>> hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you are watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. we're following two major stories this hour. first, the uproar over explosive but unsubstantiated wiretapping claims levelled by president trump against president obama. the president alleges without presenting any evidence that president obama ordered the wiretapping of his phones last year. several former senior u.s. officials have dismissed the claims calling them nonsense. we'll have the latest on where this goes from here. also, president trump just signed a new travel ban

executive order. the secretary of state rex tillerson says it will make america safer. >> this revised order will bolster the security of the united states and her allies. >> the new order removes iraq from the list of majority muslim countries, included in the ban. six other countries remain on the list. we'll explain why and tell you about other changes. wiretap claims. the fbi is calling on the justice department to refute the claims, but the white house is calling on congress to investigate. let's get the latest for the white house correspondent sarah murry. the white house press secretary sean spicer called on congress to investigate reports of wiretapping, but as the administration provided any evidence at all to substantiate the claims made by the president? >> wolf, they haven't, and a number of administration officials have been asked about

this. we've continued to press them on this over the weekend, and this morning to say what evidence does the president have that he was wiretapped when he was the president-elect or when he was a candidate for president and working out of trump tower. >> so far we're really lacking evidence to support what president trump claims happened. >> this all started, sarah, with a series of saturday morning tweets by the president. do we know what prompted that twitter tyrade? >> well, these were tweets that caught many of his staffers by surprise. a number of his senior staffers were not traveling with him this

weekend, and he seems to have gotten this idea from the best we can tell from a breitbart story that was going around among some white house officials. what we do know is the president does sincerely believe that there may have been some wiretapping. he vented about it to guests at mar-a-lago, and told some that he felt he would be vindicated when there was an investigation into this. sean spicer, the white house press secretary, is expected to speak more to reporters later this afternoon. obviously one of the questions high our list will be why the president believes this happened, what evidence they may have to provide. wolf. >> all right, sarah. we'll talk to you after that briefing. sarah, thanks very much. >> senior law enforcement analysts, the former fbi director tom fuentes, chief correspondent for the "new york times", peter baker. he is also former moscow bureau chief for the washington post and cnn chief political analyst gloria borger. the political ramifications of the president's allegations very

serious allegations against president obama. they are enormous. the congressional investigation, the white house says it now wants to see how distracting is this, though, says for republicans. >> well, it's distracting only in the sense that they now have to make a decision about whether they're going to support the president in his charge or whether they're not. look, the white house was sent spinning. they're like gerbils in a wheelhouse here going round and round trying to figure out a way to deal with the president's charges without having to address whether or not this actually occurred. i would argue that if the president believes this occurred and there was a warrant for this, key have it immediately declassified and just put it out there for the american public to see. >> the president, as you know, tom, he can declassify anything he wants. he says it's declassified. it's declassified. he doesn't needs a congressional investigation. he can just tell the fbi release

the information if that's what he wants to do. listen to sarah huckaby sanders, the principal deputy white house press secretary. what she said earlier this morning. >> i don't know that he has talked directly with the fbi director. >> he can ask his justice department if this is true. he can ask the director of national intelligence if this is true. has he done is that? >> look, i don't know that actually that is the case, george. from my understanding it's that there is a process that this has to follow, and in order to do that, this is a first step. i don't know that he has gotten a firm denial from the fbi. >> he doesn't need a congressional review to declassify whatever he wants, is that right? >> director comey of the fbi is the one and only person that could absolutely say it didn't happen. that there was no fisa wiretap. now, whether somebody wiretap d

wiretapped. >> not the nsa, not cia. only the fbi, and it would take a handful of attorneys from the fbi -- agents from the fbi, attorneys from the department of justice national security division. thelkd go in front of a court, and that's how the sthort would be granted from that court to go ahead and conduct a fisa. the director of the fbi knows absolutely whether it did or did not happen. >> that request is ongoing because it's such a serious charge levelled by president trump. >> what's interesting is you have an attorney general that's recused himself from anything

related to this part of the investigation involving russian involvement with president trump or his people. then you don't have a deputy attorney general sitting yet, so i don't know who he will ask at this point. >> they've been -- >> they have an acting, but, again, you know, that's not at the highest level to make that kind of a thing of a statement against the president of the united states. i'm shing aus how this is all being viewed in russia right now. >> i think they're confutsd by this, honestly. they don't have a system in which this kind of hub bub would come together. first of all, wiretapping would not be an unusual thing. >> they are seeing things spinning out of control. to the extent they thought they could, in fact, have a reset to use a phrase with president trump under this new administration given how friendly he has sounded, they recognize in russia that that's now kind of up in the air too.

>> now there's -- because of what president trump has done and these alleged communications between the russians and people who work from donald trump that it's now under a magnifying glass, the relationship between russia and the united states, which is not -- i don't think it's what they wanted. >> no, and i have to say, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with russian officials talking with american officials or even people who might become american officials. that's pretty normal. senator sessions, then senator sessions, met with a russian ambassador. >> so what? >> exactly. the problem was he told the congress he didn't have contacts with the russians. he said, well, i only met that in terms of my capacity as a campaign surrogate. not in my capacity as senator. he didn't say that at the time. it's the question of why are they denying things that might

not seem so bad if they actually had been forth right about it? >> the president and other top aides for weeks and weeks and weeks were denying, and they know they were indeed speaking to the russians. >> the opinion of the world isn't entirely negative on this, because in many countries to have a president and heads of intelligence agencies and the chief law enforcement officer in the country that would result in execution. in a lot of countries this is praise-worthy in the united states that these kind of discussions happen. i ran the fbi's international operation the last five years in the bureau. i was on the executive committee of interpol, and i know from discussing this with many countries that will don't have this kind of freedom that they -- the kind of envy that, and in a way it looks good for the united states that we can have this public brawl, if you will, disputing this whole event.

>>. >> president trump has just signed a new travel ban executive order. it applies to six majority muslim countries, not seven. it includes other major changes. >> laura, walk us through the new order and how it differs from the previous one some six weeks ago. >> wolf, the major take-aways here are that those with valid visas will be excluded from the travel ban. iraq has been removed from the list of banned countries, and all refugees are still barred from entering the u.s. for 120 days. we also learned new information from the justice department. it seeks to bolster the national security claims. let's take a listen to the attorney general earlier today. >> many people seeking to support or commit terrorist acts will try to enter through our

refugee program. in fact, today more than 300 people according to the fbi who came here as refugees are under an fbi investigation today for potential terrorism related activities. >> now, i should note, on a call with reporters earlier today, officials did not provide any supporting information about this 300 individuals. we don't know if they came from any of the six banned countries or when they were radicalized, wolf. . >> explain what went into the decision to drop iraq from that list of originally seven muslim majority banned countries. >> we learned earlier thorj that the decision was made after extensive lobbying from the iraqi government at the highest levels according to a senior u.s. official. as rex tillerson explained earlier today, iraq hand an important ally in the fight to defeat isis.

those were some of the factors, wolf. >> laura, reporting for us. by the way, we're just getting a statement from the house speaker paul ryan on this new executive order. he says this revised executive order advances our shared goal for protecting the homeland. i commend the administration and secretary kelly in particular for their hard work on this measure to improve our vetting standards. we will continue to work with president trump to keep our country safe. that from the speaker of the house, paul ryan. coming up, democrats are also weighing in. the senate majority leader chuck schumer just tweeting "americans need to know that this latest exec order has absolutely nothing to do with muslim security. it is still a ban. senator harono standing by to join us. we'll get her reaction to the new travel ban. the president's wiretapping claims right after this. while the other guys gouge for unlimited data... t-mobile one save you hundreds a year. right now get two lines of data for $100 dollars.

with taxes and fees included. that's right 2 unlimited lines for just $100 bucks. all in. and right now, pair up those two lines with two free samsung galaxy s7 when you switch. yup! free. so switch and save hundreds when you go all unlimited with t-mobile. wheyou wantve somto protect it.e, at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here. oh, how waso good!en house? did you apply? oh, i'll do it later today. your credit score must be amazing. my credit score? credit karma. it's free. that's great! um hm. just whip bam boom, it's done. that apartment is mine! credit karma. give yourself some credit.

duexperience our mostand perforelevated suvs ever. including the lx, gx, rx and nx. experience amazing. >> the fbi is asking the justice department to refute president

trump's explosive wiretap allegations. the president, without any proof, accuses president obama of wiretapping his phones ahead of the 2016 election. several former senior u.s. officials have dismissed the claims calling them nonsense. democratic senator harono of hawaii is a member of the judiciary and armed services committee. she's joining us live from capitol hill. should the just department reputr refute the president's claims publicly? >> this is yet another distracting early morning tweet from president trump. we should -- which has no basis in fact. we should not be distracted from the issue at hand, which is let's have an independent investigation into russian attempts to interfere with our elections and the trump team's ties to russia. >> let me read it to you, in

part. "the committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warns warrants it." does that statement go far enough, from your perspective? >> well, again, we're going down that path of where president trump wants us to go, which is very distracting from what the russians were attempting to do with regard to our elections. we have procedures for wiretapping that show probable cause. the president's allegation about president obama asking for such wiretapping has no foundation in fact, and fbi director has already said this didn't happen, and so, again, it is a distraction from the issue at hand. let's get to the bottom of the

russian interference with our elections. >> the fbi director, james comey, hasn't issued a public statement yet. just want to be precise, although cnn has confirmed that the fbi as an organization has asked the justice department to go ahead and refute what the president said in those tweets as a matter of fact, he said the president, president obama, was -- had ordered wiretapping of his campaign. >> the trump campaign, what do you think these investigations and these allegations go from here? >> i think the important thing is to have an independent investigation, and so a number of us have called for a special prosecutor in order to have that happen, and i would certainly support that effort. the committees can do their own investigations, but it has to be independent. it should be bipartisan. >> another important issue, whoo i will i have you, senator, the president just signed a new

travel ban, executive order among other things. it excludes iraq from the list of muslim majority countries. was that the right decision? >> he made some small changes, apparently, that they are a sweeping travel ban that he issued earlier. i haven't studied all of the provisions of it, but it's still basically a muslim ban. it's still a ban based on one's religion, and every time our country has targeted a minority group for discriminate other treatment, we have been proven to be very, very wrong, and the president is wrong in this instance. >> what do you say to the trump officials who argue most muslims around the world are not affected by the ban, the largest muslim country, for example, indonesia. so many other large muslim countries are not impacted. there are six muslim majority countries that are impacted now. not the original seven. >> well, isn't that still a muslim ban?

isn't it still a ban based on one's religion? whether you are doing it with one country or several, it's still a muslim ban. i believe it is wroj. >> so you think the courts will reject this one as well, i assume, right? >> i think so. >> let's talk about another sensitive issue. especially for your home state of hawaii. trump administration issued a statement strongly condemning the missile launches. what more can realistically be done to deal with these latest provocations by north korea? >> once again, north korea has been a very unpredictable country for quite a while now, says and their latest actions is a congressional continuation of what they've been doing earlier over the years, and it just points out how important stability in the indo-asia pacific area is, and i very much support bipartisan efforts to

shore up our presence in this part of the world, the indonesia pacific area of the world, and i'm really glad that secretary mattis in his first trip overseas after being abouting secretary went to japan and south korea to point out how important it is for our allies and us to be working together for stability and our national security in this part of the world. . >> senator, thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. coming up, operating out of an undisclosed bunker-like complex in washington. the foreign intelligence surveillance court can't approve the wiretapping of american citizens. we'll take a look at the secretive fisa court and how it operates. that's next. ise) (flourish spray noise) (flourish spray noise) the joy of real cream in 15 calories per serving. enough said. reddi-wip. (flourish spray noise) share the joy.

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

president trump's unsupported claim that president obama wiretapped his phones at

trump tower if new york city back in october raises the question can a president of the united states do that? it former officials from the obama administration push back very hard. among them ben rhodes, who was deputy national security advisor for president obama. he tweeted this at president trump. "no president can order a wiretap. those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you." let's bring in our senior legal analyst, former federal prosecutor jeffrey tuben, who is with us. jeff, those warrants would come from what's called the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court. how does the fisa court work, and can a president order a warrant like this one? >> well, the fisa court is unusual because we think of courts as, you know, with a plaintiff and a defendant or the government and a defendant. there's no adversary system in the fisa court. only the department of justice appears before the fisa court, and the way it works is whenever

the executive branch, which is headed by the president, but certainly it's based in the department of justice, determines that national security requires a wiretap, a bug, within the united states they have to prepare a warrant with an affidavit, usually by an fbi agent, that says there is probable cause to believe that information -- that there is a matter relating to the national security of the united states that requires this wiretap or this bug. the court evaluates whether they have shown adequately that there is probable cause to believe that this behavior has taken place, and only then can a warrant be issued and only then a tap or a bug can be installed. >> as ben rhodes, the president's former -- president obama's deputy national security

advisor, right when he says no president can order a wiretap. >> the president, if he wants a wiretap, has to ask his department of justice to go to the fisa court and get a warrant. i've never heard of any president initiating this process. this is almost -- this is always, in my knowledge and experience, initiated by the law enforcement part of the government, whether it's the fbi, the dea, the justice department itself. they're the ones who go to the court, but certainly the president can't on his own initiative just say bug this person. it has to go through this court. >> can we see the filings, the warrants that are issued, the request for the fisa court? is any of that ever made public? >> there have been rare circumstances where it has been

made public, but they are almost always secret and remain secret. it is one of the basic rules of classified information in this country that the president of the united states on his own initiative can declassify anything, so president trump, if he is aware of a fisa warrant, a fisa application that involves him, that he thinks is inappropriate, tomorrow he could issue an order that says this is declassified and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it. >> he doesn't have to wait until tomorrow. he could do it today even if he wanted to. >> fair point. >> thank you very much. jeffrey tuben, our senior legal analyst. still ahead, the travel ban take two. our panel will help sort out what's changed from the president's original travel ban ordered six weeks ago. who will this one impact and what happens next? we'll be right back.

why are you checking your credit score? you don't want to ride the 13l forever, do you? the doctor said it's not contagious. [coughing] credit karma, huh? yeah, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit.

>> let's get back to our other big story today. the trump administration releasing a newly revised travel ban. one that excludes iraq from the list this time. let's discuss with our panel. a lawyer, a writer, contributing -- contributor at the "new york times." >> originally we thought it would come last week, but then they heard perhaps they would not want to step on the president's good reviews after his address to the joint session of congress. i believe they also had a lot of work to continue to do on this, and we see that, for example,

iraq is no longer on this travel ban because the case was made at the skre highest levels, including by the secretary of state and the highest levels from iraq to the president that, in fact, they are our allies in terms of fighting isis. they have also changed a bunch of other things, and they're taking ten days to implement it as opposed to having it implemented right away. >> so, laura, will the federal courts be nicer to part two than it was to part one? >> well, i think trump is hoping they will be. they probably will be because it's a much better written travel ban. the three areas they were lacking before was the issue of contemplating due process for people who had a right to be here because they were visa holders or permanent legal residents. you had the issue of the establishment clause. that old first amendment. a religion in this country or promote one.

>> whether or not this was a pretext for muslim americans or muslims around the world. if that's the case, you're going to have that same hurdle. the other ones are not as slam dunk against the administration. >> you're a lawyer. how do you see it? >> a recovering attorney. >> tell us why most muslims around the world are not impacted by the muslims who live in saudi arabia or egypt. the largest arab country, or indonesia, the largest muslim population, or even pakistan. >> i'm going to go on intent. donald trump campaigned on specifically a permanent muslim ban, which then was changed a temporary muslim ban. he also said extreme vetting of muslims. he also said a registry for

muslims, and god bless rudy giuliani of all people. i'm going to aplud rudy giuliani for the first time who when the fir first. >> dhs secretary kelly. well, if you look at 9/11, for a second, 15 of the 19 michael jackson hijack-- hijackers from arabia. none of those were mentioned on this ban, but donald trump has business dealings with three of those countries. it's ineffective. it's counter productive. it's cruel. it is a muslim ban, and that's how it's being read by our muslim allies all around the world. >> the aclu and other organizations already saying they want to go to court. >> and they will. the reason they will is because the justification prong i talked about, the idea that you could not make a bald assertion that national security, the statement alone, was somehow enough to get you over the legal hurdles. i know this administration often uses bald assertions to try to

support their claims. in the courts that's not going to be good enough. of course, one of the things they focus on today is that they have 300 or more people who are being currently investigated for counterterrorism activities. they were prior refugees entering this country. the court to look at that could say that's a reason, but are these people entering when they were children? were they radicalized someplace else? >> what country? >> what can the are they from? was it one of these six? the courts have a requirement as an equal branch of the government to look behind that veil and say is it good enough to pass constitutional muster? this is a better travel ban in terms of the constitution. it's still not a slam dunk. >> don't you have to offer proof? if you say there are these 300 people, well, where are they? what countries were they from? were they self-radicalized once they were here? did they come over? or in europe? did they come over as radicals with the intent to commit terror? there are questions i would presume that would need to be answered where. >> you know, the court did make

clear that the president does have deference. is entitled to deference on the grounds of national security. no one should debate that point. what you debate is if it's a bald assertion, and you are claiming national security justification, and really a wink and a nod that it's really an unconstitutional act. >> if you look at even the intelligence analysis of donald trump's own intelligence, the dhs intelligence analysis, cht ap got last week, they said country of citizenship is not a reliable indicator of a threat. it's unreliable. he goes against his own intelligence agency, goes against our own counterterrorism -- it's ineffective. it won't work. it will be counter productive. what's number one recruitment of al qaeda and isis. the west is at war with the -- it's a campaign against islam. not just radical islam. when zero foreign nationals, says zero foreign nationals from the six muslim jord countries. zero refugees since 9/11 have

committed acts of violent terror on the soil. again, why do the muslim ban? >> we did get a statement from lindsey graham, republican. he approximate ut it out on twitter just a little while ago. let me read it. today's executive order will help achieve president trump's goal of making us safer. at least you have lindsey graham on board. >> there you go. that's a win. zhoo that's good for lindsey graham. he isn't on board very much. i think this is going to help him politically with some republicans. it is not going to help him politically -- i do not believe -- with democrats. >> no. >> who still have lots of questions about it like the questions that you both raised here. i think they're going to want to see more evidence which they believe is not forthcoming because it doesn't exist. >> it's also a pivot from the news from last week. >> we know about these pivots. they come for a day, and then there is some other news.

>> thanks very, very much. gloria, laura, and -- we have a lot more coming up, including the president's revised executive order banning travellers from those six muslim majority countries. we're covering this story like only cnn can. we're going to go live to the region for international reaction and fall-out right after this. people confuse nice and kind but they're different. it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to.

we've used real ingredients, whole nuts, and natural flavors from the very beginning. give kind a try.

i'm raph. my name is anne. i'm one of the real live attorneys you can talk to through legalzoom. don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up, because we're here, we're here, and we've got your back. legalzoom. legal help is here. legal help is here. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan.

no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

the new version of president trump's travel ban does not include iraq. that change follows an intense lobbying campaign on the part of

the iraqis. that included a phone call between the iraqi prime minister and president trump. even before details of the new travel ban were announced, the ministry released a same saying in part, i'm quoting now, this is considered an important step in the right direction that strengthens and reinforces the strategic alliance between baghdad and washington in many fields, in particular, the fight against terrorism. let's get some more international reaction to this latest development. cnn's arwa damon is in istanbul. ben wedeman is joining us from irbil in northern iraq. listen to the secretary of state, rex tillerson, what he said just a little while ago. >> iraq is an important ally in the fight to defeat isis. i want to express my appreciation to appreciate to prime minister abadi of iraq for his positive engamement and support for implementing these

restrictions. >> ben, you are there, tell us why they pushed so hard to get off the list. >> reporter: when the order came out on the 27th of the january the raebs were enraged they were loan in with countries that are enemies of the united states. keeping in mine of course there are more than 5,000 u.s. military personnel here in fact, when the day -- the iraqi government -- rather, the parliament voted to implement reciprocal measures against u.s. citizens. in fact, i was lined up to pick up my visa at baghdad airport when that vote passed. it was not binding, but it really sent a clear message from iraq that the people here were very upset. so after it came out, it was really the sole subject of conversation in the iraqi media, in the social media, and so the iraqis put a lot of pressure on

the united states. in fact, when defense secretary mattis went to baghdad that was also on the agenda. it is an airing of the iraqi annoyians that they were included. the iraqis have reassured the americans they will implement ever more stringent measures for vetting people, screening people before they even get to the process of applying for visas to the united states. and we've seen just how precise they have information about their citizens. when we were right outside mosul when they were processing people who were fleeing from the city. they have a computer there. he look at everybody's i.d.s and they know everything. they basically see the whole intelligence file on every one them. so there is a system in place. but it appears iraqis are going to strengthen it even more. wolfe. >> arwa, the ban sill affects

syrian refugees, but now their ban is no longer indefinite like it was in the original order. it's for 120 days, as is the situation for refugees from elsewhere. what do you expect the reaction to be to that change? >> well, i think it might give them a little bit of hope, wolf, but that's only because the syrian population is so desperate for anything that they will cling to even an inkling of a possibility. the problem is that even though syrians are not indefinitely banned there are no gurn tees they will be allowed in after the 120-day time period. just imagine, if you are a syrian family and you have already been probably waiting years to have each got then far -- because the process does take years. and it is fairly lengthy, to all of a sudden see this door shut in your face, maybe open again, now saying, well, we are going to look at reopening it in another four months or so --

that is psychologically crushing on an individual and populations who frankly have been through much more than many of us can imagine. for these six countries, for their nationals this is basically the united states of america saying we are not sure but, we don't think we like you so we are going to screen you a little bit more. it doesn't make sense to anyone, wolf, because a lot of these people from these countries will say we never did anything to, he ma. it wasn't our nationals who carried out 9/11. the damage this does to how muslims in the middle east perceive america is very difficult to put into words because so many people no matter how they view u.s. policies still wanted to believe in this concept of the american dream. now with this, even that is being tackan away from him. >> thanks very much. still ahead, days after it promised retal rags over u.s.

and south korea military drills north korea fires ballistic missiles into the sea of japan. our alexander field is joining us live from seoul. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. and that ballistic missile launch isn't the only north korean activity that's troubling u.s. officials. we will have more on that coming up right after the break. we should take a closer look at geico... you know, geico insures way more than cars. boats, motorcycles... even rvs! geico insures rvs? what's an rv? uh, the thing we've been stuck on for five years! wait, i'm not a real moose?? we've been over this, jeff... we're stickers! i'm not a real moose? give him some space. deep breaths, jeff. what's a sticker?!? take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more.

international condemnation and concern over north korea's launch of four ballistic missiles early this morning. officials say the intermediate range missiles traveled more than 600 miles toward the sea of japan. three them landed inside japan's exclusive economic zone, 200 nautical miles from its coastline. cnn also learned u.s. intelligence is watching

underground test site to see if they are preparing for another underground test. what to officials think precipitated the launch of these four missiles? >> reporter: well, look, wolf, timing is everything. and the launch of these missiles don't come as a surprise to anyone in south korea or frankly in the u.s. because it seems that this launch was clearly intended to send a message to the governments of both conditions. this launch of these four missiles sent to the sea of japan, also known as the east sea comes at the same time that we are seeing the begin of the annual joint military exercises between south korea and the u.s. these are very involved operations that also for about two months. and every year these operations really wrankel the north koreans. earlier this year, kim jong-un again demanded these countries put a stop to these exercises threatening action if they didn't. what you have seen now is this firing off of these four ballistic missiles at this time. these exercises are seen by

pyongyang as evidence of preparation for an invasion. kim jong-un has said he is protecting and defending his missile and his nuclear program because of what he sees as the u.s.'s hostile policy toward his country country. if the past is a precedent we can remind viewers north korea took similar actions just a year ago when these exercises kicked off also launching missiles at that time. >> was what does this launch tell us about north korea's missile program. >> reporter: you do learn a lib more about the program in that reclusive country every time you see a launch like this. what is interesting is the fact that this laump has come so quickly after the last launch, which was just a month ago when the north koreans tested a new intermediate range missile that's able to be fueled up a butt for quickly. five months prior to that launch there was another launch of three missiles. what the analysts are saying is

it certainly appears that north korea's missile program is becoming more sophisticated they need less downtime between the launches. we have had 20 missile launches in the last year. that part is significant to the international audience. what is also significant is the fact we have now seen two tests, one why they launched three mifs, this most recent are they launched four mifs. some are saying this is a possible sign that they are preparing how they could invade thad, the missile defense system expecting to be deployed later this year. it's causing speculation that they are testing launching multiple missiles at the same time to see if they could get around the thad system. >> what about the location. >> they look at this as business as usual. the missile launches are not

uncommon. that's why you have got u.s. officials saying they expect to see more launch inside the future. they are observing activity at a launch site and also as you mentioned an underground nuclear side. >> thanks very much. that's it for me. thanks for watching. i am i'll be back at 5:00 in the situation room. the news continues on cnn. good afternoon, i'm dana bash in for brooke baldwin. thank you for joining us. president trump signed his revised travel ban prestrigting u.s. entry from six predominantly muslim nations. that's down from seven as iraq has been taken off the list we will dig into the details soon including how the only image of the order signing seen there was taken by somebody from the white house. no one from the press corps was allowed in to document the critical part of this agenda.