National Security Adviser McMaster says White House 'looking at' new travel ban

White House National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster tells George Stephanopoulos a new travel ban is something the Trump administration is "looking at."
12:08 | 09/17/17

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:



Skip to this video now

Now Playing:


Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for National Security Adviser McMaster says White House 'looking at' new travel ban
all the this now with the president's national security adviser, general H.R. Mcmaster. Thank you for joining us. You heard the prime minister there. She was surprised at the president saying Scotland yard hat the perpetrators in their sights. Where did the president get that information? The president was communicating something not sur rising at all. Law enforcement professionals have these organizations under scrutiny. Not these individuals. What's great about the relationship with the united Kingdom is how closely we work together to gain visibility of these networks and understand how they're trying to inif I trait our country. The president did not know from any intelligence he had that Scotland yard had these perpetrators in their sights, did he? As I have said. What he's meaning to communicate is that we -- we look at these organizations every day. Try to map them every day. And what we learned after the mass murder attacks of 9/11, is that integration of our effort, betwn overseas intelligence operations, domestic law enforcement, working with international partners, is one of the most important ways to protect the American people and really to protect all civilized peoples from these murders. You heard the prime minister say we have to find new ways to cut off the terrorists' use of the internet. The president said loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner. Their main tool is the internet. What does he have in mind? He's been a leader on this, along with prime minister may. He laid out his vision on how to defeat these terrorist organizations when he visited Riyadh earlier in the year. He said we have to do three things. Deny them safe havens and support bases. ISIS or equal Qaeda in their so called ca Ed ca Ed caliphates. Cut off their financing. The financing that propagate for violence. And the third thing is related to that. Defeat their evil ideology. And, prime minister may has been a real leader in this in connection with understanding better how these terrorists use the internet and then block their ability to kuz that kind of communication to reach vulnerable people to essentially pull them into these brainwashing organizations that fill them with hatred. And direct them toward violence against innocent people. The president talked about a larger, tougher travel ban. Will you propose that? If you can't screen people effectively, you shouldn't allow people from that country to -- to travel. So what the travel been is is a first step, a first step in better screening. Better sharing of information. To encourage governments to meet the requirements that we have to -- so that it allows us to protect our own people. Will we see a new one? Well this is something we're looking at. How to protect the American people better. How to ensure that we know who these people are, who are moving. Because the strength of these terrorist organizations. Why this is a greater danger than ever is first of all their ability to communicate. Connect what would otherwise be disconnected cells in other places of the world. The second part of this is their ability to travel. And to move and to move people and money and weapons often times drugs and other elicit goods internationally. Part of the strategy must be to interdict these networks. And how they move viz ifphysically. The president is coming to the U.N. Here's what he said about the U.N. In the campaign. The united nations is not a friend of democracy. It's not a friend to freedom. It's not a friend even to the United States of America where, as you know, it has its home. Will that be part of the president's message to the U.N. On Tuesday? It will be part of his message that the united nations needs to reform. And the united nations has to reform to meet the goals and octoberives laid out by the great secretary general there. And, to be true to its chart eer. You know, any international organization has a broad range of perspectives within it. Certain nations, in recent years, are undermining key committees. The president will say the U.N. Is not a friend to America? Well, parts of the U.N. Have not been. Look at the human rights council that is pop lated by countries whose actions against their own people are particularly heinous? Reform is what's focused on. The secretary-general has laid out a strong road map. Ambassador is supporting the secret secretary-general with a luncheon for the people signed up for the reform program. The president is going to say the united nations can't be effective unless it reforms and achieves a higher degree of accountability for member states. Some member states are trying to infiltrate and subvert key units within the U.N. The tell Kuhn occasions effects are being subvert bade country that wants to dominate that feel and restrict the flow of information. Stunning headline in "The Wall Street journal. 'I want to put it on the screen. The trump administration seeks to avoid withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. Article says trump administration officials said Saturday the U.S. Would not pull out of the Paris afwreem, offering to reengage. Is it indeed possible that the United States might not withdraw? He said we're withdrawing from the Paris accord. He left the door open to ree entering if there can be a better deal for the united States. The president's objection to Paris was not the objection to the environment or the climate. He said we're renewing our commitment to have the cleanest air, cleanest water. But that -- that -- agreement was not good for the environment. It gave the biggest polluters, the biggest carbon emitters a free ride. And so, we also want to emphasize, real energy, energy security, and then also, clean fossil fuels. Clean fossil fuels can continue to lift millions out of poverty around the world. The president wants a more effective approach to energy and the climate. The president was very clear in the statement. He said the United States will withdraw. That meeting doesn't take place until 2020. If you can renegotiate better terms before 200, the united States will not withdraw? Ly go back to what the president said. He's open to any discussions that will help us improve the environme environment. Ensure energy security. And advance our prosperity and the prosperity of American workers and business. It's possible that the united States would stay in if you can get a new agreement. If there's an agreement that benefit tgs American people, certainly. Let's talk North Korea. The president said he spoke with president moon of South Korea and asked him how rocket man is doing. Long gas lines forming in north Korea. Too bad. I assume rocket man is Kim Jong- Jong-un? It appears to be so. That's where the rockets and miss lts are coming from. What does the president mean that the saxs passed this week are not a big deal. What ultimately has to happen? We all have doubts about whether or not that is going to be enough. We have to prepare all options. Make sure all options are under development to make sure this regime cannot threaten the world with a nuclear weapon. So that's what we're endeavoring %-pto do is maximizepressure through sanctions. Recognizing this is a very significant but not a decisive step. The sapgss have just now been put in place as well. The critical thing is going to be to get all countries, everyone to do all they can, to enforce those sanctions. Do everything they can short of a military conflict, to ree solve this problem. Do you see any evidence at all, general, any evidence, that Kim Jong-un is ever going to give up his nuclear weapons? He's going to have to give up his nuclear weapons. The president has said he won't tolerate this regime threatening the United States and our citizens with a nuclear weapon. You're saying the president will strike if he doesn't give up the nuclear weapons? He's been very clear. All options are on the table. On the Iran nuclear agreement, the president promised to rip that up during the campaign. He's been under great pressure in our allies, their Reese is a may, secretary general. Not the abandon that nuclear deal with Iran. What is going to happen? As the president said, sit the worst deal ever. It was not good for the world based on really what it gave the Iranians. All the benefits up front. The enforcement mechanisms have been executed in a weak way. It will be very important to verify that Iran is not continuing to do what they should be doing. Too much heavy water. Enforcing is really going to be critical. We Vo make sure that no deal with provide cover for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon in a clandestine matter while they're reaping the benefit this deal. Meanwhile, look at what Iran is doing in the region. They're engaged in a broad range of destabilizing behavior that is creating a humanitarian and political catastrophe in the Middle East. In way that is keeping this Arab world perpe the tually weak. They're using terrorist groups and militia proxies. To advance their interests and threaten their neighbors. This is the behavior has at tto be confronted. If we could get that deal with North Korea, we would take it, wouldn't we? I don't think so. I think we recognize significant pitfalls in this deal. What the problem is in north Korea has been for years, as you know, we negotiated with them before. They have entered into the weak agreements and immediate blaex the agreements. The agreements in the past have done for North Korea is locked in the status quo as the new nor hall. Allowed them to continue to develop more programs. We need a different approach with North Korea. We may have the opportunity to engage if talks. They bet ber under fund mentally different conditions than we have begun those talks in the past. General Mcmaster. Thank you for your time this morning. Thank you, George.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":49907174,"title":"National Security Adviser McMaster says White House 'looking at' new travel ban","duration":"12:08","description":"White House National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster tells George Stephanopoulos a new travel ban is something the Trump administration is \"looking at.\"","url":"/ThisWeek/video/white-house-national-security-adviser-latest-north-korea-49907174","section":"ThisWeek","mediaType":"default"}