Whitehouse.gov Feed

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
Washington, D.C.

1:01 P.M. EST

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, good afternoon.  And thank you so much for that introduction, Scott.  And thank you especially for your leadership here at DFC over these last years, a sentiment that I know President Biden shares deeply. 

Simply put, no one has played a more important role in this institution’s growth and development than you, and no one could have brought greater creativity, savvy, or tenacity to the task. 

Trust me, I have seen Scott in full warrior mode on behalf of DFC in the Situation Room, taking on other agencies with other ideas, and he’s constantly delivering to make sure that DFC, in turn, delivers on its mission. 

I also know, from personal experience myself, that leaders are only as capable as their teams, and the team at DFC is second to none.  And I want to salute everybody here in the audience, who either is current or past member of the DFC team, for all that you have done to build this into the impactful organization that it is today. 

If your first five years have proven anything, it is your impact globally will only compound exponentially in the years to come. 

So, thanks to you all, and thank you for letting me be here to mark this occasion with you. 

As many of you know, last week, President Biden traveled to Lobito, Angola.  Scott was there, of course.  Just a few years ago, that was an area completely devoid of any American investment.  But not anymore. 

During his visit, the President saw a rail car that will travel on Africa’s first transcontinental railroad, grain silos that will help transform the region from food importers to food exporters, and businesses that are investing in everything from clean energy to 5G all across the region. 

These are transformational projects, generational projects, projects that would have been unthinkable just five years ago but are already having an impact, and it’s because of the work that we’ve all done together to reimagine investment and development around the world in the face of profound and accelerating global change. 

When President Biden came to office, our nation faced several converging challenges: a pandemic that had shaken the world, a worsening climate crisis, vulnerable supply chains, rapid technological change, and geopolitical competition from a pacing competitor in the PRC. 

So, as these challenges were all coming to a head, we were entering this new era of geopolitics, one defined by strategic competition.  Ad hoc investments, grants, and loans were not going to cut it.  The old way of doing business was not going to cut it.  And it was not just that we weren’t punching above our weight.  It’s that, in many cases, when you looked at the full kind of capacity that the U.S. could bring to the table and the gap in what we were, in fact, bringing to the table across all of the tools of our national power, we were ceding the field.

So it was imperative that we needed to step back, look at the bigger picture, and present a positive-sum vision for growth and development globally, one calibrated to new geopolitical realities and one matched to the scope of the transformational challenges we faced. 

So, the first question we faced was: Okay, how do we do that?  How can we mobilize capital at scale for nations around the world, and how can we get our global partners to join us?

And here, having a bipartisan effort like the DFC, built in the previous administration under President Trump, handed off to President Biden, but still in its early stages, this was going to be a critical piece of the puzzle but one piece of a larger puzzle that was going to require a whole set of tools to be able to effectively mobilize capital in the service of our national interest and in the service of the global common interest. 

So the President, at the first G7 that he went to in Cornwall, England, launched the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, or PGI.  In true government fashion, we give our best initiatives the most memorable acronyms, PGI.  (Laughter.)

At its core, the aim of PGI was to redefine the traditional Western value proposition to the developing world to say, “Okay, we hear you when it comes to the priorities you have in order to deliver for your citizens.”  And at the top of that list, for country after country in regions of the world on different continents, the answer consistently came back: infrastructure.  Physical infrastructure, energy infrastructure, digital infrastructure, health infrastructure, but the basic building blocks of growth and dynamism that could deliver for these countries.  And there was a massive gap.

And the country that was most active in actually trying to deliver for countries around the world with respect to infrastructure was the PRC, through its Belt and Road Initiative.  And we were not playing at the level or with the intensity that we had to play. 

So, we looked at this and we said: Somehow, given this need across the world, we need to turn billions into trillions of dollars of investment with solutions that those countries helped fashion on their own but with capital enabled by the United States and our partners in the G7 and other likeminded countries.

We layered on top of that the idea of catalyzing and concentrating investment in key corridors so that we were leveraging our investment to the maximum, not just spreading it thin across the board.

And through these corridors, including in Africa and Asia, PGI is designed to help close that infrastructure gap in developing countries, and I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made so far. 

Over the last two years, the U.S. has mobilized over $80 billion in investments through the DFC and other tools to build out these corridors, like the Lobito Corridor that President Biden visited last week. 

This approach is about strengthening countries’ economic growth.  It’s also about strengthening America’s supply chains and global trusted technology vendors.  And it’s about diplomacy.  It’s about strengthening our critical partnerships in critical regions. 

And as the people in this room know better than anyone, this is not spending huge amounts of public dollars.  It’s about taking public dollars and public tools to mobilize private dollars.  And, frankly, the response we have seen from the private sector over the past four years has been increasing enthusiasm, increasing buy-in for the vision that we are all working towards. 

Take our climate goals, for example.  In year one, President Biden set an audacious target to quadruple U.S. international finance for climate to $11 billion every year. 

When we set that target, we knew that the DFC was going to be central to achieving it, but we didn’t quite realize the extent to which the DFC would create the backbone for our investment portfolio in energy security and supply chain resilience.  And as a result of the heroic work that so many of the people in this room did, we’ve been able to massively accelerate the speed and scale of the clean energy transition to help meet the moment on climate. 

We also recognize that how we invest is just as important as how much we invest, which leads to my next point.  Throughout every PGI investment and every project and everything that the DFC is doing, we’ve focused on quality, not just quantity.  As everyone here knows well, that’s going to make our investments more sustainable over the long run, and it is what sets the United States apart from our competitors. 

And I want to be clear: We’re not forcing nations around the world to choose between us and China, or any other nation for that matter, but we are making sure that there is an option that is high standard and credible and more attractive and impactful than what our competitors might offer. 

And that means ensuring that our investments meet the very highest standards — for workers, for the environment, for the people that they are meant to serve.  It means ensuring that our projects don’t produce unsustainable debt for our partners, debt that prevents them from investing in their own development over time.  And it means ensuring that the progress we’ve helped fuel around the world does not inadvertently facilitate corruption. 

In fact, shortly after he took office, President Biden issued a Presidential Policy Directive that established corruption as a core national security threat, and created the first-ever National Strategy on Countering Corruption.

Now, today is — we’re celebrating the five-year birthday of the DFC.  Today is also International [Anti]-Corruption Day.  And I’m exceedingly proud that four years later, we’ve made good on the President’s directive and given this strategy, to counter corruption, meaning and force so that we can mark and celebrate International Anti-Corruption Day today with stronger regulations, closed loopholes, a record of cutting off money launderers, and taking steps to ensure that our own financial system serves as a check rather than an accomplice to corrupt behavior.  That goes from implementing the landmark Corporate Transparency Act that we helped pass, to tightening regulations in the real estate sector so criminals cannot use the U.S. real estate sector to launder their own dirty money. 

We’ve gone after kleptocrats, criminals, and their cronies who steal from public coffers, including issuing 500 new anti-corruption sanctions.  And we’re working with partners to enable them to advance protections as well. 

But we can’t let up.  Looking ahead, we need to come together on a bipartisan basis to finally pass the ENABLERS Act.  We need to encourage our global partners, like the IMF and the World Bank, to strengthen their own anti-corruption efforts. 

And we need to stay on the balls of our feet, including quickly expanding the investments DFC is making in countries that are experiencing a window of opportunity for governance reform, like we’ve done so effectively in both Moldova and the Dominican Republic.  That is a model for how we can take the fight against corruption, the fight for economic growth, the tools of the DFC, and seize opportunities that lie before us.  And we have a proven track record of being able to do just that. 

And this leads me to the final point I want to discuss today, and that’s where we go from here, what we should be focusing on as we head into the next five years.  Maybe I shouldn’t be the one answering this since I’m leaving, but I will give my advice anyway. 

And I — because I truly do mean “we.”  It’s not just about who’s sitting in this seat in the U.S. government in a particular administration.  It’s about the public sector and the private sector.  It’s about the administration and the Congress.  It’s about Democrats and Republicans.  It’s about all of us.  And I intend to continue to be a partner to this effort, even from the outside. 

DFC is a bipartisan priority.  It was created, as we’ve all noted, under the Trump administration.  It has been strengthened under the Biden administration.  And as we look to DFC’s reauthorization next year, it has to remain a bipartisan priority.  And I think we have to work together to implement a few key reforms. 

First, we’ve got to modernize DFC’s equity program.  As all of you know, appropriation for DFC’s program that invests in companies and projects has to account for each investment, when it’s an equity investment, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, like a grant, instead of recognizing the investment’s value, which is an equity stake in an enterprise and will eventually not just be recouped by DFC but in most cases will earn a return. 

The accounting quirk that we currently have to use — this dollar-for-dollar basis — really limits how much the DFC can invest every year.  Changing the equity program to account for future returns up front would enable the DFC to invest more and invest earlier at the same cost to the U.S. taxpayer.  That would be a game changer, especially in priority sectors like critical minerals and clean energy, where investment at scale is needed. 

Second, we’ve got to increase DFC’s footprint.  Right now, the list of countries where DFC can invest is generally limited, as you all know, by a certain income per capita threshold.  In some ways, this makes sense.  I understand why this got put into place.  Low- and middle-income countries need the development support the most.

But operating based on income per capita alone doesn’t account for other critical factors, like access to finance or vulnerability to shocks.  We can solve this by allowing DFC to mirror the World Bank’s country of operation model.  This would allow the DFC to operate in more countries that need our assistance in more areas.  And most importantly, it will ensure that nations don’t suddenly get cut off once their income per capita goes just slightly above the threshold. 

Finally, and maybe most importantly, most fundamentally, we need Congress to reauthorize the DFC on a bipartisan basis.  Here in Washington, we do sometimes get stuck thinking in two- or four-year cycles. 

But to put it simply, our private sector partners want to know that they can count on us in the long term.  Our allies who are investing with us, like the G7, want to know that they can count on us in the long term. 

And nations around the world want to know that they can count on us, the countries that will be taking our investments, in the long term; that big, quality infrastructure projects they choose to undertake with us will actually be completed, whether it takes 5 years or 10 years or 15 years or more for the kinds of generational investments we want to be making.

Now, to really do that, you need a permanent reauthorization.  That would send a clear signal to all of those audiences: You can count on the United States of America. 

It would create real market certainty and predictability that positions the private sector to help serve the American national interest while making good returns for their investors. 

And it would allow the DFC to focus on what matters: mobilizing capital at greater scale, including through the DFC’s enterprise fund authority; taking on smart investment risks to bring forward projects the private sector wouldn’t otherwise consider; maximizing cooperation with our other development tools, like the MCC or USTDA or USAID; and expanding collaboration with the MDBs like you’ve done with the Inter-American Development Bank. 

Let me close with this:

President Biden often says that our world stands at an inflection point, a point where the decisions we make now will determine the course of our future for decades to come.  In just five short years, the Development Finance Corporation and the work so many of you have done all around the world, including through these larger initiatives like PGI, has set that course on a better path for our nation and for nations around the world. 

Now is the time to keep going, to keep growing, to keep coming together across the aisle and around the world. 

It has been an honor to get to work with you, to be your supporter, to try to be your champion, and also, in the work that I do every day trying to protect America’s national security, be the beneficiary of the work you’ve done to enhance our national security.  And I can’t wait to see what you will accomplish in the next five years and the five after that and beyond. 

So, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.  (Applause.)

1:17 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by APNSA Jake Sullivan at the DFC 5th Anniversary Conference appeared first on The White House.

     On Human Rights Day and during Human Rights Week, we recommit to upholding the equal and inalienable rights of all people.

     America was founded on an idea — that every person is created equal and deserves to be treated equally throughout their lives.  And 76 years ago today, after the wreckage of 2 world wars and the Holocaust, the United States joined countries around the globe to enshrine this idea into a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We also helped establish the United Nations, upholding the inherent dignity of every person on the world stage and establishing a rules-based international order.  Today, our country continues to stand with our partners and allies to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world — from combatting threats to silence and intimidate human rights defenders like journalists to championing democracy, fair elections, and the universal human rights to freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, religion, and expression.  When crises erupt, we protect civilians from mass atrocities, promote accountability for those responsible for human rights violations and abuses, seek to free political prisoners, and create space for civilian dialogue.  This year, we also recognize another landmark achievement in the global fight for human rights with the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  And we continue to stand with free people everywhere who are bravely fighting for justice and defending life and liberty at home and around the world.

     My Administration has been committed to protecting the dignity and rights of people here at home and around the globe.  We established the White House Gender Policy Council to advance the rights and opportunities of women and girls across domestic and foreign policy — from preventing and responding to gender-based violence to promoting participation in peace and security efforts.  We rejoined the United Nations Human Rights Council to highlight and address pressing human rights concerns.  From the beginning of my Administration, we have worked to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ people, working toward a future where no one is targeted or persecuted because of who they are.  We are working to ensure all people are treated equally and have equal access to opportunities, no matter who they are or where they come from.  We have made progress in bringing new investments to communities that have too often been left behind and in expanding accessibility for people with disabilities.  And we have worked to advance technology in support of democracy and internet freedom, while leading important efforts to stop the expansion and misuse of commercial spyware, which has enabled human rights abuses around the world.

     I have made the preservation of democracy — the best tool for protecting human rights — the central cause of my Presidency.  That is why we convened the Summit for Democracy to strengthen democratic institutions, root out corruption, promote gender equality and human rights, and reject political violence.  There will always be forces that pull the world apart:  aggression, extremism, chaos, cynicism, and a desire to retreat from the world and go it alone.  The task of our time is to ensure that the forces holding us together are stronger than those that are pulling us apart.  Together, we can make sure our shared values and determination withstand any challenge. 

     Today and this week, may we reaffirm our commitment to standing up for human rights at home and around the world.  The future will be won by those who unleash the full potential of their people to live with dignity, prosper, think freely, innovate, and exist and love openly without fear.  Together, nothing is beyond our capacity.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2024, as Human Rights Day and the week beginning December 10, 2024, as Human Rights Week.  I call upon the people of the United States to mark these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post A Proclamation on Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.

1:35 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon.  Good afternoon.  (Applause.)  

Can we please applaud Sophia?  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  This is why we know the future is bright, right? 

Please have a seat.  Please have a seat. 

Well, I want to thank everyone for your leadership, for your long-standing friendship, and for the work we have yet to do together. 

Let me say, it is so good to be with Secretary Deb Haaland, who has been an incredible leader, as we know, and such a powerful fighter and a dear friend and colleague to me.  So, I thank you, Deb, for all that you do. 

And to all the leaders who are here today, including all the leaders from California who I have worked with over the years — (applause) — on so many important issues, from protecting the rights of Native children to fighting for the safety of Indigenous women to conserving Native land. 

And I believe, of course, that the bonds between our nations are sacred — they are sacred — and that the federal government has a duty to safeguard and strengthen those bonds, a duty to honor Tribal sovereignty, to ensure Tribal self-determination, and to uphold our trust and treaty obligations.  And I will always fight to build a future of opportunity and dignity for all Native people and all Native communities. 

As vice president, I have had the honor to meet and work with thousands of Native leaders, from young leaders at our extraordinary Tribal colleges and universities, to advocates fighting to protect Native votes and voting rights — (applause) — to union workers in Arizona and Native small-business owners from across the country. 

 And here’s what I know to be true.  Native communities are home to some of the most innovative, skilled, and determined people in America.  And as we all know well, there is an extraordinary amount of ambition, aspiration, and ability across Indian Country; however, what is often lacking is the opportunity to pursue that ambition, aspiration, and ability. 

For far too long, the federal government has underinvested in Native communities, underinvested in Native entrepreneurs and small businesses, and underinvested in Native hospitals, schools, and infrastructure, which is why, over the past four years, we have made it a central priority and it will m- — remain a central priority to address these historic inequities and to create opportunity in every Native community. 

Take, for example, our work with Native small-business owners.  We know that one of the biggest hurdles to Native entrepreneurs is having access to capital.  It’s one of the biggest challenges.  It’s not for lack of a good idea, for serious work ethic, for a plan that actually would benefit the community and meet a demand, but it’s access to capital.

On Tribal land and in many rural areas, the nearest bank is sometimes more than a hundred miles away, making it more difficult for folks to get the resources and support that they need to start and grow a small business, which is why I have worked to expand access to capital since I served in the United States Senate and, as vice president, have made sure we invested over a billion dollars in Native community banks, banks run by people who live in the community and understand — and are in the best position, then, to understand the needs of the community, the capacity of the community in a way that, in particular, other banks may not.  And the impact of that approach is profound. 

 As just one example: Soon after taking office, I spoke with Onna LeBeau, a member of the Omaha Tribe.  (Applause.)  And we had an extensive conversation.  I reached out to her, and — and she understood that, basically, as an executive director of a Native community bank in South Dakota, that the entrepreneurs in the community, many of them just were not being recognized by those who could invest in their work and in their growth.  We talked, for example, about entrepreneurs in the community who make traditional quilts and the challenges that they often face in securing loans, as big banks often don’t fully understand the culture and, therefore, don’t understand the value of the product or service, don’t understand the demand, don’t understand the need — just don’t understand the culture.

But community banks do.  And today, Native community banks are using the billion dollars that we have given them to support Native entrepreneurs, to create jobs, and to generate economic opportunity across Indian Country. 

In Native communities, we have also addressed inequities in health care, which we know is a long-, long-standing issue.  And we have done it with a belief — and I strongly believe — access to health care should be a right and not just a privilege of those who can afford it, that this is a matter — (applause) — and that this is a matter simply about dignity, about allowing people to have a quality of life to which they are entitled, and, in particular, to live without needlessly suffering.

Nearly 3 million people rely on the Indian Health Service for medical care.  In some communities, IHS hospitals and clinics are the only place that folks receive medical care. 

But before we took office, if Congress failed to pass a spending bill and the federal government then shut down, the IHS would stop receiving funding immediately.  Many of you here know that.  And when I was in the Senate, you called me to make sure I was clear about that.  And hospital- — because what we know: Hospitals and clinics across Indian Country would then have to close their doors. 

I worked on this issue, then, thanks to a lot of the leaders here, when I was a United States senator, and I know the profound harm that these closures cause.  In 2018, the federal government — everyone — many here remember that — the federal government shut down for more than a month.  And I still remember the stories: a mother of two who was forced to wait for days for treatment for bronchitis, all the time terrified that one of her lungs would collapse; a 16- — or a 68-year-old grandmother who was forced to delay eye surgery, despite daily pain; and a young man, who was engaged to be married, who lost his life because the opioid treatment center he relied on in his community was shut down.  These are just some of the stories, and they are heartbreaking. 

 So, when I was elected vice president, I was determined to finally deal with this issue and this injustice.  And I am proud to report that for the first time ever, we made it so that IHS will now continue to receive funding even if the federal government shuts down — (applause) — which, of course, means that no matter what happens, people will continue to get the care that they need and deserve.  It’s just a matter of dignity and what is right.  

And to improve health care across Indian Country, we have also taken on the issue — and, again, there are so many leaders here who have been doing this work to take on the issue of maternal health.  Women in America die at a higher rate in connection with childbirth than women in any other so-called wealthy country in the world.  And the latest numbers tell us Native — it was twice as likely.  The current numbers are that Native women are three times more likely than others to die in connection with childbirth.

Three years ago this very month, as vice president, I challenged every state in our country to address this crisis.  And, in particular, I challenged them to extend postpartum coverage under Medicaid from a measly — what they were doing — two months to one year.  I am proud to report that whereas, when I issued the challenge — and I was pretty shameless about it; I really challenged them, right?  (Laughs.)  Like, I was in their face about it.  When I first did it, only three states had Medicaid coverage postpartum beyond two months.  As of today, 46 states offer a full year of postpartum coverage.  (Applause.) Right? 

And there are so many leaders in this room that are behind that work, and I thank you. 

 So — and — and, by the way, those stats tell us that it includes, of those 46 states, every one of the 10 states with the largest Native populations. 

And so, of course, the leaders here know what this means.  It means that now there are thousands more Native women who acc- — have access to a full year of care, from vaccinations to checkups to postpartum depression screenings.  It makes a difference.

And all of this to know what we, again, must always do: fight for the dignity of all people.

To create a future of opportunity and dignity, we must also make sure every person has the freedom to drink clean water and breathe clean air.  Tribal Nations and people have served as responsible stewards of our environment and natural resources for millennia — the original leaders.  And over the past four years, we have then made it a priority to make sure you have the resources to continue your important work of leadership. 

As just one example: Last year, I visited the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.  (Applause.)  And I was, by the way, the first — well, there was never a president to do it; I’m the first vice president to ever do it in history.  And at Gila River, Governor Stephen Lewis — is he here?  I thought that was you.  Hi.  (Laughs.)  Governor, it’s good to see you. 

GOVERNOR LEWIS:  Love you, Vice President.  Love you.  (Applause.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  It’s good to see you. 

And we had such a wonderful visit, and — and the governor and I toured the site of a new clean water pipeline.  And for those who haven’t seen it, it’s really a sight to see.  It’s really a sight to see.  The project was proposed by Native leaders and created jobs for Native workers.  And the project will reduce the impact of drought and provide a new source of water that Native farmers can now use to irrigate their fields.

The Gila River project is just one of the thousands that will be supported and backed up by our investment of nearly $2 billion in Native-led climate projects to help clean up pollution and build reliable, clean energy and adapt to extreme weather, all of which will help protect Native communities for this generation and for seven generations to come.

So, I will end with this.  A few minutes ago, I had the privilege to meet with a group of extraordinary young Native leaders.  Where are you guys?  I know you came in here.  Stand up, please.  Just — you all have to stand up.  Come on.  (Applause.)  And we had such a wonderful visit.  I could have just hung out with you guys all afternoon, to be honest.  (Laughter.) 

I’m telling you, our future is so bright.  And I said to these leaders a few things.  I mean, you know, this is just — I guess, for all of us, culturally, we lecture.  I lectured them.  (Laughter.)  I told them what to do.  I gave them advice they didn’t ask for.  (Laughter.) 

And one of the things I said to them is that your leadership and your voice is so important, and we are so proud of you.  And I said to them something everyone here knows: You know, you may many, many times — you will many times be the only one that looks like you in a room, be it a boardroom, a lecture hall, a meeting room, a congressional hearing.  You may be the only one that looks like you in that room.

But you always remember you are not in that room alone, that we are all in that room with you, and that when you walk in that room, we expect and demand that you will walk in that room chin up, shoulders back, carrying the voices of all of us who are so proud that you are there and are counting on you to lead.

And I see in our young leaders such incredible potential.  I see purpose.  I see determination.  I see ambition, which I applaud and must always be applauded.

And here is one of the things I love most about our young leaders: They are rightly impatient.  They are not waiting for someone else to lead.  They are prepared to lead. 

 And so, I say, in the midst of challenges, in the midst of what might sometimes be a profound sense of uncertainty, let us always continue to have faith in our young leaders, in their future, and in our collective future. 

And I thank you all, all the leaders here, for all you have done and all you will do.  And let us continue to fight for the opportunity and the dignity of all people. 

May God bless you.  And may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

                         END                     1:51 P.M. EST 

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Tribal Nations Summit appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that a major disaster exists in the State of West Virginia and ordered Federal assistance to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by Post-Tropical Storm Helene from September 25 to September 28, 2024.

The President’s action makes Federal funding available to affected individuals in Mercer County.

Assistance can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

Ms. Georgeta Dragoiu of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been appointed to coordinate Federal recovery operations in the affected areas. 

Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

Residents and business owners who sustained losses in the designated areas can begin applying for assistance at www.DisasterAssistance.gov, by calling 800-621-FEMA (3362), or by using the FEMA App. Anyone using a relay service, such as video relay service (VRS), captioned telephone service or others, can give FEMA the number for that service. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

###

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves West Virginia Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Three years in, President Biden’s executive order has catalyzed global markets and put the U.S. Government on track to meet his ambitious sustainability goals and save taxpayers money

When President Biden entered office, he pledged to restore America’s climate leadership and charged the Federal Government to deliver on that promise. He recognized that as the single largest land owner, energy consumer, and employer in the nation, and the largest purchaser on Earth, the Federal Government can catalyze private sector investment and expand the economy and American industry. The Biden-Harris Administration has transformed how we build, buy, and manage electricity, vehicles, buildings, infrastructure projects, and other operations to be clean and sustainable, while creating good clean energy jobs, supporting American manufacturing, and saving taxpayers money by cutting energy and operating costs.
 
The President’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14057 on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability and the accompanying Federal Sustainability Plan directs the U.S. Government to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 while boosting domestic manufacturing, supporting clean energy industries, creating high-paying union jobs, and cutting energy costs. As part of the President’s Investing in America agenda, the U.S. government has invested over $12 billion and launched thousands of projects to transition to electric vehicles, clean construction materials, and energy-efficient buildings powered by 100% clean electricity.
 
The President’s actions have created a bold new playbook to turn the climate crisis into economic opportunity. Just three years after President Biden signed E.O. 14057, GHG emissions from Federal operations are down 38% from 2008 levels. This puts the U.S. Government over halfway to the President’s goal of a 65% emissions reduction from Federal operations by 2030.
 
Take a look at the Biden-Harris Administration’s Federal sustainability progress by the numbers:
 

• Ordered nearly 82,000 zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) for the Federal fleet and installed 10,500 charging ports at Federal facilities nationwide, with an additional 52,500 charging ports in progress;
  
• Supported the U.S. Postal Service’s commitment to acquire 100% electric delivery trucks by 2026 – the first of which have already started to roll through neighborhoods – by leveraging an investment of $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act;
  
• Developed a clean electricity procurement pipeline with energy suppliers across 36 states that would move the Federal Government from its current 40% clean electricity match to 70% by 2027, on its way to 100% by 2030;
  
• Generated over $8 billion in private sector funding to launch thousands of modernization projects that will deliver energy- efficient, climate resilient, and all-electric Federal buildings, including at least 2,700 net-zero emissions buildings that are complete or underway today;
  
• Catalyzed America’s clean manufacturing industry by deploying nearly $4.5 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding to use American-made low-carbon steel, concrete, asphalt, and glass in Federal infrastructure projects;
  
• Released the first comprehensive measurement of the Federal Scope 3 GHG footprint, launched a Federal supplier climate scorecard, and took additional actions that put the Federal Government on track to cut its Scope 3 emissions by 30% by 2030;
  
• Established the Federal Government’s first-ever goal to phase-out Federal procurement of single-use plastics from food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027, and from all Federal operations by 2035;
  
• Directed the nation’s two million Federal employees to prioritize the use of sustainable transportation, including electric vehicles (EVs), for business travel;
  
• Rallied other countries to accelerate their climate ambition by launching the U.S.-led Net-Zero Government Initiative, under which the United States and 33 partner countries have committed to achieve net-zero emissions from national government operations by 2050 and to publish roadmaps for reaching this goal; and
  
• Powering the White House complex with carbon-free electricity that will account for 95% of its total usage and installed new EV charging infrastructure to power its vehicle fleet, which will soon include electric vehicles. White House buildings have also been upgraded to reduce energy use and costs.

President Biden has taken the most significant and comprehensive actions ever to set the Federal Government on a course toward a cleaner, more efficient, and resilient future – establishing a historic legacy with benefits that will continue to be felt for years to come. With broad support from America’s manufacturers, clean energy developers, labor organizations, business leaders, states, and communities, the Federal Government’s 300,000 buildings, 600,000 vehicles, and $750 billion in annual procurement power will continue to be more sustainable and resilient while supporting good jobs, cutting costs, and saving taxpayers money.
 
Delivering on President Biden’s Federal Sustainability Plan
 
Electrifying the Federal Fleet: With more than 600,000 cars and trucks, the Federal Government is the largest vehicle fleet owner in the world. Transitioning this fleet to ZEVs is a core focus of President Biden’s Federal Sustainability Plan, which targets 100% ZEV acquisitions by 2035, including 100% light-duty acquisitions by 2027. At the start of the Administration, the Federal fleet included fewer than 2,000 ZEVs. Since President Biden took office, the Federal Government has ordered nearly 82,000 electric vehicles and installed 10,500 EV charging ports at Federal facilities, with an additional 52,500 ports in progress.

New, American-made electric United States Postal Service (USPS) delivery trucks are also beginning to roll through neighborhoods. USPS, which maintains over 200,000 vehicles, has committed that all Next Generation Delivery Vehicles in 2026 and thereafter will be electric vehicles. As part of that transition, the Postal Service is equipping hundreds of its sorting and delivery centers with electric vehicle charging stations.
 
Advancing Carbon-Free Electricity: Federal agencies have moved expeditiously to meet President Biden’s charge of powering all Federal operations with 100% carbon pollution-free electricity (CFE) by 2030, including 50% on a 24/7 basis, by taking a new approach to procuring electricity. Through engagement with energy suppliers across 36 states, the Biden-Harris Administration developed a clean electricity procurement pipeline that would move the Federal Government from its current 40% clean electricity match to 70% by 2027 on its way to 100% by 2030.
 
The General Services Administration (GSA) made history by executing the first-ever whole-of-government approach to procuring CFE clean electricity. GSA also executed the Federal Government’s first-ever contract for locally-supplied CFE delivered on a 24/7 hourly basis in Arkansas. Utilities have responded enthusiastically to GSA’s new approach, entering agreements to power Federal facilities in 24 states and the District of Columbia with 100% CFE by 2030.

Under this Administration, the Department of Defense (DOD) also executed the government’s first “sleeved” power purchase agreement, which will power five military installations in North and South Carolina with over 135 megawatts (MW) of newly built solar power; and cut the ribbon on the Edwards Air Force Base Solar Array, one of the world’s largest solar and battery storage projects, spanning more than 4,000 acres of public and private property lands. DOD also demonstrated leadership in engaging with the market on potential nuclear power from next generation microreactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). The Department of Energy has entered into realty agreements to develop 14,000 acres of DOE land for 1,550 MWs of new CFE generation through its Clean Up to Clean Energy Initiative. In total, the Federal Government has leveraged federal properties to site CFE projects equivalent to approximately 10% of all USG electricity consumption, or 5 terawatt hours annually.
 
The Federal Government has also engaged in energy regulatory processes in a new way, working with Entergy Arkansas to design a first-of-its-kind 24/7 hourly matched CFE tariff, and intervening as a large customer in integrated resource planning processes in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to achieve greater affordability, resilience and reductions to emissions. 
 
Reducing Building Emissions: The Federal Government has paved the way toward cost effective, super-efficient, all-electric buildings, with the goal of achieving a net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50% emissions reduction by 2032. Today, projects are complete or underway to bring 2,700 Federal buildings to net-zero emissions, covering over 40 million square feet, which puts the U.S. Government on track to achieve the goal set by the first-ever Federal Building Performance Standard. These leading-edge projects are energy efficient, climate resilient, all-electric, and better positioned to deliver on agencies’ missions.
 
Federal building emissions have been reduced by 39% since 2008, and 8% of reductions were delivered over the past 4 years, far outpacing historic trends. Energy savings from this Administration are comparable to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of over 300,000 homes. Further, agencies have built a strong pipeline of projects that will continue to deliver savings in years to come.
 
Investments in Federal buildings leveraged over $8 billion in private sector funding through performance contracting to launch thousands of modernization projects that will deliver energy- efficient, climate resilient, and all-electric Federal buildings. They also are expected to cut annual utility costs by over $175 million annually and create over 80,000 jobs.
 
The Administration has proven net-zero emissions buildings are cost effective through showcase projects at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, the largest building in Washington, D.C., which is now 100% electric; Fort Hunter Liggett, the first U.S. Army base to achieve net-zero energy designation; and the Oklahoma City Federal Building, which cut energy costs and is pioneering power grid resilience strategies.
 
Building Sustainable Supply Chains: The Biden-Harris Administration has shown how the Federal Government, as the single largest purchaser in the world, can lead by example to reduce harmful emissions and catalyze climate action across its thousands of suppliers. Last month, the Administration released the first comprehensive measurement of the Federal Government’s Scope 3 emissions footprint, including the emissions associated with the $730 billion of goods and services that the government purchases annually. The Administration also released a Federal supplier climate scorecard that tracks the Federal Government’s top 200 suppliers’ progress toward addressing their climate risks.

To help Federal suppliers reduce their carbon footprints, the Administration launched a new webpage that connects suppliers with Federal programs, tools, and information that they can use to accelerate their decarbonization efforts. To further curb emissions, the Administration directed the Federal Government’s two million Federal employees to prioritize the use of sustainable transportation, including electric vehicles, for official and local travel. Together, these actions are expected to cut Federal Scope 3 emissions by 30% by 2030 – the equivalent of 40 million metric tons of CO2 emissions (MTCO2e) annually.

To further advance a more sustainable supply chain, the Biden-Harris Administration established the first-ever goal to phase out procurement of single-use plastic products from all Federal operations by 2035, and directed agencies for the first time to prioritize the purchase of sustainable products without added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
 
Buying Clean: The Biden-Harris Administration has delivered on the President’s charge to “buy clean” by using American-made low-carbon steel, concrete, asphalt, and glass in Federal infrastructure projects. The Administration’s landmark Federal Buy Clean Initiative leverages the sway of the U.S. government, as the largest purchaser on Earth, to spur demand for clean American manufacturing of materials that form the bedrock of our economy.
 
Since 2023, GSA has incorporated Buy Clean requirements in the construction specifications for more than 150 Federal building and infrastructure projects. Manufacturers have responded by publishing over 17,000 new environmental product declarations (EPDs) for low-carbon construction materials, demonstrating that industry is reacting to market demand for materials made with lower emissions. The 150 GSA-led projects are expected to support an estimated 6,000 jobs per year across the U.S. during construction and generate $2.7 billion in GDP. A complementary EPA grant program awarded $160 million from the Inflation Reduction Act to help manufacturers develop and verify additional EPDs.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded $1.2 billion in grants to 39 State Departments of Transportation to purchase American-made low-carbon construction materials. DOT anticipates awarding an additional $800 million in Inflation Reduction Act funds to cities, metropolitan planning organizations, Tribal governments and other Federal, State and local agencies in the coming weeks.
 
The Biden-Harris Administration has also partnered with state governments to accelerate action. The Federal-State Buy Clean Partnership includes 13 states that have committed to prioritizing the procurement of low-carbon infrastructure materials in state-funded projects, and to collaborate with the Federal Government and one another to send a harmonized demand signal to the marketplace.
 
Advancing Climate Adaptation and Resilience: When President Biden took office, he prioritized the revitalization of Federal agencies’ climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts. Today, 24 Federal agencies have adopted adaptation and resilience plans that address their most significant climate risks and vulnerabilities from 2024 to 2027 and outline the steps they are taking to strengthen their facilities’, employees’, resources’, and operations’ resilience to climate change impacts. For the first time, agencies have identified senior resilience leaders and created new accountability structures that integrate adaptation and resilience throughout their missions while also meeting the resilience requirements for the Disaster Resiliency Planning Act, as well as best practices for advancing climate-smart infrastructure. Agencies have also adopted common indicators to assess their progress towards identifying and addressing the risks that climate change poses to them and the people and communities they serve.
 
Partnering for a Broader Impact: The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized partnering with other state, local, and international governments to accelerate sustainability initiatives at every level. The Greening Government Initiative (GGI), which the United States launched in 2021, is a first-of-its-kind initiative that enables over 60 member countries to exchange information, promote innovation, and share best practices to support global efforts to green national government operations and meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Building on GGI’s success, in 2022 the U.S. launched the Net-Zero Government Initiative (NZGI) to increase countries’ ambition to green their national government operations. NZGI countries commit to achieving net-zero emissions from national government operations by 2050, and hold themselves accountable by publishing roadmaps that establish long-term and interim targets and plans. To date, 34 countries have joined this initiative.

Most recently, the U.S. launched the Government Scope 3 Alliance, a first-of-its-kind international alliance to reduce Scope 3 emissions from the public sector, whose members commit to set Scope 3 emissions reduction targets for their government operations and to report on their progress.
 
Climate Smart White House: Leading by example, the Administration has worked to secure clean electricity that will power 95% of White House complex operations, including its facilities, vehicle fleets and new EV charging infrastructure. These climate smart improvements increase resilience and energy efficiency across multiple buildings that make up the Executive Office of the President campus, saving taxpayer dollars through lower utility bills and operating costs.
 
Fostering a Climate-Focused Workforce and Advancing Environmental Justice and Equity: The Biden-Harris Administration launched multiple programs for Federal employees to enhance their sustainability and climate literacy and learn about the critical role they play in shifting to more sustainable and resilient operations. This included a sustainability speaker series featuring climate change experts Al Roker, Bill Nye, and Kathryn Hayhoe, along with launching a first-of-its-kind climate adaptation training that has supported 1,500 Federal program acquisition managers with preparing for and managing climate risks. The Administration also established a Presidential Federal Sustainability Awards program to recognize federal agencies and employees who have tackled complex challenges and delivered results for a cleaner, more efficient Federal Government.
 
The Biden-Harris Administration has delivered on President Biden’s commitment to not only advance sustainability and resilience within the Federal Government, but to do so in ways that advance environmental justice and equity. For the first time ever, Federal agencies are required to link climate adaptation and sustainability planning efforts with advancing environmental justice and the Justice40 Initiative, which seeks to ensure that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. The Administration also issued a final rule promoting sustainability, equity, and community engagement in decisions on where federal facilities are located. As part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, the General Services Administration announced $23.8 million for 13 projects at federal buildings across 10 states through GSA’s Good Neighbor Program. The 13 federal building improvement project sites were selected for their opportunity to make a positive impact on local communities.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Leads by Example, Leveraging the Federal Government to Catalyze Clean Energy Jobs and Cut Costs and Pollution appeared first on The White House.

President Joe Biden spoke today with King Abdullah II of Jordan. The President emphasized his full support for a Syrian-led transition process under the auspices of the United Nations as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. He also discussed the situation in eastern Syria to include the U.S. commitment to the D-ISIS mission, including the strikes conducted last night against a concentration of ISIS fighters and leaders.  The President emphasized the support of the United States for the stability of Jordan and Jordan’s central role in maintaining stability and de-escalating tensions throughout the Middle East region. The leaders also discussed the situation in Gaza and the urgent need to conclude the ceasefire and hostage release agreement together with a surge in humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza. They agreed to remain in regular contact directly and through their teams. 

###

The post Readout of President Biden’s Call with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan appeared first on The White House.

For a century and a half spanning the early 19th and mid- 20th centuries, the Federal Government removed American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children (Native children) from their families, Tribes, and homelands, often by force or coercion, and transported them to institutions across the United States.  These institutions collectively became known as the “Federal Indian boarding school system.”  The Federal Government’s goal was to assimilate Native children by stripping them of their languages, religions, and cultures.  To that end, the children taken to these institutions were often separated from their families for years, and many never returned to their homes.  The schools often used physical abuse, compulsory labor, and corporal punishment to achieve their assimilative ends.  Many Native children were subjected to sexual abuse at the schools.  School staff cut their hair, made them give up their traditional clothes and names, provided them with inadequate medical services, and deprived them of essential nutrition.  According to available records, nearly 1,000 Native youths died in schools across the system, but the actual number of lives lost is likely much higher.  Many children attempted to flee from schools in the system; while some managed to escape, those who did not often faced severe discipline.  For the survivors of the schools, and for the families and Tribes whose children were taken from them, the trauma and violence inflicted by the Federal Indian boarding school system have had profound effects across multiple generations, and those impacts continue today. 

     The Federal Government’s attempt to control and assimilate Native children into Anglo-European culture, society, and religion through the Federal Indian boarding school system was part of a broader effort to destroy American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian political, social, and cultural structures; stifle opposition and resistance in those communities; and appropriate Tribal lands, waters, and resources.  This effort was carried out through policies implemented at Federal Indian boarding schools and actions taken by multiple executive departments and agencies across the administrations of 34 Presidents — from Thomas Jefferson through Lyndon B. Johnson — using today’s equivalent of at least $23 billion in Federal appropriations.  

     Despite this system and other destructive Federal policies, Indian Tribes (Tribes, or Tribal Nations), including Alaska Native Villages, and the Native Hawaiian Community retained their identities and cultures and rebuilt their political and community institutions, including by taking over and transforming some of the Federal Indian boarding schools that once caused widespread and enduring pain.

     Founded in 1879, the Carlisle Indian Industrial School (Carlisle School) in Pennsylvania was the first Federal off-reservation boarding school for Native children.  By the time it ceased operations in 1918, the Carlisle School had subjected 7,800 Indian children from more than 140 Tribes to its coercive form of education.  Some children were as young as 5 years old when they arrived.  The Federal Indian boarding school system, which continued through the 1960s following practices first used at the Carlisle School, inflicted a legacy of individual, collective, and multi-generational trauma on Tribes and the Native Hawaiian Community.  

     The former campus of the Carlisle School is located within the boundaries of what is now the United States Army’s Carlisle Barracks (Carlisle Barracks), one of the Nation’s oldest military installations.  The Continental Congress first used the property as a center for artillery and ordnance supplies for the Continental Army under General George Washington.  In 1863, during the Civil War, Confederate troops torched buildings on the campus, which functioned at the time as a central supply center for the Union Army.  The Federal Government rebuilt the barracks between 1863 and 1864 in the original footprint and style.

     The Carlisle School campus was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1961 and added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1966.  The 24 historic structures associated with the Carlisle School include residential, vocational, and athletic buildings that evoke the Federal Indian boarding school era.  Prominent among these are the historic School Road Gateposts.  Constructed by the labor of children and youths at the Carlisle School, these gateposts were the first structures that some children taken to Carlisle would have seen as they walked along the pathway and entered the campus.  The gateposts still stand today as a marker of the removal and separation of children from their families, Tribes, and homelands.

     The concept of using the education of Native children and separation from their families and Tribes as weapons of control and religious conversion echoes back centuries to early colonial times in the 1600s.  In 1819, the Congress laid the groundwork for a general system of Indian education by enacting the Civilization Fund Act (3 Stat. 516).  The Act authorized the President to provide for “[e]mployment of instructors for Indians,” including “for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic,” and provided an annual appropriation of funds for that purpose.  Over the ensuing five decades, these funds were distributed to various entities (particularly missionary organizations) and individuals “prominent in the effort to ‘civilize’ the Indians.”  At least 59 religious institutions and organizations received Federal Government funding to operate or support schools in the Federal Indian boarding school system.  

     The more immediate origins of the philosophy of the Federal Indian boarding school system trace to an organized “experiment of enforced civilization” in 1875.  At that time, President Ulysses S. Grant’s War Department, acting on directions from the Congress, selected Tribal members labeled as “hostiles” or “ringleaders” to be taken prisoner and transported by train from the West to Fort Marion, Florida.  The United States Army targeted and arrested 72 members from a range of Tribes.  The War Department then issued Special Orders detailing 1st Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt of the 10th Cavalry to accompany the prisoners — a group of men, women, and children — on their trip and remain in charge of them upon arrival.  

     Pratt oversaw all aspects of the Fort Marion incarceration and treatment of the prisoners:  cutting off their hair, clothing them in military uniforms, running military drills, selling their crafts and drawings, teaching them English, and assigning prisoners to work as laborers.  During a speech delivered in 1892 to the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in Denver, Colorado, Pratt expressed his infamous approach to assimilation:  “[T]hat all the Indian there is in the race should be dead.  Kill the Indian in him and save the man.”  This soon became the blueprint and philosophy for how children would be treated at Federal Indian boarding schools.

     In 1882, the Congress authorized the Secretary of War to set aside any vacant posts or barracks for industrial training for Indian youth and to detail Army officers for Indian education under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior.  Three years earlier, in August 1879, the Secretary of War had approved the first such transfer, of the vacant Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania, to the Secretary of the Interior to be used as a school for Native children.  On October 6, 1879, 83 American Indian and Alaska Native children — 24 girls and 59 boys — arrived at the newly founded Carlisle School.  The Congress subsequently passed a law that paid a salary to Pratt, whom the Secretary of War had placed in charge of the Carlisle School at the request of the Secretary of the Interior.  For almost 40 years, the Department of the Interior operated the Carlisle School as an Indian Industrial School, melding the approach of incarceration with assimilative education policies.  

     When children arrived at the Carlisle School, they were immersed in the practices of so-called “civilized” life — a term frequently used to describe the goal of the Federal Indian boarding schools in Federal Government reports.  Their hair was cut and their clothing was replaced with military uniforms for boys and Victorian dresses for girls.  One of the children brought to the Carlisle School in its opening year, Luther Standing Bear — a child of the Oglala Lakota Chief Standing Bear — later recounted his experience:  “Now, after having my hair cut . . . I felt that I was no more Indian but would be an imitation of a white man.”  Zitkala-Sa, a Dakota woman from the Yankton Sioux Reservation, recalled the confusion and fear she felt on her first day as a child at Carlisle, during which school officials dragged her from her hiding place under a bed, tied her to a chair, and forcibly cut her thick braids:  “Then I lost my spirit. . . . In my anguish I moaned for my mother, but no one came to comfort me . . . for now I was only one of many little animals driven by a herder.”

     All children at the Carlisle School experienced a regimented daily schedule starting at 6:00 a.m. and concluding with Taps and room inspection at 9:00 p.m.  Sunday school, chapel services, Catholic instruction, and Bible study classes were required.  Carlisle School instructors also imposed strict rules about teaching English and prohibited the children from speaking their native languages — a rule that was often enforced with corporal punishment. 

     “Vocational” or “industrial” training in the form of compulsory labor was a central component of the Carlisle School throughout its operation.  Boys were assigned mechanics, blacksmithing, tin-smithing, wagon-making, carpentering, tailoring, shoemaking, harness-making, baking, painting, printing, and farming.  Girls were assigned cooking, laundry, and housekeeping.  In what became known as the “outing system” -– an arrangement intended to “impart[] the lesson of Americanism” — Carlisle School administrators regularly sent children and youths to spend a portion of each year living with and working for white families.  School administrators then deposited the children’s compensation “to their credit” with the school.

     Carlisle School leaders also used the children’s labor to perform maintenance, construction, and operations work on the campus.  Several buildings — including a large brick printing office, a gymnasium, a hospital, doctor’s quarters, a model home, a laundry building, the Leupp Indian Art Studio, and a warehouse — were primarily constructed by the youths of the Carlisle School.  

     The Carlisle School’s start as a Federal Indian boarding school coincided with the rise of American football.  Although students also participated in other athletics, the Carlisle School used the football team as a means to earn publicity and garner support for the boarding school approach to assimilation.  In 1899, the Carlisle School hired a well-known football coach, Glenn “Pop” Warner, and in the ensuing years the Carlisle football team boasted an impressive win-loss record, including victories over colleges such as Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.  Newspapers published articles with sensational stories and photographs of the Carlisle School games, spotlighting Carlisle student athletes Dennison Wheelock, Gus Welch, and Jim Thorpe.  For a small number of players, like Thorpe, football provided access to higher educational opportunities and athletic success.  But for most players, the Carlisle football team did not lead to additional opportunities.  

     Indeed, for the student body more generally, the athletic program amounted to another form of exploitation by the school.  To fund the gymnasium, the Carlisle School took purported donations from the children’s Individual Indian Money Accounts, which were trust accounts created and managed by the Federal Government.  The school also used sales of items made by children and gate receipts from athletic events held on the Carlisle School’s fields and cinder track for its own uses.  A congressional investigation in 1914 received testimony that Warner used the Carlisle football game proceeds for his personal gain.

     Conditions at the Carlisle School — located in a remote area over a thousand miles away from many children’s homes — were unfamiliar and harsh.  Children lived in close quarters and were exposed to diseases they had not encountered previously.  More than 180 children died while attending the Carlisle School; many of them are buried in marked gravesites at the Carlisle Barracks Main Post Cemetery.  

     The Carlisle School’s tenure as a Federal Indian boarding school ended in 1918, at the end of World War I, when the War Department took back control of the post and opened a hospital to care for wounded soldiers.  At that time, 279 children left the Carlisle School and were transferred to other Federal Indian boarding schools.  

     The Carlisle School’s legacy extends far beyond its almost 40 years of operation.  The Carlisle School became a model replicated in more than 417 federally supported Indian boarding schools in 37 States and then-territories over the course of the next century.  In addition, some Indian boarding schools were operated by religious institutions and organizations that did not receive Federal Government support.  Across the Federal Indian boarding school system, the Federal Government’s policies of cultural disruption and assimilation resulted in a collective loss of language, religion, and identity, and inflicted intergenerational trauma that persists today and remains a painful but important part of our Nation’s story.

     Many Tribal leaders resisted the Federal Indian boarding school system and took steps to try to protect Native children and reunite families.  After the United States military entered Third Mesa of Hopi in 1890 and took 104 children from their families into the Federal Indian boarding school system, Hopi leaders refused to send additional Hopi children to the school.  In response, in November 1894, the Federal Government arrested 19 Hopi leaders and held them as prisoners for nearly a year at Alcatraz Island in California, a former United States military installation.  The names of these Hopi leaders were:  Heevi’ima, Polingyawma, Masatiwa, Qotsventiwa, Piphongva, Lomahongewma, Lomayestiwa, Yukiwma, Tuvehoyiwma, Patupha, Qotsyawma, Sikyakeptiwa, Talagayniwa, Talasyawma, Nasingayniwa, Lomayawma, Tawalestiwa, Aqawsi, and Qoiwiso.

     On May 23, 1881, Chief Spotted Tail and parents from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe requested that the Federal Government return the human remains of Rosebud Sioux Tribe children buried at the Carlisle School to their Indian Reservation in South Dakota.  On July 14, 2021 — over 140 years later — the Army transferred the human remains of nine children to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to return them to their homelands.  The names of these nine children were:  Dennis Strikes First (Blue Tomahawk); Rose Long Face (Little Hawk); Lucy Take The Tail (Pretty Eagle); Warren Painter (Bear Paints Dirt); Ernest Knocks Off (White Thunder); Maud Little Girl (Swift Bear); Alvan, aka Roaster, Kills Seven Horses, One That Kills Seven Horses; Friend Hollow Horn Bear; and Dora Her Pipe (Brave Bull).  The Army is currently implementing its Carlisle Barracks Disinterment Program, which, consistent with Army regulations and policy, promotes engagement with the Tribes and families of the children who died at the Carlisle School to return their remains to their ancestral homelands.  This program has successfully disinterred and returned the remains of 41 children to their families.

     Many buildings that made up or are connected to the original Carlisle School campus remain.  Twenty-four historic structures associated with the Carlisle School have been preserved by the Army and stand today within the National Historic Landmark district at Carlisle Barracks.  In addition to those structures mentioned above, the site also includes living quarters, the Superintendent’s residence, the “Pop” Warner House, Washington Hall, the Hessian Powder Magazine (built in 1777 and known since 1870 as a guard house), and athletic fields that parallel the original Carlisle School track.  The four School Road Gateposts, when constructed in 1910, marked the main entrance to the boarding school campus.  

     Designating the former campus of the Carlisle School, with boundaries consistent with the National Historic Landmark, as a national monument will help ensure this shameful chapter of American history is never forgotten or repeated.  Establishing a national monument at the historic Carlisle School and acknowledging the Federal Government’s policies aimed at destroying Tribal and Indigenous political structures, cultures, and traditions — including through the Federal Indian boarding school system — takes a step toward redress and national healing in the arc of the survival, resilience, and triumph of Indian Tribes (including Alaska Native Villages) and the Native Hawaiian Community.

     WHEREAS, section 320301 of title 54, United States Code (the “Antiquities Act”), authorizes the President, in the President’s discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected; and

     WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior, at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who is herself a descendant of survivors of the Federal Indian boarding school system, established the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative, which has helped bring to light the extensive breadth and depth of the role the Federal Government played in creating the Federal Indian boarding school system; and

     WHEREAS, I issued a long-overdue Presidential apology to Tribal Nations and Native people on behalf of the Federal Government acknowledging the lasting harms caused by the Federal Indian boarding school policy and recognizing the need to learn from this history and advance the goal of healing; and

     WHEREAS, the Carlisle School was the Nation’s first off-reservation Federal Indian boarding school, provided a template for institutions across the Nation and internationally for its assimilation practices, and today remains one of the Nation’s best-preserved examples of the Federal Indian boarding school era; and

     WHEREAS, the Department of the Army (Army) has taken steps to preserve part of the Carlisle School campus and the historic objects it contains, ensuring that its history can be told; and

     WHEREAS, the historic buildings and pathways that are part of the Carlisle School campus — where thousands of Native children lived, and in some cases died, far from their families, Tribes, and homelands; were compelled to participate in school activities designed to separate them from their cultures and identities; and performed compulsory manual labor — are important historic objects that reflect and embody the Carlisle School’s years of operation and the similar practices of other institutions in the Federal Indian boarding school system; and

     WHEREAS, the School Road Gateposts are a nationally significant passageway and an historic object on the site through which Native children walked after being removed from their homes and families during the Federal Indian boarding school era, and are contributing features of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School National Historic Landmark first designated by the Secretary of the Interior in 1961 and updated in 1985; and

     WHEREAS, designation of the monument will further the efforts of the United States to aid in recovery, reconciliation, and healing for Indian Tribes, the Native Hawaiian Community, and survivors and their descendants affected by the Federal Indian boarding school system, while honoring and mourning the lives of Native children lost and celebrating those who persisted; and

     WHEREAS, I find that all the objects identified above, and objects of the type identified above within the area described herein, are objects of historic interest in need of protection under section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, regardless of whether they are expressly identified as objects of historic interest in the text of this proclamation; and

     WHEREAS, I find that the boundaries of the monument reserved by this proclamation represent the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects of historic interest identified above, as required by the Antiquities Act; and

     WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to preserve and protect the objects of historic interest associated with the Carlisle School and its prominent role in the story of Federal Indian boarding schools instituted under the United States policy of forced assimilation of Native children;

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, hereby proclaim the objects identified above that are situated upon lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be part of the Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument (monument) and, for the purpose of protecting those objects, reserve as part thereof all lands and interests in lands that are owned or controlled by the Government of the United States within the boundaries described on the accompanying map, which is attached to and forms a part of this proclamation.  The reserved Federal lands and interests in lands within the monument’s boundaries consist of approximately 24.5 acres, which are coextensive with the boundaries of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School National Historic Landmark and lie within the approximately 520-acre boundary of Carlisle Barracks.  The boundaries described on the accompanying map are confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

     All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the monument are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws or laws applicable to the Army, including withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral, solar, and geothermal leasing.  The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights.

     The Secretary of the Army is hereby directed to transfer to the National Park Service (NPS) administrative jurisdiction over the approximately 258 square feet (0.006 acres) identified by the Army as the School Road Gateposts.  In furtherance of the Antiquities Act and pursuant to their respective legal authorities, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army shall manage the monument through the NPS and the Army, respectively.  The management of the monument shall be conducted in a cooperative manner, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and direction provided by this proclamation, and consistent with an agreement between the NPS and the Army that details their respective duties and responsibilities for management of the monument.

     Following transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the School Road Gateposts, the NPS shall administer that portion of the monument, and the Army shall continue to administer the remaining portion of the monument.  The NPS shall be responsible for interpretation of and education regarding the entirety of the monument in consultation with the Army. 

     Within 3 years of the date of this proclamation, or as soon as practicable to incorporate Tribal views, knowledge, and expertise, as appropriate, for the purpose of preserving, interpreting, and enhancing the public understanding and appreciation of the monument, the NPS, in consultation with the Army, shall prepare a management plan for the monument.  The management plan shall ensure the monument fulfills the following purposes for the benefit of present and future generations:  (1) to preserve the historic resources within the boundaries of the monument; (2) to interpret the story of the Carlisle School and its significance to the history of the Federal Indian boarding school system; and (3) to commemorate the efforts and resilience of Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples, including survivors of the Carlisle School and others affected by Federal Indian boarding schools, who are working to advance healing and reconciliation, to recover Native languages and cultures, and to chart a vibrant future for all Native children.   

     In recognition of the centrality of Tribal participation to tell this story, to inform interpretation of the objects that are part of the monument, and to enhance public understanding and appreciation of the monument, the Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS and in coordination with the Army, shall meaningfully engage Tribal Nations and the Native Hawaiian Community in the development of the management plan and ongoing management of the monument.  The Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS, shall also take steps to ensure that management decisions affecting the monument incorporate Tribal expertise and Indigenous Knowledge in an appropriate manner consistent with Tribal Nations’ concerns for protecting Indigenous Knowledge and expertise.  The Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS, shall enter into an agreement with interested federally recognized Indian Tribes to set forth terms, pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, and policies, for co-stewardship of the monument.  The Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS, shall also provide for consultation with any federally recognized Indian Tribe with historical connections to any part of the Federal Indian boarding school system regarding the interpretation of that system’s history at the monument. 

     As the Federal Indian boarding school system affected nearly every Indian Tribe (including Alaska Native Villages) and the Native Hawaiian Community, and in view of the wide array of resulting experiences and perspectives, the Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS, is also directed, as appropriate, to use applicable authorities to seek to enter into agreements with other entities to address common interests related to the interpretation of and education regarding the monument, and care and preservation of historic objects therein.  These entities may include Dickinson College; the Cumberland County Historical Society; Phoenix Indian School; Haskell Indian Nations University; Stewart Indian School Cultural Center and Museum; Sheldon Jackson Museum; Fort Apache Heritage Foundation, Inc.; Kamehameha Schools; and existing National Park System units with resources related to the Federal Indian boarding school system.

     Nothing in this proclamation shall affect or diminish the Army’s authority to administer Carlisle Barracks, including the Army’s ability to execute its mission at Carlisle Barracks, or the Army’s obligations to comply with environmental protection and historic preservation laws or engage in appropriate Tribal consultation.  Further, nothing in this proclamation shall limit the Army’s ability to control public access to Carlisle Barracks or take all necessary measures to ensure emergency preparedness, safety, and security.

     Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, the monument shall be the dominant reservation.

     Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of the monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.

     If any provision of this proclamation, including application to a particular parcel of land, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and its application to other parcels of land shall not be affected thereby.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post A Proclamation on the Establishment of the Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

2:30 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  This call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official.  Contents of the call are embargoed until the conclusion of the call.  And you can queue yourself up for questions by using the “Raise Your Hand” feature.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, the official on the line today is [senior administration official].  He’ll have a few words for you at the top, and then we’ll take your questions.

With that, over to you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, thanks.  And thanks, everybody, for joining. 

So, the collapse of the Assad regime is a momentous event and it’s a historic landmark event, and we wanted to take the opportunity to just provide some additional background after the President’s remarks, which you all should have seen.  And then we’re happy to take a few questions. 

Before we do that, we just want to make clear up front: This is a day for Syrians, about Syrians.  It’s not about the United States or anyone else.  It’s about the people of Syria who now have a chance to build a new country, free of the oppression and corruption of the Assad family and decades of misrule.  We owe them support as they do so, and we are prepared to provide it.  But the future of Syria, like the fall of Assad today, will be written by Syrians for Syrians.

Now, as the President stated, the fall of this regime is also a fundamental act of justice.  It’s a moment of justice for the victims of this regime and a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria, and also, of course, a moment of risk and uncertainty, as he discussed.

Let me walk through just some of what has transpired.

First, as the President emphasized today, it is impossible not to place this week’s events in the context of the decisions the President has made to fully back Israel against Iran and its proxy terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, and Ukraine against Russia.  In fact, in speaking with the President today in the Oval Office, we noted you can really draw a line from the fateful decisions that we made, and that Iran made in the days after October 7th, to today. 

I think if you just go back, for example, to the President’s Oval Office address to the American people on October 20th, 2023, where he made the case to the American people to support these two close friends under attack — wars that they did not ask for, they did not start — but we were determined to support those friends in their hours of need, and we have done so.  We built bipartisan majorities in Congress to do just that.  That support is ongoing.  It is continuous to this day for both Israel and Ukraine. 

And I think the results here speak for themselves.  Hamas is on its back; its leaders are dead.  Iran is on its back.  Hezbollah is on its back.  Russia is on its back.  It’s just abandoned its only ally in the Middle East.  Now, the Assad regime, Russia and Iran’s main ally in the Middle East, has just collapsed. 

None of this would have been possible absent the direct support for Ukraine and Russia in their own defense provided by the United States of America.  And the direct defense of Israel against Iran, as the President noted, and the relentless pressure that has been applied — military, economic, diplomatic — are all in combination.

Now, since the situation broke out one week ago and following the Lebanon ceasefire and the rebel advance in Syria, just to kind of provide a bit from behind the scenes, we have been working constantly, 24/7, with our contacts on the ground in Syria, with our regional partners, keeping the President fully briefed and informed throughout.  We’ve worked to encourage Iraq in particular to stay out of it, not get drawn into this, as well as communicating constantly with Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and everybody in the region. 

The collapse of the regime came when the citizens of Syria made clear they would not band with the army and the regime.  Russia and Iran made clear they would no longer support Assad, and there were no reinforcements coming from anywhere.  Assad was effectively abandoned because his only friends — again, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia — no longer had the capacity to help.

This result also, we believe, reflects a clear and principled policy towards Syria which has further contributed to Assad’s weakness over the last four years.  I can talk about that briefly and then some of our actions moving forward.  I think the President laid this out. 

But we’ve made clear throughout that the sanctions on the Assad regime, which have been put on the Assad regime over a period of years and over the last four years, the only way that that sanctions policy would change is if Assad engaged seriously in a political process to end the civil war, as outlined in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254.  He never did so.  And we carried out a comprehensive sanctions program against him and all those responsible for atrocities against the Syrian people.  I think the designations are in the seven hundreds or so.  We can get you all of those facts. 

We maintained our military presence in Syria to counter ISIS and to support our local partners on the ground, the Syrian Democratic Forces.  We never ceded an inch of territory.  We’ve taken out the leaders of ISIS, including a caliphate of ISIS, ensuring that ISIS can never reestablish a safe haven there. 

I think an example of that is just, today, the President’s authorization.  We targeted a significant gathering of ISIS fighters and leaders — I think 75 targets in all — and about 140 munitions dropped on that site.  That just happened a couple hours ago.  And I think CENTCOM has a release on that that should be out now. 

We supported Israel’s freedom of action against Iranian networks in Syria and against actors aligned with Iran who transported lethal aid to partners to Lebanon.  That is something that went on all through the last four years.  And when necessary, we authorized and used U.S. military forces against those Iranian networks to protect U.S. forces, all without getting drawn into a broader Middle East conflict. 

Looking forward, we will be supporting Syria’s neighbors — Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel — from any threats from Syria during this important period of transition.  The President will be speaking with leaders in the region here over the course of the coming days.  Senior administration officials will be in the region. 

We will be maintaining the mission against ISIS, helping ensure stability in east Syria; protecting our personnel from any threats; but most importantly, engaging with all Syrian groups to establish, and help wherever we can, a transition away from the Assad regime towards an independent, sovereign Syria that can serve the interests of all Syrians under the rule of law, protecting a rich diversity and tapestry of Syrian society — all the ethnicities, religions, minority groups.  And we’ll continue our massive efforts of providing humanitarian relief for the Syrian people, something that has also been ongoing over the last four years.

As the President mentioned, obviously there are American citizens in Syria, and we are focused on that through our State Department.  And of course, Austin Tice.  He mentioned Austin Tice.  I think the FBI just put out again a $1 million reward for finding Austin Tice.  And we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to find Austin and return him to his family. 

I will also say, as these momentous events here over the last two weeks — from the Lebanon ceasefire, now to the fall of Assad — we’re also working assiduously on the Gaza conflict and a ceasefire and the release of hostages and a number of other things, because we do believe there’s a path here, given the dramatically changed balance of power in the region that the President spoke to today — a path here to a Middle East that is far more stable, far more aligned with our interests, and far more aligned with the interests of the people of the Middle East who want to live in peace, without wars, and in prosperity in a region that is more integrated and prosperous and peaceful. 

So that is something we continue to work on.  And again, we think today’s events are historic, momentous, welcomed.  And we just wanted to provide some background.  I’m happy to answer some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  First up, we’ll go to Kayla Tausche. 

Q    Thanks so much.  I first wanted to just ask about the U.S. assessment of HTS.  What is the U.S. assessment of HTS? 

And when President Biden, in his remarks, called on other opposition groups to speak up, what is the intended outcome there? 

And then finally, the President said U.S. officials will be traveling to the region.  Can you share any more information about who and when and where?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I don’t have any travel to announce, but we actually have been putting all that together.  Some travel being pre-planned and now some being newly planned, and looking to have a very well-coordinated effort with different people in different places so that we can have kind of a saturated diplomatic engagement, which will be ongoing. 

HTS, as you know, was designated in 2018, and we’ve been obviously watching very closely.  I think the President mentioned today the statements of rebel leaders and what they’re saying, and seeing if the statements are translated into actions on the ground.  We’re very much hopeful they will be. 

But we will be engaging with a broad spectrum of Syrian society, opposition groups, groups on the ground in Syria, exile groups.  We have broad contacts that we built up over the course of over the past decade and even beyond.  And that effort will be ongoing. 

We have been in deep discussions with the U.N. Envoy to Syria, Geir Pedersen, and, of course, all of our regional contacts. 

So I think you’ll see very broad-spectrum engagement. 

I just want to emphasize, though: The future here will be written by Syrians.  We are not coming up with a blueprint from Washington for the future of Syria.  This is written by Syrians.  The fall of Assad was delivered by Syrians.  But I think it’s very clear that the United States can provide a helping hand, and we are very much prepared to do so.  And we will make judgments, again, based upon the actions and the (inaudible) of various groups.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Zeke Miller.

Q    Thanks for doing this.  Just to follow up and put a finer point on that question regarding HTS: Is the U.S. going to have any direct engagement with HTS?  You mentioned you’re going to have engagement with all the opposition groups, specifically with HTS.

Separately, there’s some reporting out there that Assad had made some last-minute efforts to kind of back-channel the U.S. to try to get out of this situation and somehow save his government.  And can you confirm that or provide any more color and texture on that?

And then lastly, what is the U.S. government’s assessment of Assad’s chemical weapons and the level of concern that there may not be proper command and control over those?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, we did not get any serious out- — I mean, I see these rumors all the time.  We did not get any serious outreach from Assad, nor would we have considered any such outreach serious at all.  I think the writing was very much on the wall here, and I think our policy and our position was quite clear. 

So, some of the stories that have been out there are just not accurate.  Certainly, we here did not get any such outreach.  I don’t think we would have taken any such thing very seriously.

On chemical weapons, something we are very focused on: Obviously, a lot of expertise in the U.S. government on this issue, and we’ve been concentrated on that here over the past week or so as the situation broke out, and I think we are taking very prudent measures in that regard. 

On HTS, is there contact: I think it’s safe to say there’s contact with all Syrian groups as we work to do whatever we can to support the Syrians through a transition.  But I think I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Andrea Mitchell.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this.  In terms of the anti-ISIS forces, our forces, and some of our allied forces there, will there be efforts to protect them?

And can you give us any more clarity on — if not the chemicals, but the missiles and rockets?  And do we have some visibility on the stockpiles and where things are and how that might be addressed if it were an emergency?  The Israelis are saying that they’re increasing their security on the border and are concerned about the weapons — all of the weapons.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, just on the east, I think we have a demonstrated record of protecting positions in the east.  That’s something the President, again, reaffirms; it’s something we will continue to do.  We think that presence is critically important for the stability of those areas and for denying the efforts of ISIS to resurge, and also for the integrity of the SDF and the groups that we work with in the east to maintain stability out there.  So, we’re obviously working on that.

As this unfolded here over the last eight or nine days.  It’s hard to count days, but I think it’s been about eight days.  That’s been a constant effort.  And I think you’ll see some line shift.  Just for example, as the Assad forces and Russians and some of these Iranian-backed militias just peeled out of areas, the SDF filled some of that space, some other groups filled some of that space. 

We’ve been working on this through our people on the ground and through diplomatic channels constantly here over the last week, and we helped coordinate the safe passage of tens of thousands of civilians from western Syria into eastern Syria, something that, again, I think give tremendous credit to some of our military personnel or diplomatic personnel working these issues in real time over the last eight days. 

I know a lot of it has been behind the scenes, and we have not been giving briefings as this has unfolded, but we have been, again, assiduously working on all those problems.

Just on the kind of accoutrements of the Assad regime’s military arsenal, whether it’s chemical weapons or anything else: Yes, we do have good fidelity on this type of thing, as do some of our partners.  And I want to just assure you that we are doing everything we can to prudently ensure that those materials are either not available to anyone or are cared for.  So there’s a number of efforts going on in that regard, including some of our partners in the region who have been engaged.  So that’s something that we’re very much focused on.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Steve Holland.

Q    Hey there.  Just broadly, how big a surprise was this that the rebels would be able to take over Syria in the course of one week?

And when the President says Assad should be held accountable, what does he mean?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, Steve, I think it’s safe to say the complete collapse of the regime, and the speed with which this has transpired, unfolded rapidly.  I think if I had been on this call a week ago, and I’ve said this — where we’d be in a week, I think — and all the intel analysts I spoke to, experts believe the regime is very brittle.  Russia and Iran do not have the capacity to help in the way it used to. 

But the fact that the overall weakness of this entire artifice — honestly, this entire Iranian-backed artifice in the region — the brittleness, the weakness, the hollowing out; and I think U.S. policy is a direct contributor to this for the reasons I laid out and the President laid out — is significant, is important, has completely changed the equation in the Middle East, and you saw that play out here over the last week. 

So I don’t wouldn’t use the word “surprised,” because when this started to break out last week, and we saw the fall of Aleppo, we started to prepare for all possible contingencies.  And again, have been working on the ground a number of ways I just mentioned, and preparing for the potentiality of this moment that we saw unfold over the last 24 hours.  And I think we did a lot of good work here over the last week in preparing for that.

On accountability: Look, the Assad regime, as we have always said, has always been a pillar of our policy that Assad should be held accountable for the various crimes committed against his own people.  I saw the Russians have announced that they have granted him political asylum in Russia.  I would refer you to the Russians for why they would want to grant political asylum for a leader whose own people have just clearly turned on him for the crimes that he has committed against his own people. 

But I think the accountability question will be one that we will continue to pursue through appropriate channels.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Michael Gordon.

Q    Thank you.  There have been clashes already, to some extent, in the Manbij area between Turkish-backed forces and the SDF, and fears of escalation all this could impact the U.S. counter-ISIS efforts given — as the SDF as a partner. 

My question is: What specific steps are you taking to try to defuse a clash between Turkish-backed elements and the SDF and maintain stability there? 

And also, what message do you have for Jolani and the SDF, given that they have promised protection to minorities and so far appear to have kept those promises to this extent?  Do you have a message to them now about whether you might engage with them in the future, what their role might be in the political process, or some incentive for them to continue to keep their promise in terms of potential U.S. support and international aid if they were to come off the (inaudible) list?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, first, we have been in full-spectrum engagement with the Turks.  I think Lloyd Austin spoke to his counterpart today.  Obviously, Bill and his counterpart.  Tony.  Jake.  And I think those have been constructive engagements. 

The focus here is a new Syria and a transition away from Assad.  And building that transition away from Assad, meaning moving from an interim government structure to some sort of transitional council, ultimately to the roadmap that’s outlined in 2254 — I mean, that is our focus.  That is going to take an enormous effort from everybody, and we think that should be the focus of those with an interest in building a better future in Syria.  So that is our primary focus.  Therefore, additional conflicts, additional fronts opening up, not in anybody’s interests.  And so, we’ve been working to defuse some of that. 

But as I mentioned, I think some lines will change as various groups pull out of one area and pull into another area.  Something I think we are working on, on deconflicting and deescalating as best we can.  And that effort is very much ongoing. 

Michael, on HTS, any messages: I just don’t think I’m going to pass any messages through a press backgrounder here, but I just — the point is, we are engaged with everybody, and we have ways to communicate with everybody, and that’s exactly — exactly what we’re doing.  I think, as the President noted, various leaders of rebel groups, including HTS, are saying the right things, but we will be — the importance here: Syria is such a rich, diverse country, and there has to be a role for all minority groups, ethnic groups, and opposition groups need to work together, and commitment to the rule and everything else. 

These are principles we’ve had when it comes to Syria over the last decade across, I think, three administrations.  And so, adhering to those basic principles will be very important to us and something that we will be looking for those with powers on the ground to carry forward, we hope.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to David Sanger.

Q    Thanks for doing this.  So, two questions for you.  First, just to follow up on your chemical weapons phrase.  You said that you wanted to make sure that they couldn’t do any damage.  Does that include the possibility that U.S. forces would go on the ground to neutralize any chemical weapons (inaudible) or do that from the air?

And second, tell us a little bit about what you think the fate may be of the Russian bases in Syria, which, for right now, they seem to have pulled back from but we don’t know if they’re going to close.  And similarly, what you think the chances are that this will encourage the Iranians to open a negotiation with the U.S., or, conversely, to race for the bomb. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, David.  On chemical weapons, I don’t think I have too much more to add.  I would not envision a scenario where we have U.S. boots on the ground for such a mission.  I think we have ways to take care of these things.  But it is a primary focus. 

I think, right now, we do not — I think that those and the experts who really know this stuff, looking at it, are fairly confident that it is (inaudible), but we’re — this is why it is a top-tier priority of ours, and making sure that anything with those types of derivatives, which is everything from chlorine to — you know, to far worse, as you know, is destroyed or cared for, or (inaudible).

But I don’t want to talk about hypotheticals of U.S. military engagement.  It’s not something that’s being contemplated right now. 

Again, I can’t speculate on Russian bases.  I think it’s not lost on anybody that the Russians have now announced, I think, that they’ve taken Assad to Moscow.  So, we’ll see what the Syrians who have worked for decades to overthrow the yoke of the Assad regime think about that when it comes to the Russian facilities, but I leave it to the Russians and others to speculate on that. 

Look, on Iran, David, I think as I laid out at the beginning, I just think it is a significant — again, I go back to something the President said early on.  And he said, after October 7th, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation after the Hamas attack, don’t.  And Iran made the decision, after October 7th, when much of the world is reacting to horror, and horror to what had happened, they thought there might be some advantage, and they basically turned on a green light for all of its proxy groups to open a multifront war against Israel. 

We made the decision that we’re going to support Israel in defending itself against all of those groups, including from time to time with the use of direct military force, while also being very mindful and careful not to have the United States drawn into a broader Middle East war.  That has been a fixed principle of ours now for, what, 15 months. 

And if you look at where we are now, Iran has effectively lost its main proxy group, Hezbollah.  Hamas has almost — its entire military capacity has been destroyed.  Iran has no strategic air defenses.  Iran cannot produce missiles because of the attacks that Israel conducted about a month ago.  And Israel conducted those attacks in self-defense after Iran chose to launch two historic, massive ballistic missile attacks against Israel that we helped successfully defend with the coalition of partners, as the President laid out. 

So this is just a fundamental change in the equation of the entire Middle East.  I think it is something that will affect Iranian calculations.  Whether that is in the direction of

diplomacy, obviously we’ll have to see.

And I would just say, if they ever were to make another fateful decision, such as moving towards a nuclear weapon, the United States of America will simply never allow that.  And, obviously, I can speak for the Biden administration and President Biden — that’ll never happen on our watch.  And I refer you to the incoming administration.

But we have had good discussions with the incoming administration on these types of issues, and I am fairly confident that they would have the same policy.

MODERATOR:  We have time for a couple more questions.  Next up, we’ll go to Felicia Schwartz.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Just going back to HTS, you’ve said several times there’s contact with all Syrian groups.  I’m just wondering how much of a hindrance the U.S. and U.N. designations are to speaking with HTS and Jolani.  And if they are, are you looking at lifting them quickly?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I mean, HTS is an umbrella organization, so I think the way that — I’d refer you to my CT experts who’ve kind of done this work.  But the Al-Nusra Front, which was designated I think in 2012, kind of migrated to this broad umbrella collection of groups, HTS.  And then in 2018, HTS was designated. 

So I think it’s a broad kind of kaleidoscope of groups, and I think we have to be smart in how we deal with it, and also very mindful and pragmatic about the realities on the ground. 

All we can say is that HTS is, again, saying the right things so far, doing the right thing.  But they are not the only group.  And there’s a series of opposition groups that came, that reached Damascus from the south.  They’re very different.  We know a lot of them.

But I think — and I think the President spoke to this in his remarks — we are going to be focused on supporting Syrians as they determine their own future.  And that will mean a broad spectrum of Syrian groups and Syrian organizations that take part in this historic transition.  HTS, obviously, will be an important component of that, and I think we will intend to engage with them appropriately and with U.S. interests in mind. 

I just can’t speak to the designation.  Whether or not and how that would be addressed I think is something that we’ll have to look to down the line.  But again, I think what we’ll be looking for in particular is some of the statements that have been made actually putting into action.  I think that would be quite important. 

MODERATOR:  Last question will go to the line of Courtney Kube.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Just a couple of very clear ones.  Do you believe Russia that Assad is there?  Do you have any reason to believe that’s not true? 

Foreign terror designation by the U.S. — are you guys going to lift it?  Do you have to lift it now if, in fact, they’re in charge of this country?

And then, the CENTCOM statement says that there were at least 75 strikes, or more than 75 strikes, today to degrade.  And that’s a huge number of strikes.  Can you give us some sort of a characterization of how much that degraded ISIS’s capabilities?  So how much did it degrade their stockpiles, their personnel?  It said it went after leadership.  Did you take out any major leaders?  Any more fidelity on exactly what the strikes did?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks, Courtney.  Look, I think I saw in the wires that Moscow has announced that they have granted asylum to Assad.  So, I’ll let Russia speak to that.  And no reason to doubt that that’s what they say they’ve done.

On HTS, again, I think I’ve answered this question a few times, so I’ll leave it there. 

And on the strikes: Look, ISIS has been trying to reconstitute in this broad area known as the Badiya desert, and we have worked to make sure they cannot do that.  And so, when they try to gather, when they try to train — and we see it, which we do — we take them out.  It’s something we’ve been doing.  There happened to be, over the course of today, a fairly broad gathering.  And again, these are across a fairly broad area.

And I think CENTCOM, at the President’s direction, and the Secretary of Defense — you know, of course, we had an important National Security Council meeting this morning with the President and his national security team — those strikes went forward.

Yeah, but it’s a significant strike, I think just given the collection of ISIS individuals in that area and the size of the area.  So, yes, 75 targets.  I think 140 munitions or so.  I think we had B-52s, F-15s, A-10s. 

I don’t have the assessment yet of the strike, but I assume, as these things go, it was quite successful and significant, because this remains — you know, these guys want to reconstitute.  They’ve been unable to do it.  We have kept pressure on them relentlessly, month after month.  I think it’s been very effective.  And we’re going to make sure that if they think they can seize advantage in this situation, that they can’t. 

And whether it’s HTS or other rebel groups, made very clearly they want nothing to do with ISIS.  That’s absolutely right.  And we maintain — we intend, very much so, to do all we can to continue that pressure and that campaign, which has been incredibly effective here over the years and will continue.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  As a reminder, the call was on background and attributable to a senior administration official.  Now that the call has concluded, the embargo is lifted.

Thanks so much for joining, and have a good rest of your day.

3:00 P.M. EST          

The post Background Press Call on the Situation in Syria appeared first on The White House.

President Biden to Designate Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument; Announce Strategy to Preserve and Revitalize Native Languages

Today President Biden will host the fourth and final White House Tribal Nations Summit of the Biden-Harris Administration, reaffirming the Administration’s historic progress on strengthening the Nation-to-Nation relationships with Tribal Nations and cementing its legacy as one of the most supportive Administrations for Tribes ever.

At the Summit, President Biden will announce a new proclamation establishing the Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The new national monument will tell the story of the oppression endured by thousands of Native children and their families at this site and the harmful legacy of the broader Indian boarding school system that the federal government operated or supported across the country for more than 150 years. This action builds on President Biden’s historic Presidential apology and the leadership of Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland to establish and lead research and listening sessions with Tribes and Native communities across the country as part of the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative.

Respect for Tribal Nations is a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris Administration’s policies for Indian Country – policies that are highlighted at the Summit. In addition to the new national monument designation, the Administration will announce a historic, all-of-government strategy to preserve and revitalize Native languages. The strategy would expand access to immersion language programs in schools, support community-led language education efforts, and promote Native language schools and programs. The Administration will also showcase new initiatives supporting Tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and the federal trust responsibility, while bringing together Tribal leaders and senior administration officials to discuss priorities for Indian Country.

Since taking office, President Biden and Vice President Harris have delivered a record-breaking $45 billion in investments in Indian Country through the Investing in America agenda, transforming infrastructure, expanding healthcare, advancing education, and addressing systemic and historic injustices. Landmark policies and federal action, such as elevating Tribal consultation, investing in developing co-stewardship agreements, elevating the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge, and implementing government-wide training on Tribal treaty rights and the trust responsibility, have centered Native voices in federal decision-making. From the protection of sacred lands through national monument designations and the conservation of over 45 million acres of lands and waters, to the historic Presidential apology for Federal Indian boarding schools, the Biden-Harris Administration has affirmed its deep respect for Tribes and Native communities.

During the Summit, the Biden-Harris Administration will also release a comprehensive 2024 Progress Report for Tribal Nations, which outlines historic progress the Administration has made over the past year to deliver on the President’s commitment to supporting Indian Country, and to address the top concerns of Tribal communities.

New Administration-wide actions include:

Healing from the Federal Indian Boarding School Era

• Designating the Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument. By establishing a new national monument at the site of the former Carlisle Federal Indian Industrial School, President Biden is acknowledging the Federal Indian boarding school era, advancing healing, and commemorating the resilience of Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples. For more than 150 years, the Federal Government removed American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children from their families, Tribes, and homelands – often by force or coercion – and transported them to institutions that aimed to strip them of their languages, religions, and cultures.

From 1879 to when it ceased operations in 1918, the Carlisle School subjected 7,800 children from more than 140 Indian Tribes (including Alaska Native Villages) to its coercive education program. The school served as a model for the Federal Indian boarding school system, which operated throughout the early 19th through mid-20th centuries and comprised over 400 other federally-supported, off-reservation schools across the United States, as well as hundreds of similar institutions operated by religious organizations. At least 973 Native children died in these schools according to available federal records, and the children who survived often endured physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. At Carlisle, school officials forced children to cut their hair, prohibited them from speaking their Native languages, and subjected them to harsh labor.

The new national monument will be located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on 24.5 acres of what is now the U.S. Army’s Carlisle Barracks, one of the nation’s oldest military installations. The monument boundary encompasses the historic buildings and structures that made up the campus of the Carlisle School – including School Road Gateposts that were built by the labor of Native American children and youth at the school. The gateposts still stand today as a marker of the removal and separation of children from their families, Tribes, and homelands. The monument will be cooperatively managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Army. The National Park Service, in coordination with the Army, will engage Tribal Nations and the Native Hawaiian Community in development of the management plan and ongoing management of the monument, and provide for Tribal consultation with any federally recognized Tribe with historical connections to any part of the Federal Indian boarding school system to help ensure the national monument tells the full story of this site, similar institutions, and the broader federal Indian boarding school era.

With the establishment of the new national monument, the Army will now transfer administrative jurisdiction over the gateposts to the National Park Service, and the agencies will sign a memorandum of understanding to guide their cooperative management of the national monument. The Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument is President Biden’s twelfth use of the Antiquities Act.

Promoting Native Languages

• 10-Year Native Language Revitalization Plan. While there were once hundreds of thriving Native languages in the U.S., over three quarters of the remaining 190 languages spoken today are now endangered. Studies indicate fewer than 20 languages will exist by 2050 if no action is taken. The Departments of the Interior, Education, and Health and Human Services and the White House Council on Native American Affairs are publishing a 10-year National Plan on Native Language Revitalization (Plan) that calls for strategic actions to address the United States government’s historic role in the loss of Native languages across the lower 48 states, Alaska, and Hawai’i. The Plan lays out a long-term, all-of-government strategy that works with Tribal Nations, the Native Hawaiian Community, urban Native communities, Native language experts, schools, community organizations, and the philanthropic sector for the protection, preservation, reclamation and revitalization of Native languages. The Plan’s proposals would: 1) expand access to immersion language environments, 2) support community-led revitalization efforts, and 3) develop, grow and sustain Native language support networks. The Plan also recommends ways to address a chronic under-investment in Native language revitalization to date.

Meeting the Federal Trust Responsibility

• OMB Guidance on Unmet Federal Obligations. OMB’s guidance furthers the goals of Executive Order 14112, which seeks to reform Federal funding to be more consistent with Tribal self-determination and sovereignty. The new guidance supports a comprehensive effort to address chronic underfunding of Tribal programs by calculating unmet federal obligations and developing actionable recommendations for closing funding gaps.

Promoting Understanding of Tribal Consultation and Tribal Treaty Rights and Reserved Rights

• Trainings for Federal Employees on Tribal Consultation and Tribal Treaty and Reserved Rights. The Department of the Interior, Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the White House Council on Native American Affairs, are releasing trainings available to Federal employees on Tribal consultation and Tribal Treaty and Reserved Rights. These trainings reflect years of Tribal leader input and will assist federal employees across the government in understanding their role in supporting Tribal consultation and the federal trust responsibility to Tribes.
  

Reforming Federal Processes for Tribal Nations

• FEMA Tribal Declarations Interim Guidance. New guidance will streamline the process for Tribal Nations seeking disaster declarations, including reducing minimum damage thresholds, enhancing cost-sharing adjustments, and expanding assistance for Tribal members.

• HHS Tribal Data Access Policy. The new policy establishes clear guidelines and timelines for Tribes and Tribal Epidemiology Centers (TECs) to access critical health data, advancing public health outcomes and addressing data disparities.

Supporting Tribes and Other Communities Considering Voluntary Relocation

• Opportunities for Federal Support of Community-Driven Relocation Report. The Community-Driven Relocation Subcommittee of the National Climate Task Force is releasing the Opportunities for Federal Support of Community-Driven Relocation report, which provides background on voluntary community-driven relocation to avoid climate- and pollution-related hazards, an overview of the current Federal legal and programmatic landscape, and next steps that are available for Federal agencies to support Tribes and other communities contemplating relocation due to severe environmental impact and hazards from climate change. The report recognizes the disproportionate climate-related risks that Tribal communities face and the leadership that Tribal communities have already demonstrated in relocating their communities and partnering with Federal, State, and local governments as well as other partners. An accompanying resource guide will help Tribes and communities identify specific Federal agencies, and programs to support their efforts.

These announcements build upon historic actions by the Biden-Harris Administration to support Tribal Nations and Native communities, which include:

• Historic investments in Tribal Nations, including $32 billion in the American Rescue Plan, the largest direct federal investment to Tribal Nations in history; $13 billion in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law; and over $700 million in the Inflation Reduction Act.

• Signing two Presidential Memoranda directing federal agencies to submit plans of action to implement meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations and establishing uniform standards for Tribal Consultation.

• Historic appointments of Native Americans across the Administration, including Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and over 80 Native Americans in senior Administration roles.

• Re-launching the Tribal Nations Summit and re-establishing the White House Council on Native American Affairs that serves to foster an all-of-government approach to coordinating and developing Tribal policy.

• Signing an Executive Order to improve public safety and criminal justice and address the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) by directing agencies to prioritize addressing this crisis and assessing what more can be accomplished.
  
• Signing an Executive Order to improve educational outcomes and career opportunities for Native American students by focusing on systemic barriers, increasing access to high-quality education, and fostering economic empowerment.

• Securing the first-ever advance appropriations for the Indian Health Service, which provides long-overdue funding stability and predictability for IHS.

• Signing a Presidential Memorandum to Restore Healthy and Abundant Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River, which supports cultural and spiritual practices, commerce, and economic growth for Tribes.

• Authoring the first-of-its-kind government-wide Indigenous Knowledge guidance that assists federal agencies in recognizing and including Indigenous Knowledge in Federal research, policy, and decision making.

• Restoring protections for the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bear Ears National Monuments in Utah, and designating and expanding the following national monuments that hold significance to Tribal Nations: Avi Kwa Ame in Nevada; Castner Range in Texas; Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon in Arizona; and Berryessa Snow Mountain and San Gabriel Mountains National Monuments in California.

• Increasing Tribal Co-Stewardship of Lands and Waters through historic co-stewardship agreements. During the Biden-Harris Administration, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce have signed 400 co-stewardship agreements with Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and consortiums.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions and Historic Progress Supporting Tribal Nations and Native Communities Ahead of Fourth Annual White House Tribal Nations Summit appeared first on The White House.

East Room

5:03 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Welcome to your house. I know that guy.

Please have a seat.

Thank you so much.

Well, welcome to — to the White House. Good evening to all of you, and I’m delighted to have you here.

And thank you, Kennedy Center President Deborah Rutter. Deborah, where are — where’s Deborah? Stand up. Let everybody know who you are. (Applause.)

To the board chairman, one of the most generous people — men I’ve ever known on everything that’s in need — a friend of mine, David Rubenstein. David, stand up. (Applause.)

When I was getting set up in the — in the president’s suite upstairs where we sleep, I — my — I s- — my brother was saying, “Look, you want to be able to see from your desk — you want to be able to see Rubenstein.” I said, “I beg your pardon?” He said, “The Washington Memorial.” (Laughter.) This guy rebuilt the sucker. (Laughter.) I’m serious. God love you. You’re the best, David. You are.

And thanks to all of you, especially this year’s Kennedy Center honorees.

Folks, for Jill and me — and Jill is not here. She’ll be o- — make it over to the event tonight. But Jill has been dealing with women’s — equality for women’s health research, and she just got back from Abu Dhabi and all — all through Africa and ended up — although, she did go spend a little time in Sicily, because — (laughter) — just a — just a day or so to meet her great-great-grandmothers — parents.

She made fun of me going back on the Irish, you know? (Laughter.) Pat — but I tell you what, I don’t screw around when she’s — gets her Irish — when she gets her Italian up, I don’t mess with her. (Laughter.)

But anyway, you’ll all see her tonight. She’s very mu- — she’s up changing. She just — her plane landed, I don’t know, about an hour and a half ago, two hours ago.

For Jill and me and for Kamala and Doug, this is one of the favorite events at the White House, and I mean that sincerely. And I did it when I was vice president. Did it when I was a senator, as I could.

All around us, we see the power of art and imagination –(coughs) — excuse me for my voice — to capture the spirit of this holiday season, to capture faith. You know, it’s — which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Folks, we see the power of the arts everywhere — everywhere.

A few days ago, I returned from a trip to Angola in southwestern Africa. Historians believe people of Angola account for a significant number of all enslaved people shipped to the United States. I’m the first president to ever visit there.

Today, millions of African Americans have Angolan ancestry.

I spoke at their National Slavery Museum, where, over 100 [400] years ago, enslaved Angolans were baptized into a faith that was foreign to them. Their names were changed against their will. They — they — you know, they c- — and — and they were condemned to a slave ship, bound for what was referred to as the Middle Passage. I saw the artifacts, the shackles, the whips that tortured their bodies.

I also saw something else. I saw folk instruments Angolans used to share their strength and hope and persevere — instruments like those we h- — that they would take all the way across the Atlantic to help them lay the foundation for Black folk music in America. It’s really remarkable how much music has played a role in everything.

Throughout our nation’s history, artists in America have used their talents to inspire and empower, to overcome, to challenge power freely and without fear, and to be a link in memory between the past and the future — it matters — to be the spark to make history and to ensure history is never erased. We have too many people trying to erase history instead of wr- — write history. That power of art is everywhere.

And in America, our freedom of expression sets us apart. Other nations were founded on ethnicity, religion, geography. We’re the only nation in the world — major nation — founded on an idea — an idea, literally — an idea. That idea was we’re all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives.

We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it either.

In America, artists have made sure we never will. And that’s what we celebrate tonight.

Raised in Queens, New York, the grandson of Italian immigrants, Francis Ford Coppola was once a nine-year-old boy homebound with polio. But with a tape recorder and a camera by his side, his imagination took seed.

Over six decades, he would write, direct, and produce over 70 films, both sweeping epics and deeply personal stories, taking big swings to explore who we are as a nation and who we are as human beings: “Patton,” “The Godfather,” “Apocalypse Now,” “Dracula.” Five Oscars. Fourteen nominations.

Mentoring fellow filmmakers and partnering with his good friend, George Lucas, to pioneer innovations in filmmaking.

Fostering talent before they were stars, like previous Kennedy Center honorees who are here tonight. Robert De Niro. Robert, stand up. I’m a big fan, man. I want everybody to see you. (Applause.) If I get in trouble, I’m coming to you, pal. (Laughter.)

Well, Francis, I’m looking for work in February, so — (laughter) — maybe you’ve got something for me and a Biden-De Niro combination here. (Laughter.) I can’t sing. I can’t act. I can’t dance to a damn thing, but I — I can help you. (Laughter.)

Above all, Francis is about family. He’s joined us tonight by his children and grandchildren, who are making their own mark on American cinema.

For a storied career of independent vision, I say congratulations, Francis, and thank you — thank you, thank you, thank you — for all you’ve done, pal. (Applause.)

Formed in the San Francisco Bay at an inflection point in history, the Grateful Dead have long since transcended 1960 counterculture. Technical virtuosos fiercely dedicated to their craft, they fo- — fused decades and dozens of musical styles to create a willowy new American sound — experimental, innovative, and brave.

Their lyrics tell the story of dreamers and rebels. Their iconic jams are just a performance — they’re not just that, but they’re an ongoing conversation with generations of devoted fans. Hundreds and hundreds of songs. Recorded 59 of top 40 albums — 59. Twenty-three hundred concerts, from Woodstock to Egypt’s Great Pyramids. One of the most popular bands ever to be watched live in concert.

Look, and there’s still a lot of Deadheads around. (Laughter.) (Points at himself.) (Applause.)

No two performances even the same, but their spirit and joy is enduring.

Tonight, we honor Bobby, Bill, and Mickey. Guys, raise your hand. (Applause.)

And we remember those lost (inaudible) along the way, like Ron; Phil, whose grandson, Grahame, is here tonight; and, of course, Jerry Garcia, whose daughter, Trixie, is here. Trixie, where are you? Stand up, Trixie. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the Grateful Dead. (Applause.)

My youngest granddaughter said, “Pop, what’s the Dead?” I said, “I beg your pardon?” “What’s the Gwateful Dead, Pop?” (Pronounced in an impression of a young child.) (Laughter.)

Anyway, joining them here tonight is another California native, Bonnie Raitt: born and raised in Burbank, the daughter of a famed Broadway singer, accomplished piano player with two musical — (applause) — two musical brothers. Eight-year-old Bonnie got her first guitar as a Christmas gift. The rest is history. Thank you, Santa. Thank you, Santa. (Laughter.)

Over the last 50 years — she’s only 50 now — 13 Grammy awards, 31 nominations. More Grammy performances than any woman in American history. (Applause.)

An inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, her music defies genre and blends music of folk, country, rock, and pop.

You know, with infectious beats and soulful lyrics, her sound carries through the highs and the lows of life: time — time and trust, heartbreak and hope, love and loss. That’s Bonnie helping us find healing and light and purpose within and beyond music. One of the all-time greats that inspires fans and follows [fellow] music- — musicians alike.

And I tell you, Bonnie, you’ve had an — fro- — an incredible impact. So, Bonnie, thank you for all you’ve done, not just your music, kid. (Applause.)

When Bonnie picked up that guitar at eight years old in California, there was a young boy more than 2,000 miles away in Cuba. Born to a mechanic and a homemaker, raised in a home with a dirt floor, Arturo Sandoval was 10 years old when he picked up the trumpet, under a communist regime that controlled everything from where people could travel to where — what they could read. His musical talent was undeniable and uncontrollable.

While jazz was thriving in the United States, he spent three months in jail — three months in jail for listening to American legends on the radio. At great risk to he and his family, they fled Cuba for America to live in the land of the free and share his own jazz sounds for the entire world.

Thirty-three albums, 10 Grammys, and an Emmy and the Medal of Freedom — Arturo’s story is the American story: a nation of immigrants, a nation of dreamers, a nation of freedom.

Congratulations, Arturo. God love you. (Applause.) I mean it.

Few places in America captured the essence of freedom more than the Apollo Theater. You know, you walk through those doors of 125th Street in Harlem, New York — you walk into American history. You literally walk into American history.

Opened in the ‘30s as a refuge for Black patrons and performers in a segregated America. Over the next 90 years, it became the birthplace of Black expression — home for the hopeful, school for stars in music, dance, comedy, acting, and so much more, including former Kennedy Center honorees Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, Gladys Knight, Stevie Wonder. The list goes on.

You know, when there were few places to go, there was “Showtime at the Apollo” — “Showtime at the Apollo.” A big stage, a boisterous crowd, a beacon of what’s possible, shaping a fearless future of equality and inclusion in the nation — you know, one where Black excellence is celebrated, not denied. Reminding us all that Black history is American history, for God’s sake. Black culture is American culture.

For the first time, the Kennedy Center is bestowing this honor to an institution and not an — an individual. For — thank you, Apollo Theater. Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.) Thank you.

Let me close with this. It’s been the honor of my life to serve as your president. And for the final time, Jill and I are honored to represent the presidency, to recognize and respect the power of the arts to literally redeem the soul of the nation, because that’s what you’ve done so many times: redeem the soul of the nation.

So, congratulations on our — to — on our honorees, to your families. I look forward to tonight’s show.

God bless you all. And may God protect our troops. Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Applause.)

5:16 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at the 2024 Kennedy Center Honorees Reception appeared first on The White House.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, California

MS. BREAM:  And thank you, Jake.  I’m glad you made it here this year.  I know you’ve had to cancel in the past, and it’s a very busy time, so we appreciate your time that you were able to make it here today. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, thank you for having me. 

MS. BREAM:  Okay, so let’s start with the headlines.  Obviously, minute by minute, there are new advances by rebel forces in Syria.  Did the administration see this coming?  Assad doesn’t seem to have the support he would have 10 years ago from the likes of Russia and Hezbollah and Iran, who have been weakened.  What’s your take on the current state?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, it’s important to start by observing why this is happening, and it’s really happening for two reasons. 

First, Assad has been brutal and repressive to his own people and totally intransigent in terms of actually trying to provide a better life or better future for the people of Syria, and so the people of Syria are fed up. 

Second, Assad’s backers — Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah — have all been weakened and distracted, and so he has not had the support from those three actors that he expected to be able to count on, and has been left basically naked.  His forces are hollowed out. 

And so, while we saw preparations for a rebel offensive, the speed and scale of it and the fact that it’s moving so rapidly through the country, this is a feature of having lost the support of these backers, because each of them — Iran having been exposed and weakened; Hezbollah having been badly degraded by Israel; and Russia being ground down in a war of attrition in the east in Ukraine — none of them are prepared to provide the kind of support to Assad that they provided in the past.  So here we are. 

MS. BREAM:  So the primary group leading the insurgence has been classified as a terrorist group by the U.S.  How worried are you about what comes next?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, it is a source of concern.  I mean, this is a group, HTS, that has been designated by terrorist — as a terrorist organization by the United States, that has had elements affiliated with groups that have American blood on their hands. 

We really think that there are three things we have to be particularly focused on. 

One, that the fighting in Syria not lead to the resurgence of ISIS.  And we are going to take steps ourselves directly, and working with the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurds, to ensure that does not happen. 

Two, that our friends in the region — Israel, Jordan, Iraq, others who border Syria, or who would potentially face spillover effects from Syria — are strong and secure, and we’re in touch with them every day. 

And three, that this not lead to a humanitarian catastrophe, both in terms of civilians’ access to lifesaving necessities and in terms of the protection of religious and ethnic minorities in Syria. 

And we’re going to work with all the players in the region to try to make sure that we are accomplishing those three goals which are in the interests and consistent with the values of the United States.

MS. BREAM:  Of course there’s a lot of instability in the region, so how worried are you about this spilling over the borders?  You mentioned those bordering countries there.

MR. SULLIVAN:  It is a concern.  I mean, we’ve seen, obviously over the course of the Syrian civil war, spillovers and refugee flows.  And at its worst, we saw the explosion of ISIS onto the scene, which not only led to the fall of cities in Syria, but the fall of cities in Iraq and pressure on some of our closest partners in the region. 

So, whether it’s from the border with Jordan to the Golan Heights, to trying to maintain a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon, to that long border between Syria and Iraq, these are all areas that we have to pay close attention to, that we have to coordinate closely with our friends on, and stay vigilant to try to ensure that we contain the potential violence and instability, that we protect our friends, and that we ensure that ISIS not get new oxygen out of this that could lead them to become a greater threat to the United States or our friends. 

MS. BREAM:  What about our troops in the region, the impact on them?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we have a presence, both in Iraq and in Syria.  That presence in Syria is there to work hand in hand with local partners, to continue to suppress the threat that ISIS has posed, going back many years now.  And we’ve had significant progress in that fight, just even in the last few months.  Major players taken off the battlefield.  Large-scale degradation of those ISIS forces. 

But of course, an event like this happens, and ISIS immediately looks to take advantage.  And we have seen reports of ISIS trying, out in the Syrian Badiya, the desert, to try to reconstitute to a certain extent. 

So we will continue to take action against that.  And we will continue to make sure that force protection, the protection of our service members who are serving at a range of bases in eastern Syria, is the paramount concern from the President on down. 

Now, the threat to those service members is not just from ISIS or from this violence; it is also from Iranian-backed Shia militia groups who themselves could try to take advantage of this. 

And so, we are also doing what we believe we need to do to prepare for, deter, and protect against any potential attacks from that group of actors, which, of course, we have seen over the course of the past few years, and which we, under the Biden administration, have responded to at several points with direct strikes against those forces, both in Syria and in Iraq. 

MS. BREAM:  So, a lot of the conversation this week is about the transition to a new administration, a second Trump administration.  He’s weighed in on social media, as he often likes to do.  I’ll get you to the all-caps part of this post in which he says, “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT.  LET IT PLAY OUT.  DO NOT GET INVOLVED!” 

So, you’ve referenced ways that we could be aware and preparing for the situation, responding as we can.  But what is our role, or isn’t our role, with regard to Syria?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first I would note — and I was a little bit struck by it — earlier in the post, he said part of the reason this is happening is because of Russia’s war against Ukraine.  And I think he even referenced the sheer scale of the casualties that Russia has suffered in Ukraine, and for that reason, they’re not in a position to defend their client, Assad.  And on that point, we’re in vigorous agreement. 

Equally, the United States is not going to dive into the middle — militarily dive into the middle of a Syrian civil war.  What we are going to do is focus on the American national security priorities and interests.  And I name the three of them that I see. 

The first, critically, is: Do not let this allow for the resurgence of ISIS.  And we are going to take steps to make sure that that happens.  That’s not about the move down the highway from Hama to Homs to Damascus.  That’s about what’s happening out in the east, and we will remain critically focused on it. 

Second, we do have a profound interest in shoring up the security of our partners, and we’ll — in the region: Israel, Jordan, Iraq, others.  We’ll do that. 

And third, we will attend to the humanitarian situation because we believe that we have an obligation to do that.  And frankly, attending to the humanitarian situation, defending religious and ethnic minorities, that was a feature of the Obama policy in Syria, the Trump policy in Syria, the Biden policy in Syria, and I would expect that to continue as well. 

MS. BREAM:  So, it’s a very long post, but you mentioned his wording here about the loss of 600,000 soldiers for Russia and how they’re stretched very thin and tied up in other areas. 

He also, though, in this post, not in all caps, says, “This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out,” and that’s when Russia stepped in.  You were part of that administration.  So how do you respond to that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, I think, you know, going back to the entire set of events that unfolded in Syria, from the outbreak of the civil war through to the Russian involvement, an incredibly complex set of factors came into play.  No one thing led from point A to point B. 

Equally, President Obama made clear he did not want to see the United States directly militarily involved in the middle of the civil war.  That is precisely what President Trump is saying at the end of his post today.  So it seems to me that on that point they agree.

Ultimately, the future of Syria should be up to the Syrian people.  That has been true from the moment this civil war broke out.  It’s been true across multiple administrations. 

What is amazing about the moment we find ourselves in right now, though, is that Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia are all in a position of relative weakness in the Middle East.  And our core security partner in the region, Israel, is in a position of relative strength in the region.  And we believe that the United States has taken steps over the course of the past year, through military deployments, through diplomacy, and through engagement with all of our partners that have helped to bring about this set of conditions. 

Now, there are positives in that, and there are risks in that, and we’ve just talked about some of those risks.  So what we have to do is try to take advantage of those positives and manage those risks as best as we can through a handoff back to the Trump administration in just a few weeks’ time that’s got to be as seamless as possible.  And for that reason, I’m in contact with my successor.  Our Middle East team is in contact with their successors to make sure that we have transparency, coordination, and that the baton gets passed smoothly, because we don’t want to miss anything between January 19th and January 21st.

MS. BREAM:  How is that going, the coordination between incoming and outgoing?

MR. SULLIVAN:  It has been professional, it has been substantive, and frankly, it has been good.  Obviously, we don’t see eye to eye on every issue, and that’s no secret to anybody.  But there is a deep conviction on the part of the incoming national security team that we are dealing with — including my successor, and, on our part, directed from President Biden — that it is our job, on behalf of the American people, to make sure this is a smooth transition.  And we are committed to discharging that duty as relentlessly and faithfully as we possibly can. 

That’s true in every transition, but I think it’s more true in this transition because you have a war in Ukraine that requires a very smooth handoff, you have the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East that require a very smooth handoff, and then, frankly, you have the continuing pacing challenge of China and events unfolding there on a day-to-day basis that requires smooth handoff.

So, the nature of the world we find ourselves in today only elevates our responsibility to be engaged, to talk regularly, to meet regularly, to be transparent, to share, and to make sure it’s an effective transition.  And we are doing all we can to live up to that responsibility.

MS. BREAM:  So, you know, Reagan does a national defense survey every year where they ask people about a lot of these really pressing topics.  In one of them, they were asked about the increased economic and military cooperation between Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China.  Eighty-six percent of Americans have significant concerns about that. 

So how do you answer critics who say this alliance of bad guys has actually gotten tighter and, you know, in a way, more solidified under this administration?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, look, I think there is no doubt that there is increasing alignment among these four actors.  That is true.  And it’s something actually I’ve spoken about, we’ve pointed out.  We have a national security memorandum that we are in the closing phases of pulling together that is memorializing the work we have done within the U.S. government over the course of the past four years, across defense, diplomacy, development, all aspects of American power, to deal with what is an emerging reality. 

But why has this happened?  It has not happened because these countries are so strong.  It has happened out of necessity because these countries are under pressure. 

Russia, under pressure in Ukraine, had to turn to Iran for munitions and North Korea for personnel. 

Iran, under pressure, tried to turn to Russia to get help because its attacks against Israel were defeated and its own air defenses were badly degraded. 

And so — and if you look at China, when we came into this administration, the prevailing storyline was: China will surpass the United States in economic strength by the end of this decade.  Now there’s a lot of people who say it will never happen.  When we came into this administration, serious people said China is going to dominate the future of AI.  Now that script has been flipped. 

So, you look at these countries and the relative challenges that they are facing, all four of them, and then you look on the other side of the ledger at America’s alliances, and they have never been stronger.  NATO is bigger, more unified, more purposeful than ever before, and NATO Allies are paying their fair share.  When we came into office, nine NATO Allies were paying 2 percent; now it’s 23.  And the remaining nine have all committed to get to 2 percent and have a path to do it. 

You look at the Indo-Pacific.  We’ve started AUKUS.  We’ve elevated and institutionalized the Indo-Pacific Quad.  Our alliances with Japan and Korea are at an all-time high, and our trilateral cooperation with Japan and Korea is at an all-time high.  And you just saw the resilience of South Korean democracy after this declaration of martial law and its retraction by President Yoon.

India, the Philippines, Vietnam — we have new partnerships that are dynamic and effective. 

So, on the one hand, you’ve got the American alliance system and the free world strong, vibrant, coordinated, organized.  On the other hand, you do have this increase in convergence, but among a group of actors that is facing serious challenges, serious pressures, and serious strategic dilemmas.  And even within that group, this Russia-North Korea cooperation is not something that sits very well in Beijing.  So there are internal contradictions that are problematic on their side of the ledger that we will continue to look at and see how we can deal with from a strategic perspective going forward. 

The final point I will make: If you look at the hand we are passing off in terms of just the basic foundation of American power at home, our economic and technological engine, arresting the slide in our defense industrial base, diversifying and making more resilient our supply chains — these are steps where we feel that the United States has a foundation of national power domestically that is healthy and strong at a time when the Russian economy, the Chinese economy, and the Iranian economy are all in various states of disrepair. 

So, for all of these reasons, it’s a challenging world.  It’s a complex world.  The post-Cold War era is over.  A strategic competition is underway to determine what comes next.  But America has a good hand to play, and it is a hand that we believe we have made stronger when we pass it off to the next administration. 

MS. BREAM:  I want to go back to Iran, since there’s some news this week.  An intelligence report out from the DNI office this week says that they now have enough fissile material to make more than a dozen nuclear weapons.  And so, when you talk about them being worsened, there are critics who will say sanctions waivers, unfreezing assets and giving them access to that.  It was a top Treasury Department official, Wally Adeyemo, who himself said that if they get their hands on cash, they’re going to use it for nefarious reasons, admitting things are fungible.  And that — you know, the Reagan Defense Survey also shows Americans think it is time for us to actually get tougher with Iran and that this administration hasn’t been tough enough. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  What I find odd about that argument is Iran’s major proxy in the region, Hezbollah, is absolutely weakened, shattered.  Iran’s own capacity to project conventional military capacity in the region has been exposed and defeated directly by the United States, working with Israel and other countries.  Iran’s economy is in absolute shambles, and Iran is nowhere to be found in defending its main client state, Assad, as rebels take city after city on the way to Damascus.

So, is Iran in good shape?  I would say they are not.  Has American policy over the course of the past four years and over the course of the past year contributed to the circumstances Iran finds itself in?  I would submit to you that it has.

Now, the nuclear program in Iran remains a source of immense concern.  President Biden made the same commitment President Trump made and President Obama made, that we will never allow to get Iran a nuclear weapon.  That is a promise we intend to keep till every last day in our administration, and I presume the incoming administration will also do what is necessary. 

They have advanced their nuclear program.  They’ve done so because the nuclear deal that was in place that put enormous restraint on the program was removed by the last administration, and because we haven’t been willing to just lift sanctions to get back into it.  In fact, we have not lifted sanctions.  We’ve imposed more sanctions on Iran over the course of the past four years. 

The Middle East right now is in a period of considerable transformation.  But one thing is for sure: Iran is in a weaker state today than they were when we took office, and that creates both opportunities, but it also does create risks, including the need for us to continue to constrain and deter their move should they choose to make it as a matter of policy towards a nuclear

weapon.

MS. BREAM:  But to be clear, there were some sanctions waivers. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, for example, we did authorize the movement of $6 billion for humanitarian purchases, which was a policy of the previous administration that money in certain bank accounts could be spent down by Iran for food, medicine, and other approved humanitarian transactions.  We used that same mechanism that Secretary Pompeo put into place as part of a deal to get American citizens who had been held for years — predating our own administration — in Iran, in part because some of those Americans were getting — were facing significant health challenges.  After October 7th, we froze that.  So those $6 billion were frozen in Qatar; have not, in fact, been used. 

But this President has shown a willingness to take tough decisions to get Americans home.  He stands by those decisions.  And in this case, we actually ended up freezing the $6 billion in place in Qatar.

MS. BREAM:  I want to give you a chance to respond to a critic from within your own party.  This comes from Senator Chris Van Hollen.  He says, in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, “Nothing will haunt President Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy as much as his failed policies in the Middle East.  For too long, President Biden has been unwilling to uphold our values and enforce our interests in the Middle East.”  What do you say to him?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, the main point that he was making in that op-ed was that we should have cut off weapons from Israel because of what they were doing in Gaza.  That’s his view.  I would guess that there are many people in this audience who would take the exact opposite view and say, “Actually, the problem with the Biden administration was you paused the 2,000-pound bombs because you were worried about their use in densely populated civilian areas.  You shouldn’t have done that.” 

So we have critics on one side saying you should have cut off weapons — the Van Hollen argument; critics on the other side who said — or you should have cut off all offensive weapons.  Critics on the other side who say you shouldn’t have cut off or paused any shipments of any particular munition.  And this is faced with a very difficult situation where we are going to back our partner to the hill to take out a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas, but we also care about protecting civilians and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. 

We chose a course of making sure Israel had what it needed to beat its enemies, backed up by American power, including American aircraft carriers, fighter squadrons, and other capabilities in the region.  But we were going to take certain steps, like saying, “You do not need to drop 2,000-pound bombs in densely populated areas because you are going to kill too many civilians, and you can take out the terrorists without them,” which Israel has. 

That’s the position we’ve taken.  That’s going to draw criticism.  We’re willing to take that criticism because we believe that we have alighted on a course that has stood up for our ally, has stood against our common enemies, and at the same time has done our best to alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Gaza. 

MS. BREAM:  What’s the latest on negotiations over a ceasefire and getting the hostages out?  Are you hopeful that will help — that will happen on the Biden administration watch, before January 20th?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have now learned not to use the word “hopeful” and “Middle East” in the same sentence.  (Laughter.)  So, I will not do that.

There are ongoing talks.  We are going to use every day we have an office to try to get a ceasefire and hostage deal in place.  I meet regularly with the families of the American hostages, both those still living and those who have tragically — either were killed on October 7th or, like Hersh, were murdered, gunned down in tunnels during the conflict in Gaza. 

It is just a paramount priority of ours to make this happen, to get this in place.  We’re coordinating with the incoming team on it.  We’re coordinating with the Israelis on it.  I can’t make any predictions about whether it will or won’t happen.  I can only tell you that we’re going to use every ounce of effort and every last hour to see — to try to push this across the finish line.

MS. BREAM:  So when people were asked here in the survey, Reagan Defense Survey, what’s the biggest threat to the U.S., they far and away had China as the number one on that list, followed by Russia, North Korea, and then Iran.  How would you assess that?  Does that line up with what the Biden administration thinks the current threat assessment is?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well — and I think you heard this from Secretary Austin — China is the pacing challenge and threat to the United States for a very simple reason: It’s the only power with the capacity and, frankly, the aim of displacing the United States as the world’s leading military, economic, technological, and diplomatic power.  And we are determined to make sure that never happens. 

And I think if you rack and stack where we are today from where we were four years ago, the picture looks strong from the point of view of the United States’ leadership position in the world, the health of our alliance systems, the health of our economy, the health of our technological advantage, and increasingly, the health of our military capacity, including in areas like the submarine industrial base, which we’ve invested heavily in after decades of decline in that capability, and also bringing new concepts to the fore, like AUKUS. 

So, I think China is the challenge of the next quarter century.  It is a challenge we are prepared for and a challenge that I will be proud to hand off to the next team a strategy that we have been executing against, I think quite effectively, so that America is in a position to succeed in that competition.

MS. BREAM:  Second on the list was Russia.  And of course, with Ukraine, there’s a lot of polling information, too, from the survey about that.  How people think this will end: The largest group said that Russia is going to take some territory from Ukraine, and that’s going to be part of wrapping it up.  What do you think?  How does it come together to an end?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, President Zelenskyy himself has said that this war has to end at the negotiating table, and our job has been to try to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield so that it’s in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.  And that has required us to mobilize the largest effort of security assistance since the Second World War and flow massive quantities of munitions to Ukraine. 

And they are taking that fighting courageously, innovating themselves, particularly in the drone space.  I cannot predict exactly how the war will end, nor can I dictate to President Zelenskyy or the Ukrainians how it should end.  Our job is to take that 50-nation coalition of countries that we built from scratch and continue to surge capability until we’re out of here. 

And President Biden has directed me, and I have directed all of our agencies in our national security enterprise, to do a massive surge of assistance and to up the economic pressure on Russia.  And if you look at Russia’s economy right now, just in the last few weeks, you’ve seen the warning bells begin ringing much more strongly, and Russia really has mortgaged its economic future.  All of this can help build the kind of pressure that can be put to bear at the negotiating table to generate an outcome consistent with Ukraine’s future as a sovereign, free, independent state that can deter future aggression, backed by its partners like the United States. 

MS. BREAM:  Okay.  And one last chance to answer some critics — again, from your own party — with respect to Ukraine.

Top Democrats like Senators Coons and Blumenthal, Congressman Gregory Meeks over on the House side, they disagreed with hesitation, they say, from the White House, first to provide equipment or materials, but then to limit the use of it.  They say it’s been too little too late with respect to Ukraine.  How do you answer that critique?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, I very much respect the bipartisan support from the Congress.  But we have spent every dollar that Congress has given to us, and we’ve been waiting for Congress to give us more money, not the other way around. 

So the idea of too little too late, we have surged everything that we’ve had forward.  Now, there are certain capabilities that people have —

MS. BREAM:  The limitations on weapons.

MR. SULLIVAN:  — have mentioned.  I’d identify two that our military raised questions about whether the limited dollars that we had should be spent on them.  One was Abrams tanks.  The other was F-16s. 

When it comes to Abrams tanks, we have sent Abrams tanks to Ukraine.  Those Abram tanks units are actually undermanned because it’s not the most useful piece of equipment for them in this fight, exactly as our military said.  When it comes to F-16s, President Biden authorized the sending of F-16s to Ukraine last May.  It’s now December of 2024, and we’ve had a limited number of pilots train not because we’re not prepared to train them — we are, as many as possible — but because the Ukrainians do not have the pilots to be able to build a full F-16 capability in time. 

So I think this focus on these types of capabilities misses the point, which is this war is about munitions.  And we have surged munitions to an unbelievable degree, as fast as humanly possible.  Air defense capabilities.  And we have gone so far as to take the extraordinary step of asking everyone who buys air defense from the United States: Wait in line; we’re sending it all to Ukraine. 

These were not things that Congress or critics asked of us.  These are things we developed and we did. 

Third was making sure they had cluster munitions and now land mines so they could defend their territory effectively.  Again, critical capabilities they need that we generated; not something that we were being told by critics or Congress or anyone else to do, but stuff we went and did, with some controversy. 

And then finally, on the question of ATACMS long-range strike: The issue there has always been both the size of the U.S. arsenal, the shot volume capable, and here too, when we were able to develop a sufficient number of these to send, we sent them for their use.  And then, when the Russians took certain actions, we authorized their use inside Russian territory, which has happened now. 

But I would just say to everyone: Anyone who thinks that is a silver bullet for this war does not understand what is happening in this war.  It is not a silver bullet.  It’s one additional capability.  But where this war is really being fought is on basic munitions and then the question of manpower, which is something Ukraine has been trying to surge over the course of the past few months. 

At the end of the day, I think when history actually records what we have done predating the war, building the supply line and capacity; what Secretary Austin has done, building the UDCG, 50 nations flowing munitions in; and how we have been able to execute that over the last two and a half years, it is an extraordinary feat of logistics, production capacity, and delivery capability from the United States. 

And first reason Ukraine is where it is is because of the bravery of the Ukrainians.  Second reason is because of the munitions provided by the United States of America.  And I’m damn proud of what we have done to help Ukraine stand up for its freedom. 

MS. BREAM:  Well, in the midst of all of that — (applause) — yes — thank you for taking a break from all of that.  You’re never really taking a break — for giving us a few minutes.  So I’ll leave you with one last question.  What are you looking forward to most as a semi-retired — I don’t know — a congressional spouse?

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Laughs.)  I think I get a pin, actually. 

MS. BREAM:  Oh, okay.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Which would be cool if that’s true.  I’m not actually sure if that’s true or not.

But mainly I’m looking forward to sleeping.  (Laughter.) MS. BREAM:  That’s true.  Well, thank you for taking a break from all of that, and your nap, for us.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

The post Remarks by APNSA Jake Sullivan at the 2024 Reagan National Defense Forum appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. made additional disaster assistance available to the Commonwealth of Virginia by authorizing an increase in the level of Federal funding for debris removal undertaken in the Commonwealth as a result of Tropical Storm Helene.

Under the President’s order today, Federal funds for debris removal, including direct Federal assistance has been increased to 100 percent of the total eligible costs for a period of 120 days of the Commonwealth’s choosing within the first 180 days from the start of the incident period on September 25.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Amends Virginia Major Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. made additional disaster assistance available to the State of Florida by authorizing an increase in the level of Federal funding for debris removal and emergency protective measures undertaken in the State of Florida as a result of Hurricane Milton.

Under the President’s order today, Federal funds for debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance has been increased to 100 percent of the total eligible costs for a period of 120 days of the State’s choosing within the first 180 days from the start of the incident period on October 5.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Amends Florida Major Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. made additional disaster assistance available to the State of Florida by authorizing an increase in the level of Federal funding for debris removal and emergency protective measures undertaken in the State of Florida as a result of Hurricane Helene.

Under the President’s order today, Federal funds for debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, has been increased to 100 percent of the total eligible costs for a period of 120 days of the State’s choosing within the first 180 days from the start of the incident period on September 23.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Amends Florida Major Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

Roosevelt Room

1:39 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  A lot happening in the Middle East.

After 13 years of civil war in Syria and more than half a century of brutal authoritarian rule by Bashar Assad and his father before him, rebel forces have forced Assad to resign his office and flee the country.  We’re not sure where he is, but the- — there’s word that he’s in Moscow. 

At long last, the Assad regime has fallen.  This regime brutalized and tortured and killed literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. 

A fall of the regime is a fundamental act of justice.  It’s a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria to build a better future for their proud country. 

It’s also a moment of risk and uncertainty.  As we all turn to the question of what comes next, the United States will work with our partners and the stakeholders in Syria to help them seize an opportunity to manage the risks. 

You know, for years, the main backers of Assad have been Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.  But over the last week, their support collapsed — all three of them — because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office.  And let’s remember why. 

After Hamas attacked Israel on October the 7th, 2023, when much of the world responded with horror, Iran and its proxies chose to launch a multi-front war against Israel.  That was a historic mistake on Iran’s part. 

Today, Iran’s main territorial proxy, Hezbollah, is also on its back. 

Only 12 days ago, I spoke from the Rose Garden about the ceasefire deal in Lebanon — a deal that was only possible because Hezbollah has been badly degraded.  Meanwhile, Hamas has been da- — badly degraded as well. 

Iran’s own military capabilities have been weakened.  Iran tried two times to attack Israel, and the United States and — built a coalition of countries to directly defend Israel and help defeat those attacks. 

All this made possible for Iran and Hezbollah to continue to prop up — impossible, I should say, for them to prop up the Assad regime. 

Additionally, Russia’s support for Assad also failed.  And that’s because Ukraine, backed by our American allies, has put up a wall of resistance against the invading Russian forces, inflicting massive damage on the Russian forces.  And that has left Russia unable to protect its main ally in the Middle East. 

(Coughs.)  Excuse my cold. 

The upshot for all this is, for the first time ever, neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah could defend this abhorrent regime in Syria.  And this is a direct result of the blows that Ukraine, Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense with unflagging support of the United States. 

And over the past four years, my administration pursued a clear, principled policy towards Syria. 

First, we made clear from the start sanctions on Ira- — on Ira- — Assad would remain in place unless he engaged seriously in a political process to end the civil war, as outlined under the U.N. Security Council resolution passed in 2015.  But Assad refused, so we carried out a comprehensive sanction program against him and all those responsible for atrocities against the Syrian people. 

Second, we maintained our military presence in Syria.  Our counter-ISIS — to counter the support of local partners as well on the ground — their partners — never ceding an inch of territory, taking out leaders of ISIS, ensuring that ISIS can never establish a safe haven there again. 

Third, we’ve supported Israel’s freedom of action against Iranian networks in Syria and against actors aligned with Iran who transported lethal aid to Lebanon, and, when necessary, ordered the use of military force against Iranian networks to protect U.S. forces.  

Our approach has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East.  Through this combination of support for our partners, sanctions, and diplomacy and targeted military force when necessary, we now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region. 

Looking ahead, the United States will do the following: First, we’ll support Syria’s neighbors — including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel — should any threat arise from Syria during this period of transition.  I will speak with leaders of the region in the coming days.  I had long discussions with all of our people earlier this morning.  And I’ll send senior officials from my administration to the region as well. 

Second, we will help stability — ensure stability in eastern Syria, protecting any personnel — our personnel against any threats.  And it will remain — our mission against ISIS will be maintained, including the security of detention facilities where ISIS fighters are being held as prisoners.  We’re clear-eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its capability and to create a safe haven.  We will not let that happen.  

In fact, just today, U.S. forces conducted a dozen of precision strikes — air strikes within Syria targeting ISIS camps and ISIS operatives. 

Third, we will engage with all Syrian groups, including within the process led by the United Nations, to establish a transition away from the Assad regime toward independent, sovereign — an independent — independent — I want to say it again — sovereign Syria with a new constitution, a new government that serves all Syrians.  And this process will be determined by the Syrian people themselves. 

And the United States will do whatever we can to support them, including through humanitarian relief, to help restore Syria after more than a decade of war and generations of brutality by the Assad family.

And finally, we will remain vigilant.  Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and humanit- — human right abuses.  We’ve taken note of statements by the leaders of these rebel groups in recent days.  And we’re — they’re saying the right things now, but as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions. 

And as — we are mindful — we are mindful that there are Americans in Syria, including those who reside there, as well as Austin Tice, who was taken captive more than 12 years ago.  We remain committed to returning him to his family. 

As I’ve said, this is a moment of considerable risk and uncertainty, but I also believe this is the best opportunity in generations for Syrians to forge their own future free of opposition. 

It’s also an opportunity, through far from certain — though it’s far from certain, for a more secure and prosperous Middle East, where our friends are safe, where our enemies are contained.  And it would be a waste of this historic opportunity if one tyrant were toppled and only a — only to see a new one rise up in its place.  So, it’s now incumbent upon all the opposition groups who seek a role in governing Syria to demonstrate their commitment to the rights of all Syrians, the rule of law, and the protection of religious and ethnic minorities. 

These past few days have been historic, and, you know, it’s in the days ahead that will determine the future of a — this country, and we intend to approach them with strength, wisdom, and resolve. 

So, thank you very much.  God bless America.  And God protect our troops. 

Thank you. 

Q    What should happen to Assad now, Mr. President?

(Cross-talk.)

Q    What does the U.S. know about where Austin Tice might be and if he’s safe?

THE PRESIDENT:  We believe he’s alive.  We think we can get him back, but we have no direct evidence of that yet. 

And Assad should be held accountable. 

Q    Have you directed an operation to go get him, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  Get who?

Q    Austin Tice.

THE PRESIDENT:  We have to — we — we want to get him out.  We —

Q    Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  — we have to identify where he is.

Thank you.   

1:49 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden on the Latest Developments in Syria appeared first on The White House.

The United States and the Kingdom of Bahrain are proud to unveil the Geospatial Acceleration Initiative, an ambitious step forward in one of the Middle East’s longest-standing and most valued strategic partnerships. This initiative stems from the advanced technology track of the Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement (C-SIPA), signed in 2023, which strengthened US-Bahraini collaboration in defense, security, and cutting-edge technology development.

Bahrain’s steadfast dedication to regional security is exemplified by its prominent role in supporting multinational efforts to ensure safe navigation in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, countering threats to maritime trade, and upholding international law. Bahrain’s leadership in this effort underscores its ongoing commitment to advancing regional stability and protecting vital global trade corridors.

Through the Geospatial Acceleration Initiative and the advanced C-SIPA tech track, the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)—a global leader in geospatial intelligence—will collaborate with Bahraini stakeholders to produce and share hydrographic, aeronautical, and topographic geospatial foundation data. This partnership will enhance navigation safety for both military forces and bolster maritime security across the region.

The enduring U.S.-Bahrain partnership, rooted in decades of mutual trust and shared goals, is a testament to the power of collaboration. Together, through innovative initiatives like the Geospatial Acceleration Initiative, we reaffirm our resolve to confront today’s challenges with ingenuity and unity. This partnership continues to serve as a cornerstone of peace, security, and prosperity for both nations and beyond.

###

The post The United States and Bahrain Launch Geospatial Acceleration Initiative under C-SIPA appeared first on The White House.

Doha, Qatar

Good morning.

Your Highness: It is an honor to be here with you. I have been overwhelmed by the generosity and warm welcome you and the people of Qatar have shown me on my visit. On behalf of my husband, President Biden, thank you for your leadership as Qatar continues to play a vital role in this region—and the world.

And I’m glad to be with so many heads of state and leaders from across the globe here in Doha.

Yesterday, I visited the Qatar Foundation, which has a magnificent view of Education City. Looking out at all of those world-renowned learning institutions, I thought of the incredible minds, cultures, and ideas coming together.

I appreciate Her Highness Sheikha Moza’s leadership in an area we both deeply care about: education.

As First Lady, I continue to teach writing at a community college, and in my classes, we talk about how stories shape our world.

The stories we tell can divide us. They can isolate us, and make us fearful.

But stories can also help us feel more connected to one another and inspire us to join hands in creating a better future.

That’s the story unfolding on the campus of Weill Cornell Medicine here in Qatar.

Innovation through cooperation.

Yesterday, I met a medical student who is studying why the risk of ovarian cancer goes up with a particular gene mutation. Another student is designing a surgical device that can clean the lens of a camera during an operation—without removing it from the patient’s body. That will make surgeries more precise.

It’s promising work.

But what fills me with even more hope is meeting the people who are powering those discoveries.

Students from Qatar—and countries from all around the world—at an American academic institution, located here in Doha, uncovering health breakthroughs that have the potential to improve people’s lives in this region and globally.

This year’s Doha Forum is focused on the “innovation imperative.”

I believe the first imperative for innovation is cooperation—people of all backgrounds and expertise working side by side, creating something better than we ever could alone.

As First Lady of the United States, I’ve had the opportunity to travel the world. From Japan to Ecuador. From Namibia to Ukraine.

Everywhere I go, I’m reminded that our differences are precious—and our similarities infinite.

Still, on those trips, there have been some who ask me why: Why visit a drought in Africa? Why meet with Wounded Warriors in the United Kingdom? Why visit refugees in Romania?

But if we were reminded of anything, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is this: diseases do not recognize borders. Neither does hunger, poverty, or violence.

We are all connected.

Even when times are tough, we share a responsibility to come together. And whether it’s fighting disease or working for peace in this region, we must bridge divides so that all people may live with dignity and security.

President Biden—my husband, Joe—understands that there isn’t one leader, one government, or one country that can go it alone, not in a world as inter-woven as ours.

The world’s challenges aren’t only ours to endure together. They are ours to solve together.

That can be this generation’s story, one of cooperation, understanding, and opportunity.

Consider climate change. The consequences of extreme heat, droughts, melting glaciers, and typhoons reverberate around the world.

But so too could new technologies with the power to reduce carbon emissions, address water scarcity, and make communities more resilient.

It will take all of us—committing to change, sharing our best ideas, and creating innovations that reach everyone—just as fast and as far as any wildfire or ocean wave.

Another area that’s ready for more innovation is in women’s health research.

Globally, women tend to live longer than men, but we spend almost 25 percent more time in poor health. 

Innovations are happening all around the world to close that health gap. Imagine a blood test—the first of its kind—that can reduce the time it takes for women to get a diagnosis for a debilitating disease like endometriosis. Or think about the benefits of uncovering why Alzheimer’s is more common in women.

This work isn’t just up to scientists and researchers. Governments, academia, the private sector, and NGOs all have to coordinate to make sure the benefits of innovative research reach the people who need them. 

Your Highness: I am here in Doha as part of my final foreign trip as the First Lady of the United States.

In the coming months and years, I will continue to help close the gaps in women’s health research. And the leaders in this room will always have a partner in me to move forward life-saving and world-changing innovations that improve our world.

The imperative to join together is not our burden.

It is our opportunity.

So let us build strong partnerships and innovate our way to better health, opportunity, and prosperity—for all.

A brighter world can be our story to tell.

Let’s write it, together.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at the 2024 Doha Forum appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:24 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Give me a quick second here.  Packed room.  I wonder why.

Okay.  I have a quick thing at the top, and then we’ll get going. 

On Tuesday, the president will deliver a speech in D.C. on his economic record and legacy, including his transformative investments in America, rebalancing the scales of our country in favor of workers, lowering costs for everyday necessities, and creating a small-business boom. 

Just today, we learned more than 220,000 jobs were created last month, making this the only presidency in 50 years to have job growth every single month. 

Over the last four years, the president has rejected trickle-down economics and written a new economic playbook, playbook that builds the economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down.  This is a strong foundation for years to come. 

As many of you have reported, including the Associated Press, Trump will inherit an economy primed for growth.

And with that, Associated Press, you have the first question. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the president considering blanket pardons for either individuals or groups of people who are fearful of potentially being targeted by the incoming Trump administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not — I’m not going to — to get ahead of — of the president, but what I can say is that the president is reviewing other pardons and commutations. 

And I do want to lay out a little bit of the history — the — the history the president has taken over the last almost four years, actions that he’s taken, because it’s important to note that the president has so far issued 20 individual pardons and 122 commutations.  He’s issued more sentence commutations at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at the same point in their first terms. 

This is in addition to groundbreaking categorical pardons that the president issued to address marijuana possession, convictions — military convictions in the LGBTQ+ community.  And as recently as April, if you go back a couple of months, the president issued 11 pardons, 5 commutations for individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses who demonstrated a commitment to rehab- — rehabilitation. 

So, there certainly will be more to — to say, just more broadly speaking.  And as you know, commutations and pardons are usually done when it’s the — when it’s the president’s final — final term, around — historically, around the holidays.  And so, certainly, there’ll be more to come. 

Anything outside of that, I would say that, you know, I’m not going to get into deliberations — private deliberations.  I’m just not going to get ahead of the president. 

Q    And are preemptive pardons on the table as the president goes through with this process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to — I’m not going to get into — get ahead of the president.  Certainly, the president is looking at, you know, reviewing next steps, and there will be more to come.  I’m just not going to get ahead of the president.  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals from here. 

Q    And then a different pardon question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    In your first briefing here as press secretary, you committed to speaking to the American people, and I quote, “in a transparent way” — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — “in a truthful way, and an honest way.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes. 

Q    And then, in July, here at this podium —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you were asked about the president pardoning his son, and you said, “It’s a no.  It will be a no.  It’s a no.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.  And that — (laughs) — that is exactly right.

Q    So, clearly in the case of — of the president’s son and that pardon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — it became a yes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’m wondering if you would like to explain to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — us, the American people, really, why the information that you provided —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And I —

Q    — turned out not to be true?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I — and I answered this question on Monday.  We spent about 30 minutes on this — almost 30 minutes — roughly 30 minutes on this particular issue.  And I’m just going to reiterate what I said in Air — on Air Force One to your colleagues when I did the gaggle.

And, look, if you look at his statement, it’s pretty comprehensive — the statement that he put out on Sunday when he made this decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden.  It — it’s in his own voice.  I think it takes you through his thinking.  And he did — he wrestled with this.  He wrestled with this.

And, again, he said in his statement in his own voice that he made that decision this past weekend. 

And the fact is, when you think about how the president got to this decision, circumstances have changed.  They have.

And a couple of things — and I said this — I said this on Monday as well.  Republicans said they weren’t going to — to let up, weren’t going to stop.  Recently announced Trump appointees for law enforcement have said on the campaign that they — they were out for retribution.  And I think we should believe their words, right?  We should believe what they say. 

The sentencing was coming up, as you all know.  There was a sentencing coming up.  And the president said this in his statement — that Hunter and his family had been through enough.  “Enough is enough.”  And he wrestled with these circumstances — these changing circumstances, ultimately. 

And the combination of that — the president changing his mind and issuing — certainly led to the president changing his mind and issuing this pardon. 

And one thing that I do want to point to, which I think is important, is what Congressman James Clyburn said when he was interviewed.  He said, “I am absolutely okay with it.  I don’t know how many people urged him to do so, but I did… He seemed to be reticent about it.”  This is what Clyburn said when he spoke to the president two weeks ago.  “But I emphasized” — continuing his — his quote — “emphasized the fact that we, as fathers, have obligations to our children.”

So, that was a conversation that the congressman himself had with the president two — two weeks ago.  Said that the president was reticent when he encouraged the president to do so.

And this weekend, he thought about it and he weighed — he — it was not an easy decision to — to come to, and he put out a comprehensive — comprehensive statement.  And I would certainly, you know, offer that up to folks out there who are wondering.  I would say, “Please read the president’s — president’s response to this in full.”

Q    I’m sure my colleagues have a few follow-ups, so just very specifically, though, I’m —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not only colleagues who — who watch this.  There’s also the American people.

Q    I — exactly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To be — to be fair.  So —

Q    Exactly.  And they were told by you in July —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that this would not happen.  And it did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Yeah.

Q    Do you — I’m saying, asking for yourself — not the president’s statement, but for yourself — do you feel like are owed apology — an apology by the president? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just —

Q    Do you owe an apology to the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Zeke, I — I just laid out the president’s thinking.  The president laid it out himself in his own words.  He did.  He laid out how he wrestled with this decision.  He said in his statement — as a president, as a father, he talked about how difficult it was to make this decision. 

He thought about it this weekend.  He did.  He thought about it this weekend.  He wrestled with it.  And there are some, you know, factors — some real factors that he took into consideration.  And that’s why I keep saying, folks should just take — take a — take a look.  Take a look.  Read — read his statement.

And I know what I said.  I know what the president said.  That is where we were at the time.  That is where the president was at the time.  I am his spokesperson. 

This weekend, he thought about it, he wrestled with it — he wrestled with it, and made this decision.  That’s what I can tell the American people.

Q    Why should they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I think —

Q    — have any confidence —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then —

Q    — in anything else —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    — that you say?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I — I think the American people understand, and I think they understand how difficult this decision would be. 

And I would actually add — and I think it’s important to note here, as you’re asking me these questions — important questions to ask — that there was a poll — a U.S. Gov [YouGov] poll that came out, that some of you all reported on it.  And it said 64 percent of the American people agree with the pardon — 64 percent of the American people. 

So, we get a sense of where the American people are on this.  Obviously, it’s one poll, but it gives you a little bit of insight.  Sixty-four percent is nothing to sneeze at. 

But, again, the president talked about this.  His own words.  He said this weekend, he wrestled with this.  This weekend, he thought about this, and he made this decision. 

And let’s not forget, we can’t — we can’t also forget what some of the legal experts and former prosecutors have all agreed on — many across the country have virtually said no one would be criminally prosecuted with felony offenses with these facts, and they’ve all agreed.  We’ve heard from many legal experts on this. 

You heard me quote the U.S. — the former attorney general, Eric Holder, multiple times — I think about eight times on Monday — “No U.S. attorney would have charged this case given the underlying facts… Had his name been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been fundamentally and more fairly a declination.  Pardon warranted.”

And we’ve heard from many legal experts, and also former — obviously, a former U.S. attorney.

Okay.  Go ahead. 

Q    All of those things you laid out were known long before Thanksgiving.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And many Americans, in reflecting the 64 percent, certainly understand a father’s point of view.  But the president was declarative.  You were declarative.  You didn’t give room for “depending on the outcome of the election” or “depending on the rhetoric coming from the potential next administration.”  The certainty with which the president and you portrayed —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the “no pardon” is part of where the question comes from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because all the facts that you have outlined were well known in advance. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I would add, there has been some circumstances that have changed this.  Right?  Republicans not letting up, saying they won’t stop; they’re going to continue to do this.  I mentioned the recent Trump appointees of legal enforcement positions — right? — that said during the campaign they would have — they — they were out for retribution.  And so, no reason to not take them for their word.  I point to that. 

There was a sentencing coming up, as you all know.  There was —

Q    That was well known.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I said there are multiple factors here.  Not one thing — not one thing led to this.  Multiple factors.  And I think if you look at all of these, it’s a combination of reasons why the president wrestled with this over the weekend and made this decision.

Q    Now that you’ve had time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and the president has had time to absorb how the public has responded to this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to think on it further, does he have any concerns about the fact that he had been so declarative and then granted this pardon?  What — you know, it’s clearly done —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and —

Q    — and many — many Americans understand, as a father —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — how he would do that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    But does — does he have concern about his credibility or the impact it might have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know —

Q    — on future pardon decisions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — and I will also say — just to bring up Clyburn again, because I think it’s important — right? — because you were asking me what we said over the summer — Clyburn spoke to the president two weeks ago, and the president — he said — this is Clyburn’s words — words — the president was “reticent” when he encou- — tried to encourage him to pardon Hunter Biden.  And I think that is — his son, obviously.  And I think that’s important to note. 

Look, I would refer you back to the last couple of sentences in his — in the president’s statement, and I think it’s important here, where he talked about wrestling this and wanting to — wanting to — understanding that the American people are fair — fair-minded, and talked about the importance of doing this and thinking about this over the weekend and coming to this decision, and how he wrestled with it. 

And that was, I think, a message directly to the American people.  The whole — obviously, the whole comprehensive statement was something that he wanted to share with the American people.  But I think the way he — the way he ended his statement actually acknowledges and wanted to be very clear to the American people his own personal thinking about this and understanding that they would look at this and he believed they would be fair-minded about it. 

And this was not easy for the president.  It wasn’t.  It wasn’t.

Because you all mentioned the statements that we have made over the — over the summer.  So, obviously, this wasn’t easy —

Q    I guess my question is: He could have reserved —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to come to this decision.

Q    — the right to consider it later.  And — and when he is that declarative —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as the president of the United States —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It —

Q    — that’s where it carries weight.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand.  And Kelly O., you know this president.  You followed him during his vice presidency, right?  You have covered him.  When he is asked a question directly, he answers it directly. 

Q    Okay.  So, we are where we are. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, does he regret that he had misled the public about what would eventually happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I will say is he laid out his thought process.  He talked about the underlying — the underlying facts of the case.  He thought it was a very important — that was part of the first paragraph of his statement — wanting to explain and — and talking about the gun charges — right? — talking about the tax cases and wanting to make sure that they understood, like, these types of things would not be a normal — a normal reason to — to prosecute.  Right? 

Virtually no one would be criminally prosecuted with felony offenses with these facts, whether it’s — absent aggravated factors, similar charges are rarely brought.  When you think about gun charges, the tax cases, such as Hunter’s, when taxes are rap- — repaid with penalties are merely — are rarely criminally charged.  They are handled civilly. 

And these are the things that the legal experts also agreed with him on.  And so, he wanted to lay that out for the American people as well. 

And I, you know, don’t have anything else to — beyond what the president laid out — his thinking in his — in his written statement, in his words.  I just don’t have anything beyond that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  The president has also faced real swift criticism from members of his own party around this pardon.  I mean, Democrats have called it a setback, a mistake, said that they’re worried Republicans will use this against Democrats in the future.  Has the president felt the need to respond directly to any of his Democratic colleagues around their criticism of this move?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what the president is going to focus on — and you’ve heard us say this — is running through the tape.  He’s going to focus on the American people.  He’s going to continue to deliver historic progress every day.  That’s going to be his focus. 

And if you think about his legacy more broadly, it includes getting us out of COVID.  It includes bringing the economy back.  It includes beating Big Pharma.  It includes making sure that we had infrastructure investment that we’re able to do in a bipartisan way.  We’re talking about not just actions that the president has taken that people are going to feel today but for generations to come. 

And so, that’s going to be his focus.  I think folks in his party are going to have a lot of thoughts on this, obviously, but there have been — there have been — we’ve heard quotes and support from many — from many elected officials. 

I just mentioned Jim Clyburn.  There was Senator Dick Durbin.  He said, “It’s a right given to the president, a power given to him under the Constitution, and Joe Biden is using it in a very humane way.  I think Hunter Biden has been exploited for political purposes.  It’s not the first time.  It won’t — it won’t be the last time in American history.  But I can certainly understand Joe Biden standing up and saying that he wants to protect his son.” 

Nancy Pelosi, when she was asked about this particular issue, she said, “I support the president.” 

Representative Jasmine Crockett, “I think that it was the right move.” 

And there’s been others who have — in the Democratic Party, part of the leadership, and others — who have supported this president and his decision. 

Q    Just real quick, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When you — when the president is saying that he believed it was a political prosecution, does it make it easier for incoming Trump to also say that he’s pardoning January 6th rioters because he believes that those are political prosecutions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into what the incoming pr- — administration is going to do or not do.  That’s not something that I’m going to speak to.  I’ve been pretty consistent about that since the election.  We’ve been very clear about where we stand on January 6th.  And so, I’m not going to get into that. 

But I think — and you all, some of you, have reported this — Republicans have been very — his political opponents in Congress have been very clear about this.  The president talks about this again in his own statement about how they took credit for bringing — for bringing political pro- — political pressure on the process when it came to Hunter Biden’s plea deal.  And so, they took credit for that when it fell apart.  They took credit for that. 

And they have said they’re not going to stop.  And so, again, I’m not going to point to one particular reason for the president making this decision.  There has been changing factors that led him to where he decided, weighted this decision over the weekend.

Q    And then just re- — really quick, where Zeke started about the idea —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — of preemptive pardons.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You clearly didn’t rule that out.  You confirmed that the White House is really considering that in your response to me.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — that’s not — I — that’s — I’m not confirming anything.  I’m just saying I’m not going to get ahead of the president on this issue. 

Q    But just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s a process.  I’m — I’m not —

Q    Are you ruling out the idea —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m — I’m —

Q    — of preemptive pardons?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is I’m not getting ahead of the president.  I’m not.  There’s going to be — he’s going to make — make announcements on pardons and commutations.  That is something every president — historically, presidents do, especially at the end of their term.  And so, that normally happens around the holiday.  So, you could expect the president making a decision. 

What I can talk to and speak to is this particular pardon this — a couple of days ago, of his son, and what he’s been able to do.  I laid out some historic actions that the president has taken when it comes to pardons, when it comes to commu- — commutations over the past four years, as recently as this past April. 

I — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals here.  I’m not going to get into the president’s thinking. 

Q    Well, it’s not hypothetical.  Ha- — have people come and asked the president for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    — a preemptive pardon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — because they’re worried about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — a potential prosecution from the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is —

Q    — Trump administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we have seen from advocates — right? — who are — who have been very public in lobbying the administration for — for certainly — for pardons and — and clemency, commutations.  We’ve heard from them.  You all have seen it.  So, obviously, we have heard them. 

I’m just not going to get into specifics of what we’re going to do, not do.  I’m not going to get ahead of the president.  And I think you can understand that — that process that we’re going to keep going. 

Go ahead, Tam.

Q    Yeah, thank you.  You mentioned that there is a process.  I would love if you could spell out exactly how that process is working.  Is it in conjunction with the Justice Department? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Who at the White House is handling it?  And then, you could answer whether the Hunter one was inside or outside of that process, but let’s start with the process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, no, I actually answered that question on Monday.  The president made the decision on the par- — on the pardon for Hunter Biden.  The White House reached out to the Department of Justice because that has to be filed with the Department of Justice.  It was the president’s decision.  There was no consultation with the Department of Justice.  As you know, the — the president has the right to do this.  So, that was a — obviously, a very separate process. 

As it relates to more commutations, more pardons, that process, obviously, the Department of Justice is involved in that.  There’s a review process.  And so, that’s the — that’s how we’re going to move forward on — on making those types of decisions. 

Q    And who at the White House is leading it up?  Is it out of the Counsel’s office or is it the chief of staff?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, obviously, the White House Counsel will — will be part of this process.  I just don’t have anything beyond that. 

Q    And just quickly, President Trump is going to be in France this weekend —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — for the reopening of the Notre Dame, also meeting with President Macron.  How does this White House view President Trump’s meetings with foreign leaders happening while you’re still here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, it’s not unusual, as you’ve heard us say before.  You’ve heard the National Security Council say as well.  I think Jake Sullivan, when he was asked this question — our national security — the president’s national security advisor — made — made that same comment.  It’s not unusual for — when there is a president-elect, for heads of states, foreign leaders to want to have that conversation with the president-elect.  So, I’ll just — I’ll just leave that there. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just follow-up to Tamara’s question: Why isn’t the president of the United States going to go to the reopening of the Notre-Dame de Paris?  Why not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, just — as you know, the first lady is attending, and she’s attending as part of her larger travel swing to Italy, UAE, and Qatar.  So, she will be representing the administration. 

They were both invited to — to be there for the o- — reopening of the Notre-Dame.  The president has a — had a scheduling conflict, which is why he was not able to — able to attend.  Any specifics on the first lady’s trip and what that’s going to look like, I certainly would refer you to the first lady’s office. 

Q    But the president was invited?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he was.  He was.  There was scheduling conflict, which is why he decided not to attend. 

But the first lady is there, and — and he’s very proud that she’s there representing us.

And anything further on her visit, certainly I would refer you to — to their office. 

Q    I also have a question — thank you, Karine.  And I also have a question on the Canadian foreign min- — the Canadian foreign minister today launched the new — Canada’s new Arctic foreign policy to face Russia, China.  Four years later and with a successor who seems to be skeptical, how does the president see Canada’s involvement in — in mutual defense and international issue — international crises?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president values our strong partnership with Canada and their leadership to this particular announcement on addressing major challenges of our time, such as combat — combating climate change.  As you know, the president has taken that issue very seriously by putting forth one of the most historic piece of legislation that really deals with climate change in a way that we’ve never se- — we — we have not seen any other administration deal with it. 

Canada’s contribution, as we — as you all know, to Ukraine’s defense and Multilateral [Multinational] Security Support mission in Haiti have been consequential.  And so we value the Canadians’ cooperation in securing the Arctic region, and that is peaceful, stable, and prosperous and cooperative, and — and so, again, we value that strong partnership.  And I think they have shown leadership.  Many things that they have certainly partnered with us in the past four years. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On Syria.  As you know, armed groups are closing rapidly on many Syrian cities and against the Assad regime.  How does the White House see the outcome or the best outcome?  And what messages do you have to the regime in Syria?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re closely monitoring the situations in Syria, and have been in — in const- — in contact with the countries in the region.  And the NSC put out a statement just last weekend,

“The Assad regime’s ongoing refusal to engage in the political process outlined in UNSCR 2054 [2254], and it is rel- — it is — and its reliance on Russia and Iran created the conditions now unfolding, including the collapse of Assad regime lines in northwest Syria.”  So, “the United States, together with — with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a se- — and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 22- — 20- — 2254.”

And so, we’re going to continue to, obviously, defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military.  That is the president — that has been always very clear about that.  And so, obviously, U.S. personnel and U.S. military, they — they remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria.  But more broadly, to — to answer your question, we’re going to closely monitor the situation in Syria. 

Q    But since this statement, I mean, developments are happening so fast.  The cities after cities are falling.  So, maybe by the weekend, we’re talking about — maybe the Assad regime is not going to be there anymore.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m not going to — I — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals of what’s going to happen the next couple days or — or how it’s going to play out. 

What we are doing — we’re monitoring the situation.  We’re taking this very seriously.  You saw the statement from the National Security Council just this past weekend.  We’re going to continue to stay in contact with countries in the region. 

And so, that’s what I can say that we’re going to do: continue to be in touch, continue to mor- — monitor.  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals from here. 

Q    And one last thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    As you know, the Russians have been supporting the Assad regime since the beginning, but today they said they’re going to play a limited role in (inaudible).  Is this a welcome kind of statement from the White House that the Russians say they’re not supporting the regime the way they did in the past?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into what the Russians are doing or not doing. 

What we’re going to do is monitor this really closely.  We’re going to continue to talk with our coun- — with the countries in the region.  And remember, as you — as I just stated, we have U.S. personnel on the ground.  We have U.S. military.  It is important to the president that we continue to make sure that they’re safe — their safety is — is considered here.  I’m just not going to get into what Russia’s have — what the Russians have said and what they’re going to do or not do. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Zeke asked this question; I just didn’t hear an answer.  The next time that the president says he will or won’t do something, why should the American people believe him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I answered that question.  I don’t have anything else to add. 

Q    What — what is your answer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I answered the question. 

Q    Can you — can you explain in a way —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I answered the question.

Q    — that’s understandable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — well, I — I can’t speak to you understanding the question or not or my answer or not on this.  I — I don’t have anything else to say. 

I’m not going to relitigate this.  I — I did this on Monday for 30 minutes.  I went back and forth.  I laid out — I said please read the president’s really comprehensive statement on this.  And I even said, the last paragraph of that statement, he talks directly — directly to the American people.  And that’s how I answered that question.

Q    Can you acknowledge that it may have been a mistake by the president, you to say multiple times, unequivocally, that he would not pardon his son?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The president laid out in that statement what changed, why his mind ch- — mind changed, how he wrestled with this decision.  The president laid that out.  I don’t have anything else to add. 

Q    So, that statement, he said, in part, “I believe in the justice system, but as — as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.” 

Just to understand that sentence — I think it’s important —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, for sure.

Q    — is it sure that the president believes in the justice system, except in some cases?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He believes in the justice system.  He believes the facts are — the facts are — obviously, I talked about the gun charges, what legal experts have said, former prosecutees [prosecutors] have all agreed virtually no one would be criminally prosecuted for underlying factors of Hunter’s case.  I talked about the gun charges.  I talked about the taxes — the — the tax cases. 

And there are other factors here: what Republicans have said as they weren’t going to let — let up.  I talked about the upcoming sentencing and what Hunter and his family have been through.  I talked about the app- — appointees by the incoming president on law enforcement positions.

And he wrestled with it.  He did. 

And I also talked about what Jim Clyburn said.  So, you’re asking me about an apology, but Jim Clyburn said himself, in a conversation that he had with the president just two weeks ago, the president said — he said the president was reticent when he encouraged the president.  When he himself, Jim Clyburn, encouraged the president to move forward with it — Co- — Congressman Clyburn — the president responded to him by saying he was — he was reticent. 

And so, this was not an easy decision.  It wasn’t.  It wasn’t an easy decision.  And, you know, it was a lot of circumstances here, and — and we can’t — we can’t pass over what legal experts and former U.S. attorneys have said on this.  You know, and across the country, they’ve all basically agreed, virtually — virtually no one would be criminally prosecrated — prosecuted with felony offenses with these facts.  And I have gone through the — on the two — two important underlying facts of the cases. 

And, you know, I just don’t have anything beyond that to add or to say.  You know, I’ve laid out our thought process.  The president has laid out his thought process.  And we’ve talked about the case.  We’ve talked about his thinking.  And I just don’t have anything beyond that. 

Q    The president just got back from a multiday trip to Angola, where he engaged the press, I think, literally one time, just to quickly confirm that he was getting briefed on the situation in Korea. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yep.

Q    His last foreign trip, it was six days in South America.  As you know, he didn’t engage reporters during that trip.  After that last trip, you told us in this briefing room that he believes in the value of engaging the press.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    He enjoys it, you said.  He will continue to engage —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — reporters.  There will be opportunities to talk to him.  So, why is it that he is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — avoiding reporters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we got — we still have 45 days left in this administration.  The president does — he does believe in the free- — the freedom of the press, right?  He believes in that. 

I think we have shown in the last four years bringing back the norms of engaging with all of you.  We have respected that process.  I hope you guys think that, that we’ve tried to do the best that we can to do that.

And the president is goi- — he does.  He really does enjoy having a back-and-forth.  And when the president and — I do want to say he did take a moment to have a back-and-forth with all of you when he was in Nantucket with some of your colleagues who traveled with him.  He did take some questions there.  So, it’s not like he hasn’t taken questions at all.  He did have a — a — he did do a gaggle when he was in Nantucket around the holiday and took some questions. 

And so, he’ll continue to do that.  And, look, he was really focused — and many of you have asked me this question.  He was focused on his last OCONUS.  He had the G20 — the last G20.  He had the APEC, which was all incredibly important.  Wanted to focus on his engagement with leaders, heads of states.  He did that. 

The trip to Africa, as you all know, was a promise that he wanted to keep, and it was a great trip with very substantive discussions.  And we were able, again, to present — to show his global leadership. 

And so, I would say to all of you, you will hear — you certainly will — will hear from him in the next 45 days. 

Q    Do you consider it upholding norms for the president to basically not engage the press in at least two back-to-back foreign trips?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I would say is up- — upholding norms is what we have been able to do in the last four years.  And I would encourage folks to look at the four years more broadly and what the president has been able to do and what the president ha- — has engaged with all of you. 

And, again, we — I would say, especially from here, we have always respected and want to continue to respect the freedom of the press and have a healthy back-and-forth.  And that is the norm that I think, yes, we brought back — we brought back into thi- — from this administration. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A U.S. official said that the administration won’t be able to use up the nearly $7 billion in military aid that Congress had approved for Ukraine before the president leaves office.  How much money do you estimate that will still be left when the president leaves? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And is the president concerned that the incoming administration is not going to get that out the door to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, back in September — September 29th — the president — we put out a statement.  The president was very clear about wanting to surge — surge resources into Ukraine and wanted to make sure that they had everything that they need as what was happening on the ground — a situation on the ground, circumstances on the ground — was changing.  And our commitment has been very steadfast. 

You have seen us, since that date, continuing to make announcements on assistance going towards Ukraine.  I don’t have a number for you or an estimation of how much money would be left or not left in the next — after — well, we’ve got 45 days, as I just mentioned. 

I would refer you to the Department of Defense to get that specific number.  But we are committed to getting the money out the door.  We are committed to make sure that Ukraine has the resources that it needs.  As you know, we have led that.  This president has led, certainly, that charge globally in making sure that Ukraine has the support; making sure 50 countries get behi- — have gotten behind Ukraine; making sure NA- — the NATO alliance is stronger than it’s ever been before.

And I think you see that commitment from this president.  And so, we’re going to continue to surge that.

Q    But with this acknowledgement that there will be funding left when he leaves —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and given that this has been such a top priority for the administration and for this president, is he worried that when he leaves, that the incoming —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — administration is going to leave this money on the table and not get it out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, look, again, I’m trying to be really mindful not to get into hypotheticals on what the pr- — the next administration is going to do or not do.  We got to let that process move forward. 

What I will say and remind folks that we got that funding in a bipartisan effort, right?  That’s how we were able to get that funding to make sure the — the resource were — resources were getting into Ukraine.  And so, that was done in a bipartisan way. 

And we can’t take Russia off the hook here, right?  They are the aggressors here.  They are the ones that went into a sovereign territory.  And, again, we say this all the time, this war can end today if Russia would stop their aggression. 

But, again, it was done in a bipartisan way.  We can’t forget that.

Go ahead, Jeff.

AIDE:  Karine, you have time for a couple more.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Karine, before the election, the Senate passed a bill that would have added an additional 60 judges to the judiciary. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.

Q    That bill is now going to the House, and there are some Democrats who are now not supportive of that bill because it would mean President-elect Trump would have an additional 60 judges to fill.  What’s the — or judge spaces to fill. 

What’s the administration’s view on that bill? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Would the president sign or veto it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, I — I need to talk to the president and Office of Leg Affairs about this.  I have not had that discussion about this particular bill. 

As you know, we have been pretty — pretty aggressive and steadfast in getting our nominated judges — qualified judges through in the Senate process.  And so, we have been able to steadily do that over the past couple of weeks. 

On this particular legislation, I just need to — to talk to the team.  I don’t want to get ahead of them.

Q    All right.  And one more on pardons.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    With — having pardoned his son, some of the criticism that came from the left — including, I believe, Black Lives Matter — was that Black men have been unfairly charged and imprisoned and don’t have fathers who have the ability to pardon them. 

Does the fact that the president has pardoned his son, who was convicted by a jury and did plead guilty on the tax charges, put pressure on the president or does he feel pressure to do an even greater number of pardons this time around for — for people who don’t have that privilege?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, there’s a process.  The president is going to go through it.  I’m not going to get ahead of him.

But, again, I — I do want to — I — I hope folks don’t forget what the president has been able to do, the actions that he’s been able to take over the last four years.  I — I went through them.  Just to — to touch on them a little bit: He’s issued 20 individual pardons, 122 commutations.  He’s issued more sentence commutation at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at the same point in the first term. 

This is in addition to the groundbreaking categorical pardons that the president issued to address marijuana possession convictions and military convictions in the LGBTQ+ community.  And let’s not forget what he was able to do in April: 11 pardons, 5 commutations for individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses who demonstrated a commitment to rehab.  And so, there’s going to be more to come. 

But what the president has done, he’s shown his commitment to making sure that — that he — he takes these pardons, as he has over the last four years, in a way that is important for communities that you just — you just spoke to, and he’s talked about the criminal justice system. 

He’s talked about — you know, he’s taken actions in a way that we can address with the inequalities of the criminal justice system. 

And I would say that this president’s commitment has been very clear on this and has been very, again, continued — has been very steadfast and has made a difference — has made a difference.  

There’s going to be more to speak to in the upcoming weeks.  And so, certainly, the president will address it.

Q    Does he have a — does he have a response to that kind of criticism?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, again, I just laid out what the — the actions —

Q    But my question is, like, does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I don’t —

Q    — does he get that some people feel that their sons and daughters deserve the same?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, I will say, you know — and I keep going back to his comprehensive written statement, because he speaks to his thought process.  Obviously, I’ve said this mul- — many times.  He speaks to wrestling with this.  He speaks to the underlying factors, as I’ve mentioned many times from here.  And he speaks to how Republicans have politically gone after his son over and over again and continue — and continue to say they’re not going to stop. 

And you’ve heard from legal experts who have said that if his — basically, if his — if his name was — was Joe Smith —

Q    I got all that.  I’m asking about these other people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — and I — I —

Q    — who are also in jail and were also convicted.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.  And I — I’ve answered that by talking about the actions that the president has taken.  I’ve answered that by pointing to the president’s statements, him wrestling with this and laying out his thought process.  It was in his own words. 

And, you know, you’re asking — you also asked me if there were going to be additional pardons.  There will be.  There’s a — we’re reviewing it.  We’re trying to figure out the next steps in this, and you’ll hear from the president on this in the next couple of weeks. 

And — but we can’t — we can’t put aside the important notes that I made about the actions that the president has taken on issues and matter — on issues that matter to the community. 

And, again, I said this is — he’s taken — he’s issued more sentence commutation at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at this time — at this same point in their first terms.  That matters. 

He’s taking this very seriously.  And so, you know, that’s what I hope folks would take from that: a president that’s been very serious, that’s been tak- — that’s taken actions. 

And that’s how I’m going to answer that question.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  When you’re standing there at the lectern, you are White House press secretary speaking on behalf of the president, conveying his thoughts and the views of the administration.  And it’s for that reason that you said on his behalf all those times that he had no plans to do what he did on Sunday.  Has he expressed any regret to you directly, personally, for having put you in this position —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know —

Q    — and now having to go back on it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — look, I understand this question.  And you started off — I think the way you started off — the question is basically how I feel, right?  And I think all of us who work in this administration — I work for the president.  I speak for the president.  I — I comment on behalf of what he feels and thinks, and that’s my job.  That’s my job as the press secretary — the White House press secretary — the person who speaks on behalf of the president of the United States.  And that’s how I feel. 

Q    But does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I feel like it’s my — 

Q    But did he apologize to you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, there’s no apology — apology needed — maybe to answer that question.  No apology needed. 

What I will say is this is a president — you’ve heard me talk about the legal experts.  What they have say — said, how they agreed with the president in — in taking this action.  You’ve heard me say that over and over again.  I’ve laid out quotes from different U.S. attorneys, prosecutors who really laid out how the underlying factors of Hunter’s — Hunter’s case would not lead to what had occurred in the past several months.

And I will also say this, and you heard this president say this many times before.  He believes when it comes to his family, when it comes to how he moves forward about thinking about his family, they’re the beginning, the middle, and the end.  And he wrestled with this.  It was not an easy thing for him to decide.

There’s a reason why I keep bringing up Congressman Jim Clyburn.  It is because this is someone who spoke to the president just two weeks ago and encouraged him to do so — to pardon his son.  And at the time, the congressman said, two weeks ago, that this president was reticent.  So, obviously — obviously, he wrestled with this. 

So, no apology needed from him to me.

Q    One of the other things he often says is that voters should trust his, quote, “word as a Biden.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Should they still?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, the president is — the president —

Q    I mean, this was a pretty big —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — defiant public pronouncement by him that he wasn’t going to do this, and he did it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I hear you and I understand, but the president wrestled with this.  He truly did. 

And, you know, I — I called out the U.S. gov. [YouGov] poll where 64 percent of Americans — that’s not a small number — agree with the president’s decision to pardon his son.  And I think that gives you a little bit of a tiny window of where the American people are on this.

Q    He — he sidestepped a judge and a jury’s decisions on the cases involving his son.  He criticized the political nature of the prosecution.  The next president has spent the last several years vowing to upend the Justice Department and the FBI.

Looking at their current and future presidents, why should any American continue to have confidence in the American justice system?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the president does have confidence in the American justice system, and he said that in his statement — certainly continues to have confidence in the Department of Justice. 

What he —

Q    But they see two leaders who —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wha- — o- — okay.

Q    — single out incidents that involve them or their families and say, “Well, they’re not being fair to me —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can I — okay, can I —

Q    — but the rest of you should agree with it.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can I — can I just be very blunt here?  The situation with Hunter Biden and what the incoming president has said are very different.

Q    But they’re making similar arguments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, y- — but —

Q    — which is that they’ve been unfairly prosecuted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — because of who they are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — but I don’t think — I don’t think those two things are the same.  I just don’t.  I don’t — they’re not the same.  They’re just not.

And — and I think the American people understand that.  I do.  I do think they believe and understand that they’re not the same.

What the president’s son had to go through and what we’ve heard from legal experts — former U.S. attorneys general — who look at this case, who understand this case, and have said this would not virtually — there would not be this situation, and I think that’s important to note as well.  And they’ve been very clear about this.  We’ve heard from many of them.  Legal experts, former U.S. attorneys from across the country, again, have all agreed: Virtually no one would be criminally prosecuted with felony offenses with these facts.  I talked about these facts as it relates to the gun charges and tax cases that — that — obviously, Hunter Biden’s case.  And so, that is — you take their word for it.  You can take their word for it. 

Okay.  Wa- —

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Oh, wait.  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Q    (Inaudible.) 

Q    Bring that back.  So, Debra Tice just told the National Press Club, from a significant source in our government, Austin Tice is alive.  Is that what they were told today here at the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share about conversation on this particular matter. 

What I can say, though, is that —

Q    Because there was a meeting here today at the White House with her —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, exactly. 

Q    — with the family.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The national security advisor to the president, Jake Sullivan, did have a meeting with Austin Tice’s family this afternoon.  And — and Jake Sullivan has regularly met with the families of wrongfully detained Americans, so this is in line with what he has been able to do. 

And so, we’re going to continue to make sure that we get Americans who are wrongfully detained — or Americans home to their families.  You’ve seen that.  I think you’ve seen that commitment truly from this administration, what we have been able to do — certainly in last several months — over the past four years, and we’ve brought home 75 unjustly detained around the world. 

So, we work around the co- — clock.  We partner, obviously, with our — with partnership with our allies and we negotiate the release of Americans. 

I don’t — I don’t have anything to say about that particular statement, but I — you know, obviously, Austin Tice’s family — I don’t even — I can’t even imagine what they’re going through right now as they think about Austin Tice, as they, I’m sure, have continued to hope and pray for Austin to — to come home to them. 

And what we have been committed to is making sure that Americans get home.  Seventy-five Americans unjustly detained around the world — we have been able to do that because of this president’s leadership.  And so, I think that matters, and I think that shows the president’s commitment.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Karine.  Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Go ahead. 

AIDE:  (Inaudible.) 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Yeah, we got to go.

Go ahead.  Yeah. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, soon after the president announced the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah, President-elect Trump’s team immediately, you know, claimed credit for it.  Just last week, there was a video out, you know, released by Hamas, of one of the hostages.  Is the White House working with the Trump team to negotiate, you know, the hostage crisis?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is we’re going to continue to work 24/7, as we have, day and night, to secure a deal and — that would certainly free the hostages, bring about a ceasefire in Gaza. 

And so, we have been in touch with the president-elect’s team to ensure that they’re aware of our efforts.  And so, we believe they are supportive of them — the president-elect’s team.  And these conversations have been constructive.

But we have been doing the work for some time.  Right?  We’ve been working around the clock in getting that done.  And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on. 

Okay.  All right.  Thanks, everybody. 

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everyone.

3:13 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

As Commander in Chief, I have one solemn responsibility: protect the American people from harm. That’s why, over the last four years, I made beating the opioid epidemic a central focus of my Unity Agenda at home—and my cooperation with world leaders abroad.
 
Earlier this week, we saw the impact: Mexican security forces seized more than twenty million doses of illicit fentanyl—enough to kill 15 percent of all Americans. I want to thank President Claudia Sheinbaum for her leadership and partnership that made this possible, and the many military and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border who have dedicated their lives to countering fentanyl, disrupting traffickers, and saving their fellow citizens. It matters.
 
And we won’t let up. Under my Administration, we have seized more fentanyl at our border in the last two years, than the previous five years combined. We’ve put dozens of major cartel leaders and money launderers behind bars. And latest data shows over a 14 percent drop in overdose deaths across the nation—that’s the largest decrease on record.
 
These aren’t just facts and figures. They are families. Families who don’t have to bear the loss of a child, or parent, or spouse. So today, with partners around the world—including Mexico—we vow to double down on our work to size more drugs. To stop more traffickers. To save more lives. And to we make it clear: enough is enough.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation appeared first on The White House.

Dear Mr. Speaker:   (Dear Madam President:)

I am providing this supplemental consolidated report, prepared by my Administration and consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), as part of my efforts to keep the Congress informed about deployments of United States Armed Forces equipped for combat.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS

In furtherance of counterterrorism efforts, the United States continues to work with partners around the globe, with a particular focus on the United States Central and Africa Commands’ areas of responsibility.  In this context, the United States has deployed forces to conduct counterterrorism operations and to advise, assist, and accompany security forces of select foreign partners on counterterrorism operations.  In the majority of these locations, the mission of United States military personnel is to facilitate counterterrorism operations of foreign partner forces and does not include routine engagement in combat.  In many of these locations, the security environment is such that United States military personnel may be required to defend themselves against threats or attacks, and, to that end, the United States may deploy United States military personnel with weapons and other appropriate equipment for force protection.  Specific information about counterterrorism deployments to select countries is provided below, and a classified annex to this report provides further information.

Military Operations Conducted Pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and in Support of Related United States Counterterrorism Objectives

Since October 7, 2001, United States Armed Forces, including Special Operations Forces, have conducted counterterrorism combat operations, including against al-Qa’ida and associated forces.  Since August 2014, these operations have included targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which was formerly known as al-Qa’ida in Iraq.  In support of these and other overseas operations, the United States has deployed combat-equipped forces to several locations in the United States Central, European, Africa, Southern, and Indo-Pacific Commands’ areas of responsibility.  Such operations and deployments have been reported previously, consistent with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Public Law 93-148, and other statutes.  These ongoing operations, which the United States has carried out with the assistance of numerous international partners, have been successful in seriously degrading ISIS capabilities in Syria and Iraq.  If necessary, in response to terrorist threats, I will direct additional measures to protect the people and interests of the United States.  It is not possible to know at this time the precise scope or the duration of the deployments of United States Armed Forces that are or will be necessary to counter terrorist threats to the United States.

Afghanistan.  United States military personnel remain postured outside Afghanistan to address threats to the United States homeland and United States interests that may arise from inside Afghanistan.

Iraq and Syria.  As part of a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS, United States Armed Forces are working by, with, and through local partners to conduct operations against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria and against al-Qa’ida in Syria to limit the potential for resurgence of these groups and to mitigate threats to the United States homeland.  A small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria.  United States Armed Forces in Iraq continue to advise, assist, and enable select elements of the Iraqi security forces, including Iraqi Kurdish security forces.  United States Armed Forces also provide limited support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission in Iraq.  United States Armed Forces, as part of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, remain present in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq.

I directed United States forces to conduct discrete strikes on November 11, 2024, and on November 26, 2024, against facilities in Syria used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated militia groups for headquarters and command and control, weapons storage, training, logistics support, and other purposes.  These strikes followed attacks against United States personnel and facilities in Syria that threatened the lives of United States personnel and Coalition forces operating alongside United States forces, and that were perpetrated by the IRGC, affiliated militia groups, and other Iran-affiliated groups.  I directed these discrete military actions consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and to conduct United States foreign relations.

Arabian Peninsula Region.  The United States military continues to work closely with the Republic of Yemen government and regional partner forces to degrade the terrorist threat posed by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS. 

Since at least November 2023, Yemen-based Houthi militants have engaged in a series of attacks against United States military forces, including ships and aircraft, and against maritime commercial shipping operating in the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden.  These attacks have posed a threat to the safety of United States forces and commercial ships and their crews, regional political and economic stability, and navigational rights and freedoms.  The Houthi militants continue to pose a threat of future attacks against United States forces and military vessels and against other maritime traffic in the region.  In response, United States forces have conducted discrete strikes against facilities, locations, and equipment in Yemen that support and facilitate Houthi militants’ attacks in the Red Sea region.  These strikes protect and defend our personnel and assets, and degrade and disrupt the ability of the Houthi militants to carry out future attacks against the United States and against vessels operating in the Red Sea region that could further destabilize the region and threaten United States strategic interests.  The strikes were conducted in a manner designed to limit the risk of escalation and avoid civilian casualties.

United States Armed Forces are deployed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to protect United States forces and interests in the region against hostile action by Iran and Iran-backed groups.  These forces, operating in coordination with the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, provide air and missile defense capabilities and support the operation of United States military aircraft.  The total number of United States forces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is approximately 2,027.

Jordan.  At the request of the Government of Jordan, approximately 3,942 United States military personnel are deployed to Jordan to support Defeat-ISIS operations, to enhance Jordan’s security, and to promote regional stability.

Lebanon.  At the request of the Government of Lebanon, approximately 99 United States military personnel are deployed to Lebanon to enhance the government’s counterterrorism capabilities, to support the counterterrorism operations of Lebanese security forces, and to protect United States interests in the country.  The increase of approximately 24 personnel is attributable to the heightened hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, leading to increasing instability.  Accordingly, a small number of personnel were deployed to protect United States diplomatic facilities and diplomatic personnel, and to ensure rapid capability to respond to crisis.

Turkey.  United States Armed Forces remain deployed to Turkey, at the Turkish government’s request, to support Defeat-ISIS operations and to enhance Turkey’s security.

East Africa Region.  United States Armed Forces continue to counter the terrorist threat posed by ISIS and al-Shabaab, an associated force of al-Qa’ida.  Since the last periodic report, United States Armed Forces have conducted one airstrike in Somalia against al-Shabaab in defense of our Somali partner forces.  United States Armed Forces remain prepared to conduct airstrikes in Somalia against ISIS and al-Shabaab terrorists.  United States military personnel conduct periodic engagements in Somalia to train, advise, and assist regional forces, including Somali and African Union Transition Mission in Somalia forces, in connection with counterterrorism operations.  United States military personnel are deployed to Kenya to support counterterrorism operations in East Africa.  United States military personnel continue to partner with the Government of Djibouti, which has permitted use of Djiboutian territory for basing of United States Armed Forces.  United States military personnel remain deployed to Djibouti, including for purposes of staging for counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations in the vicinity of the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and to provide contingency support for embassy security augmentation in East Africa, as necessary. 

Lake Chad Basin and Sahel Region.  OnSeptember 15, 2024, at the request of the Government of Niger, the United States ended its limited military presence in that country.

Cuba.  United States Armed Forces continue to conduct humane and secure detention operations for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under the authority provided by Public Law 107-40, as informed by the law of war.  There are 30 such detainees as of the date of this report.

Philippines.  United States military personnel deployed to the Philippines are providing support to the counterterrorism operations of the armed forces of the Philippines.

MILITARY FORCES IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

As reported on October 15, 2024, I directed the deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system and United States forces capable of operating this system to Israel.  Although these forces are equipped for combat, THAAD is a defensive system, and I directed the deployment of it and accompanying United States forces for the purpose of protecting both Israel and United States persons and property. 

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN EGYPT IN SUPPORT OF THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE AND OBSERVERS

Approximately 378 United States military personnel are assigned to or are supporting the United States contingent of the Multinational Force and Observers, which have been present in Egypt since 1981.

UNITED STATES AND NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO

The United States continues to contribute forces to the Kosovo Force (KFOR), led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in cooperation with local authorities, bilateral partners, and international institutions, to deter renewed hostilities in Kosovo.  Approximately 403 United States military personnel are among KFOR’s approximately 4,500 personnel.

UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION COUNTRIES

Approximately 80,000 United States Armed Forces personnel are assigned or deployed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in Europe, including those deployed to reassure our allies and to deter further Russian aggression.

I have directed the participation of United States Armed Forces in all of the above-described operations pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40, Public Law 107-243, and other statutes), as well as my constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.  Officials of my Administration and I communicate regularly with congressional leadership, relevant congressional committees, and other Members of Congress with regard to these deployments, and we will continue to do so.

                              Sincerely,

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post Letter to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Regarding the War Powers Report appeared first on The White House.