one day's market fluctuation, but the overall commitment that businesses have to want to work with this administration. to add jobs, to create better jobs, to add benefits, to find out how the president can ease the regulatory burden they face. so, it's a holistic process that is being undertaken to unleash the american economy. it's the approach that he's taking not just in small businesses and large businesses and with union workers, but he's looking at the energy sector. how do we unleash america's natural resources not just to help us make us more energy independent but how do we do that to create good paying jobs in america as well and get that economic boone that can come out of it? april? >> sean, two questions. one, how important is national security information to you? you're saying they're at the table and they can come to the table if they wanted to meet -- >> no, no, that's not what i said. just to be clear, i don't think i can underscore this enough.

what we're saying is, nothing has changed. we've, in fact, added and grown this. the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs are, by statute, part of the nse, full stop. what we've done is made sure on issues of homeland security and domestic policy they're always welcome to attend, 100%. however, if the issue is on pandemic flu or other domestic type nations that don't involve the military, it would be a waste of time to drag the chairman of the joint chiefs over. to downgrade this or not take this seriously is a misreading and a disservice. for those people who took the time to read it, they understand that. i've seen so much misreporting all this weekend about downgrading this individual or -- the language could not be clearer. it's 100% identical. so, any misreading of it otherwise is a spread of

misinformation. plain and simple. >> okay. so, you're saying they're at the table -- >> no, no. i'm saying they've always been at the table and continue to be. he has a tremendous amount of respect for them. any reporting otherwise is a misunderstanding of it 100%. >> let me ask my question. they're at the table, but how important are their suggestions or their statements to this administration? >> unbelievable. when you look at secretary mattis was in the oval office, he was on the phone with cia director pompeo this afternoon -- or this morning. he has had -- he values their opinion. i don't think you can express in words how much respect he has, whether it's chairman dunford, mattis, kelly, director pompeo. all of these individuals, i think he's shown through deed and action and word, how much he cares about them. the first stop he made was to the cia. because of how much he values the work they do and the respect he has for them. i don't know how much more he can do to show how much he

values them. >> my second question, my last question. when you talk about these seven countries, these muslim-majority countries, talking to a formal official in the obama administration from homeland security, they're saying that what you're doing is very different from what they did and it's much more restrictive. what do you say to that? >> we're going to put the safety of americans first. we're not going to wait and react, as i said in the statement. the president's going to be very pro-active with protecting this country. we're not going to wait until we get attacked and make sure it doesn't happen again. he's going to do everything in his power to stop every threat we face in this country and every potential threat. and that's the key point in this. how do we get ahead of threats? how do we keep america ahead of the curve when it comes to people who want to do us harm? that's what the president's done. he's made sure that every way possible we get down the path of securing this country, putting america's safety and security first and foremost, bar none.

major garrett. >> sean, you suggested over the weekend, as well as steven miller, the action taken on the executive order might have been related to some specific intelligence, that it was necessary to prevent something from president and any questions about why a certain agencies may not have been briefed up could have been explained because it needed to happen right away. can you -- >> can i -- >> can you -- >> i appreciate that opportunity. we're trying to say, you don't know when the next threat is coming. you don't know when the next attack is domg. the best you can do is get ahead of it. if you wait, you're going to be reacting. what i think so i'm -- i want to be clear on this. the president's not going to wait. he's going to make sure he does everything in his power when he can to protect the homeland and its people. that's it. so, getting ahead of threats is the key. not waiting until they happen, not saying, hey, once it happens, how do we react to make sure it doesn't happen again. i think what i want to be clear about is since becoming president he's continued to take

steps through executive order and otherwise, to make sure that this country is as safe as it can be and that we're ahead of every threat. >> in other words, it was not put in place on the timeline it was put in place and the procedures that were put in place because of specific intelligence that was suggesting -- >> no, no, no, i'm not saying that at all. >> i want to make sure on that. >> all i'm saying is his view, in general, is not to wait to get ahead of the curve. there wasn't a specific threat. he was saying, we have to do this saturday, sunday. but we just -- the point that i'm trying to make is that we don't know when that hour comes. we don't know when that individual crosses into our border to do us harm. and so the idea of waiting, when you don't know, could it be that night, could it be the next day, could it be the next week, and the president's view is, i'm not going to wait. i'm going to make sure we protect the homeland and its people as soon as possible with every measure. john roberts. >> i have two questions unrelated.

a number of legal challenges against this executive order. what's your level of confidence that you will prevail legally and what's the basis for that level of confidence? >> well, the most prominent case is the one in the eastern district of new york. and i think the -- we won't even have to prevail in that case. it doesn't make any sense. it deals with people who are being deported. the action never spoke to it, never intended to deport people. it had to do with how do we process in and detain them until we ascertain whether or not they can -- they sought to do us any harm. again, remember, we're talking about a universe of 109 people. there were 325,000 people that came into this country over a 24-hour period from another country. 109 were stopped for additional screening. this is -- look, we've got to keep this in proportion, folks. this is 109 people being stopped at a 325,000 over a 24-hour period. and i know that everyone likes to get to where they want to get to as quick as possible.

and i think the government did a phenomenal job of making sure that we process people through, but we did so knowing so, that the people who are coming in hadn't done anything that was seeking to do us harm. that's it. plain and simple. that's an important thing to note. when you actually look at the perspective of what's going on, you note the polls going up this morning, you know, majority of americans agree with the president. they recognize that the steps he's taken were to keep this country safe and to make sure that we didn't look back and say, i wish we had done the following. >> judge donnelly's order is one of a number -- >> i don't think any of the others are pertaining. all of the enforcement and action regarding the executive order is in place and is it still remains right now. we feel pretty confident if there's any problems, we'll prevail. again, this is a national security issue. these seven countries were derived from what the obama administration deemed as needing further travel restriction. we followed through on that. as we continue to go through this 90-day process/review,

we'll make sure we put a system in place that vets, extreme vets, these people who are coming into our country that potentially could do us harm. plain and simple. >> second question -- >> i'm association i forgot. >> you can't forget things like that. >> i know. >> what's the president's response to iran flagrantly thumbing its nose at u.n. security council? >> we're aware -- >> if i could just finish. prime minister netanyahu, who you mentioned coming here on the 15th, is looking to the white house for more sanctions against iran. >> we're looking into that. we're aware that iran fired that missile. we're looking into the exact nature of it. i'll try to have more for you later. >> thank you, sean. thank you very much. two brief questions. first, the president of da zion of america, following the president's statement on holocaust saying omission of

jews was painful, unquote. is the president aware of some criticism from the american jewish community? and does he plan to do anything about it? >> well, i think he's aware of the -- what people have been saying. but i think, by and large, he's been praised for it. i think the president recognized the tremendous loss of life that came from the holocaust, but i think with respect to, you know, israel and the jewish people specifically, there's been no better friend than donald trump when it comes to protecting israel, building a better friendship with israel. you look at what prime minister netanyahu's talked about. he welcomes this administration. he appreciates the friendship and respect that he has shown to israel and to the jewish people. but to suggest otherwise, john, i, frankly, i got to be honest, i mean, the president went out of his way to recognize the holocaust and suffering that went through it and the people effected by it and the loss of life and to make sure america never forgets what so many people went through, whether

they were jews, gypsies, gays, disability, i mean, priests. and i'm not -- again, at the end of the day, i don't think when you look at state of israel or the jewish people themselves, i think there has been no better friend to donald trump, especially after the last eight years, the tremendous respect that he's shown israel, the jewish people, and to suggest anything otherwise is, frankly, a little disappointing. >> second question. >> getting way too many second questions. >> thank you. several ngos that have helped people from the countries, have said they specifically focus on people who interpreted for our military and say they would be affected by this. i believe secretary mattis said he hoped you specify that, to give these people -- >> right. >> -- a better shot at it. is there going to be any change -- >> you look at that one interpreter yesterday, came back, interviewed on television, said, i love donald trump. i think we recognize that people who served this country, we should make sure that in those

cases, they're helped out. but that doesn't mean we just give them a pass. the obama administration, i think, it was 2009 let two people through the iraqi program in. those people came to the united states and tried to plan an attack in kentucky. i think that we got to recognize that people have helped this country, have served this nation, might not be citizens at the time want to come here that we need to appreciate the service that they've had, but that doesn't mean we let them in without a certain degree of vetting. and i think that's -- that's what we're going to do to make sure, again -- the onus is on us to make sure we're protecting the american people. and that people want to come into this country do so in a peaceful way. >> i'd like to ask you about dodd/frank. president trump said this morning he's going to do a big number on dodd/frank and i wanted to know what the time frame for the big number, is this legislation that you're looking at teaming up with republican lawmakers on or do

you think the big number can mostly be handled through an executive action? >> i think we're going to continue to work with the left side of the team. what you saw was the first step down the path of relg laer to relief to our nation's small and large businesses as well. and i tnk that h undetands, especially as a businessman himself, someone who's been involved in financing, that the impact that dodd/frank has had on lending n particular, and the impact it has on small and large businesses. so, i'm not -- i think we're going to continue to work with congress on reform. and -- [ inaudible ] >> we'll have more for you on that in the future. >> we're doing two-feres today. >> that's great. i'm wondering, do you expect an e.o. on h1bs on any of this coming any time soon? i want you to be aware president trump through his spokesman has now issued a statement on the executive order.

>> thank you. i think with respect to h1bs and other visas, it's part of a larger immigration reform effort that the president will continue to talk about through executive order and through working with congress. but you've already seen a lot of action on immigration. and i think whether it's that or the spousal visas or other type of visas, i think there's an overall need to look at all these programs. and you'll see both through executive action comprehensive measure a way to address them both. >> since we're doing two, i have two. on the reorganization with regards to the president chief strategist, he talked -- what does that speak about mr. bannon's role within the white house, within the policy decision-making structure? >> well, let's be honest. i mean, david axelrod walked in and out of nse meetings frequently, by several of his own accounts and by several of your accounts. this shows this administration

is being rather transparent. it's putting on the -- out in the public who's going in and out of those meetings, not just letting people go in willie nilly. we're not trying to hide things after the fact. it recognizes the role that he's going to play. steve's not going to be in every meeting. like axelrod, he'll come in and out when needed. but i think we wanted to be up front about it and make sure that that was stated so it wasn't a story when he did. i'm sorry. >> on the strike over the weekend. can you talk about the president's involvement? this seems to be the first major -- separately, does he seem to speak with the family of the fallen? >> obviously, he was aware of the strike occurring. he was kept in constant contact saturday night of the status of the mission. both the success that it had and the tragic loss of life that occurred to that member.

we are currently following department of defense next of kin procedures. as soon as it is appropriate, the president will be speaking with the family members. yes? >> sean, thank you very much. on north korea, the north korea announced that if the united states intercepted icbm, it would be war. how did you guys handle this? >> how did we? >> how did you -- north korea, for you intercept north korean's icb -- >> i'm sorry -- >> how did you respond? >> we're working through diplomatic channels on that. i don't have any further readout on that. >> one more. yesterday secretary -- i'm sorry. president trump called president of korea. also he said he was in south

korea to strengthen joint defense capabilities. what is the particulars? >> they spoke last night at 7:00. there was a readout provided of that call. i think we'll have further steps to follow up on that the readout. mike? >> on the supreme court pick, can you tell us why he moved that pick up to tomorrow night? it sounds like -- can you tell us who the pick is? is it a pick off the list he's been using? is he 100% sure this is the pick? >> he is 100% sure he's the pick. this individual is part of the list that he put on yut. maintains exactly what he said he's going to do. but i'm not going to share any further guidance on that. i appreciate the try. >> you said he -- when you said he's -- >> i said the individual. >> you also said he. you said he's the one. >> sean, just following up on the president's comments last

week, 3 million illegal immigrants voted. you said he would have an executive action on this. is he still planning to do that? >> he's planning to do that. >> following up on your statement, the holocaust statement. last night the republican jewish coalition called it an unfortunate omission that your -- that the white house did not acknowledge the jewish people or -- >> they weren't in president bush's acknowledgment either. >> it was -- president bush didn't mention anti-semitism, so can you explain why you decided to depart from bipartisan tradition. >> it's not -- the statement was written with the help of an individual who's both jewish and sde descend ants of holocaust survivors. to suggest remembering the holocaust and all the people, jewish, gip sis, priest, gays, disabled and lesbians, it's

pathetic people are picking on a statement. i remember we issued a statement at christmastime calling christ the king. many reporters in this room and otherwise started wondering if we were referring to the king as the president-elect. do you know how offensive that was to christians? i mean, i -- the idea that you're nitpicking a statement that sought to remember this tragic event that occurred and the people who died in it is just ridiculous. i think he acknowledged the suffering that existed and wants to make sure that it's enshrined in the american people's memory so something like this never, ever happens again. and i think to sithere and suggest that he was trying to single out anything. and people of which he has shown such tremendous respect for, and such a willingness in terms of the state of israel to go out there and show the partnership that needs to exist between us and the respect. and when you contrast that, frankly, a statement, a statement, and you look at the

actions of the last administration, the iran nuclear deal, them giving palestine an equal footing in terms of the amendment that was passed to the u.n. security council on their way out the door, to compare a statement that remembers the hollywo holocaust with the actions of the last eight years and the disrespect shown to israel is unbelievable. where were the questions about the u.n. security council resolution that came forward and the idea of this unprecedented step that the outgoing administration took as a massive slap in the face of israel? where were the questions then? >> jared kushner wrote the statement, sean? >> did i say that? no. you mentioned -- >> i know what i said. i didn't say jared's name. i'm just saying, no, i'm not getting into who wrote it, but he has several members of the jewish faith on his senior staff. and to suggest that it was an omission of anything else is kind of ridiculous. >> sean, there's, i think -- i'm

sure you're aware there's a dissent cable being circulated inside the state department and takes issue with the executive order. are you aware of it? what's your reactions to it? are you concerned you're facing a bureaucracy at the state department that may not be working in the same direction you are? since it is two-fer monday. if i can press on you the first statement you made. on safe zones. president trump said he wanted persian gulf countries not only to be open to this, put to support it, to pay for it. is that the request he made of the king of saudi arabia in the phone call over the weekend? >> on the first part, the first part dealt with -- yes, we're aware of that. this is a procedure that is part of the state department's way of letting career officials -- career foreign service officers express themselves. obviously, we're aware of it.

but i think that any government official or anyone who doesn't understand the president's goal in this and what this actually was, again, i think this has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated. again, you talk about in a 24-hour period, 325,000 people from other countries flew in through our airports. we're talking about 109 people. from seven countries that the obama administration identified, and these career bureaucrats have a problem with it? i think they should get with the program or they can go. >> sean -- >> hold on, hold on. this is about the safety of america. and there's a reason that the majority of americans agree with the president, is because they understand that that's his number one priority. and it's his number one duty, as it should be with any leader, to keep our people and our institutions safe from attack. and that these steps are, frankly, common sense steps that the president's taking to make sure that we're never look negotiate rearview mirror saying we should have done something like this. and then? >> on the safe zones. >> on the safe zones. >> who's going to pay for it. >> he did have a conversation

with financing as well. yes. >> thank you, sean. president obama, the statement referenced earlier, said he's disheartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. does president trump have a message for the protesters and does he have a message for the 1089 people you just mentioned? and since it's two for monday, on this memo about the plan to defeat isis, the president campaigned and said he had planned to defeat isis. does he? >> yes, he does. he's talking to his generals to make sure they provide him the feedback necessary to implement it. that is an ongoing conversation he continues to have with both the joint chiefs, secretary of state, designee, homeland security secretary and the secretary of defense. what he's been having that conversation within his national security council, his advisers. he's tasked the joint chiefs with a plan to come up with and implement some of his recommendations and some of theirs to make sure that we can defeat isis. >> and on the message to

protesters, specifically to the families who this weekend were caught up in this. >> yeah. and i think it's a shame people were inconvenienced, obviously. at the end of the day, we're talking about a couple hours. i would rather, you know -- i'm sorry some folks may have had to wait a little while, but i think the president would much rather know he's not placing a call to someone who was killed because someone was let in this country to sxhit a terrorist attack. so, if you weigh the calls we have to have, someone being temporarily inconvenienced coming into an airport -- when you do talk to some of those people, some were interviewed, they said the we understand the president was doing this in the best interest of the country. coming into this country is still a privilege. we're the greatest country on earth. and being able to come to america is a privilege, not a right. and it is our duty and it is the president's goal to make sure that everybody comes into this country, to the best of our ability, is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully. and so, he takes that obligation extremely seriously.

and i -- and so -- hold on. i'm going to finish cecilia's question since she was so good on the second one. to make sure someone is inconvenienced a little bit people experience this all the time. sometimes going in and out of tsa. we have to wait in lines, too, but we do so to make sure we're getting on a plane to make sure we're going to a destination not committing a nefarious act. i think the safety of our country, the safety of our people, is always going to be at the forefront of this president's head. this is where he wants to go. again, i think we have to keep all of this into proportion. we had 109 people that were temporarily detained. they're all in. but they were temporarily detained to make sure that the safety of the other 324 million americans was put first. i don't see how that's a big problem. >> sean, follow up on the extreme vetting. advocacy groups are saying we already have extreme vetting. it takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months for people who are

applying for asylum or refugee status to go through that vetting process, so how do you justify making it even more extreme? >> i think that's -- >> and do you plan to add more countries to the list since some of -- >> it's a 90-day review period. and if you've got other countries, please let us know. >> saudi arabia, for instance? >> again, i understand that. it's interesting, though, you're talking about adding countries when i keep hearing all these questions about was it too much and too quick. you can't have is it both ways. you can't argue we should add more countries and yet you didn't like -- we're having all -- >> some other countries that have problems with terrorism are not on the list. >> and we're vee vireviewing th entire process to make sure we do this right. i don't think you have to look any further than the families of the boston marathon in atlanta, in san bernardino, to ask if we can go further. there's obviously steps we can and should be taking. i think the president's going to continue to do what he can to make sure this country is as safe as possible. >> what about the vetting process? >> last night we were told by

senior administration officials that top immigration staffers on capitol hill and other offices were involved in drafting the executive order. that doesn't jibe with the reporting we have. we're hearing from offices they weren't involved. can you tell -- >> so, you're talking offices that weren't involved. >> we're talking any offices on capitol hill who -- >> there's 535 offices, plus territories. you talked to them all? >> the question for you -- >> i'm not under an obligation just because you called 1 of 535 offices to tell you which ones we talked to. as was told to you last night, there were staff from appropriate committees and leadership offices that were involved. yeah? >> thank you. >> go ahead. two questions, please. on behalf of the indian american community they are thanking president trump for the cabinet level of ambassador nikki haley. >> right. >> question is that under

president trump administration, do you think india will be a member of the u.n. security council? and what changes do you think we can see? >> well, obviously, the president's very pleased with ambassador nikki haley being confirmed and spending her first week up there in new york. she's going to do a fine job representing us. and i'm not going to get any further with respect to seats on the security council. >> second. >> of course. >> as president trump and president modi, they spoke three times since president trump's victory to make america great again. both leaders, i understand, are in the same boeshgts thiat, thi same. how will that work for u.s. relations concerned? and india welcomes president trump. >> he appreciates that. they had a great conversation the other day. the relationship between the two countries continues to grow stronger in this country.

yes. >> first one to follow up on zeke's question. my understanding is the wheels were already in motion on this raid over the weekend. did the president specifically have to okay it? >> yes, he did okay it. >> there's a report in the uk that the president plans to withdrawal from paris climate agreement within days. can you confirm that? >> don't have anything on that. i'll get back to you. >> on immigration. the first one is the president always says he's very counterculture, but he attacked senator schumer this morning over fake tears. he said it was 95%, he shed fake tears over the weekend. but senator schumer did not attack president trump. he went after his policy. was this gracious of the president? >> look, i -- i think the president's tweet speaks clearly for himself. he understands senator schumer, kellyanne conway point out, where have senator schumer's tears been, for the homeless, for the people throughout new york starving for jobs?

it's interesting in eight years in all of the stuff going on in this country, crime and the economy, i haven't seen too many tears come from senator schumer. >> my other question is, you said it's been 109 people. >> yeah. >> but the associated press is reporting that the congressionally approved program, by which 300 iranian christians, jews and bahis at threat of persecution from that country were coming to austria as a way station to come to the united states have been blocked from coming to austria. >> 109 were detained in the u.s. >> but 300 who have been blocked from coming. >> okay. >> so, that's 409. >> no, no, no, no. that's not what i said. i said there were 109 people -- >> but that's -- >> let me answer the question. there were 109 people detained in the united states. they were processed through in a way to make sure that they weren't causing anyone in the united states harm. they were processed right through the system just as -- that's what i said. that's exactly what happened. scott? >> yeah, sean, what's your level

of concern about any kickback from some of these countries that are on that list of seven as far as how relations may work in the future? and some people obviously are critical of the fact that you have countries like, for example, mentioned saudi arabia or afghanistan, where we have had attacks on u.s. soil with connections to those countries. do you foresee those being added? >> are you asking what is our concern with their reaction to us? >> yeah. look, i think the president's number one goal is the protection and safety of the united states and its people. if they want to act in a way that's inconsistent with their concerns, then that's up to them to do as a sovereign nation. it is our duty and his duty to make sure that this country and its people are protected first and foremost. >> sean, the human rights campaign has issued a statement citing rumors that president trump is about to sign a religious freedom executive order that would undermine lgbt rights. is the president considering this freedom order? >> i'm going to get ahead of the

executive orders that we may or may not issue. there's a lot of executive orders, a lot of things the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill but we have nothing on that front necessarily. >> the 90-day ban be extended indefinitely? >> right now it is what it is. the executive order calls for 90 days to review the seven countries. again, at the end of that -- we'll see where we go from there. for right now, that's the goal of this. >> on the supreme court, i don't believe you answered this question earlier. what was the reason that president trump decided to move up his announcement from thursday night to tomorrow night? >> because he wanted to. i mean -- >> is there a -- >> no, no. >> you know, flip the switch or -- >> because he wanted to move it up. he was ready to go. he made -- as he mentioned on friday, he was making his decision. he made the decision. and the president chose to go with it. plain and simple. there's really nothing more. daniel. >> the new york immigration coalition claims that a syrian refugee with visa was among the

detainees released from custody at jfk airport. why was that individual allowed to enter the country? was it a violation of president trump's -- >> i think every individual that's gone through the classes has gone through vetting to make sure they don't pose a threat to the country. so the individual must have gone through the system. plain and simple darin. >> but -- >> the daily briefings were not on the president's schedule tuesday, wednesday or friday of last week. it's not on there today either. can you confirm that he has not received the daily briefing? >>, no he gts it every day. >> he gets it -- >> he gets it every day. i just answered the question. >> sean, thanks. jihadist groups celebrated news of the travel ban over the weekend. they see it as a recruiting tool. former cia and nsa director michael hayden said that he believes this travel ban could make the u.s. less safe. so, what do you say to those who argue this travel ban will make the country less safe? >> again, let's go back and look at what it is. seven countries that the obama administration had already identified needed further travel restrictions. >> but they didn't issue a ban. >> i understand that.

what i'm saying is, is that the president recognizes that it is his duty and obligation to make sure we keep this country safe. and that he's -- by instituting a process by which we look at these countries over a 90-day period and the process by which people can come in and out of this country, to ensure the safety of each and every one of us, i think, is something that makes a heck of a lot of sense. so i understand, and i think in a lot of cases, and i say this respectfully, that i think some people have not read the -- what exactly the order says and are reading it through misguided media reports. when you actually read the report and understand the next us of it, and, again, look at how it worked. when you talk about 325,000 people, 109 were temporarily inconvenienced for the safety of us -- >> a 5-year-old from iran. >> and they were process the through. that's the process. the point is, is that you can go through and nitpick and say this individual, but that's why we slow it down a little and to make sure that if they are a 5-year-old, that maybe they're with their parents and they

don't pose a threat. but to assume that just because of someone's age or gender or whatever that they don't pose a threat would be misguided and wrong. >> let me just ask you about the rollout as well. did secretary kelly find out about the executive order as it was being signed? and did secretary mattis find out only hours -- >> what i'm going to tell you is what has been briefed out previously, which is all appropriate agencies and individuals that were needed to be part of the process were. everybody was kept in the loop at the level necessary to make sure we rolled it out properly. >> on that note, how much -- how well were those departments briefed? you just said yourself that the president is willing to act very quickly, when he asked you to keep the country safe. so, is is there a lesson to be learned from what happened last week in terms of maybe better preparing the departments that are relevant? >> again, let's -- but you -- i understand the question that you're asking but there's two things that have to get cleared. one is if we announce this a lot earlier, it would have given people plenty of time to flood into the country who could do us

harm. that's not a sound strategy. so the people that needed to be kept in the loop, were kept in the loop. the people that needed to be briefed were. again, i think this is largely overblown. when you look at the context of how big this was, and the number of people caught up, it's relatively minor as a percentage of the overall total. when you look at how this worked on a saturday, 109 people out of 325,000 were slowed down going in. i truly believe that it is being blown out of proportion. the extent to which this actually was for what it did. i think government functioned very well. we made sure the people coming in weren't coming in to do us harm. we made sure the people who said they went back to a country that was one of the seven did so without any intent to do this country or people harm. they all got in after the screening. the system actually worked really well. that's the takeaway from this. that the system worked well. the country is safer for it.

>> do you want to respond to the former president? >> you answer the -- i know you said 109 over the last 24 hours -- since the executive order. how many went through since that 24 hours have been detained for -- >> yeah i don't -- to my knowledge, i can try to get you that knowledge. i don't believe it's many. the idea was those were folks caught in transit when the executive order was issued. then it becomes a prospective thing they're applying through their country. again, it almost should be a minimal amount, if any, because that primary initial wave were in transit when the executive order was executed. the rest of them are -- weren't allowed to actually enter back and are going through the process through their -- through the consulate and regular system. so, it is actually a pretty easy way of ensuring this system worked well. >> just to clean up something you said earlier in the briefing. you said with respect to career diplomats and state department disagreement. they should get with the program or they can go.

are you suggesting they should resign their post? >> i'm just saying the president has a very clear vision. he's been clear on it since the campaign. he's been clear on it since taking office, that he's going to put the safety of this country first. he's going to implement things that are in the best interest of protecting this country prospectively, not reactively. if someone has a problem with that agenda, then, you know, that does call into question whether or not they should continue in that potion or not. but the president was elected, and i think, again, look at the polls that have come out so far. the american people support what the president's doing. everyone in here needs to get out of washington once in a while and go talk to people throughout america that are pleased that this president is taking the steps necessary to protect this country. and so, i do -- look, i know -- i know the president appreciates the people who serve this nation. and the public servants. but at some point, if they have a big problem with the policies that he's instituting to keep the country safe, then that's up to them to question whether or not they want to stay or not.

but i do think that, again, you have to remember the goal of what the president's doing. david brody. >> what's the president's message, sean, to send democrats who have clearly signaled their intention to filibuster his supreme court nominee, what is the president's -- >> it's not just the president's message, i think the american people's message. they wanted change, bold and decisive leadership. they voted for donald trump in november. for senate democrats to look at this opportunity to slow walk and play political games with these people who are unbelievably qualified to lead the candidates or the choice they made before -- think about this. he met with a bunch of senate democrats to talk about the qualities they want in a judge. and before they've even heard who this individual is, you've got some of them saying, absolutely no. i mean, that just shows you that it's all about politics. it's not about qualification. the president has a right to have his nominees taken up. that is part of -- and so for them, it is going to -- the default used to be, unless qualified, confirmed.

it's now going to, always no. and i think that's a pretty sad message. not just what they heard from the president, but i think that they heard loud and clear from the american people. especially if you think where the democratic party has gone in the last eight years. they've lost seats at every level. they were supposed to take back the senate. they didn't. they're at a -- republicans did very well in the house. we won the presidency. the president won 9 of 13 battleground states, 33 states overall, 2600 countries. the message came through loud and clear, the american people wanted decisive leadership. the they're getting it. if you're a senate democrat, you have to wonder if you're getting outside of washington. thank you. i'll see you tomorrow. >> white house press secretary sean spicer leaving the briefing room after an intense briefing with reporters. he went through a number of issues defending president trump's executive order on immigration and the travel ban. defended its time, defended its rollout, defended why they chose

those seven countries, saying they were originally on a list the obama administration had. we'll have a fact-check and context check for you in a moment. he said it was nothing more than an inconvenience for those detained at the airport and the country is now safer because they were detained. also a lot of confusion about who is going to be let in, how that is going to work, as this executive order gets implemented. nbc news is now reporting that secretary mattis is drafting a list of individuals who would be exempt from the travel ban. that is supposed to include folks like intrementers, iraqi interpreters who helped during the invasion effort back during the invasion of iraq. he also, sean spicer, pushed back quite a bit when it comes to the nsc and who exactly who will be on the principals committee for the nsc, the permanent members. why the joint chiefs of staff and dni were not included in every meeting and why someone like steve bannon, donald trump's strategy -- chief

strategist, will be on that permanently. before we get to all that, we're going to go into it, i want to read you a little breaking news from former president obama who is officially weighing in on the current state of politics for the first time since leaving office. he's issued a statement through his spokesman saying, president obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. obviously, they're referring to the protests that have been happening. in his final official speech as president, he spoke about the important role of citizens and how all americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy. not just during an election, but every day. citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when american values are at stake. with regard to comparisons of president obama's foreign policy decisions, as we've heard before, the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion. talking about this more is chief

legal coral ari melber, nbc news white house correspondent kristen welker joining me from the north lawn of white house, and richard engel. guys, we have got a lot to break down. let's start with the travel ban, because, obviously, that is sdom naturing the -- dominating the headlines. sean spicer pushing back saying, this is not our list. this is the obama administration's list. can you tell me in what way are they using that list and are they giving it the full context that it was originally drafted in? >> no, it is true that the travel ban neither mentions religion nor most of the countries effected. it incorporates a list that was basically on the shelf in the law for a very different purpose. it was a list of countries that if mostly european tourists pass through, they would get extra vetting. that is to say, it was a statent by coress, signed by president obama, that those are dangerous ples to go.

you lookt them up on the screen, that is obviously a completely different piece of information or metric than places that are dangerous when they export immigrants. while the vast majority of the threat is not from immigrant-related terrorisming and homegrown terrorism has been a dig and distinct problem. if you do look at the immigrant piece you heard, what folks have been sharing online, saudi arabia, uae, other countries than these seven. it is legally interesting and potentially helpful to the trump administration they did find some statutory basis. that could be a good thing for them in court. but as a security matter, it looks increasingly absurd. there is something missing here. i didn't hear it anywhere in this press conference and i didn't hear it over the weekend and that is, a straightforward security rationale for these countries. it is odd in the extreme for this administration to come in and say, we got a mandate to do things differently.

we won this race. we're going to change it up. and here's what we're going to do. rely on something obama did. and our only explanation is obama did it. except, oops, obama didn't do it. this is odd. >> you know, i want to ask you a little more about the legal framing of this. specifically rudy giuliani, but first i want to go to kristen welker who's actually in the briefing room. she was will. you saw her ask a question. you were asking sean spicer about whether they're worried this might inflame tensions overseas, whether they're worried this could result in a pushback, an anti-american sentiment in the middle east. did you find the white house was concerned about that? >> reporter: one of their concerns. what we saw over the weekend, katy, is on jihadist websites they were celebrating this travel ban. effectively saying, this is going to be a recruiting tool. that's what critics of this ban point to. michael hayden, for example, saying that the ban is going to make the united states less safe. you saw sean spicer push back

vigorously and say, that's not the case. he went back to that list of seven countries that you guys are talking about and the fact that president obama initially identified those seven countries. you saw me say, but he never issued a travel ban against those seven countries. and that's the major difference. that's where that part of the argument falls apart. so, in terms of the long-term impact, that remains to be seen. but, katy, he was also pressed on the rollout of this. the reporting that we have and other news organizations have, that the white house failed to adequately brief its inner agency counterparts so that the dhs, dod, to some extent, were caught off-guard and is that led to what a lot of critics called botch rollout. you saw the protests over the weekend and dozens of people being detained at the airports who shouldn't have been detained. spicer pushed back against that as well, really digging in, saying he thought ultimately it was a minor inconvenience. that will be a point of debate, particularly when you have a

5-year-old iranian boy who was detained and other stories that are similar to that. so, what you're seeing, though, katy, is the white house really digging in on defense, trying to make the case that ultimate this is in the interest of national security and will make the country safer. that remains to be seen. what we've seen is a lot of backlash from democrats and also republicans and human rights leaders. >> kristen welker referring to a 5-year-old boy who was at dulles airport and detained and waiting -- had to wait for hours to be reunited with his obviously very concerned mother. it's notable not on this list are any of the countries that were part of the 9/11 attacks. none of the 9/11 attackers were from any of the countries that are on this list. >> right. nine of the -- >> so, talk to me, why would they not be included? how do they justify that? >> well, in the case of saudi arabia, which produced 9 of the 15 hijackers, we have a very close relationship with saudi arabia. the exclusion of some of the n

sunni states like the uae speaks to the fact we have better relations with them. a lot of the countries on the list are moderate nations in some cases that we have to work with against al qaeda and against isis. the fact that not creating executive order that has to do with immigration of refugees, that touches so many aspects of the government, from the justice department to the fbi to dni to the state department. not letting people know in advance so they can communicate outward was a dreadful mistake. >> is this just an example of this administration saying, we're going to do it, we're going to do it, so we did it? >> i can't tell you that. what i hope they learn -- i mean, government is this incredibly complicated network of different nodes and agencies and bureaus. and what you have to do is you have to let everybody know. when i did executive order in government, it was reviewed all around government, all around agencies. executive orders don't just get written in the west wing and go up in the middle of the night.

this is why this doesn't happen. >> the white house has been emphatic this isn't a muss bim ban, which is what donald trump campaigned on, stopping muslims from coming into this country. they said it's absolutely not. this is a travel restriction on immigration and immigration from certain areas. this is not based on religion. it's based on certain countries we believe to be a threat. rudy giuliani, one of donald trump's advisers, said over the weekend on fox news that president trump called him and said, you know, i want to do a muslim ban. how can i do it legally? talk to me, ari, what that would mean legally for rudy guiel an when they try to defend this in court? >> the president has tremendous power over immigration, under constitutional and federal law preceps. barring a great violation, that's hard to stop. what may turn it case is if there is religious discrimination by other means.

what rudy giuliani said was so bad for the administration. donald trump is entitled to the argument that he proposed something and then decided not to do it. politicians do do that. and in the courts, they will take a searching inquiry. not just the text of this order, but what is the context of it and what does it do? i will tell you, by the way, because of the wording of the orders provisioned for exceptions, and we've heard a lot about, one of the exceptions is, providing that christians coming out of muslim countries will be accepted. and then the president played that up in an interview with christian broadcasting network. that could also hurt him in court. he's saying something on one hand his officials say, no, doesn't touch muslim countries, doesn't say muslim, on the other hand, in its effect, and courts are sophisticated, they can look at what you say and do, in effect keeps out muslims from these countries and not christians, jews or yazidis and seems to disfavor muslims but doesn't use the word. for those who want to get down

into the weed is about majority and minority countries and, oops, it's all countries where the majority is muslim. this is potential legal problems. people should not be blind to the history. in an area where the president does have a lot of authority. >> rick and ari, stay with me. i want to bring in kaeser khan, you remember him there a campaign, muslim american immigrant, whose son died while serving in iraq. thank you so much for joining me, number one. i know you spoke out very loudly against this concept of a muslim ban during the campaign. you spoke with the democratic national convention as well and held up your copy of the constitution. now that it has been implemented in one way or another, if it's a travel ban, however the white house wants to describe it, what is your reaction? >> katy, thank you. i remain concerned for my country, for my country's safety and security. we had known this candidate then

and president now, will implement muslim ban. call it whatever you want to. i was watching press secretary's conversation with honorable members of the media, with the fourth pillar of the democracy, honorable members of the media and his belligerence and illusion creation was on display. call it whatever you want to, rudy giuliani's statement gives us proof that this president, while implementing this ban, acted with malice and no court will stand for that. by this ban, muslims, patriotic muslims, americans, millions of muslims, have been alienated in this country. two previous administrations, george bush administration, obama administration, worked

hand in hand knowing full well that working with the communities, you achieve your goal of keeping the country safe. >> khizr, i'm so sorry to interrupt, but i'm curious, which you speak to those you know in the muslim community, what is the big concern for them now? is it their status here or is it an anti-american backlash that they may see growing in the middle east? >> both. within the community there is a sentiment that once alienated, you begin to withdraw. instead of participating in keeping the country safe, you begin to withdraw. you don't want to step forward to tell the authority what is taking place. so, that is one. internationally it has given an opportunity and platform to those who don't wish us well. the malice of terrorism cannot

be defeated without the full cooperation, faithful cooperation of muslims outside the united states and within united states. they are taking cover under the name of safety of this country. they are yielding and apieeedzi to a small group that voted for him that has found their way into the white house. a few members that are racists and islamophobes. they are appeasing them. it doesn't serve my country well. the only option we have, we will continue to speak, we will go to the courts, go to the legislature, we will protest and make the patriot americans known that do not buy this illusion that is being created in the name of safety of my country. >> khizr khan, gold star father. thank you for waiting around. we appreciate your input. >> rick, i want to go back to you. we have a truncated show because

of that briefing. steve bannon is a permanent chair in the nsc. he'll be part of donald trump's national security meetings. he's a political adviser. he's a chief strategist. is it unpress deputied or how unusual is it for someone among the world of politics to be included in foreign policy? >> how much time do i have? >> you don't have much. they're yelling in my ear. >> give a shout out to mr. khan. great american, ultimate sacrifice for a parent. it's very unusual. the principled committee, the pc, is the highest level of wise men and women for the president of the united states. their interest is meant to be disinterested, not political. it's unprecedented to have a political officer as a permanent member of the nsc. that's not to say that they can't go to meetings, et cetera, but to displace the dni and the chairman of the joint chiefs for a political adviser is something which is unprecedented. >> you don't want politics involved in foreign policy, national security, why? >> because you want people to be

making the best decision based on who they respect. the state department, the defense department, the justice department. you don't want people thinking about how is this going to play with the electorate and for my next election? >> stay with us. we'll be right back. american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. find out how american it's about moving forwards not back. it's looking up not down. it's feeling up thinking up living up. it's being in motion... in body in spirit in the now. boost. it's not just nutrition. it's intelligent nutrition. with 26 vitamins and minerals

and 10 grams of protein. all in 3 delicious flavors. it's choosing to go in one direction... up. boost. be up for it.

if you're gonna make an entrance... [car driving upon the water] ♪ i wanti did my ancestrydna and where i came from. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know

more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. now across the pond, calls to call president donald trump to make a visit. live in london where protests are going on at this hour. >> reporter: we're seeing -- police tell us there could have been as many as 25,000 protesters here demonstrating against donald trump. really the mood here wasn't about donald trump himself. it was also about prime minister theresa may. that's why we're in white hall, the center of the political power and not u.s. embassy. so many demonstrators are disappointed theresa may hasn't stood up to donald trump. they want her to not invite him to a state visit that's been announced for an unspecified date.

that's why there was this paetd online that got nearly 2 million digital signatures. in parliament today, they were discussing actually uninviting donald trump from this state visit where he would be meeting the queen. protesters here saying donald trump coming here and meeting the queen would be beneath the queen's dignity. >> msnbc's matt bradley live in london. that will do it for me you can follow me on facebook or twitter. i'm partial to twitter. >> we like to follow you on twitter. can i say congratulations, by the way. >> you can. >> is that allowed? >> i can. >> thank you. i got engaged. >> big deal, big deal. good afternoon. i'm kate snow. here are our top stories this hour. a lot to digest from this afternoon's white house press briefing, especially when it comes to president trump's immigration order. spicer says it's all about safety, his explanation coming up. just in the last hour, a spokesman for president obama, the former president, releasing a statement about the protests over the weekend. it reads in part, citizens

exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when american values are at stake. with regards to comparisons with president obama's foreign policy decision, as we heard before, the president fundameal disagreewith t notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion. that's part of the stamentsd. last hour, sean spicer defending the administration's decision to invite steve bannon to attend principals committee. we're tracking white house over to capitol hill and iraq. let's start in our nation's capital. hallie jackson joins me now. everything from immigration to the national security council to the supreme court pick, iran, israel, so many subjects came up in that, what, hour-long news conference. >> take your pick. >> why don't we start with th