[JumpCrisscross]

> using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban

It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Sure, the loophole is a part of the law, as I (and others) stated. Congress passed the law, which included a simple and easy way for a president to suspend it once of 90 day, with weak and unenforceable requirements to invoke it. Given that this is an unusual clause to have in a law, I feel comfortable calling it a loophole.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the loophole is a part of the law

That's not a loophole. It was intentionally designed the way it's been written to be used the way Trump is using it--to give the President leverage and the ability to save face for Beijing.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You're saying it is not possible to build a loophole into a law.

I'm saying that it is.

[blackeyeblitzar]

Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

[JumpCrisscross]

> why does it need an executive order?

It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump.

> doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

Not to my knowledge.