Skip To Content
BuzzFeed News Home Reporting To You

Utilizamos cookies, próprios e de terceiros, que o reconhecem e identificam como um usuário único, para garantir a melhor experiência de navegação, personalizar conteúdo e anúncios, e melhorar o desempenho do nosso site e serviços. Esses Cookies nos permitem coletar alguns dados pessoais sobre você, como sua ID exclusiva atribuída ao seu dispositivo, endereço de IP, tipo de dispositivo e navegador, conteúdos visualizados ou outras ações realizadas usando nossos serviços, país e idioma selecionados, entre outros. Para saber mais sobre nossa política de cookies, acesse link.

Caso não concorde com o uso cookies dessa forma, você deverá ajustar as configurações de seu navegador ou deixar de acessar o nosso site e serviços. Ao continuar com a navegação em nosso site, você aceita o uso de cookies.

A Stunning List Of Former Security And Diplomatic Officials Said Trump's Travel Ban Makes America Less Safe

Ten former state and national security figures — including people who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents — spoke out in a federal appeals court filing. Those represented in the filing include former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright and former CIA Director Michael Hayden.

Last updated on February 6, 2017, at 8:41 a.m. ET

Posted on February 6, 2017, at 7:52 a.m. ET

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Ten former senior US national security and state officials, including people who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, filed an an affidavit to a federal appeals court in the early hours of Monday morning saying that President Donald Trump's travel and refugee ban would make America less safe.

Former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry and former CIA Director Michael Hayden — as well as Avril Haines, John McLaughlin, Lisa Monaco, Michael Morrell, Janet Napolitano, Leon Panetta, and Susan Rice — signed a declaration in support of Washington and Minnesota's case against the president's executive order, which Trump signed Jan. 27.

In the filing, they said they were "unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban" — which bars people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. "In our professional opinion," they said, "this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds."

They slammed the executive order as "ill-conceived, poorly implemented and
ill-explained," and said there was little evidence that it had undergone the "thorough interagency legal and policy processes designed to address current terrorist threats." The declaration said the ban would in fact miss its intended target of potential terrorists.

Bipartisan NatSec officials to court: “In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented…

The ban would harm US interests, the former officials argue, by endangering troops and intelligence sources in the field, and would disrupt counterterrorism and security partnerships. It also would "feed the recruitment narrative" of ISIS, and "alienate" Muslim American communities, according to the declaration. "And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values."

The brief is part of Washington's response to the Trump administration's motion for stay in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which had denied the White House's request on Saturday to set aside a Seattle judge's ruling to put a hold to the ban, but sought briefs from both the federal government and Washington state.

Read the affidavit:

A BuzzFeed News investigation, in partnership with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, based on thousands of documents the government didn't want you to see.