However, there are some key differences this time.

The original travel ban faced numerous legal setbacks. In contrast, this new version appears to have been crafted to sidestep the same issues. The earlier ban, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries and was labeled the “Muslim ban” by critics, was introduced just a week after Trump took office in 2017. It was revised twice to address court challenges, as opponents claimed it was unconstitutional and illegal due to its discriminatory nature against travelers based on religion.

A scaled-back version was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, and the new ban closely mirrors that ruling. Legal experts told the BBC that Trump seems to have learned from the legal battles of his initial attempt.

Christi Jackson, an expert in U.S. immigration law at the London-based firm Laura Devine Immigration, said the new ban is more legally sound as a result. While the original lacked "clarity," the new restrictions are "broader in scope" and include "clearly defined" exemptions, she noted.

Although some of the same countries appear on both the 2017 and 2025 lists, the latest order does not explicitly target Muslim-majority nations. Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the BBC World Service’s Newshour program that, on this basis, the Supreme Court is more likely to uphold the current version if it is challenged. (BBC)