This resource provides communications focused recommendations for repealing President Trump's Muslim Ban and its expansions, as well as achieving fixes like the No Ban Act.
Some items in this resource are for groups with C4 capacity. Those items are indicated by (C4). ReThink will continue to update this resource as the news and policy landscape related to the Muslim Ban shifts.
How do I use this resource?
- The News Updates section condenses key new facts you need to know.
- The Strategic Recommendations section contains ideas you should keep top of mind while messaging on the issue.
- Sections with “Messaging” in the title are derived from our research on how to be persuasive to a broad range of audiences.
- The "Fielding Common Questions" section helps you address and rebut a number of points used by the ban’s supporters.
- The Elite Reporter Contact List is attached for you to download and use as you pitch reporters.
- Other sections add data for you to consider as well as activities and further resources from our partner organizations.
Are you headed to an interview and do not have time to read the entire document? Scroll straight to the messaging sections.
News Updates
July 22: The House of Representatives passed the NO Ban Act to repeal Trump’s Muslim Ban and all its expansions. The bill also limits the president’s authority to pass future travel bans. This bill is not expected to move forward in the Senate. Two Republicans crossed the aisle to vote yes on the bill: Texas Rep. Will Hurd and Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick.
After it was passed, Democratic presidential nominee Biden said on Twitter that if elected, he would repeal the ban on his first day in office.
July 20: Biden vowed to repeal the Muslim Ban on his first day in office if he is elected. Biden made the pledge during an online address at the "Million Muslim Votes" summit hosted by the Muslim American advocacy group Emgage Action.
See the "Current Political Situation" section at the end of this document for insight into the strategic situation in the wake of the U.S. House passing the No Ban Act.
Target Audience
We need to keep the pressure on Biden to repeal Trump’s Muslim Ban on his first day in office. That means continuing outreach to members of Biden’s campaign and progressive influencers in the Democratic Party who may shape this transition.
C4: The House has already voted to repeal the ban, but the bill is not expected to move forward in the Senate this year. If our goal is an end to the Muslim Ban and any expansion, then we need to prepare to target Democrats that may be elected in November. That includes a potential Biden administration and any future Democratic senators.
The NO BAN Act limits future presidents’ authority to pass future travel bans using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While Biden has spoken about repealing the Muslim Ban, he has not indicated any intention to change section 212(f) through executive order. If there are more Democrats in the Senate in 2021, it will be worth pushing the NO BAN Act forward.
Talking Points
Undoing Trump’s first racist act is a strong signal of unraveling his racism. Trump’s first act as president was to enforce a racist policy, with the clear intention of banning Muslims. By repealing this ban, Biden will be reversing the first mark of racism from the Trump administration. He needs to do this on his first day in office.
We are stronger as a nation when we defend religious freedom for all, a traditional hallmark of U.S. First Amendment rights, rather than when we give in to the president’s fear and division.
Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The anti-Muslim bias present at its inception remains intact. Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told reporters that Trump had asked him how to legally implement a Muslim Ban. The first version of the ban targeted only Muslim-majority countries and provided an exemption for non-Muslims in those countries. It was immediately blocked by our courts. The government's application of legal concealer does not alter President Trump's intent to implement a policy of faith-based discrimination.
[Note: Religious freedom continues to test very strongly with audiences when evaluating impactful messages around the Muslim Ban.]
This is not an isolated policy, it is part of a broad campaign against immigrants and communities of color. This is not okay.
We cannot view the Muslim Ban and its expansion to nearly a quarter of the people in Africa in isolation.
Families are being separated, children are being detained indefinitely in centers with quite frankly horrific conditions, and people with valid visas have been deported from this country. This is all part of a larger attack on Black and brown people in this country.
American families across the country are being separated by the Muslim Ban. While the president tries to score points with his political base, there is a deeply personal toll inflicted on people from the impacted countries and their families.
We want evidence-based security policy.
Trump promised a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." He has had three years to figure out "what the hell is going on" and has yet offered no justification for such bans.
Meanwhile, attacks by white supremacists are growing and completely ignored by this administration.
Americans today recognize white supremacist violence as the most likely source of a mass attack, yet the president prefers to focus his attention on ordinary Black and brown immigrants instead. Trump’s immigration-policy architect Steven Miller has shared emails praising white nationalism, and the president himself has called white supremacists “very fine people.”
We are for evidence-based security policy, not policy based on whim, a craving for headlines, and election-year gifts to his political base.
Strategic Recommendations
[The points in this section are messaging strategy to keep in mind when speaking on the issue.]
We need to remind people of the ban’s original intent. In the research we have conducted, opposition to the Muslim Ban increases when we remind audiences of its bigoted origin. They need that reminder. In February 2020, ReThink Media conducted two in-person focus groups with Democratic policy elites. They need to be reminded that Trump promised a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." It was clear this was not top of mind until our moderator reminded them. Similarly, the airport protests we remember so vividly seem to be mixed into a jumble of crisis moment memories that occurred in the wake of the 2016 election.
Always call it a Muslim Ban. As noted above, audiences are forgetting Trump's 2015 promise of a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." We have to remind them. Many editors prefer the term “travel ban” after the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. By including Muslim Ban in your quotes, you ensure the term appears in the final coverage.
[Note: While the ban has been expanded to African countries as well, our testing has found that most people do not recognize the term “Africa ban.”]
Avoid asserting that the ban hurts American interests or national security. Such messages affirm the underlying proposition of a ban, but only in the context of a warning that it can backfire. This narrowly defines impacted people as only useful through the national security lens rather than unequivocally affirming their legal and civil rights.
When possible, cite local and personal stories.
You can find stories in Muslim Advocates’ compendium, the ACLU's Living with the Muslim Ban, or this document by the National Immigration Law Center.
Fielding Common Questions
What if they say it is not a Muslim Ban?
Good. They are being defensive and you have the initiative.
This was a central Trump campaign promise: “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The anti-Muslim bias present at its inception remains intact, no matter who they add. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told reporters that Trump had asked him how to legally implement a Muslim Ban. The first version of the ban targeted only Muslim-majority countries and provided an exemption for religious minorities in those countries, making its target faith clear. In her dissent of the Supreme Court's ruling, Justice Sotomayor wrote the court was endorsing a policy "motivated by animosity toward" Muslims. The government's application of legal concealer does not alter President Trump's intent to implement a policy of faith-based discrimination. The Islamophobic bias in the original order was so clear that courts immediately blocked it. It took significant legal revisions to mask the ban’s vulgar intent for the Supreme Court. The administration likes its Muslim Ban so much, it continues to expand it to target other non-white communities.
What if they bring up the waiver process?
Waivers are rare and inconsistently given. The Trump administration, which has a reputation for dishonesty, asserts that all applicants automatically get considered for a waiver. However, as Justice Breyer pointed out, there are many individuals, including those with life-threatening diseases, academic scholars, international students, and business persons who have been denied waivers.
The administration has said a mere 10 percent of waiver requests are accepted. The process remains opaque despite a number of FOIA requests. There are lawsuits to challenge the waiver process and the criteria to obtain one.
What if they accuse us of wanting to make the country less safe? Alternatively, what if they say the ban is about national security?
Trump promised a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." He has had three years to figure out "what the hell is going on" and has yet offered no justification for such bans. Three years later, instead of targeting acts of mass violence based on evidence, he continues to single out entire groups of people based on either their faith or their residence in what he deems “sh*thole” countries. Trump said that Nigerians will never go back to their “huts” once they have seen America.
The only viable explanation of such blanket bans after three years is that this is another piece of a broad campaign targeting immigrants and communities of color.
What if they mention Trump’s travel bans during the pandemic?
The bill ensures the president can act to protect our nation. The president will continue to have the power to restrict immigration for public health concerns.
Trump, on the other hand, promised to ban an entire religion from our nation. This legislation ensures we put protecting religious freedom over enforcing bigoted election promises.
Obama also instituted a travel ban. Was it racist and xenophobic then?
We want evidence-based security policy. Obama’s bans were narrow in scope and evidence based.
Trump’s ban is based on his call for "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." He has had three years to figure out "what the hell is going on" and has yet offered no justification for such bans.
"Elite" Reporter Contact List
Please find our new "elite" reporter contact list available to download at the bottom of this page. We have intentionally kept this list short so that you can tailor personal outreach to each of these key reporters. In addition to blasting your statement to many reporters, we hope you will reach out individually to these top journalists.
Strategic Insight from Message Research
ReThink Media conducted new messaging research in September 2019. Some of our findings (which are not to be shared publicly) that we think should inform our collective efforts.
- Most people believe the Ban functions as a Muslim Ban. Keep your messaging focused on opposing the Muslim Ban and the value of religious non-discrimination. We found evidence that Americans distinguish between the concept of a Muslim Ban and Trump’s Executive Order, with more disapproval of the concept (average of 16-point higher disapproval) than of the EO (hovered around 50%).
- By 2-to-1 margin, Americans say terrorism motivated by white supremacy is a more immediate threat than Islamic extremism (55–27%)
- (C4) Our polling indicated that 37% of people support the No Ban Act while 37% have no opinion or haven’t. That means you need to give them detail. When many people hear about the No Ban Act, they are unsure what it means. It could be No assault weapon ban or it could be a discussion about women’s reproductive rights.
- (C4) Similarly, when talking about the No Ban Act, when you lead messages that it would prohibit this type of religion-based discrimination in the future, you are more persuasive.
Current Political Environment
Biden Campaign. On July 20, Biden spoke to participants in Emgage Action’s virtual policy conference and promised to repeal the ban on day one of his administration. He tweeted about this commitment in the wake of the U.S. House passage of the No Ban Act on Wednesday, July 22.
On its website, the Biden campaign asserts, “As President, Joe will rescind the Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban on day one and urge Congress to pass the No Ban Act to ensure future administrations cannot restore Trump’s Ban.”
Democrats. The U.S House passed the No Ban Act on July 22. It will die in the GOP led Senate. Behind the scene, House leadership told lobbyists that they were concerned that Democrats in close re-election races needed to feel secure that a vote in favor of the bill would not expose them to national security attacks.
The draft Democratic Party platform is always a good indicator of what party elites think will build a big enough coalition to win an election. It currently reads, “We will immediately terminate the Trump Administration’s discriminatory travel and immigration bans that disproportionately impact Muslim and African people…” Further mention of Islam and Muslims in the platform mixed. Islamophobia is in their list of bad things, but the section titled “Terrorism” continues the Clinton pattern of working with Muslims in a national security context, then immediately mentions closing Gitmo.
Trump Campaign. We expect Trump to continue to sow societal discord. Trump and his surrogates primarily center MASA communities as a national security threat within the campaign’s immigration narrative. In late July, Trump retweeted Islamophobe Paul Sperry’s attack on former VP Biden after Biden told a Muslim PAC he wished U.S. schools taught more about Islam.
Republicans. During U.S. House floor debate on passage of the No Ban Act, GOP speakers focused on the bill’s cost to taxpayers and alleged the bill would retract the president’s ability to protect the nation from terrorism and public health threats like the coronavirus.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCE
- Muslim Advocates: No Ban Act Action Center
- National Immigration Law Center FAQ: The No Ban Act
- Institute for Social Policy Understanding 2019 Poll (includes information on Americans’ thoughts on the Muslim Ban)
- No Muslim Ban Ever Campaign (includes stories of impacted people)
- ACLU’s Living with the Muslim Ban (stories of impacted people)
- Brennan Center for Justice’s Trump’s Travel Ban is Still Unconstitutional
- Penn State Law's Immigration in the Time of Trump (Trump’s major immigration actions, including a section on Travel Ban 3.0)
- Georgetown University Bridge Initiative (history of the ban and its expansions)
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Muslim Ban Expansion Reporters July 2020.xlsx | 6.47 KB |
