When this matter first surfaced, the phrase was a longer one such as "Muslim-majority nations not involved with Trump businesses." It was a perfect and concise way to note the corruption and hypocrisy involved in Trump's policy.
Unfortunately, that more accurate description has fallen away.
It's just cowardice or laziness, or both.
Trump has business in Saudi Arabia, which is among those Muslim-majority nations excluded from the ban.
Saudi Arabia is also one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world, from 9/11 to a variety of Wahhabi-based groups today.
But the corruption behind the two-tiered approach could actually help Trump defend the ban, now before the Supreme Court.
Lower court rulings have cited Trump's speeches and tweets on the campaign trail to bolster rulings that the policy is arbitrary and prejudiced, and thus, unconstitutional.
But here's an odd twist: What if Trump's lawyers argued that the ban isn't really based on racism or bigotry, but instead solely on Trump's desire to make money from his position as president?
If it were truly based on a hatred of Muslims, wouldn't Trump's ban also include those Muslim nations in which he does have business connections? Couldn't this argument be used to claim that Trump bears no ill will against Muslims in totality?
The logic goes this way:
Trump doesn't do business in countries supporting terrorism.
The travel ban targets only countries that support terrorism.
Therefore, the ban is logical and constitutional.
And a claim that the Saudis don't support terrorism could be easily supported by executive "findings," claims the court could defer to as a separation-of-powers issue.
As I learned in my college logic class, a solid logical argument needn't be true.
With Trump, it's usually neither.
Talk about setting the bar low.
Ignoring a blatant dishonesty, Trump could cite his own corruption to defend an unconstitutional policy.
That's where we are today in America.