Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head."
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me?
Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.