Donald Trump's temporary ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries could pose more dangers to national security than protections, a former senior counter-terrorism adviser has said.

Key points: Close to 1,000 State Department officials have signed a dissent cable in response to the travel ban

Close to 1,000 State Department officials have signed a dissent cable in response to the travel ban Matthew Levitt, an advisor under George W Bush, argues the ban will harm instead of help US counter-terrorism

Matthew Levitt, an advisor under George W Bush, argues the ban will harm instead of help US counter-terrorism He says the White House response to dissent from within Government may have a chilling effect

Close to 1,000 diplomats and officials from the US State Department have since signed a "dissent cable" in response to the ban, which was announced last week.

The ban was enacted by executive order on Friday and aimed at "protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States", according to the White House.

But Matthew Levitt, a former senior counter-terrorism official who served under George W Bush, said the ban would do nothing to protect American society from terrorism.

"I think that [the ban] really is counter-productive for counter-terrorism purposes," Dr Levitt said.

"It's alienating key allies [and] it's giving a tremendous propaganda opportunity for Islamic State, Al Qaeda."

Dr Levitt was the deputy assistant secretary for intelligence at the US Department of Treasury and the counter-terrorism adviser to the special envoy for security in the Middle East.

He said the reasoning behind Mr Trump's ban, which has inspired mass protests at airports across the US as well as legal challenges, was not grounded in evidence.

"The biggest thing is that I don't see evidence that there have been any significant number of individuals from these countries who have come to the United States and successfully made it through our existing dragnet to protect the country that would have warranted something more," Dr Levitt said.

Travel ban driven by ideology

According to Dr Levitt, Mr Trump's ban is not an example of careful and prudent planning.

"The fact that this is only a temporary measure indicates that it is not actually about counter-terrorism, it's about politics and ideology," he said.

He echoed a fear many have expressed about President Trump's chief strategist, Stephen Bannon.

"I think what we're seeing is the effect of policy being driven by a small number of individuals from the White House," Dr Levitt said.

"From the strategic planning, this very ideological component headed by Mr Bannon, for many this just seems un-American."

According to Dr Levitt, the State Department dissent cable reflects the seriousness of the response among those working in the nation's diplomatic arm.

"The dissent channel is a widely respected vehicle within the State Department for people to be able to, in protected fashion, dissent from policies," he said.

"Most of the time it's not necessarily signed by huge numbers of people. Most of the time it's not made public.

"And what the diplomats are saying is that this has real implications for our ability to work with foreign partners if they see us as a country that is not respecting civil rights."

White House response 'deeply disturbing'

Dr Levitt argued the most concerning impact the ban could have was on US relations in the Middle East.

"What's most disconcerting is the apparent disregard for the impact of actions like these on allies around the world, not only allies in the Western world, but we work closely with the Iraqis on counter-terrorism, we work closely with Arab and Muslim governments in particular," he said.

"The truly important counter-terrorism measures that protect the country rely on cooperation from our allies and doing things that unilaterally distance them from us is counter-productive.

"Doing things that give our adversaries massive propaganda opportunities to vindicate their positions."

He said the response from the White House to the State Department dissent cable was also worrying.

"The comment to kind of 'get with the program or get out' was deeply disturbing," Dr Levitt said.

"The response I fear will be one that will be potentially chilling of further dissent, and the suggestion that signing a dissent memo is somehow disloyal is really just a complete misunderstanding of what it means to serve government."