With each new day of his presidency, division surrounding Donald Trump is becoming more palpable, and not just in the United States.
The speaker of Britain's House of Commons is the latest to join a chorus of voices, condemning the President's policies.
John Bercow say he 'strongly opposes' letting President Trump address Parliament during his state visit to Britain later this year.
Being invited to address parliament, he says, is not an automatic right, but an earned honour.
"I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery. We value our relationship with the United States, if a state visit takes place, which is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker. However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons."
Mr Bercow's dramatic intervention is unusual because the post of Speakers is politically neutral. .
He says it's a position he has long-held but it was compounded by the President's recent executive order on immigration.
"That before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."
Anti-Trump sentiment is adding to pressure for Prime Minister Theresa May to cancel the state visit, with thousands taking to the streets last week in protest.
More than 1.8 million people have also signed a public petition calling on ministers to cancel his visit.
That's due to be debated in parliament on February 20th.
And in another blow to the Trump administration, dozens of technology companies in the US have joined the legal fight against the temporary travel ban.
97 leading companies, including Apple and Google are backing Washington state and Minnesota in their legal effort against the order.
They argue it will hurt the economy, with businesses more likely to move employees overseas and make investments elsewhere.
But addressing troops in Florida, the President remains adamant the ban is necessary to protect the country.
"We will defeat Islamic terrorism. We will not allow it to take root in our country; we are not going to allow it. We need strong programs so that people who love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in, not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country."
As his executive order becomes further embroiled in legal challenges, analysts say it will significantly test of the Constitution.
While the White House says it's confident the President has ultimate power over such matters, Iya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, says it's the court's role is to challenge that power.
"While the president certainly has independent authority and discretion to enforce different laws in different ways, if those laws go beyond his authority, or if they change the law that Congress put it in place -- then courts are supposed to act against them."
Share
