A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Trump’s new executive order hours before it would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees.

 In a blistering 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson pointed to Trump’s own comments and those of his close advisers as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a “strong likelihood of success” that those suing would prove the directive violated the Constitution.

 Watson declared that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

 He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.

 “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

 Early Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a second, narrower injunction against the measure — suspending only the portion that stopped the issuance of visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries. In that case, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang also pointed to statements by Trump and his advisers made that, in Chuang’s opinion, indicated the executive order was “the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”

 “These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump’s animus toward 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,” Chuang wrote.

 At a rally in Nashville on Wednesday, Trump called the Hawaii court ruling “terrible” and asked a cheering crowd whether the ruling was “done by a judge for political reasons.” He said the administration would fight the case “as far as it needs to go,” including up to the Supreme Court, and rued that he had been persuaded to sign a “watered-down version” of his first travel ban.

 “Let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”

 Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement: “The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the federal district court’s ruling, which is flawed both in reasoning and in scope. The President’s Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation’s security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts.”

 (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

 Watson was one of three federal judges to hear arguments Wednesday about the ban, though he was the first to issue an opinion.

 A ruling was also expected from a federal judge in Washington.

 As the ruling in Hawaii was being handed down, James L. Robart, the federal judge in Washington state who froze Trump’s first travel ban, was hearing arguments about whether he should freeze the second. He said he did not think his first freeze was still in effect, though he did not immediately rule on whether he should issue a new one.

 Watson’s decision might not be the last word. He was considering only a request for a temporary restraining order, and while that required him to assess whether challengers of the ban would ultimately succeed, his ruling is not final on that question. The Justice Department could appeal the ruling or wage a longer-term court battle before the judge in Hawaii.

 Watson’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged that the new entry ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damaged the state’s robust tourism industry.

 They pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law’s application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, attorneys for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, a Syrian national, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

 [Why Hawaii says Trump’s new travel ban is still unconstitutional]

 “Dr. Elshikh certainly has standing in this case. He, along with all of the Muslim residents in Hawaii, face higher hurdles to see family because of religious faith,” lawyer Colleen Roh Sinzdak said at a hearing Wednesday. “It is not merely a harm to the Muslim residents of the state of Hawaii, but also is a harm to the United States as a whole and is against the First Amendment itself.”

 Elshikh is a U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent who has been a resident of Hawaii for over a decade. His wife is of Syrian descent and is also a resident of Hawaii.

 Justice Department lawyers argued that Trump was well within his authority to impose the ban, which was necessary for national security, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms. “They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm … and there is no harm at all,” said the acting U.S. solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Md., in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon.

 Watson agreed with the state on virtually all the points. He ruled that the state had preliminarily demonstrated its universities and tourism industry would be hurt, and that harm could be traced to the executive order. He wrote that Elshikh had alleged “direct, concrete injuries to both himself and his immediate family.”

 And Watson declared that the government’s assertion of the national security need for the order was “at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.” He pointed to Trump’s own campaign trail comments and public statements by advisers as evidence.

 “For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’ ” Watson wrote. “Nor is there anything ‘secret’ about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order. Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: ‘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.’ ”

 Watson also pointed to a recent Fox News appearance by Stephen Miller, in which the president’s senior policy adviser said the new ban would have “mostly minor technical differences” from the previous iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see “the same basic policy outcome for the country.”

 “These plainly-worded statements, 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,” Watson wrote.

 Opponents of the ban across the country — including those who had argued against it in different cases on Wednesday — hailed Watson’s ruling.

 Bob Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general who asked Robart to block the measure, called the Hawaii ruling “fantastic news.” Justin Cox, a staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center who argued for a restraining order in the case in Maryland, said, “This is absolutely a victory and should be celebrated as such, especially because the court held that the plaintiffs, that Hawaii was likely to succeed on its establishment clause claim which essentially is that the primary purpose of the executive order is to discriminate against Muslims.”

 Cox said while the judge did not halt the order entirely, he blocked the crucial sections — those halting the issuance of new visas and suspending the refugee program. Left intact, Cox said, were lesser-known provisions, including one that orders Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney general to publicize information about foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offenses and other crimes. He said the provision seems designed to whip up fear of Muslims.

 “It’s a shaming device that it’s really a dehumanizing device,” he said. “It perpetuates this myth, this damaging stereotype of Muslims as terrorists.”

 Trump’s new entry ban had suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and halted for 90 days the issuance of new visas to people from six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Syria. It was different from the first entry ban in that it omitted Iraq from the list of affected countries, did not affect current visa or green-card holders and spelled out a robust list of people who might be able to apply for exceptions.

 The administration could have defended the first ban in court — though it chose instead to rewrite the president’s executive order in such a way that it might be more defensible. The next step might have been to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc, after a three-judge panel with the court upheld the freeze on Trump’s ban.

 Hawaii is a part of the 9th Circuit, so the legal road could pass through the appeals court there again. Perhaps previewing the contentious fight ahead, five of the circuit’s judges on Wednesday signed a dissenting opinion in the case over the original travel ban, declaring Trump’s decision to issue the executive order was “well within the powers of the presidency.” The judges wanted to wipe out a ruling by a three-judge panel declaring otherwise.

 “Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated,” Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote for the dissenters. “We are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress.”

 The dissent was signed by Judges Bybee, Sandra S. Ikuta, Consuelo M. Callahan and Carlos T. Bea, who all were appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Alex Kozinski, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. It seemed to represent a minority view. The circuit has 25 active judges, and the court said a majority had not voted in favor of reconsidering the three-judge panel’s published opinion to keep Trump’s first ban frozen.

 That opinion was signed by Judges Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Obama; Richard R. Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by President Carter.

 Judge Stephen Reinhardt, also a Carter appointee, formally joined their opinion Wednesday and remarked that only a “small number” of 9th Circuit judges wanted to overturn it.

 Takase reported from Honolulu. Lornet Turnbull in Seattle contributed to this report. ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/2151/1155968404_5361762127001_5361759951001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban Two federal judges halt the president’s second attempt at his executive order, citing Trump’s prior vows to seek a Muslim ban.

 A federal judge in Hawaii issued a worldwide restraining order against enforcement of key parts of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order just hours before the directive was set to kick in, backed up by a second federal judge in Maryland who put out his own ruling blocking parts of the order.

 U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Wednesday that the state of Hawaii and a local Muslim leader had “a strong likelihood of success on their claim” that Trump’s order intentionally targets Muslims and therefore violates the Constitution’s guarantee against establishment of religion.

 Story Continued Below

 Watson bluntly rejected the federal government's claims that the new directive does not target Islam because it is focused on six countries that account for less than 9 percent of the world's Muslims.

 "The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

 Hours after that opinion emerged, a federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang — also an Obama appointee and a former Department of Homeland Security deputy counsel — held that Trump's order appeared to violate a specific provision in federal law by blocking the issuance of immigrant visas from the six targeted countries.

 The rulings are another serious blow to Trump’s attempt to limit immigration as part of what he claims is an effort to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

 Trump slammed the decision during a speech to a campaign rally in Nashville on Wednesday a short time after the new restraining order was issued.

 "This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. ... This ruling makes us look weak," the president declared before appearing to vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. "This is a watered-down version of the first one. ... I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way which is what I wanted to do in the first place."

 “Trump’s statements tonight? He should just continue talking, because he’s making our arguments for us,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

 A spokewoman for the Department of Justice called the ruling "flawed both in reasoning and in scope," adding that the administration will "continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts."

 Trump effectively abandoned the earlier, broader version of his travel ban order after the bulk of it was blocked by another federal judge and a three-judge appeals court panel declined to allow Trump to restore it.

 As the White House mulled the possibility of an appeal of the latest ruling, there was one piece of good news for Trump's team: Roughly two hours after Watson issued the new restraining order, five 9th Circuit judges formally declared that the original appeals panel made a "fundamental error" by refusing to let Trump proceed with his first order.

 The dissenters' move does not alter that earlier ruling but could be seen as a signal to other judges or even the Supreme Court that Trump's travel orders are legally valid.

 "The President’s actions might have been more aggressive than those of his predecessors, but that was his prerogative," Judge Jay Bybee and four other Republican-appointed appeals judges wrote in a dissent from the decision not to reconsider the appeals court's earlier ruling. "Even if we have questions about the basis for the President’s ultimate findings — whether it was a 'Muslim ban' or something else — we do not get to peek behind the curtain. So long as there is one 'facially legitimate and bona fide' reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end."

 However, Chuang soundly rejected that approach in his ruling from Maryland early Thursday, using Trump's campaign comments and pledges to conclude that the primary purpose of Trump's travel ban order was to advance religious bias.

 "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," Chuang wrote.

 Chuang's decision flatly dismissed the federal government's arguments that Trump's comments before he took office should not be considered in assessing the executive order's purpose.

 "Simply because a decisionmaker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the 'reasonable memory' of a 'reasonable observer,'" the judge wrote, pointing to a federal appeals court decision that considered "billboards and campaign commercials" for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in concluding that he was motivated by religion when he had a Ten Commandments display installed at a state courthouse.

 Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

 Chuang said the conclusion that anti-Muslim sentiment was the primarily reason behind the travel ban was supported by the fact that it seemed to be a poor fit for known terrorist threats.

 "In this highly unique case, the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban," the judge wrote. "While the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban."

 Watson's order took a similar tack, citing campaign trail statements by Trump that the judge said amounted to "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor."

 Watson's ruling — applicable "in all places, including the United States" — blocked two core provisions of Trump's redrafted order: a 90-day halt in issuance of visas to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries and a 120-day halt of refugee admissions from around the globe. The judge's 43-page decision was issued about two hours after a court session in Honolulu during which he heard arguments over the legality of the revised order, which Trump signed last week.

 Chuang's decision was narrower in effect, halting only the ban on newly issued visas for citizens of the six countries and not interfereing with the interruption in refugee admissions.

 The rulings followed a series of four court hearings on Trump's revised travel ban held in the hours before it was set to take effect.

 In addition to the court sessions in Honolulu and Greenbelt, Maryland, two hearings took place in

 Seattle, where U.S. District Court Judge James Robart listened to arguments on a suit filed by individuals in Washington state and their family members abroad. In addition, a group of about half a dozen states asked Robart, the same judge who issued the injunction last month blocking Trump's first travel ban, to declare that his initial ruling covers the president's replacement order.

 Citing differences in the two orders, the George W. Bush appointee turned down that request, according to reporters in the courtroom. However, Robart left unclear whether he would grant separate motions to block the new order.

 At the Maryland hearing, refugee aid organizations pleaded with Chuang not to ignore Trump's numerous vows to cut off travel to the U.S. by adherents of Islam.

 “It’s asking the court to turn a blind eye to all of the evidence that’s apparent to everybody," said Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It doesn’t make sense to blind the court.”

 However, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall warned the judge against taking into account statements Trump made before he took office. The Justice Department lawyer said the revised order doesn't even mention religion.

 "This is an order that draws no religious distinctions at all," Wall insisted.

 The Maryland suit was filed last month by two refugee aid groups, the International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS, a Jewish charity that facilitates refugee resettlement in the U.S. for the federal government. Several individuals who claim to be directly affected by Trump's orders are also plaintiffs.

 The Maryland suit is the only one that includes a challenge to a specific aspect of Trump's orders: a provision lowering the cap on annual refugee admissions for the current fiscal year to 50,000 from 110,000. In addition to the broader argument about the order as a whole being tainted by religious bias, the suit argues that Trump had no authority to lower that cap since federal law says it must be established before the fiscal year begins.

 Justice Department attorneys also argued that the case should wait to see whether individual immigrants receive waivers that allow them to get visas despite the six-country ban.

 Washington state Attorney General attempts to block Trump's revised travel ban poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/1795/1155968404_5353862488001_5353850248001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404"

 However, National Immigration Law Center lawyer Justin Cox said that suggestion was bizarre given the claim that the process itself amounts to illegal religious discrimination.

 "If there were a special process for black folks to live in a certain neighborhood, you wouldn't say their claims are not ripe until they're denied" permission, Cox said.

 After the Maryland hearing, refugee advocates used bleak language to describe the scramble underway to protect their clients in case the revised travel's bans directives kicked in.

 "We're trying to find emergency shelter and places for people to hide so they don't get killed while the U.S. is in the process of implementing this executive order," said Rebecca Heller of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

 Josh Dawsey contributed to this report from Nashville. Nahal Toosi also contributed to this report. ||||| Justin Cox of the National Immigration Law Center, representing all the plaintiffs, right, accompanied by Omar Jadwat of the ACLU, speaks to reporters outside the court in Greenbelt, Md., Wednesday, March... (Associated Press)

 Justin Cox of the National Immigration Law Center, representing all the plaintiffs, right, accompanied by Omar Jadwat of the ACLU, speaks to reporters outside the court in Greenbelt, Md., Wednesday, March 15, 2017. A federal judge in Maryland says he will issue a ruling in a lawsuit challenging President... (Associated Press)

 The Latest on legal challenges to the Trump administration's revised travel ban (all times Pacific unless noted):

 12:50 p.m.

 A federal judge in Hawaii has put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold.

 U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling Wednesday after hearing arguments on Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

 His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

 More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be put into practice.

 Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

 The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

 ___

 3:30 p.m.

 A federal judge in Seattle said after a hearing that he will issue a written order about whether to block President Donald Trump's revised travel ban but didn't say when he would make his decision.

 Judge James Robart told lawyers for an immigrant rights group and for the Justice Department that he's most interested in whether the ban violates federal immigration law, and whether affected immigrants would be irreparably harmed should the ban go into effect.

 The judge spent much of the Wednesday hearing grilling the lawyers about two seemingly conflicting federal laws on immigration — one which gives the president the authority to keep any class of aliens out of the country, and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas.

 ___

 2:55 p.m.

 Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin says he's cautiously optimistic that a federal judge will rule in the state's favor and issue an injunction against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban before it goes into effect.

 Chin spoke at a news conference Wednesday after U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson heard arguments regarding the injunction request.

 The judge said he would issue a ruling before the ban is scheduled to go into effect at 9:01 p.m. PDT Wednesday.

 Chin wasn't the only state attorney general at the hearing.

 Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is in Honolulu for a conference, and sat in to hear the case. Oregon filed a brief supporting Hawaii's lawsuit.

 Rosenblum says it's helpful that challenges to the travel ban are being held in so many jurisdictions, with the hope that at least one judge will issue a temporary restraining order.

 Other hearings were held Wednesday in federal courts in Maryland and Washington state challenging the ban.

 ___

 2:15 p.m.

 A hearing on President Donald Trump's revised travel ban is underway in federal court in Seattle.

 Judge James Robart began the session Wednesday by questioning a lawyer for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project about two seemingly conflicting federal laws on immigration.

 One gives the president the authority to keep any class of aliens out of the country, and another forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing visas.

 Attorney Matt Adams responded that while the law does give the president broad authority, Congress later clarified the law to say the government can't discriminate on the basis of nationality any more than it could bar people based on their race.

 ___

 2 p.m.

 A federal judge in Hawaii is considering a request to issue a temporary restraining order against the revised travel ban ordered by President Donald Trump.

 U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson says he will issue a written order by 9:01 p.m. PDT, when Trump's executive order is set to take effect.

 Watson made the statement Wednesday after hearing arguments by both sides in the case.

 The ban blocks new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim countries and temporarily halts the U.S. refugee program.

 Hawaii was the first state to file a lawsuit challenging the revised ban.

 Its motion for a restraining order contends the ban discriminates on the basis of national origin.

 The state also argues that the ban would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

 The government says Hawaii's concerns are speculation.

 More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban.

 ___

 4:45 p.m.

 A Justice Department attorney is arguing that there's no need for a judge in Hawaii to issue an emergency restraining order against the revised travel ban issued by President Donald Trump.

 Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General said during a hearing Wednesday that plaintiffs have said little about harm from the ban that was not speculative.

 He said Hawaii is making generalized allegations.

 Wall said if the judge is inclined to issue an injunction, it shouldn't be nationwide and should be tailored to the claims raised by Hawaii.

 ___

 1:25 p.m.

 Washington state has filed a backup motion in an effort to keep President Donald Trump's revised travel ban from taking effect as scheduled Thursday.

 In a new court filing Wednesday, Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the state supports the arguments made in a related case filed by an immigrant rights group based in Seattle that alleges the ban discriminates against Muslims and violates federal immigration law.

 U.S. District Judge James Robart is hearing arguments in that case later in the day.

 Ferguson said Robart should consider Washington state's new emergency motion for a temporary restraining order if he doesn't see fit to issue an order in the case by the rights group or to rule immediately on a prior motion by Washington state.

 The Justice Department says Trump's action is a lawful exercise of presidential authority.

 ___

 1:15 p.m.

 The state of Hawaii says an imam from Honolulu has legal standing to assert the First Amendment claim of religious discrimination when challenging President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

 Hawaii's case for a temporary restraining order to block the ban is being heard Wednesday in federal court in Honolulu.

 The judge told lawyers that he is more interested in constitutional claims and wanted to know who had such standing in the lawsuit.

 Attorney Colleen Roh Sinzdak says a Muslim plaintiff in the lawsuit, Ismail Elshikh, has such standing to challenge the ban. Elshikh says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

 Sinzdak says Elshikh and all Muslim residents in Hawaii face higher hurdles in reuniting with family members because of their faith.

 She says that harm applies to all residents, not just Muslims.

 ___

 3:15 p.m. EDT

 Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin has arrived in a Honolulu federal courtroom, ready to challenge President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

 Chin arrived about 30 minutes before the start of Wednesday's hearing as legal efforts to overturn the ban now shift to Honolulu.

 Chin's lawsuit claims the ban harms Hawaii by highlighting the state's dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

 Hawaii's lawsuit includes a Muslim plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. He says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

 In response, the Justice Department says Hawaii's claims are mere speculation.

 It's not clear when U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson will rule on the state's request for a temporary restraining order.

 Attorneys from the Washington, D.C., law firm Hawaii has hired will participate by phone. Justice Department attorneys are also phoning in for the hearing.

 ___

 12:30 p.m. EDT

 Legal efforts to overturn President Donald Trump's travel ban now shift to Honolulu, where a hearing will be held later Wednesday.

 The lawsuit claims the ban harms Hawaii by highlighting the state's dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

 Hawaii's lawsuit includes a Muslim plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. He says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

 In response, the Justice Department says Hawaii's claims are mere speculation.

 It's not clear when U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson will rule on the state's request for a temporary restraining order.

 Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin plans to argue before the court, but attorneys from the Washington, D.C., law firm Hawaii has hired will participate by phone. Justice Department attorneys are also expected to phone in for the hearing.

 ___

 11:50 a.m. EDT

 A federal judge in Maryland says he will issue a ruling in a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

 However, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang did not promise that he would rule before the ban takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. He also said Wednesday he may issue a narrow ruling that does not address the ban nationwide.

 The lawsuit in Maryland was filed by the ACLU and other groups representing immigrants and refugees, as well as some individual plaintiffs. They argue banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. They also say it's illegal for Trump to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half.

 Government lawyers argued the ban was revised significantly to address legal concerns and no longer singles out Muslims.

 ___

 11:20 a.m. EDT

 The Seattle federal judge who blocked President Donald Trump's original travel ban will hear a challenge to the new order by an immigrant rights group.

 U.S. District Judge James Robart will hear arguments Wednesday in the lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The group says the new version of the travel ban discriminates against Muslims and raises the same legal issues as the original.

 Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state. He also issued the order halting nationwide implementation of the first ban. Among the plaintiffs in the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project case is a legal permanent resident who has been trying to bring her 16-year-old son from war-torn Syria.

 The Trump administration says it believes its revised order is legal. The travel ban is scheduled to go into effect next Thursday.

 ___

 10:50 a.m. EDT

 Airbnb, Lyft and Wikimedia are among 58 technology companies backing a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration's revised travel ban from taking effect.

 The tech companies signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief filed in federal court on Tuesday claiming the White House's planned travel restrictions "would inflict significant and irreparable harm on U.S. businesses and their employees, stifling the growth of the United States' most prominent industries."

 The filing supported a legal challenge from the state of Hawaii, which is trying to derail Trump's executive order affecting travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.

 The tech companies signed onto the new brief also include Kickstarter, Dropbox Inc., Electronic Arts, Meetup, Pintrest, Square and TripAdvisor. Last month, nearly 100 tech companies signed a similar amicus brief opposing Trump's first proposed travel ban.

 ___

 9:30 a.m. EDT

 Virginia's attorney general is supporting Hawaii's lawsuit against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

 Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement Tuesday that he joined 13 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief Monday in the District Court for Hawaii. Hawaii has asked for a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of the revised travel ban. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

 The attorneys general argue that the revised ban retains the unconstitutional components of the original order, including a broad ban on entry by nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries and a suspension of the refugee program.

 ___

 2:15 a.m. EDT

 A Maryland judge is scheduled to hold a hearing on a lawsuit stemming from President Donald Trump's travel ban.

 Several individuals and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union originally filed the lawsuit in February over the initial ban, which was blocked in court and later revised. On Wednesday, the groups will be asking a Maryland judge to issue an order that would keep the revised ban from taking effect. It's scheduled to take effect Thursday.

 A federal judge in Hawaii has also scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the revised ban.

 In Maryland, the groups are arguing that the revised ban has the same legal flaws as Trump's first executive order.

Summary: – A federal judge in Hawaii blocked President Trump's revised travel ban just hours before it was set to go into effect across the country, the Washington Post reports. Hawaii had filed a lawsuit over the new executive order, which halted visas for citizens from six Muslim-majority nations for 90 days and stopped new refugees for 120 days, claiming it hurts tourism, business, and universities and would keep people from those six countries from visiting family in Hawaii. The state alleged the order, which also cuts the number of refugees allowed in the US next year in half, was essentially a Muslim ban. US District Judge Derrick Watson froze the order Wednesday, saying Hawaii has a "strong likelihood of success on their claim," according to Politico. More than six states are currently trying to halt the new travel ban, the AP reports. Arguments against it were also scheduled to be heard in Maryland and Washington state on Wednesday. Trump issued the revised travel ban after his first attempt was blocked by a federal judge in Washington state. Justice Department lawyers defending the new executive order said the ban was well within the president's power and claimed its potential harms were only speculation.


The United Kingdom is a highly developed nation that exerts considerable international economic, political, scientific and cultural influence. Located off the northwest corner of Europe, the country includes the island of Great Britain – which contains England, Scotland and Wales – and the northern portion of the island of Ireland. The year 2017 ushered in anxiety about the country’s role on the global stage, due to the public voting in the summer of 2016 to leave the European Union. The vote raises questions about the European Union , as well as the policies supporting the eurozone . ||||| (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images)

 The mood on the international conference call at the beginning of this month was somber as Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk consulting firm Eurasia Group, prepared to list off top global dangers in the coming year. Bremmer began with a show-stopping line:

 "If we had to pick one year for a big unexpected crisis — the geopolitical equivalent of the 2008 financial meltdown — it feels like 2018." The reasons are many, Bremmer cited, but the most prominent causes for global insecurity stem from U.S. President Donald Trump's move away from global leadership, and China's eagerness to fill the perceived vacuum.

 Bremmer isn't alone. Donald Trump pledged to "Make America Great Again." The world thinks he is doing the opposite.

 The United States slips in this year's U.S. News Best Countries ranking, dropping to the No. 8 spot after falling one position from its 2017 ranking. Switzerland, an island of stable prosperity in a world of turmoil, remains the Best Country, according to a global survey of more than 21,000 persons.

 The reasons for America's drop – the second straight year its ranking dipped – are fueled by the world's perceptions of the country becoming less progressive and trustworthy, more politically unstable and a president who after just a year in office is far more unpopular than any other head of state or company CEO.

 As in 2017, Canada remains the No. 2 in the survey. Germany, as it was in 2016, is perceived as the most powerful country in Europe – surpassing the U.K. to place at No. 3 overall, while the U.K. drops to No. 4. Japan rounds out the top five, the highest finish for a nation in Asia, a region which survey respondents increasingly believe holds many of the keys to the world's future. At No. 6 is Sweden and Australia moves up to the No. 7 position, surpassing the U.S.

 The 2018 Best Countries rankings, formed in partnership with global marketing communications company Y&R's brand strategy firm, BAV Group, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, are based on a study that surveyed global citizens from four regions to assess perceptions of 80 countries on 75 different metrics.

 Trump Shocks, Divides the World

 The Best Countries rankings come just days after Trump celebrates his first year as U.S. president. The U.S. is still seen as the most powerful nation. In many ways, however, the results reflect 12 months of ongoing signs of the decline of America's standing in the world. In this sense, a noticeable "Trump Effect" is taking hold of the U.S.

 Just days after taking office, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. Weeks later a poll showed just 15 percent of Germans believed the new U.S. president to be competent. By last spring's NATO summit, European leaders had begun believing that the U.S. had abdicated its leadership role in the military alliance, as Trump shifted support for both NATO and the European Union.

 As summer unfolded, Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Days later, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a poll showing the unpopularity of Trump and his policies was sharply dragging down global opinion of the U.S.

 Meanwhile, Trump's statements further rattled world opinion. The president engaged in a war of words with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. By November, Trump had begun accumulating a sizeable trail of verbal gaffes to world leaders.

 By early January, the Washington, D.C.-based Freedom House warned that democracy was "in crisis" around the world, in no small part because of Trump's repeated attacks on the judiciary system and news media in the U.S., lack of seeking "meaningful input" from relevant agencies and "violations of basic ethical standards."

 In the Best Countries survey, the greatest drop by the U.S. in the rankings came in the perceptions of survey respondents for countries having open travel policies. The backlash against Trump's travel ban order in February 2017 and subsequent media attention are having a lasting impact on America's image, and challenging long-held perceptions of the country's reputation for openness.

 One piece of good news for the U.S.: The country is seen as the No. 2 country overall for education. Even so, U.S. higher education industry experts worry the country is becoming a less attractive destination for international students, partly because of U.S. immigration policies.

 Opportunities for Many Countries

 Among other key findings in the 2018 Best Countries survey:

 America's perceived retreat from its traditional global leadership role is creating opportunities for other countries, particularly in the areas of "soft power," arenas where economic and cultural influence drive opinions and policy-making.

 Switzerland's position as the No. 1 overall country is driven by its reputation for citizenship and being open for business. For the third year in a row, Canada is seen as offering the best quality of life, driven by high ratings for education, health care and public safety.

 In Asia, the U.S. withdrawal from the TPP hasn't slowed the advancing economic might of the region, particularly in China. Authorities in Beijing now see the U.S. foreign policy signals as mixed and an opportunity to work more closely with other countries, including American allies.

 "Trump's neo-isolationist and unilateralist inclinations have given China a golden opportunity to enhance its prestige, status, and international leadership," says Zhang Baohui, a professor of political science and director of the Centre for Asian Pacific Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong.

 The Best Countries survey findings on leadership and trust in governments and companies are particularly revealing. Approximately 82 percent of survey respondents believe there is a leadership crisis, and 61 percent say they trust private companies more than the government to take care of their needs.

 Additionally, corporate CEOs are more supported than government leaders. Only Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have approval ratings to rival the top ratings by CEOs such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg.

 And the people with the highest disapproval ratings? By far, Trump, followed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 For 10 interesting facts on the Best Countries survey, click here.

 For top 25 countries in the Best Countries ranking, click here.

 Data Editor Deidre McPhillips and BAV's Anna Blender contributed to this report.

Summary: – US News ranks everything from hospitals to diets—and now also countries. In a first, the publication has come out with a list of the best 10 countries in the world, based on the perceptions of more than 16,000 people, who were asked to score countries on things like leadership, military, economic strength, culture, and transparency. The US doesn't make the top three: Germany Canada United Kingdom United States Sweden Australia Japan France Netherlands Denmark At least the US fares better when it comes to the most popular leaders, according to Facebook.


Newly available CIA records obtained by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, reveal that New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti forwarded an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to a CIA spokesperson — a practice that is widely frowned upon within the industry.

 Mazzetti's correspondence with CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf, on Aug. 5, 2011, pertained to the Kathryn Bigelow-Mark Boal film "Zero Dark Thirty," about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a Times op-ed column by Dowd set to be published two days later that criticized the White House for having "outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood."

 According to Judicial Watch, Mazzetti sent Harf an advance copy of Dowd's column, and wrote: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”

 POLITICO has just reached out to the Times for comment, as it was unable to do so prior to Judicial Watch's decision to lift the embargo on the files. (See update).

 Judicial Watch obtained the files through a formal Freedom of Information Act request. The full email can be viewed here.

 UPDATE (12:41 p.m.): New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.

 "I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing," Baquet said. "I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing."

 "The optics aren't what they look like," he went on. "I've talked to Mark, I know the cirucmstance, and given what I know, it's much ado about nothing."

 Baquet would not provide further details, which means his statements amount to a plea to readers to take it on faith that Mazzetti's leak was ethically sound.

 (h/t Byron Tau)

 UPDATE (4:15 p.m.): Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy emails to explain that Mazzetti made a mistake:

 Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.

 Read more about: CIA, Maureen Dowd ||||| Obama Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications:

 Obama White House ‘trying to have visibility into the UBL (Usama bin Laden) projects.’

 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Defense (DOD) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, the Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal in preparation for their film Zero Dark Thirty, which details the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. According to the records, the Obama administration granted Boal and Bigelow unusual access to agency information in preparation for their film, which was reportedly scheduled for an October 2012 release, just before the presidential election, but the trailers are running now until the rescheduled release in December.

 If you would like to receive weekly emails updating you about all of our efforts to fight corruption, please sign up here. * Email * State: AL AK AS AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA GU HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MH MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NH NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Judicial Watch Weekly Update

 The records – which should have been produced months ago pursuant to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012 – include records from a “stack” of “overlooked” documents discovered by the CIA in July 2012. The following are highlights from the records, which include internal DOD, White House and CIA email correspondence with the filmmakers:

 According to a June 15, 2011, email from Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, to then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Doug Wilson, then-CIA Director of Public Affairs George Little, and Deputy White House Press Secretary Jaime Smith, the Obama White House was intent on “trying to have visibility into the UBL (Usama bin Laden) projects.”

 “…we are trying to have visibility into the UBL projects and this is likely the most high profile one. Would like to have whatever group is going around in here at the WH [White House] to get a sense of what they’re doing / what cooperation they’re seeking. Jamie will be POC [point of contact].”

 According to e-mail exchange on June 7, 2011, CIA spokesperson Marie E. Harf openly discussed providing preferential treatment to the Boal/Bigelow project over others related to the bin Laden killing: “I know we don’t pick favorites but it makes sense to get behind a winning horse…Mark and Kathryn’s movie is going to be the first and the biggest. It’s got the most money behind it, and two Oscar winners on board…”

 In a July 20, 2011, e-mail, Mark Boal writes to thank then-CIA Director of Public Affairs George Little for “pulling for him” with the agency, noting that it made, “all the difference.” Little responds: “…I can’t tell you how excited we all are (at DOD and CIA) about the project…PS – I want you to know how good I’ve been not mentioning the premiere tickets. :)”

 On July 13, 2011, Mark Boal’s assistant, Jonathan Leven, sent CIA spokesperson Marie Harf a copy of the floor plan of the bin Laden compound and asked him to verify its accuracy: “Per your conversation with Mark, can you verify whether this floor plan is accurate?” The next day Harf responds: “Ok, I checked with our folks, and that floor plan matches with what we have. It looks legit to us.”

 On July 14, 2011, Mark Boal asks CIA spokesperson Marie Harf to provide detailed information regarding the third floor of the compound that were not present on the open-source floor plan: “Would you mind looking into getting us some of the third floor specs…as the open source plan is missing those: height of wall, etc..? We will be building a full scale replica of the house. Including the inhabitants of the animal pen!” Harf responds minutes later: “Ha! Of course I don’t mind! I’ll work on that tomorrow…

 In an internal CIA memo regarding Kathryn Bigelow’s visit to agency headquarters dated July 14, 2011, CIA spokesperson Marie Harf describes Boal’s contact with the agency as a “deep dive.” (The memo was originally classified Secret.): “Kathryn is not interested in doing the deep dives that Mark did; she simply wants to meet the people Mark has been talking to.”

 On August 5, 2011, CIA Spokesperson Marie Harf exchanges several e-mails with New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti about the Boal/Bigelow project and, specifically, about a column by Maureen Dowd to be published August 7, 2011, making critical reference to the access the filmmakers were given. Mazzetti gave Harf an advance copy of the article, with the caveat, “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”

 In a June 15, 2011, e-mail, to Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Benjamin Rhodes, Doug Wilson notes that the cooperation that Boal and Bigelow had been getting from the CIA was with the “full knowledge and full approval/support” of Director Panetta. “Boal has been working with us and with the CIA (via George Little) for initial context briefings – at DoD this has been provided by Mike Vickers, and at CIA by relevant officials with the full knowledge and full approval/support of Director Panetta.”

 In a July 17, 2011, e-mail, CIA spokesperson Marie Harf advises then CIA Director of Public Affairs Greg Little that Boal and Bigelow would be “meeting individually with both [name redacted] and the translator who was on the raid…”

 Judicial Watch launched its investigation of Bigelow’s meetings with the Obama administration following press reports suggesting that the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director as source material for Bigelow’s film.

 New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film [sic] by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”

 In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of post-mortem images of bin Laden and the alleged burial at sea. The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.

 “These new documents provide more backing to the serious charge that the Obama administration played fast and loose with national security information to help Hollywood filmmakers,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder we’ve had to fight one year of stonewalling from the administration. These new documents show there is no doubt that Obama White House was intensely interested in this film that was set to portray President Obama as ‘gutsy.’”

 Read about the search for bin Laden documents and more in Tom Fitton’s New York Times best-seller The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now. ||||| New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti e-mailed an advance, unpublished copy of a Maureen Dowd column dealing with the CIA to an Agency spokeswoman last year, according to newly released emails obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. Depending on whom at the Times you ask, that was either "much ado about nothing" or a "mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards."

 The emails were released to Judicial Watch as part of a FOIA lawsuit the group brought seeking information about the Agency's cooperation with filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, who are working on a film about the assassination of Osama bin Laden. They show that last August, Mazzetti, who covers national security for the Times, sent CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf a Maureen Dowd column the paper was about to publish critiquing the White House's attempt to spin the raid with the admonition, "this didn't come from me...and please delete after you read." Earlier, Harf had emailed Mazzetti asking "any word?" Mazzetti had replied, "Going to see a version before it gets filed. My sense is there is a very brief mention at the very bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that Boal also got high level access at the Pentagon."

 Indeed, the column reported that Boal had been invited to a CIA ceremony honoring the SEALs. The exchange was obviously an effort on Harf's part to gather intelligence about what the Times was going to report. And if Mazzetti did indeed send Harf a version he saw "before it [got] filed," that means the CIA read Dowd's column before her own editors did. Mazzetti declined to comment for the record.

 As far as Times managing editor Dean Baquet is concerned, this sort of cozy information-sharing (for which Wall Street Journal reporter and elephant-fucker Gina Chon was nominally fired in June) is no big deal at all. "I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing," Baquet told Politico's Dylan Byers. "I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing. The optics aren't what they look like."

 But Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy, issuing a statement to Gawker on behalf of the paper, had a slightly less sanguine take.

 Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortlly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.

 It's not really clear what's behind the cognitive dissonance, though the statement's insistence that Mazzetti acted without Dowd's knowledge might explain it. Perhaps she found more to be "ado" about than Baquet did with the notion of her colleague sharing a critical column with a flack for the spooks, and asked that it be made known.

 The Judicial Watch emails, by the way—which are supplementary to another batch released in May—offer a wealth of new information on the extent to which the White House invited Boal and Bigelow into the highly classified world of the bin Laden raid, including letting them speak to a translator who joined the raid and the fact that then-CIA director Leon Panetta was fully aware of the project and offered his "full knowledge and full approval/support."

 [Image via Getty]

Summary: – The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has brought to light a media flap that could prove embarrassing to the New York Times. National security reporter Mark Mazzettii of the Times emailed an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to the CIA last year, complete with the plea, “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!” report Gawker and Politico. After Times managing editor Dean Baquet initially called it "much ado about nothing," a Times spokesperson followed up by calling Mazzetti's move a "mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards." She explained: “Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd.” Judicial Watch got the emails as part of an FOIA lawsuit to obtain information about the CIA's cooperation with filmmakers making a documentary about the Osama bin Laden raid. Dowd was writing a column critical of the White House, accusing it of trying to spin the raid to Hollywood.