U.S. Represenative Derek Kilmer is sponsoring legislation that would have prevented President Trump from banning travel from China and Europe to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus and would have overturned bans on travel from Iran and other nations the President deemed a danger to the United States.

Kilmer’s proposed legislation is known as the “No Ban Act.” It would have set up a series of procedural hurdles and an indefinite time line before the President could have enacted a ban on travel from virus hotspots. It would have required additonal action by the State and Homeland Security Departments to intentionally prevent quick action by the President and Congressional hearings before and again within 48 hours after the ban was imposed. It would also have required immediate dissolution of any ban if Congress felt it had not been received sufficient information.

Kilmer’s act would also have held up travel bans in endless litigation. It would have created a legally enforceable presumption against any ban and given lawyers the right to challenge a travel ban, even if deemed critical to the nation’s security and welfare by the President, the Secretary State and the Department of Homeland Security. Litigation could be brought in the name of individuals or as class actions. Those lawsuits could have resulted in temporary restraining orders against travels bans while the litigation was pending, thus effectively nullifying any emergency action by the President to protect the American people from spread of the disease.

Kilmer’s legislation, if enacted, would have overturned all travel bans ordered by President Trump, from those imposed to protect the nation from terrorism as well as to protect it from spread of the coronavirus.

Kilmer’s legislation was advancing through the House, and the coronavirus threat was growing, while the Congress was occupied with impeachment proceedings. The Administration, though, was ramping up its efforts to fight virus. The coronavirus outbreak in China had become an international health and security issue by late December 2019 (the CDC had organized its COVID-19 Incident Management system by January 7, 2020 and was working toward vaccines and cures). As impeachment proceedings consumed the House and Senate, the White House organized its own task force on January 27, chaired by the President at the same time as he defended himself against removal from office. On January 31, the President declared a national health emergency and banned travel from China. That ban brought charges of racism and xenophobia from Democrats such as the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Kilmer’s fellow sponsors of the “No Ban Act.”  Kilmer did not dissent from those attacks on the China travel ban.

During this time, it has recently been reported that President Trump had been holding regular COVID-19 discussions with some legislators, such as Sen. Tom Cotton, who had to leave impeachment proceedings to work on the emerging coronavirus threat.

The Democrat controlled House did not address the coronavirus pandemic until after the President’s acquittal by the Senate. On February 5 the House Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs finally took up the issue. None of the committees on which Kilmer sits took any action on the pandemic until weeks later, though his “No Ban Act” was moving forward to full consideration by three committees.

Kilmer ignored the COVID-19 pandemic until February 4, 2020, when he joined in a letter requesting the CDC to distribute rapid diagnostic tests to states with confirmed COVID-19 cases. The letter cited the need to contain the spread of the virus and complimented the CDC for its leadership and success thus far. One of the actions of containment supported by the CDC and deemed critical to containing the virus was the very ban on travel from China and Iran that Kilmer was seeking to overturn.

As late as March 5, Kilmer’s effort to overturn the President’s travel bans was seeing action in the House of Representatives and moving through committees.

His “No Ban Act” has suddenly, and quietly, slid off the radar since it became clear that travel bans have been necessary to slow the spread of the virus and dozens of nations have enacted them to protect their citizens. Kilmer and his cosponsors, however, have not withdrawn the bill and it may be resurrected at any time.

Kilmer has not responded to our questions on whether he has reconsidered his legislation to overturn the President’s travel bans.

Kilmer was urged to support the legislation by, among other groups, the Jefferson County Immigrants Rights Advocates. On September 23, 2019, they held a protest in Port Townsend against the President’s travel bans and urged Rep. Kilmer to sign onto the legislation. He subsequently agreed to be a cosponsor. The Jefferson County Immigrants Rights Advocates have not responded to questions on whether they continue to seek a reversal of the President’s restrictions on travel into the country and whether, in light of the need to slow and contain the current global pandemic, they continue to support the “No Ban Act.”