https://www.just­se­cur­ity.org/36898/reflec­tions-preju­dice-draft-exec-orders-vetting-preju­dice/; Faiza Patel and Erica Posey, “Beware Trump’s Phony ‘Ter­ror’ List,” Daily Beast, March 22, 2017, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/22/beware-trump-s-phony-terror-list.html. 

41 Marcy Kreiter, “Muslim Ban? Border and Immig­ra­tion Officers Ques­tion Muslims About Their Reli­gion and Polit­ics, Civil Rights Group Complains,” Inter­na­tional Busi­ness Times, Janu­ary 18, 2017, http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-ban-border-immig­ra­tion-offi­cials-ques­tion-muslims-about-their-reli­gion-2477312. 

42 Meck­ler, “Trump Admin­is­tra­tion” (see note 39 above).  

43 Amos, “Trump Back­ers” (see note 38 above); Immig­ra­tion and Nation­al­ity Act of 1952,  8 U.S.C. § 1182(3)(D)(i) (1952). 

44 Immig­ra­tion and Nation­al­ity Act of 1952,  8 U.S.C. § 1182(3)(C)(iii) (1952). 

45 Patel and Koushik, “Coun­ter­ing Viol­ent Extrem­ism,” 9–10 (see note 9 above).

46 Lauren Said-Moor­house and Ryan Browne, “Donald Trump wants ‘extreme vetting’ of immig­rants. What is the US doing now?,” CNN, August 16, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/polit­ics/how-us-vets-immig­rants-donald-trump-extreme-vetting/; “How Long Does it Take for an Immig­rant to Legally Come to the United States?,” Amer­ican Immig­ra­tion Center, last modi­fied Decem­ber 12, 2011, https://www.us-immig­ra­tion.com/us-immig­ra­tion-news/us-immig­ra­tion/how-long-does-it-take-for-an-immig­rant-to-legally-come-to-the-united-states/.

47 Said-Moor­house and Browne, “Donald Trump wants ‘extreme vetting’”. 

48 Amos, “Trump Back­ers”; Haeyoun Park and Larry Buchanan, “Refugees Enter­ing the U.S. Already Face a Rigor­ous Vetting Process,” New York Times, Janu­ary 29, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/inter­act­ive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0.   

49 Benjamin Wittes and Susan Hennes­sey, “Memo to the NSC: Check Out Some Data­bases at the State Depart­ment before Final­iz­ing that New Exec­ut­ive Order,” Lawfare, Febru­ary 24, 2017, https://www.lawfareb­log.com/memo-nsc-check-out-some-data­bases-state-depart­ment-final­iz­ing-new-exec­ut­ive-order. 

50 Amos, “Trump Back­ers.” 

51 Matt Zapo­tosky, “Hate crimes against Muslims hit highest mark since 2001,” Wash­ing­ton Post, Novem­ber 14, 2016, http://wapo.st/2fSh­PRG?tid=ss_tw-bottom

52 “CAIR-Sacra­mento Urges FBI to Probe Hate Vandal­ism Target­ing Davis Mosque,” CAIR, last modi­fied Janu­ary 23, 2017, https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14033-cair-sacra­mento-urges-fbi-to-probe-hate-vandal­ism-target­ing-davis-mosque.html.

53 Rachel Revesz, “U.S. Islamo­pho­bia: Threats and acts of vandal­ism against mosques double so far in 2017,” Inde­pend­ent, March 15, 2017, http://www.inde­pend­ent.co.uk/news/world/amer­icas/us-mosques-threats-double-islamo­pho­bia-threats-vandal­ism-2017-cair-amer­ican-islamic-rela­tions-a7631581.html.

54 “Update: More Than 400 Incid­ents of Hate­ful Harass­ment and Intim­id­a­tion Since the Elec­tion,” South­ern Poverty Law Center, last modi­fied Novem­ber 15, 2016, https://www.splcen­ter.org/hate­watch/2016/11/15/update-more-400-incid­ents-hate­ful-harass­ment-and-intim­id­a­tion-elec­tion.

55 Anne Branigin, “A Timeline of Anti-Immig­rant and Anti-Muslim Incid­ents Since Trump Took Power,” Fusion, last modi­fied April 4, 2017, http://fusion.net/a-timeline-of-anti-immig­rant-and-anti-muslim-incid­ents-1793772492. 

56 Molly Long­man, “Anti-Islam note leaves Des Moines community shaken,” Des Moines Register, March 20, 2017, https://www.usat­oday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/20/anti-islam-note-des-moines/99401366/.

57 Holly Yan, Kristina Sgueglia, and Kylie Walker, “‘Make Amer­ica White Again’: Hate speech and crimes post-elec­tion,” CNN, Decem­ber 22, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-elec­tion-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/.

58 “Edit­or­ial: Trump’s silence on deadly Olathe shoot­ing is disquiet­ing,” Kansas City Star, Febru­ary 27, 2017, http://www.kansas­city.com/opin­ion/edit­or­i­als/article135323049.html.

59 “Jewish lead­ers criti­cize Pres­id­ent Trump for response to anti-Semitic attacks,” Fox 6 Now, Febru­ary 21, 2017, http://fox6now.com/2017/02/21/jewish-lead­ers-criti­cize-trump-for-response-to-anti-semitic-attacks-tmwsp/; Jaweed Kaleem and Alene Tchekm­edyian, “Trump denounces anti-Semit­ism after Jewish community centers receive 68 bomb threats in six weeks,” Los Angeles Times, Febru­ary 21, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-jewish-community-center-threats-20170221-story.html. 

60 “Donald J. Trump State­ment” (see note 25 above).  

61 Brian Levin, Special Status Report: Hate Crime in the United States, Center for the Study of Hate & Extrem­ism, 2016, 33. 

62 Ibid, 30. 

_________

EVOL­U­TION OF EXTREME VETTING

Sources

July 17, 2016: “ e Repub­lican Ticket: Trump and Pence,” CBS News, July 17, 2016, http://www.cbsnews.com/ news/60-minutes-trump-pence-repub­lican-ticket/.

August 15, 2016: John Santucci and Veron­ica Strac­qua­lursi, “Donald Trump Proposes ‘Extreme Vetting’ for Immig­rants, With Ideo­lo­gical Screen­ing Test,” ABC News, August 15, 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/Polit­ics/donald-trump- proposes-extreme-vetting-immig­rants-ideo­lo­gical-screen­ing/ story?id=41392682.

Octo­ber 9, 2016: Kim Hjelmgaard, “Analysis: Trump’s Muslim ban ‘morphs’ into ‘extreme vetting,’” USA Today, Octo­ber 10, 2016, https://www.usat­oday.com/story/news/ polit­ics/2016/10/10/trump-muslim-ban-morphs-into- extreme-vetting-clin­ton-pres­id­en­tial-debate/91844000/.

Janu­ary 25, 2017: Kait­lan Collins, “Trump Says He
Will Deliver on ‘Extreme Vetting’ for Immig­rants and Refugees,” Daily Caller, Janu­ary 26, 2017, http://dailyc­aller. com/2017/01/26/trump-says-he-will-deliver-on-extreme- vetting-for-immig­rants-and-refugees/.)

Febru­ary 7, 2017: Alex­an­der Smith, “U.S. Visit­ors May Have to Hand Over Social Media Pass­words: DHS,” NBC News, Febru­ary 8, 2017, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ us-visit­ors-may-have-hand-over-social-media-pass­words- kelly-n718216.

March 23, 2017: Yeganeh Torbati, Mica Rosen­berg, and Arshad Mohammed, “Exclus­ive: U.S. embassies ordered
to identify popu­la­tion groups for tougher visa screen­ing,” Reuters, March 23, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us- usa-immig­ra­tion-visas-exclus­ive-idUSKBN16U12X.

April 4, 2017: Laura Meck­ler, “Trump Admin­is­tra­tion Considers Far-Reach­ing Steps for ‘Extreme Vetting,’” e Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/ articles/trump-admin­is­tra­tion-considers-far-reach­ing-steps- for-extreme-vetting-1491303602?mod=e2tw.