But Virginia-based US District Judge Anthony Trenga was not persuaded that Trumps past statements automatically mean the revised executive order is unlawful, especially given the changes it made from the first version.This court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent, Trenga explained. And while the President and his advisers have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 (the first executive order) that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2 (the revised ban) the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the Presidents past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority.