Trump's political naivete is irrelevant to the question. No executive order has ever been interpreted on the basis of the intent of its issuer made before he had executive authority.
It's nice the libtards have discovered Originalism, but Originalism doesn't extend to comments made when Trump was a child, a student, a real estate developer, or even a campaigner.
If this logic were applied to 0bamacare, a judge could strike down the law on the basis of fraudulent claims made by Pelosi, Reid, and 0bama while they were campaigning for national healthcare. The district ruling on "intent" made on the basis of campaign rhetoric is a short, straight road to chaos.
Even if it happened AFTER he became president, I would still argue that people can change their view, or they can sometimes wrongly state what they actually believe about something.
In either case, it would mind-reading for a judge to swear that someone had view A when they had view B. And if the written law does NOT indicate any inclination toward view A, but is neutral, then the judge has no basis to use that against a president.
There are about 900 million muslims NOT affected by Trump’s travel temporary restriction. Those countries mentioned do have problems with providing reliable information by which a person could be vetted.