by Fred Barbash | The Washington Post
Statements made before and after the election by Donald Trump and his allies about his travel ban have been giving the administration headaches as it defends the executive order’s constitutionality.
The argument that the ban is purely secular has not fared well with judges when the Trump campaign website stated in advance that its purpose was “preventing Muslim immigration,” which has sounded to a number of courts like an unconstitutional religion-based restriction.
The same contradiction keeps coming up in public, too.
Monday, for example, a reporter asked White House press secretary Sean Spicer, “if this White House is no longer calling this a ‘Muslim ban’ … why does the president’s website still explicitly call for ‘preventing Muslim immigration?’”