In each case, the “terrorism” in question was concocted by the FBI, as part of a sting operation.

On Monday March 6, 2017, the Trump Administration announced its second attempt at a Muslim Ban. While it is impossible to justify a ban that is fundamentally rooted in animus towards Muslims, Trump tried to rectify his previous executive order’s most glaring problems. For example, the new ban will not apply to legal permanent residents or people who currently hold valid visas.

The constitutional issues are much deeper than that. Ruling against the first ban, federal courts failed to find a rational relationship between barring the entry of individuals from the countries listed and a national security purpose. As a Virginia federal judge, who would later rule the order was unconstitutional, told the Justice Department lawyers defending the order, “the courts have been begging you to provide some evidence, and none has been forthcoming.”

Trump’s new order attempts to “provide some evidence” by giving reasons for why each of the countries were targeted for the ban, as well as why he is suspending the refugee program. While it is important to remember that Trump is just desperate to make his Muslim ban appear to be something other than what it is, it is worth looking at the “evidence” presented.

Trump proffers two incidents in which refugees were convicted on terrorism related charges. What Trump fails to disclose is that in each case the “terrorism” in question was concocted by the FBI, as part of a sting operation.