THE EXECUTIVE order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term.

DONALD TRUMP is making good on his threats. During his presidential campaign and first few months in office the president and his advisers suggested that they would retaliate against cities that resist the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. On June 7th Mr Trump ordered at least 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests that had taken place across the region for two days following several immigration raids, and the disorder that followed. The move is ostensibly meant to restore peace. But it is also a thinly-veiled message to Democratic-run places that retribution awaits those who would stand between immigrants and the administration’s deportation machine.

THERE WAS a time, not long ago, when an important skill for journalists was translating the code in which powerful people spoke about each other. Carefully prepared speeches and other public remarks would be dissected for hints about the arguments happening in private. Among Donald Trump’s many achievements is upending this system. In his administration people seem to say exactly what they think at any given moment. Wild threats are made—to end habeas corpus; to take Greenland by force—without any follow-through. Journalists must now try to guess what is real and what is for show.