INCOMPETENT, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND IMMORAL...:

It wasn't until Friday -- the day Trump signed the order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admission for 120 days -- that career homeland security staff were allowed to see the final details of the order, a person familiar with the matter said.

The result was widespread confusion across the country on Saturday as airports struggled to adjust to the new directives. In New York, two Iraqi nationals sued the federal government after they were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport, and 10 others were detained as well.

In Philadelphia, a Syrian family of six who had a visa through a family connection in the US was placed on a return flight to Doha, Qatar, and Department of Homeland Security officials said others who were in the air would be detained upon arrival and put back on a plane to their home country.

Asked during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office Saturday afternoon about the rollout, Trump said his government was "totally prepared."

"It's working out very nicely," Trump told reporters. "You see it at the airports. You see it all over. It's working out very nicely and we're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years."

The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas, and largely avoided the traditional interagency process that would have allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, according to numerous officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized, government officials said.

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon.

Leaders of the influential Koch network on Sunday expressed opposition to President Trump's ban on refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, saying the executive order is not in keeping with their aims to build a free and open society.

"We believe it is possible to keep Americans safe without excluding people who wish to come here to contribute and pursue a better life for their families," said Brian Hooks, the president of the Charles Koch Foundation, who is co-chairing a weekend conference of donors who help finance the Koch operation.

"The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive," he added. "Our country has benefited tremendously from a history of welcoming people from all cultures and backgrounds. This is a hallmark of free and open societies."

Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.

Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. "The president is signing the executive order that we're discussing," the official said, stunned. [...]

"The details of it were not thought through," said Stephen Heifetz, who served in the Justice and Homeland Security Departments, as well as the C.I.A., under the previous three presidents. "It is not surprising there was mass confusion, and I expect the confusion and chaos will continue for some time."

Stephen K. Bannon, the chief White House strategist, oversaw the writing of the order, which was done by a small White House team, including Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's policy chief. But it was first imagined more than a year ago, when Mr. Trump, then a candidate for the Republican nomination, reacted to terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., by calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

So why is the new administration botching things so badly? 

I've seen a strategic explanation, and I've seen a personality-based explanation for why this appears to be a gang that can't shoot straight. I'll supply a structural one: Perhaps it's because they're trying to do policy from the White House, and (as I explained long before Trump showed up on the scene) that's usually a recipe for disaster.  [....]

Presidents (and White House staff) are often tempted to do things themselves because expertise comes bureaucratic procedure, which slows things down. All administrations arrive with bold plans to execute swift changes, and Trump's is no different. But shortcuts are dangerous.

They also are tempted to do things themselves because executive branch agencies are likely to push back against presidential priorities. But the truth presidents need to accept is that such pushback isn't arbitrary. It's a way for the president to learn about the legitimate opposition of established groups within the political system -- opposition the president needs to know about before he or she acts. It's not that presidents should always give in to opposition; it's just that without fully understanding who objects to a presidential plan (and how and how strongly), presidents can't understand the risks of action and make informed decisions when to give in, when to compromise, and when to fight. In that sense, the entire executive branch is a giant information-generating machine available to the president, one that they are foolish not to take advantage of even if the information isn't what they want to hear.

Even if Trump had used the proper executive branch departments and agencies in formulating his policy, it's likely the result would have sparked opposition, and perhaps strong opposition. But the administration could have built alliances, too, and avoided some unnecessary battles. Did Trump really want to pick a fight with veterans (and active duty military) upset because Iraqis who had worked with U.S. forces during the war were being abandoned? Would proper procedures have picked up on the strong opposition of religious organizations, and provided a chance to head off that public relations problem either by accommodating some of their requests or at least knowing to mobilize Trump-friendly churches? At the very least, bringing in the relevant agencies might have produced executive action which was easier to implement and which would hold up better in court. Even if it sacrificed a little speed and, maybe, some of the portions of the original order which didn't survive anyway.

Tweet   @brothersjudd