Whitehouse.gov Feed

Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country. President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers. Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word.

###

The post Statement from Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Republicans Threatening a Government Shutdown appeared first on The White House.

New York, New York

MR. BREMMER:  So, I mean, for a lot of us here, this is the coolest thing going on in New York City right now.  There’s a lot of self-selection in this crowd.  (Applause.)  So, a very warm welcome to my friend, Jake Sullivan. 
 
And also, just to say, we’re going to run this for, like, you know, 45 minutes, an hour, and then we’ll get some questions from the audience, which will be fun.  They’ll come in on cards, so please fill them out, make them interesting and hard and engaging, because we both like that.
 
And also, this is being livestreamed, and I don’t know if they have any capacity to send us questions, and I suspect we’ll ignore those.  But nonetheless, we’re delighted that there are people that are joining us.
 
So with all of that, Jake, welcome.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you for having me.  It’s really good to be here.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Thank you for being here.  You just got back from the Middle East.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.
 
MR. BREMMER:  We’re going to talk about the whole world, but maybe start there.
 
You know, in the last year, you and I have spoken a lot more about the Middle East than we had before.  I’m wondering, in terms of biggest surprises, is it how much the Israelis have established, reestablished escalation dominance?  Is it Iran and the Axis of Resistance looking like a big deal and then imploding?  Is it what just happened with Assad and the rollout in Syria?  Where would you stack the “this is the thing that we probably least expected”?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  (Laughter.) 
 
I mean, not to be — every one of those pieces has been maybe not surprising directionally, in the sense that, you know, one could see the ways in which Israel — frankly, backed by the United States in terms of much of what it has accomplished — was taking the fight to its enemies.  One could see the weakening and the fracturing of the Axis of Resistance and the weakening of Iran.  And one could see the pressure on Assad, particularly because his two main patrons, Iran and Russia, were distracted and weakened.
 
But the speed, the scope, and the scale of the remaking of the Middle East in this short amount of time, I think you’d find very few people who could have predicted all of that and that we would be sitting here in December of 2024 with the picture looking the way that it looks.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Does the picture today look at least modestly more stable than it did a year ago, or does it look worse?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  You know, I’ve been reflecting on this question, because the thing about foreign policy and geopolitics is that when good things happen, often bad things follow.  When bad things happen, often good things follow.  And nothing is ever fixed in time.  There’s always something around the corner.
 
So is there a huge opportunity right now?  Absolutely.  In that sense, the possibility of a more stable, integrated Middle East, where our friends are stronger, our enemies are weaker — that is real.  And in fact, Iran is at its weakest point in —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Decades.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — in modern memory.
 
On the other hand, there are huge risk factors, and you can see them maybe most in living color in Syria, where the Syrian people have the chance to build a better future in a post-Assad world, but where there are very evil people who are looking to take advantage of this current moment, starting with ISIS, but other terrorist and jihadist groups as well.  And it will take collective resolve, wisdom, and willingness to act in order to ensure that we don’t see in Syria what we had previously seen in Libya, but on a larger scale where the geography is actually even more dangerous for not just our interests, but the interests of our friends and allies.
 
So I think we’re at a moment of profound opportunity but also a moment of profound risk, and that means that we have to handle this situation with clarity and effectiveness.  And the interesting thing is this comes in the middle of a presidential transition in the United States.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Which makes it harder for you.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  It makes it harder because —
 
MR. BREMMER:  I’m thinking specifically Syria, for example.  Right?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, I mean, it makes it harder because — you know, and this is something that my successor, Mike Waltz, has actually said — other countries, other actors, particularly our enemies and adversaries, look at transitions as moments of opportunity, because you have this seam between an outgoing administration and incoming administration.
 
And so, the imperative on us, both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration, has to be to lash up more tightly than is typical, to spend more time together than is typical, and to try to ensure we are sending a common, clear message to both friends and adversaries in the Middle East, and we have endeavored to do that over the last few weeks. 
 
Obviously, we disagree on a lot of things under the sun, including perhaps on certain aspects of long-term strategy in the Middle East or elsewhere, but where we agree is on many of the fundamentals here and especially on the point that we should not let anyone take advantage of the United States during this time of transition.  And so that has meant that Congressman Waltz and me and other people on each of our teams have tried to work so closely together.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Because I’m going to dig in more on Iran and the Middle East than other pieces.  But before I do, I want to beat on this, which is that, you know, I think some people were surprised that when Trump won, that Biden and President-elect Trump had a very civil sit-down discussion in the White House, despite what they had both said about each other over the previous months.  And more recently, you’ve had several very constructive meetings with the incoming National Security Advisor.  And frankly, my sense is that the alignment in how both of you see the world is a lot more similar on a bunch of policies than most people in the public would presume.  Is that a fair thing to say?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it’s fair at an elemental level of each of us being totally committed to the American national interest, each of us recognizing that we have real adversaries in the world, one of them being Iran, and we have friends and allies who we need to stand up and defend and back, one of them being Israel.  And so, that gives you a basis to work on.
 
Now, you know, I have been myself, President Biden has, the rest of our national security team has been subject to lots of criticism from President Trump’s team over the course of the past years.  We’ve criticized President Trump’s statements and record on foreign policy.  So it’s not like we see everything the same way.
 
But at this moment, on big-ticket items, when we need some degree of smoothness and continuity in the handoff from one administration to the next, I think both the outgoing and incoming administrations see the bigger picture.  And that’s really important. 
 
We will get back to the debates on hard issues and real disagreements, and there will be things that the next administration does that I won’t like.  I will tell you, I’ll be a lot less vocal about that probably.  Having sat in this seat for four years and listened to people criticize what we do, one thing I’ve realized is unless you’re sitting in this seat —
 
MR. BREMMER:  It’s hard.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — it’s hard. 
 
But for this moment, what we are trying to do on behalf of the national interest of the United States I think is extremely important, despite, you know, the deep differences that do exist in terms of the outgoing and incoming president and outgoing and incoming administration.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Now, I mean, the Iran story — which, of course, is America’s biggest adversary in the Middle East — I would argue we’ve managed — you’ve managed quite well over the last year.  I mean, there were many moments, at least a couple of moments, where people were very concerned that this could lead into a direct kinetic war between Iran and Israel that the Americans would have to get involved in.  And a lot of proactive diplomacy thus far has prevented that from happening.  Now, in part, that’s because Iran is in such an abysmal strategic position, and they’ve lost so much. 
 
If you’re Iran right now, how much are you trying to just do anything possible to stabilize relations with other countries around the world?  How much are you thinking, “Oh, my God, if I don’t, like, get nukes at some point, I’m in serious trouble”?  Is it all of the above?  I mean, what do you think their strategic calculus is?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I think their strategic calculus has a couple of levels.  One level is: Can we turn to other significant countries in the world to provide us capabilities that right now have been badly weakened and degraded.  Take their air defenses, for example.  So, they look to the Russians, but the Russians have their hands full —
 
MR. BREMMER:  They’re busy.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — with Ukraine.  Can’t help.  Perhaps they look to Beijing.  But two years ago, you and I would have sat and talked about how China is on the come in the Middle East, they’re going to become a major player, they’re going to be a mover and shaker.  Where have they been in the last year?  Completely absent.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Almost radio silence.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So Iran, in this kind of alignment of autocracies — Iran, Russia, China, North Korea — which is a real factor that we have to look at — in practice, it’s not exactly a solution here to Iran’s problems.
 
So, then there’s this question: What about Iran’s nuclear program?  And here, you can look at the public statements of Iranian officials, which have changed in the last few months as they have been dealt these strategic blows, to raise the question: Do we have to change our doctrine at some point?
 
MR. BREMMER:  Members of Iranian parliament (inaudible).
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  And the fact that that’s coming out publicly is something that has to be looked at extremely carefully.  We have to consult closely with Israel on that, with our Gulf partners, with our European allies, and with others as we go forward.
 
And I will tell you that, you know, when I was answering your earlier question about how, you know, positive things happen and then bad things follow, an adversary that has suffered blows that weaken it is — you know, obviously presents — we could say that’s a good-news story.  But it also generates choices for that adversary that can be quite dangerous, and that’s something we have to remain extremely vigilant about as we go forward. 
 
And here again, this point of making sure that vigilance crosses that threshold of January 20th into the next administration is very important.  So we’ve been bringing the incoming administration into the intelligence picture, the consultations with allies and partners on this so that we’re all basically reading off the same song sheet.  They may choose a different course, a different strategy, but I want to make sure we are starting from a common base of what we are facing with respect to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Now, on the war with Israel, at this point, you feel pretty confident that the Hezbollah ceasefire is going to stick, is going to become permanent?  Does that feel like it’s on the right trajectory?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I have learned the hard way not to use the word “confident” and “Middle East” in the same sentence.  (Laughter.)  So, I won’t quite go that far.  But I will say that there are incentives for this deal to stick.  There is also the fact that Israel has demonstrated that it is prepared to ensure that it is not going to tolerate violations.  The United States and France, as two outside players actively working to ensure the deal is enforced, we are making it known that we’re not going to let this be 2006 all over again.  I think the Lebanese people do not want to turn the clock back now.  They would like to see a better future for Lebanon.
 
So I think that the pieces are in place for this not to be temporary, for it to be durable.  But it is also subject to risk itself — risk of overreach by Hezbollah trying to rebuild its terrorist infrastructure, risk of potential spillovers from Syria that could complicate the picture. 
 
But in the main, I think we have got something in place that was a feat of Israeli military capacity and a feat of American diplomacy that can endure.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Now, Israel has been very engaged with the United States, and constructively, on Lebanon, Hezbollah; very engaged with the United States, and constructively, on Iran; very engaged with the United States, I would argue somewhat less constructively, on Gaza over the course of the last year.  Has been harder to get the Israeli government to align with a lot of what President Biden publicly has been saying. 
 
Talk a little bit, to the extent that you can, about challenges when a close ally, the most important ally of the United States in the region, is also creating that kind of tension for day-to-day management of foreign policy.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, just taking a step back, the challenge posed by an entrenched terrorist enemy with hundreds of miles of tunnels beneath a densely populated area, determined to keep fighting month after month, is a real challenge.
 
So we believe Israel has a responsibility — as a democracy, as a country committed to the basic principle of the value of innocent life, and as a member of the international community that has obligations under international humanitarian law — that it do the utmost to protect and minimize harm to civilians and that it do the utmost to facilitate humanitarian assistance so that people don’t starve or lack for water or medicine or sanitation.
 
And we believe too many civilians have died in Gaza over the course of this conflict.  And at too many moments, you know, we’ve felt we’ve had to step up privately and publicly and push on the humanitarian front to get more trucks, more aid, more lifesaving assistance in to the people of Gaza.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And you were doing a lot more privately on this front than people have seen publicly.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I think there is not a conflict in the world, in modern history, where as many people in the U.S. government, up to and including the National Security Advisor, could count for you the daily number of trucks, the crossings, the road blocks, the obstacles, as in this case.  It is under the most intense microscope, understandably, because people are suffering and great harm has come to a lot of innocent people who are caught in a circumstance where Hamas is using schools and mosques and civilian infrastructure to hide and use to attack Israel and Israeli forces, but also where Israel has been constantly and persistently attacking across the entirety of the Gaza Strip.
 
So it’s understandable that the microscope is there, but it means that, every single day, I personally am getting a report on the humanitarian situation, I’m getting a list of the things that we need to ask of Israel to try to alleviate it.  And working that day in, day out, and never being satisfied — because at the end of the day, in a war zone like this, you always want to be pushing for more, and then publicly, we have to also speak to our values and say, yes, we want to see more humanitarian aid get into Gaza — there’s nothing inconsistent with that, in my view. 
 
And standing up strongly and resolutely for the security of the State of Israel and for Israel’s right, indeed its duty, to get after the terrorists who attacked it and caused the greatest massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and who say they want to do that again and again if given the opportunity, we should be absolutely resolute in our moral authority on that point while also being resolute in our moral authority that we can do that and also ensure that innocent people in Gaza have access to basic sustenance and lifesaving necessities.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Well, not only are those two things not in conflict, but I think you would argue that ensuring that humanitarian aid to a much greater degree is actually incumbent on ensuring Israeli security long term.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I agree with that.  I think — you know, one of the things that Israeli leaders are grappling with right now is how do you take tactical gains against Hamas, and they have been significant: smashed Hamas military formations; the elimination of the top leadership, including Yahya Sinwar; the decimation of their rocket capability.  Those tactical gains are real. 
 
How do you convert that into a long-term strategic endgame where Israel is secure on a durable basis and where Gaza emerges where Hamas is not in power?  And the best way to do that, in my judgment, is to have a political solution, a political track alongside the military track.  And that starts with the basic concept of essentially trying to make sure that the ordinary civilians of Gaza, the innocent people of Gaza are not being put in a position where things are so bad that they all become radicalized and you have nothing to work with going forward.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Which is kind of the direction of travel, right?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think that there still remains an opportunity to build a better future, to drive towards what President Biden has called for since long before he was President: a Palestinian state living alongside a secure, democratic, and Jewish state, meeting all of the necessary conditions so that Israelis can be confident that they are secure.  And I think that is still a possibility, that we have not given up on that as a long-term goal, and we need to be taking steps towards that, and that begins with simple steps like dealing with this humanitarian situation.
 
MR. BREMMER:  But I will not ask you if you are confident that that can happen, as you know.  You’ve been through that already on the Middle East.
 
So one more bit on the Middle East before we move on — there’s a lot to cover — and that is Syria.
 
Now, here’s one where, I mean, I can see the incoming Trump administration causing you a bit of heartburn by, you know, publicly saying, “Hey, stay out of this, no matter what, militarily.  It’s up to Turkey to decide kind of what to do.  They’re critical.”  And meanwhile, we’ve got significant questions on the ground as to how to ensure that this new regime that’s taken over can ensure a level of stability and inclusion for everyone on the ground and not allow the Turks, not allow others to take advantage.  How can we manage this?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first of all, we have to recognize that the minute Damascus fell, ISIS began to look for any opportunity it could take to reconstitute, grow, spread, and ultimately recreate a platform from which to threaten the United States and Americans around the world.
 
And so, within hours of Assad falling and HTS rolling into Damascus, the President ordered the U.S. military to take military action against ISIS personnel and ISIS facilities in the central Syrian Desert, the Badiya, and we’re going to have to continue to do that.
 
So, point one is we need the capacity to go after ISIS in the east, and that’s something that, you know, we have advised the incoming administration.
 
The second major issue is how to ensure that we are standing up for and standing with our best and closest partners in that ISIS fight.  That’s the Syrian Democratic Forces, Kurdish-led forces, but also with a lot of Arabs fighting alongside them.  We need to stand up for them and ensure that they are secure enough in their position that they can continue to be the good partners they’ve been, including with respect to the administration of these very large prisons and prison camps where you have thousands of ISIS fighters and tens of thousands of family members, wives and children of ISIS fighters, who, if they were all to get out, would represent a really quite considerable threat to the region and ultimately to the United States.
 
So we need to stand with the Kurds, and President Biden intends to do that.  We need to stand up against ISIS.  And we need to maintain our capacity in the region to be able to do these things effectively so that we don’t end up with a repeat of what happened in 2014, 2015, where ISIS came sweeping across eastern Syria and western Iraq, and we ultimately had to deploy a considerable amount of American force to beat them back. 
 
And that was a campaign that began under Obama that ultimately came to fruition under Trump — President Trump’s first term.  So, he has the experience of actually fighting ISIS in eastern Syria, in Raqqa, to ultimately rid the world of that caliphate that posed such a grave threat to Europe, the United States, and beyond.
 
MR. BREMMER:  But there is a real and extant risk right now that Syria could become not quite Afghanistan, but, I mean, a — not just a civil war, but could actually become a primary hotbed of radical Islamic terrorism. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  There is a real and extant risk of that, and I don’t think we should sugarcoat that fact.  But let’s keep in mind that it’s my job as National Security Advisor to frequently see the risk in a given situation.  I would be remiss if I didn’t say there isn’t also a real opportunity. 
 
Assad was a butcher, a brutally murderous dictator of his own people.  Assad, you could say — you know, you could kind of take the measure of that man by his friends — Iran, Russia, Hezbollah.  Him being gone is not a bad thing; we should shed no tears about that.  And it presents this opportunity for the Syrian people to actually build a better future, an inclusive future that is consistent with what I think not just all of the various communities of Syria want, but which these guys who’ve rolled into Damascus are actually saying.
 
Now, converting words to deeds is another matter.  It’s something we will be watching closely.  But Syria, to me, to understand it, you have to see both the real risk — and it’s as you described — and see the opportunity and try to push things in the direction of opportunity while minimizing the risk.
 
MR. BREMMER:  No, look, I’m asking not because I think HTS is automatically a problem to be dealt with.  I agree the opportunity.  I’m asking mostly because if the United States, in a short period of time, says, “Not my problem.  Vacuum.  Have at it,” what the potential implications of that are.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  And I think you put that very well. The potential implications of us precipitously creating a vacuum are highly determined, highly experienced jihadists, starting with ISIS, will look to exploit that; take territory, particularly in eastern Syria; and as we have seen before, use that territory to plan, to inspire, to direct, and to enable attacks, including in the American homeland.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And in some ways, some of the biggest geopolitical challenges that have emerged over the course of the last decade has been a proliferation of vacuums, a proliferation of space where bad actors can act asymmetrically, some of them virtual, some of them physical and territorial, some of them sectoral.  But the implications of that being for stable democracies to pick it up or wither.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  That’s right.  And also for us — I said earlier — I used this phrase about moving fast and moving decisively.  Part of that is about being prepared to engage early with the new players on the scene in Damascus, with HTS.
 
And Secretary Blinken, you know, let it be known a couple of days ago that we’ve actually begun to have direct engagement with HTS.  And we are — Secretary Blinken sat with all the Arab states, with Turkey, with France, a couple of days ago in Aqaba, Jordan, to try to get everybody on the same page.  Because the other lesson of the potential for vacuums to come in is that if you’ve got one group of strong countries on one side backing one group of folks, and you have another group of strong countries on another side backing a different group of folks, you’re more likely to have those vacuums emerge because the major responsible countries of a given region are not all pulling in the same direction.  We saw that in Libya in spades.  We can’t see that in Syria, which means trying to get everyone aligned around a common picture for how we go forward.  That is no easy task.
 
But if we end up with a proxy war in Syria, I think it is only going to exacerbate the risks you’ve just described, with the possible expansion of this vacuum.  And America being a part of that, being present, being engaged, not just with our physical presence but with our diplomatic initiative, is going to be vital over the coming months.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Okay, so let’s move on.  I spent — we spent a lot of time on the Middle East.  Not a surprise.
 
I want to move to China.  When you first became National Security Advisor, conventional wisdom on China is: huge powerhouse, going to become the largest economy in the world in relatively short order.  That is not what we are looking at today.  Their economy is in the worst shape since the ‘90s, maybe the ‘70s.  You and I have talked about a meaningful possibility that they’d never become the largest economy in the world.
 
So, clearly, it feels like they’re on the back foot. They’re not taking the kinds of decisions that would be required to get them out of this structural economic decline for now.
 
How different is it dealing with a China that feels like it’s playing defense than it is in Anchorage, in the first meeting, when we’ve got a much more robust, confident China saying we got the world in our hands?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  You know, it’s interes- — it’s a good question, but I’m not sure that if you pushed the top echelon of leadership in China on the question, one, “is America in secular decline,” and two, “is China inexorably going to become the leading power in the world, economically, technologically, diplomatically and so forth,” they wouldn’t say yes and yes.
 
Still to this day, I think they’re totally wrong, and a bet against America is a very bad bet.  And the engines of American power are humming right now.  And I think the trajectory of China, this inexorable juggernaut, the objective evidence does not point in that direction. 
 
But I don’t think it has actually fundamentally yet shifted entirely their mindset of statecraft about the world.  What it has done —

MR. BREMMER:  The timeframes have certainly shifted.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  The timeframes have shifted, but the basic logic of “the East is rising, the West is declining” I think remains present to this day.
 
MR. BREMMER:  So it’s a tactical move.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  And so — exactly. 
 
So I think what we’re seeing instead is just we have storms, we have to weather them, we need to manage this, but fundamentally, the long-term strategic outlook I do not perceive has altered in a significant way.  And I believe that, basically, that means that U.S. policy should not move dramatically because of these developments with respect to the Chinese economy. 
 
And it has to be built on two basic premises.  One is what I just said, which is China does seek to become the world’s leading power.  I do not believe that is in the interest of the United States.  And the second is: No matter what the trajectory, the United States and China are going to have to learn to live alongside one another as major powers in the world for the foreseeable future.  And we need terms upon which we can do that, even as we compete vigorously in all of these different domains.
 
That has been the basic thrust of the diplomacy that we have engaged in.  It has been to create a effective management of a highly competitive relationship without for an instant taking away from the actions that we need to take to protect our technology, to enhance our deterrence, to deepen the strength of our economy, and to support our friends.
 
And so, we’ve tried to do both of those at once.  And I think we are handing off a relationship with China where America is in a very strong, competitive position, but also where we have the ability to engage diplomatically with China in ways that help ensure the competition does not veer into conflict.  That is not an easy feat.  It is not a task that is ever complete.  That is going to have to be an ongoing aspect of U.S.-China relations into the future.
 
But the hand that we were dealt was one thing; the hand that we are passing off when it comes to U.S.-China, I believe we have significantly enhanced America’s position.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Look, I mean, I think it’s pretty clear.  One, you’ve got general bipartisan agreement on what a U.S.-China relationship should look like, which is not true of a lot of areas of foreign policy.  And two, the relationship has been stabilized, even potentially strengthened, without the Americans giving up any fundamental equities.  So, I mean, those two things definitely help.
 
But I want to press a little bit on the tactical shift, because I accept that China still thinks long term, you know, the world is their oyster.  But, I mean, clearly, the last year has gone a lot worse for them than they expected.  Zero-COVID went a lot worse for them than they expected.  We see from Chinese leadership now them talking about concerns, even on social instability and dissent, that this can’t be tolerated.
 
So it’s clearly getting up to the top leadership, and they’re saying, “What are you guys doing?”  We see, like, all of these ministers of defense, minister of for- — other — U.S. ambassador, right, getting done up for corruption.  So it’s not been the best few years.  It’s been a rough ride for them. 
 
And you have spent — I’m not sure if the audience here knows — but you have spent an extraordinary amount of personal time with Wang Yi over the months, right, since the APEC Summit. 
 
Talk about, tactically, how you have perceived a shift in China’s negotiating stance, position; how engaging they’re willing to be; how, if at all, they’re seeing the United States right now. 
 
And I’m specifically asking this as we all are thinking about 60 percent tariffs coming from Trump, thinking about a much more potentially assertive out-of-the-box position that China — that they’re going to be facing.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, you know, I think one feature of my conversations with Wang Yi — and we tend to get together every few months for two days, and have somewhere between 12 and 15 hours of conversation — but we don’t cover every issue under the sun in the U.S.-China relationship.  We focus on a few key subjects.
 
And what makes that conversation different in 2024 than it was in 2022 is that it is much more about each of us kind of asking questions of the other — what our limits are, what our boundaries are, where are we taking things, what’s this all about.  There’s a much more inquisitive dynamic to the dialogue than there used to be.
 
And I’ll give you an example.  We’ve taken a series of measures to protect American advanced technology so that it can’t be used by the Chinese military to threaten us or our allies, including advanced semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.  Obviously, the PRC did not like this.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And we’ve done that with allies.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  And we’ve done it with key allies who —
 
MR. BREMMER:  The Netherlands, Japan, South Korea.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — are part of that semiconductor ecosystem so that, collectively, we can ensure that Western technology, built on an American backbone, doesn’t end up being used by the PRC.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Which they really don’t like.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  They don’t like it.
 
So it used to be that it would just be what, in diplomatic terms, is called a demarche, but, you know, which in layman’s terms is just like basically a screed against, you know, “You have done these terrible, evil things.  You are very bad.”  And that would be the nature of the conversation. 
 
Now the conversation is them asking us or us asking them, “What do you see as being the boundary between economics, on the one hand, and national security on the other?  Define that for me.  How do you think about it?”
 
And I’m not naïve enough to think that this is just some Socratic seminar.  You know, they’ve got a purpose behind it.  So do I.  But it creates the opportunity to have a strategic conversation to try to clarify intentions, to try to look for opportunities where we can come to better understanding. 
 
And frequently it’s going to lead, at the end, to deep disagreement.  They strongly disagree with what we are doing, just as when we talk about the relationship between Russia and China, or their support for Russia’s defense industrial base in the war in Ukraine, I’m pushing them with a series of questions, and at the end, I’m not satisfied with all the answers, which is why we take certain actions that include PRC entities.
 
But that, to me, the aspect of the relationship that has evolved is the ability for the two of us to engage in a dialogue that is less about the exchange of demarches and more about trying to feel one another out what we’re up to and, you know, what the actual right and left limits are of the kinds of actions each of us are taking. 
 
Then there’s one other aspect of the relationship that has evolved over time, which is: We had a big debate early on between us, which is, our view was: You can compete and you can also work together in areas of mutual interest.  The PRC’s view was: If you are intent on competition, then why should we cooperate with you?
 
I think we have evolved that to a point where we both see managed competition as involving elements of relentless and intense competition, on the one hand, but also areas where we can, in fact, work together where our interests align and where, frankly, we have to work together. 
 
Just one very simple example.  For the first time in decades, President Biden and President Xi actually put out a statement about nuclear risk reduction.  It was a very simple statement.  It said that humans, not artificial intelligence, should be —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Have a hand on the switch at all times.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — what determines —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Absolutely.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — use of nuclear weapons.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And that was just a few months ago.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  That should be apparent to everyone.  That took months, maybe years, to negotiate.
 
But we are there.  We are finally there.  Even at the same time that they’re placing export controls on certain critical minerals, we’re updating our export controls on semiconductors. 
 
All of this is happening at once because there is a recognition that managed competition requires being able to have some areas where we can work together and see if you can expand those areas, even as you’re competing vigorously in technology, in economics, in the military domain, and in others.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Well, and part of that is just understanding and being able to articulate that the intention of U.S. strategy in the long term is not regime change in China.  It’s a recognition that we’re going to be living together in some way.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, it’s interesting because there is a school of thought that is fairly prominent in Washington that says, in fact, the position that we, the Biden administration, have taken — which is we would like to put ourselves in the best possible position to compete effectively on behalf of ourselves and our allies, that we will take actions to do that, but we also are going to have to live alongside China as a major power — that that second part is wrong; that, in fact, we should be driving towards a defeat or capitulation.
 
And, you know, there was an op-ed written by Mike Gallagher, a person I respect enormously —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Smart guy.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — but disagree with him on this particular point —
 
MR. BREMMER:  On that issue.  Absolutely.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — precisely making this argument.
 
So I do think there will be a debate in the years ahead in Washington between those who say we’re going to compete and we’re going to be clear-eyed and relentless in the competition, and those who say but that there’s got — there’s not an end state, it’s a steady state of competition, and those who say, “No, no, no, you’ve got to bring down the CCP.”
 
MR. BREMMER:  But I want to be clear what I’m saying.  I believe the reason that there has been movement between the U.S. and China in recognizing that we can do managed competition and also have cooperation is because the perspective of the United States government today is that the U.S. is not trying to ultimately engage in regime change in China.  And if that were to change, I suspect the Chinese position on this would be quite different.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Right.  Action would cause reaction in a quite dramatic way, and I think you would have considerable destabilization.
 
MR. BREMMER:  So I want to ask you an intellectually challenging question around this.  Given that the Chinese are now willing to engage with you and vice versa, in not just demarches, what have you learned from China that you didn’t know before, a year ago?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, man.  That’s a hard question.  It’s like — it’s sort of like being asked what’s your biggest weakness.  And you say, “I try too hard,” you know, kind of thing.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Yeah, don’t do that, because — (laughter) —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  (Laughs.)  What have I learned from China?
 
MR. BREMMER:  That’s why I warned you it was going to be intellectually challenging.  I wanted to give you a second, you know?  Because (inaudible) live, so we can take out all of the hum and —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I mean, at some level I’ve learned a lot — just, you are going to learn a lot talking to someone on issues of substance for 15 hours — about their perspective, their calculus, their logic, their strategy, and including kind of what they say and what’s behind what they say.
 
But in terms of, like, larger lessons, it’s a good question.  I’d have to think about it, and I worry that any answer I give you today is just going to get me in trouble.  (Laughter.)  So, I’ll —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Well, and you only got a few weeks to get in trouble.  So from that perspective — (laughter) —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, come back to me on January 21st.  I’ll give you a full laydown.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Well, I’ll ask you over dinner.  It makes it easier.
 
So, okay.  How about big picture, China and macro-geopolitics, which is — actually, another difficult question.  I remember when the Secretary of State put out a recent piece in Foreign Affairs talking about kind of an axis of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China.  NATO Allies have also talked about that a fair bit.  My perspective is three of those countries would be very happy with different government.  Three of those countries, we don’t feel the need that we have to live side by side with them long term.  One of them, we do, as we just discussed.
 
I’m wondering to what extent you believe that some of the areas that we can work with China, should work with China in the long term, have to do with stabilization of the global environment.  I mean, they’re the largest creditor to the Global South.  The United States is also really interested in the Global South not falling apart.  Very different than Russia’s perspective with the former Wagner Group in the Sahel, for example, right?
 
At the end of the day, as you said, the Chinese aren’t doing very much in the Middle East, but in principle, the Chinese want stability in the Middle East, because they get a lot of energy from the Middle East; they want to invest in and through the Middle East.
 
Russia invading Ukraine was supposed to be over in a couple weeks, from China’s perspective.  Now it’s screwed up their relations with the Europeans.  That’s a problem for them.
 
So how much can, how much should the United States be trying to treat China as a country that should want to have a more stable environment geopolitically?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, what I say to my Chinese interlocutors is that part of their public messaging, and in their private messaging to us, is we don’t want a new Cold War and we don’t like what they call bloc confrontation.  This is their asserted position.
 
And so, the point I make to them is: Putin does want a new Cold War, does want bloc confrontation, and North Korea is happy to go along with that, as to your point, probably as Iran.  I think Iran has, you know, kind of got just a different agenda that’s more regionally focused, but nonetheless sort of along that line.
 
MR. BREMMER:  They’re also in a lot more trouble.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, exactly.
 
China has a choice to make.  China has a choice to make.  And it can either continue to tighten those links militarily, diplomatically, and otherwise, and end up in a circumstance where it is really part of an axis, or it could do what I think is much more natural from the point of view of China’s perspective, interest, and opportunity, which is to be a huge competitor to the United States; let’s make no bones about that.  And we are going to compete vigorously for shaping the future.  And I believe that if we fall well behind in that competition, it will be to our tremendous detriment. 
 
But on climate, on macroeconomic stability, on questions related to ensuring that the risks associated with things like artificial intelligence do not spin out of control, even on issues like the Iranian nuclear program, we ought to be able to find a way where our interests and China’s interests sufficiently align, that having a constructive agenda to go alongside the intense competition serves the American people and serves the people of the world, for that matter.
 
But that comes — a lot of — you know, most of the time, people ask that series of questions from the point of view of, “What are you going to do, America, to help make that happen?  How are you going to be nicer to China so that China, you know, is willing to do these things?” 
 
And I think we’ve reached a point in this relationship where, really, actually, it’s China’s choice to make more than it is ours.  They have to decide is Xi going to, you know — going to make the Xi-Putin kind of personal relationship the dominant issue, or is the PRC going to think of itself as a distinct kind of actor that is not part of this axis.
 
I personally don’t think they fully made that decision one way or the other.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Which is a good reason to press them on it.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Exactly.  The risk is really there that they will go down a darker path.  I think it’s our job to engage in statecraft and diplomacy, backed by the types of competitive actions we’ve taken and backed by strong allies who are all aligned around a common vision to try to get them to make the right choice that would serve our interests better for them to tack differently from the way these other countries are tacked.
 
MR. BREMMER:  So is it fair to say that labeling them part of an axis with Russia, North Korea, and Iran is not necessarily the most helpful way to accomplish that?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, that’s an interesting question.
 
What I would say — I would just put it differently myself.  I would say that there is greater alignment today, including China, among these countries, and we’re seeing it in ways that are quite worrying.  But it is not preordained that China ends up foursquare in this axis.  And we can do things to shape the environment, and China then has choices to make.  And I think the world should put the onus on China to make the right choice.
 
MR. BREMMER:  See, this is why he’s National Security Advisor.  That was a tough question to answer, definitely.
 
Okay, so to pivot to Russia, but use the China thing — I wasn’t planning on pulling out a Trump tweet, but I’m going to for the hell of it, which is — you know, he came out the other day talking about Ukraine, and at the end threw in this “and China can help.”  I was a little surprised by that.  Were you a little surprised by that?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  That stood out to me.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Why?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Because it’s something I’ve grappled with, actually, personally — is, you know, having had long conversations, not just with China but with Europeans and with the Ukrainians, about what kind of role could China play in all of this.  And, you know, the Ukrainians have made no secret about the fact that they want to engage and talk to China about, you know, how we get, ultimately, to a just peace in Ukraine.  And, you know, Ukraine has been concerned about some of the initiatives that China has put forward, but has wanted to really engage them.  They have a relationship with Russia. 
 
And so, you know, the idea that China could in some way be a part of the conversation about generating a just peace in Ukraine is not — that’s not a crazy idea.  Now, on the other hand, you don’t want China dictating terms in Ukraine, and you don’t want them becoming the dominant broker in the European theater. 
 
So it’s a question of figuring out what is the appropriate way for them to be engaged as a permanent member of the Security Council, as a significant player on the world stage, and as one of the few countries that Russia would have to listen to if China really spoke up. 
 
I think that President Trump putting that on the table is logical, because I’ve kind of worked through the same thought in my own head.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Yeah, and because, look, we hadn’t been in a position where we were talking about imminent negotiations; we now appear to be moving in that direction.
 
If you were national security advisor in that environment, and talking to Wang Yi, my expectation is that would end up being one of the major topics that you would discuss.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, it would be to say, you know, what is the shape of the table going to be, who’s going to be at it.  Obviously, Ukraine and Russia have to be there, but who else. And what could China bring to that in the way we ask that question about what China has brought to the P5+1 negotiations on Iran —
 
MR. BREMMER:  With the JCPOA —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — or anything else.  Yeah, that would be a question.
 
Now, I don’t know exactly what the answer would be.  I see pitfalls in all of that, but I think it’s an interesting thing that needs to be explored as we go forward.
 
MR. BREMMER:  So let’s move to Russia before I take a couple questions from the audience, and maybe a little technology, because we haven’t discussed that really.
 
On the Russia front: Clearly, I mean, we’ve had three years where the Ukrainians weren’t much interested in talking about negotiations; now they appear to be much more.  Some of that is Trump.  Some of that is the situation on the ground becoming more challenging for them.  Where do you think an eventual — what does the shape of a settlement look like, in your view?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m going to disappoint you with my answer to this, because I’ve given the same answer for three years, which is, at the end of the day —
 
MR. BREMMER:  It’s up to the Ukrainians.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  It’s up to the Ukrainians.
 
MR. BREMMER:  I knew you were going to say that.  Yeah, I know.  But the Ukrainian position is changing, right?  By definition.  I mean, they’re now saying maybe they need to give up land.  They didn’t say that before.  I mean, NATO looks like it’s getting kicked down the road more and more.  Trump probably wouldn’t accept it.
 
I mean, if you’re Trump, is it useful for you to be leaning into Ukraine just to get more space to say that we can get a negotiation?  Is that a good way to start it?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I think one of the most critical things that the United States — the current administration, the next administration — need to show is a willingness to stand behind Ukraine and ensure that they have what they need to defend themselves, because that is going to be the leverage necessary to get a good outcome at the table.
 
So I would like to see a continuation of the basic proposition that the United States will continue to provide Ukraine with the defensive capacity, the military capacity necessary to withstand the Russian onslaught, to pressure Russia militarily as we pressure them economically so that Ukraine is in the best possible position on the battlefield, which will put them in a better position at the negotiating table.
 
I think just coming out and saying we’re going to do a deal, without that extra piece, is not going to put Ukraine in the best position at the negotiating table.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Is it fair to say that the United States was counting more on economic sanctions early on than they should have, and less on military support for Ukraine than they should have?  And those positions have balanced out?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it is fair to say that the predictions about the impact of the sanctions on the Russian economy have not borne out, certainly not on the timeline that was anticipated back in 2022.
 
I think it’s equally fair to say that Russia’s economy is in real trouble right now, and that trouble is going to mount in 2025. 
 
MR. BREMMER:  How will it manifest?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, first, you have significant and growing inflation.  You have interest rates above 20 percent, which is putting a huge dent in the ability to invest.  You have Russia having to stretch further and further to recruit soldiers, paying more and more to do so, expending more and more of its budget, spending down its sovereign wealth fund so that it’s depleting its cash reserves.
 
And all of that has a compounding effect over time.  And when you add that to the fact that the casualty rates among Russians are just eye popping, and even more so in the last couple of months, I believe that these costs over time are going to grow.
 
Now, could I pick a month where they all come together to put real pressure on the Russians to come to the table?  I couldn’t.  But I think the conventional wisdom from a few months ago, which is Russia has got it made in the shade economically, they’re going to be okay, they can do this indefinitely — I don’t think the economic signals we’re seeing right now bear that out.
 
And I would make one more point that I think is really important for people to take into account.  We tend, I think, as democracies, to think, “Oh, we’re not doing so great, and those dictators are so strategic and they’re doing so well.”  If I had told you three years ago that Joe Biden was going to announce a special military operation to take Ottawa in a week, and three years later, he was in the wheat fields of Manitoba losing thousands of soldiers a month, with inflation over 10 percent and interest rates in America over 20 percent, 600,000 Americans either dead or wounded, and we’re inching out little Canadian town by little Canadian town —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Because this is the Trump plan, by the way.  I don’t know if you know this.  (Laughter.)
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.  
 
I mean, you would have said — you wouldn’t sit here saying, “Wow, America is really winning that war in a big way.  That’s great for America.”  You would never say that.  But somehow we’re saying, “Oh, the Russians, they’re doing great.”  They are not doing great.  They set out on a strategic objective of taking the capital Kyiv; wiping Ukraine, as we know it, off the map — maybe not literally wiping the country off the map but —
 
MR. BREMMER:  The regime.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — (inaudible) democratic, independent —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Taking the regime out.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — Western-oriented Ukraine, gone.  It would be a vassal state to Russia.  And they have failed in that, and they will fail in that.
 
They are now fighting and imposing huge costs, and I don’t want to discount those costs.  But let’s not forget that Kyiv stands, Ukraine stands.  Ukraine will stand at the end of this.  And the thing we can most do is create circumstances for a negotiation where they have some strength and capacity behind them and it is not imposed upon them.  And that’s what I would like to see in the months ahead.
 
And, frankly, I believe that whether it was President Trump, which it will be, or it were President Harris, had she won, this turn to negotiations is something that Zelenskyy was looking to do.
 
MR. BREMMER:  It was necessary.  Yeah.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Now we have an opportunity, but that opportunity should rest on the proposition that Ukraine is in the driver’s seat and is not going to have an outcome imposed
upon them.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And NATO is stronger, and people are spending more money and more committed to it, and there are two additional members.  And, I mean, you know, Assad just fell. 
 
I mean, there are a lot of ways that any one objective can say the Russians are not winning.  I think there are lots of ways objectively to say the Ukrainians are not winning too, to be fair.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  That is fair, and it’s important actually to pause on that point for a moment, because my account really kind of only speaks to one side of it. 
 
I mean, what has been visited upon the Ukrainians, on the brave soldiers on the front lines, on people — innocent people in towns and cities having missiles and bombs rained down on them; on Putin attempting to plunge the country into cold and darkness in the heart of winter and so much else — I mean, I’m not trying to be cavalier about any of that.  That is real.
 
Now, at the same time that that is happening, the Ukrainian people want to make sure that they are not just stopping the war for the sake of it.  They want a just peace, and we should support them in wanting a just peace.
 
MR. BREMMER:  I’m glad you said that.  Not that I’m surprised by it, but it’s useful to mention.
 
Okay, we’ve got questions here, and fortunately, there are also a couple aligned with technology.  And you and I talk about technology a lot.  The technology space is moving a lot faster than the national security government space.  AI is an area that previous administrations haven’t had to deal with.  You have.
 
Tell me — on the one hand, the United States has a strong geopolitical position with so many of the world-changing companies based in the U.S.  On the other, increasingly, this is a group of people, a group of companies that aren’t necessarily fully aligned with U.S. national security interests.  Tell me where you see those tensions and what you’re most concerned about for the next couple of years.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, I think the big American technology companies have done a quite remarkable job in driving innovation forward in artificial intelligence.  You see it with Google, you see it with Microsoft, you see it with Meta.  Like, having major American technology companies with capital to deploy and ambition to deploy has pushed the edge of artificial intelligence in ways that have given the United States a competitive edge and a real lead.  That is a national asset.  It is.
 
Now, on the other hand, America’s technological edge has always rested on not just having big tech companies, on having startups and a very competitive, very mixed ecosystem.  And so, one of the risk factors I see is making sure that we are continuing to nurture and ensure that these companies can come forward, the little guys, to produce new innovations and new technological solutions.  So, that’s one issue.
 
Second issue is that we need to, on the one hand, balance between ensuring that the most advanced AI at the frontier continues to be generated, produced, so to speak, in the United States so that we’re not outsourcing it to other countries and we’re not trading one form of dependence for another, but on the other hand, we’re allowing this technology to be diffused globally so that America maintains its technological leadership elsewhere.  How you strike that balance, I think, is extremely challenging.  It’s something we’re focused on right now and the next administration is going to have to focus on as well.
 
MR. BREMMER:  I got a question on TikTok as a risk.  Do you think that it is a security risk to the United States?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Our intelligence professionals, our national security professionals — not the politicians, the professionals — have looked at this and have seen the national security risks.  That’s why you have this legislation from the Congress for divestment. 
 
And I will be — not say much more than that, because there’s a whole legal process associated with it that I shouldn’t speak to, but there are both data risks and algorithm risks associated with TikTok under current ownership, and that has been laid out not by me, sitting here, but by the intelligence community and those who sit and kind of look at and try to size up these risks.  And it has led to a circumstance in which we have this impending deadline.
 
MR. BREMMER:  When you look at the principal actors in artificial intelligence in the United States, how much do you think of them as geopolitical actors that have degrees of real independence from what the U.S. government might or might not want?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think of them as geopolitical actors in that they have a big impact on geopolitics.  I’m less convinced that the leadership of these companies sit around and think, “I’m going to shape the world with my image, or I want to play as a geopolitical actor alongside a nation-state.”
 
So I think of it more as the result of their existence than as the object of their existence.  But we have to take that — seriously, that is part of the firmament in geopolitics now.  And we have to consider the fact that, yes, as you said, these are American companies, but they’re not like Chinese state-owned enterprises.  They have their own incentives.  They have their own strategies and objectives.  And much of that is very much aligned with the values and the direction that the United States wants to go.  But they are independent actors, and we have to take that into account.
 
MR. BREMMER:  I remember talking a couple of years ago with you about the fact that you said, like, one of the biggest frustrations is it’s hard to have a trade policy.  And there are a lot of political constraints around that. 
 
It’s easier to have an industrial policy.  Do you think that the industrial policy the U.S. government has right now in the tech space is adequate, is up to speed for what it needs to be geopolitically?  And if it isn’t, what else needs to happen?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think that we’ve taken great strides forward with respect to investment in the basic research and the innovation base of the United States, with respect to semiconductor manufacturing, clean energy manufacturing; the infrastructure that will get built out that can help propel economic and technological growth in all dimensions; steps we’ve taken on biotechnology and biomanufacturing. 
 
I’m extremely proud of the legacy we leave over the last four years.  And that’s not just a domestic economic story; that is a national security story.  It’s something that I personally have cared passionately about as National Security Advisor.
 
If I had to pick one thing that makes me nervous, it is the need for us to deploy clean energy really rapidly, to have sufficient clean energy to power the compute necessary to continue to stay at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence.  And that is going to require us to take steps to break down barriers, remove obstacles.  And we’re trying to figure out if there’s anything we can do just in our remaining time to be able to make that happen.  But it is also something that we will be communicating very vigorously to the next administration too.
 
We have got to be able to increase overall clean energy output so that we are increasing our overall capacity at a basic level of compute so that we maintain the lead in AI and in other technological areas.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Closer relationship with Canada, if and when they have a government, might be part of that.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  Not invading them, I guess, would probably help.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Yeah, yeah.  That’s probably right.  Well, if he’s already the 51st governor, you know, for now, it’s already taken care of.
 
So here’s an interesting question that I bet a lot of people are thinking about: Why did President Biden’s foreign policy for the middle class never gain traction with the broad American public?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  It’s a good question.  I mean, first of all, I think that foreign policy in general tends to be more difficult to penetrate, unless it’s at a quite elemental level — the United States is directly at war, or you have a dramatic event like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
 
I think the way that I would answer that question is to say I think the tagline never penetrated, but I would posit to you that, over time, if many of the things that he did — the technology protections, the industrial policy, the supply chain diversification and resilience, the friend-shoring and building out of allied ecosystems — these are things that don’t happen in a year or two years; they happen over a decade or a generation.
 
And I would posit that we have now planted the seeds that will be harvested in the future in ways where people say, “I like that.  That is working for me.”  I feel like we have an industrial and innovation base here that can generate good jobs and economic growth.  I feel like we’ve got supply chains that are not going to get cracked because of a pandemic or because of China.  I feel like our technology is not being used against us in ways I don’t like. 
 
These are all things that I regard as part of foreign policy for the middle class, that if you’re sitting in 2023, 2024 in the U.S., you’re at the very early stage of that.  But we carry that forward over a generation, and I think you can build a new consensus around that.  People would say that is the kind of approach that I would like to see, not just as a matter of domestic policy, but as a matter of international economic policy. 
 
And frankly, one group of people who looked at what we have done in this regard and said “Hey, we should be doing that too” are all of our allies.  The Japanese the Koreans, the Europeans have all said, “We’ve got to do that.”  Draghi just put out a big report, basically describing —
 
MR. BREMMER:  Competitiveness report.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — this sort of theory.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Absolutely.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So —
 
MR. BREMMER:  It’s great in theory.  Yeah.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it will take longer for that to fully penetrate, but I think — I have conviction that if we stick with it as a country, I believe it will penetrate.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Interestingly, I mean, not only do allies recognize that this is a strategy they need to do more of, but, I mean, I would argue that this is an area of foreign policy that the Biden administration, the incoming Trump administration actually do have a lot of overlap on.  This is a place that I wouldn’t expect to see a great deal of difference.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think that’s right.  I mean, it’s hard to know exactly, because there are a lot of different voices, and it’s possible to take the basic core of this strategy in an extremely aggressive direction, like the 60 percent tariffs you were talking about earlier.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Or 25 on Mexico.  Yeah, sure.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, for me, that the essential insights I think are fairly common.  The manifestation or the implementation of those insights could look radically different and we’ll have to wait and see what actually happens.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Okay, before we close then, let me give you a completely random one.
 
South Korea.  What the hell, Jake?  (Laughter.) I mean, you know, good ally, solid ally.  We got the Japan-South Korea relationship stable and everything.  And then he just kind of completely lost the plot, in very short order.  Did you see that coming?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I cannot say that I saw the declaration of martial law, you know, on a night come and then have it reversed 24 hours later and everything.  No.
 
MR. BREMMER:  It was like six hours.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Did not see that coming.
 
But we had January 6th.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Yeah.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I think it’s important for us to recognize that dramatic events happen even in highly advanced, consolidated democracies.  And the real test is, can the democratic institutions hold at the end of the day, even if they bend. 
 
And if you look at those dramatic moments in South Korea, with protesters pushing aside the guns of the troops that were deployed to block the National Assembly so that the assembly couldn’t go in to repudiate the declaration of martial law; if you look at the fact that, actually, now the processes are working, they’re going through their paces — it was quite a moment and something that I think we’re not entirely out of the woods on because there’s still more, you know, chapters in this play until everything has worked through the courts and so forth.  But the institutions in South Korea are holding.
 
It’s a good reminder, though, that surprising things happen.  You know, if you had asked a lot of people around the world was January 6th going to happen, they would have said, “No, I was very surprised by that.”  We’re going to have more of these surprises in the future. 
 
I mean, one thing that we have to keep in mind is we are in a new era.  It is — the post-Cold War era is over.  There’s a competition underway for what comes next.  It is challenging.  It is at times turbulent.  And from my perspective, what the United States has to do is try to strengthen its fundamental hand so it can deal with whatever comes next, and there will be surprises.
 
So as National Security Advisor, what I ask myself is: Are our alliances stronger than when we found them?  And I think the answer is yes.  Are our adversaries and competitors weaker than when we found them?  And I would say yes.  Have we kept the country out of war?  Have we kept the homeland safe?  Have we protected our technology for being used against us?  And do we have the instruments of American power — our economy, our technological engine, our infrastructure, our defense industrial base — in a better position?  Yes.
 
So we should have confidence that we can deal with this challenging and turbulent world.  But it’s tough.  It is tough out there.  And it’s not just in places like the Middle East.  It can happen in the ROK.  It can happen in the United States of America.
 
The real key is do you have the basic elements of American power and capacity in a place where we can deal with our geopolitical competitors and also deal with the great trends of our time — the clean energy transition, AI, and so forth — and can you pass off a better hand than the hand that you were dealt despite all of the things happening in the world. 
 
That’s how we have to keep our eye on the prize.  And I think the United States should look at what we’ve got going for us and say, “Man, you know, it’s challenging out there, but yes, we are in a position to do very well for ourselves, for our friends, for our people, if we keep our wits about us.” 
 
And that’s what I would like, at the end of the day, the conclusion of my time in this seat — I guess, literally this seat, but also the National Security Advisor seat — that’s really what I walk away from.
 
And then, coming back to your question about China, maybe that’s part of an answer.  I think this is how they —
 
MR. BREMMER:  I knew you were going to get their eventually.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  You know?  But honestly, as part of listening to Wang Yi, they tend to look at success, so to speak, in geopolitics and foreign policy as not about doctrine or about, sort of, a narrative.  They look at it on the basis of assets and liabilities: You know, do we have strong friends and less strong enemies?  Are we entangled in war?  Is our homeland under attack from terrorists or others?  You know, where do we stand on technology, on the economy, on supply chains, and so forth?
 
That is something I think that the PRC, over 30 years, what helped them move so rapidly is they had that kind of mindset.  I think in a challenging and turbulent world, the United States needs to be thinking about that as well, not just in the chess board of geopolitics, but in terms of us being up for the big challenges of the moment.
 
MR. BREMMER:  And in the strategic ledger.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Long term, who are the people that the Americans feel like we can count on around the world.  And there, the Chinese, if they took an honest-to-God strategic look, shouldn’t be thinking the United States is in decline.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Exactly.  And also should be saying, “Wow, I’d much rather have what the U.S. has, these powerful, capable democracies, even if they have weird moments like the martial law declaration, as opposed to when China looks around at who its really core group of friends are or could be.
 
So, yeah, we got — we have a lot going for us, without for a moment trying to whistle past huge — a huge plastic moment of turbulence and transition that’s going to be with us for quite some time.  We’ve just got to be prepared to say we have what it takes, alongside our friends, to navigate this moment in a way that will serve our people well.
 
MR. BREMMER:  Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.  (Applause.)

The post Remarks by APNSA Jake Sullivan in a Conversation with Ian Bremmer on the State of National Security appeared first on The White House.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
 
 
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (the “Agreement”).  I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Agreement.

    The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), often referred to as the high seas, which are under threat from a multitude of stressors.  The high seas includes ocean areas beyond countries’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones and covers about two-thirds of the global ocean.

     The Agreement will create a mechanism to establish marine protected areas in ABNJ, a vital step in the global effort to conserve or protect at least 30 percent of the global ocean by 2030.  It will create a system for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of marine genetic resources from ABNJ.  The Agreement also includes provisions ensuring that Parties conduct rigorous environmental impact assessments for their activities in ABNJ and provisions on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology related to the Agreement.  The Agreement is key to supporting the sustainable use of marine resources, maintaining the integrity of ocean ecosystems, and conserving marine biological diversity.  Implementation of the Agreement will respect the competences of and not undermine other international bodies and will require consultations with those organizations to enhance cooperation and coordination on the conservation and sustainable use of the marine resources of the high seas.

     I believe joining the Agreement to be fully in the interest of the United States.  I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Agreement and give its advice and consent to ratification.
 

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
 
 

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    December 18, 2024.

The post Press Release Message to the Senate Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction appeared first on The White House.

On December 17, U.S. Principal Deputy National Security Advisor (PDNSA) Jon Finer, Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, and Indian Ambassador to the United States Vinay Kwatra traveled to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, to mark the significant progress the United States and India have made to strengthen space cooperation, including under the U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET).  Following President Biden and Prime Minister Modi’s June 2023 commitment to work together to “reach new frontiers across all sectors of space cooperation” and India’s signing of the Artemis Accords, our two nations reached an inflection point on collaboration across civil, security, and commercial space sectors.  This includes human spaceflight, joint space exploration, and a commitment to facilitating commercial partnerships between U.S. and Indian space companies to advance our shared interests in the growing space economy.

As part of their visit to Houston, PDNSA Finer and Deputy Secretary Campbell met with representatives from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), and space industry leaders to identify new opportunities to further strengthen our burgeoning space partnership.  They also reflected on the accomplishments of the past few months and charted next steps to take our partnership to the next level, including:  

• Selecting two ISRO astronauts to train at NASA’s Johnson Space Center for the first-ever joint effort between American and Indian astronauts at the International Space Station, with Axiom Space serving as the provider of the mission; the launch of the Axiom-4 mission as soon as spring 2025 will mark a significant milestone in the U.S.-India space partnership and space exploration;

• Celebrating the completion of a Strategic Framework for Human Spaceflight Cooperation to deepen interoperability in space and working toward the conclusion of a new arrangement on advanced astronaut training;

• Noting continued progress toward the launch of the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) in early 2025 from the Satish Dhawan Space Center on India’s southeastern coast; the NISAR satellite integrates two radars – one from NASA and one from ISRO – which will together map the motion of the Earth’s surface twice every 12 days, as the United States and India work together to predict and respond to hazards, measure and quantify changes to infrastructure and resources, and address other global challenges;

• Exploring the creation of a new space innovation bridge to promote partnerships between U.S. and Indian startups focused on advancing space situational awareness, satellite technology, and space launch and exploration;

• Promoting defense space cooperation through the U.S.-India Advanced Domains Defense Dialogue, India’s participation in U.S. Space Command’s annual Global Sentinel exercise, and a recently launched space situational awareness joint challenge under the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X);

• Advancing reviews of Missile Technology exports to generate new opportunities for bilateral industry partnerships on space launch technology, including for commercial satellite launches.

###

The post FACT SHEET: The United States and India Advance Growing Space Partnership appeared first on The White House.

Q    President Biden, do you have any plans to speak to the press before you leave office?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.
 
I’m heading home now for a memorial service.
 
Q    Will you hold a press conference before the end of the year?
 
Q    Mr. President, what’s the explanation for all of those drones over New Jersey?  What — what’s behind all of that?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing nefarious, apparently, but they’re checking it all out.  There’s a — they think it’s just one — there’s a lot of drones authorized to be up there.  And I think one started, and they all got — everybody wanted to get in the deal.
 
But I’m — we’re — we’re following it closely.  So far, no sense of a danger.
 
Q    Will you speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu about a ceasefire deal in the next month?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve spoken to him, and I’ll — we’ll speak again.
 
Q    When did you last speak?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you, guys.

The post Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure (December 17, 2024) appeared first on The White House.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024, the President signed into law:

S. 50, the “Pensacola and Perdido Bays Estuary of National Significance Act of 2024,” which amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to give priority consideration to selecting Pensacola and Perdido Bays as an estuary of national significance.

Thank you to Senators Rubio and Rick Scott for their leadership.

S. 310, the “Disaster Contract Improvement Act,” which requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish an advisory working group to encourage collaboration among entities engaged in disaster recovery relating to debris removal.

Thank you to Senators Rick Scott, Peters, and Rosen, and Representatives LaLota and Pappas for their leadership.

S. 1478, which designates as the “National Medal of Honor Highway” United States Route 20 in the States of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts.

Thank you to Senator Ron Wyden, Representative Mike Kelly, and many others for their leadership.

S. 2781, the ” Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024,” which promotes remediation of abandoned hardrock mines.

Thank you to Senators Heinrich and Risch, and Representatives Maloy, Peltola, and Susie Lee for their leadership.

S. 3475, the “Strengthening the Commercial Driver’s License Information System Act,” which allows the Secretary of Transportation to authorize a qualified entity to operate the Commercial Driver’s License Information System.

Thank you to Senators Peters and Young for their leadership.

S. 3613, the “Improving Federal Building Security Act of

2024,” which requires Facility Security Committees to respond to security recommendations issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service (FPS) regarding facility security.

Thank you to Senators Peters and Young, and Representatives Ezell and Troy Carter for their leadership.

###

The post Press Release: Bill Signed: S. 50, S. 310, S. 1478, S. 2781, S. 3475, S. 3613 appeared first on The White House.

Prince George’s Community College
Largo, Maryland

11:50 A.M. EST

 THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Can we hear it for Lauren?  (Applause.)

Good morning, everyone.  Have a seat, please.  Good morning.

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Oh.  (Laughs.)  (Applause.)  Oh, I just love seeing all of our young leaders.  You know, when I look out at all of you, I know and I feel so strongly the future of our country is bright.  It is bright because of all of you.

And I want to thank Lauren for her kind words and her commitment to your community, Lauren, and for the example you are setting.

It is so good to see all of you.  (Laughter.) 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  It’s good to see you!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, I — well, you know what?  (Applause.)

So, l- — let me start with just what has happened, actually, yesterday — before I begin my other comments — about the horrific shooting yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin.

Of course, it’s another school shooting, another community being torn about and — torn apart by gun violence.  And, of course, our nation mourns for those who were killed.  And we pray for the recovery of those who were injured and for the entire community.

But, look, as we hold our loved ones close this holiday season, we as a nation must renew our commitment to end the horror of gun violence — both mass shootings and everyday gun violence — that touches so many communities in our nation. 

We must end it.  And we must be committed to have the courage to know that solutions are in hand, but we need elected leaders to have the courage to step up and do the right thing.  (Applause.)

So, with that, I will return to the reason we are here today. 

And I first want to thank all of the incredible leaders who are with us, including Governor Moore, my dear friend —  (applause); your extraordinary Lieutenant Governor Miller — (applause); and someone I have worked with and known for so many years, your Senator-elect Alsobrooks.  (Applause.)

And to all the young leaders who are here, I thank you for your service to the people of Maryland, because, look, each of you has decided to dedicate yourself to the work of service, the work of lifting up the condition of other people — people who often you may never meet.  The work you do in service will affect people who, for the most part, will never know your names, but their lives, because of your work and your dedication, will forever be touched in a positive way.

You know, I do believe that public service is a noble calling.  It is noble work.  And is a — it is an expression of optimism, which is you know and believe — and it is being verified to each of you every day — that the work you do that can life people up has effect.  It matters.  Your work is about the optimism that comes with knowing that one individual can make a difference in the lives of so many people.  And God knows when you have a whole group like this doing it together, the impact you have on our nation and, by extension, the world.  

So, today, I came by to express my gratitude for the work you, like so many across our nation, have been doing to lift up our fellow American.  And I am here to reaffirm our shared commitment to the work ahead.

You know, over the past several weeks since the election, I have received tens of thousands of letters from people across our nation — many of them young leaders — Americans from every walk of life; people of every age, race, faith, and political party.

These letters share a common theme.  Yes, there is disappointment, but there is also resolve for the future.

One letter in particular stands out, which I’ll share with you.  A young woman named Sasha writes, quote, “There is nothing in the world that will take away my drive, energy, passion, and the destiny that I have to help the people of our country.”  And I think any one of you is Sasha — could be, right?  Nothing is going to take away that drive, that passion, that energy, that commitment. 

So, Sasha, like all of you, inspire me — young people who are rightly impatient for change.  I love that about you — impatient for change.  Who will not let anyone or any circumstance defeat your spirit or your sense of purpose.  You will not allow your spirit or your sense of purpose to be defeated. 

You, who have, I think, by your actions, adopted some advice my mother gave me a long time ago.  She would say to me, “Kamala, don’t just complain about what is wrong.  Do something about it.  Make it right.”  That’s a life you all are living. 

 You reflect the best of the America I have seen, be it during the campaign, during my four years as vice president, and throughout my life.

An America where we recognize that we are all in this together.  That no matter our background, we share the same dreams, aspirations, and ambitions for ourselves and our family.  That we all have so much more in common than what separates us.  That is our knowledge. 

An America, where we are guided by the ideals that have always defined us when we are at our best: dignity and decency, fairness, freedom, and opportunity for all.

An America, where we recognize that the true measure of the strength of a leader is not based on who you beat down; it’s based on who you lift up.  (Applause.)

And the story of America’s progress — you all know history — the story of America’s progress, when we have made progress, in many ways is the story of people who stayed true to their ideals, even in the face of difficulty; the story of Americans who, yes, faced disappointment but did not grow weary — did not grow weary; who faced setbacks but did not give up; people who refused to let the light of America’s promise dim or burn out in moments of challenge.

The movements for civil rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights — the United States of America itself would never have come to be if people had given up their cause after a court case or a battle or an election did not go their way.

What Sasha wrote and what we here know is that, in moments like this, the true test of our character is how resilient and persistent we are to pursue the future that we all can see.

The true test of our commitment is whether, in the face of an obstacle, do we throw up our hands, or do we roll up our sleeves? 

And as we approach — (applause) — (laughs) — and as we then approach the end of this year, many people have come up to me, telling me they feel tired, maybe even resigned — folks who have said to me that they’re not sure whether they have the strength, much less the desire, to stay in the fight.

But let me be very clear.  No one can walk away.  No one can walk away.  We must stay in the fight, every one of us, including the fight for an economy that works not just for those at the top but for working people, for all Americans; the fight to make sure everyone has a fair shot to pursue their ambitions; the fight for our id- — ideals, including the equality among us, the freedoms to which we are entitled, the dignity that we possess and is possessed by every one of us.

So, we must stay in the fight because that is the responsibility, in my opinion, that comes with the privilege of being an American.  And that responsibility has always, then, fueled the American experiment. 

In our country, you see, the recognition that we are all created equal, with certain fundamental rights and freedoms — the belief that here, in our country, anything is possible — the promise of America itself is a powerful yet fragile idea. 

Powerful because it has inspired billions of people and made it possible for us to become the strongest, most prosperous nation in the world, yet fragile because that idea is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it — only as strong as our faith that we, the people, are the ones who make it real.

So, I will say this as we close out this year.  I ask of you this: that those here and anyone watching, that you will not walk away, that you will stay true to your spirit and your sense of purpose, that you will continue to fight for the promise of America.

And I ask you to remember the context in which you exist.  (Laughter.)  Yeah, I did that.  (Applause.)  Uh-huh.  (Laughs.) 

I ask you to remember that this struggle is not new.  It goes back nearly 250 years to Lexington and Concord.

Generation after generation, it has been driven by those who love our country, cherish its ideals, and refuse to sit passive while our ideals are under assault.

And now, this fight to keep the light of America’s promise and to ensure it burns bright — well, this fight now, it continues with you.  You are its heirs.  We are its heirs. 

So, I’ll end with this.  Get some rest over the holidays.  (Laughter.)  Spend time with the people you love.  You know I believe family comes in many forms.  There’s family by blood, and there is family by love. 

I urge you, then, after you have had some rest — in fact, I challenge you — to come back ready — ready to chart our path to the future, chin up, shoulders back, forever impatient for change, and, like Sasha, ready to summon your drive, your energy, your passion to help our fellow Americans; and be ready to get back to work fighting for opportunity and freedom, fighting for fairness and dignity, and fighting for this country we love and the future we share.

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

                              END                    12:06 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris to Young Leaders Who Are Active and Engaged in Their Local Communities appeared first on The White House.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024, the President signed into law:

S. 3960, which establishes a good faith exception to the imposition of fines for false assertions and certifications related to the reduction of patent-related fees.

Thank you to Senators Coons and Tillis, and Representatives Issa and Hank Johnson for their leadership.

###

The post Press Release: Bill Signed: S. 3960 appeared first on The White House.

I’ve always put families and hardworking Americans first. That’s why I called on my Administration to do everything we can to lower costs. Today, the Federal Trade Commission is doing just that by banning hidden junk fees when you book a hotel or purchase event tickets. We all know the experience of encountering a hidden fee at the very last stage of check out—these junk fees sneak onto your bill and companies end up making you pay more because they can. Those fees add up, taking real money out of the pockets of Americans.

Today’s announcement builds on work across my Administration to ban junk fees and lower costs—saving many families hundreds of dollars each year. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lowered overdraft and credit card late fees, the Department of Transportation proposed a ban on family seating fees and required upfront disclosure of baggage and change fees, and the Federal Communications Commission ensured consumers see upfront the full price and terms for their internet service. Wherever big corporations try to sneak fees onto bills, my Administration has been fighting on behalf of American families to ban them.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the FTC Banning Hidden Junk Fees appeared first on The White House.

East Room

8:12 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  My name — my name is Joe Biden, and I’m Jill Biden’s husband.  (Laughter.) 

And I was raised by — some of you know me well — by a righteous Christian: my dad.  My dad used to come home and rail against the fact that we didn’t let the ship in — let — after Auschwitz, we didn’t — we didn’t bomb the railroad tracks, et cetera.  And my dad would always talk about our obligations.  And my dad was the one who inspired me. 

And I see my fellow father-in-law out there, Ronny Olivere.  Ronny is a good friend.

And my — my — what happened was that — my dad always thought that we had an obligation to — to step up and — and talk about what happened, and he inspired me to take every one of my children and grandchildren — when they reached the age of 14, their first trip in an aircraft overseas was to Ausch- — to — excuse me — to the — to the camp — that I wanted them to see what it was like, wanted them to see that no one could have misunderstood that there — what was going on in those camps.

And so, they toured the camps.  And they toured them, so I wanted them to know that you couldn’t pretend it didn’t happen and it should never happen again.

And so, I learned a long time ago: You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.  I’m a Zionist.  (Applause.)

A little early, but Happy Hanukkah to everyone.

Jill and I and Kamala and Doug are honored to host you here at the White House. 

Doug, thank you for being such a great friend. 

And thank you, Anne.   You’ve been a true friend and a real leader.  And tell your son how proud of him I am — of you.  She has a beautiful son.

And I want to thank you all for being here tonight. 

Look, when you walk around the White House, you feel the history and the story of our nation, including the story of the Jewish people who came to our shores in the 1600s after fleeing persecution abroad. 

Here in the East Room is a portrait of George Washington.  In 1790, a local Jewish leader from Newport, Rhode Island, wrote a letter to President Washington expressing his hope that America would be a nation of religious freedom for all its citizens, a nation which, quote, “gives bigotry no sanction and persecution no assistance.”

Like the ancient Hanukkah story when Jewish M- — when the Jewish Maccabees fought for religious freedom thousands of years ago, a letter to George Washington echoed the same vision for freedom.  And ever since, the values and contributions of the Jewish Americans have shaped the very foundation and character of our nation. 

That’s why, two years ago, Jill and I displayed the first-ever permanent White House menorah made of the original wood from the White House building.  We displayed it again tonight to make clear that history and vibrancy of the Jewish life is woven into the fabric of America, every aspect of it, and it’s permanent.  It’s permanent.

But I know this year’s Hanukkah falls on the hearts that are still very heavy.  It’s the second Hanukkah since the horrors of October 7th.  Over a thousand slaughtered, hundreds taken hostage, unspeakable sexual violence, and so more.  The trauma of that day and its aftermath is still raw and ongoing. 

I’ve gotten over a hundred hostages out, and I will not stop until I get every single one of them home — every single.  (Applause.)

Last month, we secured a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon so residents can safely return home.  And I’ve said many times before, my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people and security of Israel and its right to exist as an independent nation-state is — remains ironclad. 

I know — (applause) — not just me — I know the Jewish community is also suffering from despicable surge of antisemitism in America and all around the world.  It’s immoral.  It’s wrong.  And it must stop now. 

And, Doug, I want to thank you.  Thank you for your leadership in this effort.  I really mean it sincerely.

And I know it’s hard to find hope while — while carrying so much sorrow.  But from my perspective, Jewish people have always embodied the duality of pain and joy. 

You know, the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, “A people that can walk through a valley of shadow of death and still rejoice is a people that cannot be defeated by any force or fear.”  “Any force or fear.”  (Applause.)

That resilience and that capacity to find faith and joy despite centuries of persecution and pain is your light, like the light of miracles throughout the Jewish history, from the menorah oil lasting eight days to the miracle of Israel itself. 

Look, let me close with this.  Throughout my life, rabbis, Jewish friends, colleagues have always been there for me and my family when we’ve gone through very tough times — and I mean it sincerely — been there on our doorstep, in our home with us.  They taught us so much about the optimistic spirit of the Jewish people. 

Above all, they taught me one thing we can never lose: hope.  Hope, hope, hope.  I’ve seen the power of that hope in my own life and in the life of our nation. 

Next week, you’ll light the eight candles in your menorahs.  My final Hanukkah message to you is this — as president — this is: to hold onto that hope, shine your light — shine the light of optimism, and above all, keep the faith.  Keep the faith.

May God bless you.  Happy Hanukkah.

And now I turn it over to Rabbi Cosgrove.  (Applause.)

Rabbi Cosgrove, who — by the way, who I visited his — as I was — his synagogue in New York.  He was still nice to me afterward too. 

Rabbi, it’s all yours, kid.  Go get them.  (Laughter and applause.) 

8:19 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Hanukkah Holiday Reception appeared first on The White House.

South Court Auditorium
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Good evening.

We owe our schools and our communities better. We cannot accept this as normal. We must protect our children and educators from gun violence.

Thank you for being here.

It’s hard to believe that this is one of our last gatherings of educators at the White House.

The day after Joe was inaugurated, nearly four years ago, I began my time as First Lady by thanking our nation’s educators, alongside Randi and Becky.

The pandemic was still raging, so we sat six feet apart. And on that day, I promised you that as long as Joe was in the White House, educators would always have a seat at the table. That promise has been my guiding light over the last four years, and I hope you have felt your impact in all we’ve accomplished together. 

We began this journey together.

I asked Randi and Becky to help gather us again as this chapter comes to a close.

And my message to you is simple: thank you.

Over the last four years, we’ve built an even stronger education system in this country—and it took all of us. Because policies don’t work unless we implement them in our classrooms. And our schools don’t transform lives without educators who are dedicated to this calling.

So thank you.

Thank you for opening your hearts and your classrooms to me, all across the country. For joining me for the first-ever Teachers of the Year State Dinner here at the White House. For coming together during the last election. For using your “teacher voice” to organize and get out the vote.

And I know that you will continue to push our nation forward in the way that only teachers can, making sure that our students are front and center.

Joe and I will be there with you every step of the way.

Most of all, I want to thank you for devoting your lives to our nation’s students through the good days and tough ones, through setbacks and breakthroughs, through careful lesson plans and all the surprises we could never plan for.

Being your First Lady has been the honor of my life. But being your colleague has been the work of my life.

Last Thursday, I taught my last class of the semester, and my final class ever at Northern Virginia Community College.

I will always love this profession, which is why I continued to teach full-time while serving as your First Lady.

And I couldn’t have done it without the love and support of fellow educators.

At every turn, you’ve stood by my side, lifted my spirits, and helped me remember that we’re in this together.

And I will always be grateful to those who lead us forward.

Becky, thank you for being a bold champion of students and educators—and for encouraging them to become change-makers too. You help us set our sights on a brighter future, and show us how to fight for every inch of progress.

Randi, you are a force, and you use your power to lift up educators so that we can lift up our students. You remind us that we are not alone, and that we are unstoppable when we act together.

Joe and I are so grateful to both of you, and all of the educators that you represent.

And now, I’ll turn it over to Randi.

***

Thank you, Becky.

Just a couple of weeks ago, on one of my final overseas trips, the U.S. Ambassador in Qatar told me about how, all of these years later, he still remembers the English teacher who changed his life.

All of us have someone we credit for creating an inflection point in our lives. And you are that someone.

Every day, you see something in your students—a spark of passion, a glimmer of talent—and you say, don’t let the world miss out on your light.

Thanks to you, light shines out of your classrooms, every student a sun ray of your legacy.

We don’t always see how far that light travels.

But right now, someone out there is standing a little taller because you helped them find the confidence they needed.

Someone is working a little harder because you pushed them to try.

Someone is braver because you helped them find their courage.

And someone has become a teacher and mentor to their own students, because all of us are links in an endless chain of educators.

And while the world shifts under our feet, we will always have each other.

So right now, more than anything else, my message to you is this: Lean on each other. Be each other’s strength. And never forget the power of education to transform lives.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, and happy holidays.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at a Virtual Thank You Event for Educators appeared first on The White House.

Over the weekend, our nation paused to remember the innocent children and brave educators who were taken from us 12 years ago when someone armed with a weapon of war walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Today, senseless gun violence has once again visited our classrooms as students and teachers in Madison, WI had their last week of school before Christmas break tragically interrupted by a deadly shooting.
 
Doug and I are mourning the student and teacher who were killed and we are praying for all those who were injured, including those who remain hospitalized. We are also thinking of the young people and families who have had their lives forever changed by this act of gun violence. And we are sending our gratitude to the educators, members of law enforcement, first responders, and medical professionals who quickly and selflessly jumped into action to ensure that even more lives were not lost in this community. 
 
As we hold our loved ones closer this holiday season, we must resolve to do everything in our power to end this epidemic that has become the leading cause of death for kids throughout America. While we have made necessary progress together over the last four years, including through the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years and our first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, there is more work to be done to ensure that every person has the freedom to live safe from the horror of gun violence. Congress and state legislatures must make background checks universal, pass red flag and safe storage laws, and ban assault weapons. These commonsense solutions will save lives and make our children and communities safer.

# # #

The post Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on the School Shooting in Madison, WI appeared first on The White House.

U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, D.C.

12:38 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello.  (Applause.)  It’s a good day.  (Applause.) 

Thank you, Acting Secretary Su.

AUDIENCE:  Thank you, Joe!  Thank you, Joe!  Thank you, Joe! 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  I — I had no choice.  (Laughter.)  My grandfather would come down from Heaven if I didn’t do this.  (Laughter.)

(Coughs.)  Excuse me, I have a little bit of a cold. 

Folks, you know, this is an incredible honor.  I really mean that.  And I want to thank Acting Secretary Su and the Department of Labor for this incredible honor.

You know, I measure the importance of the — any award I ever received based on the character and consequence of the organization that’s bestowing it.  And the Department of Labor is an organization of character and consequence.  And I’m honored — (coughs) — I’m honored to be joined today by leaders of character and conscious, many of them sitting right here in the front row.  Half of my Cabinet is here.  (Laughter and applause.)

I want to thank all — all the labor leaders here today, including Liz and the AFL-CIO; members of the Cabinet, including Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.  You know, you talked about that list that she — that the secretary brought in her pocket when she met with Trump — I mean, with Roosevelt — Trump? — Freudian slip — (laughter) — and — but I — I think she had a relative she left behind. 

Would you stand up, Madam Secretary — secretary of Interior?  (Applause.)

I’ve been around a long time, and she’s the only secretary I’ve ever worked with or had working for me who when I say, “That’s done,” she’d — “No, no, no.  We have this to do now.”  (Laughter.) 

Thank you, kiddo.

Look, you know, former Labor secretary, who is now in the White House, senior advisor (inaudible), is Tom Perez.  (Applause.)  Where is he? 

Tom, thanks for sticking with me. 

And members of Congress, including Maine — Maine senator, Angus King, and Cherlie [Chellie] Pingree — where — where is Ch- — where are you guys?  All over here.  Okay.  There you are.  (Applause.) 

And, by — and, by the way, last night, we were doing a — a Christmas event at the house, and I got finished talking to a group of folks from Labor, and my wife said, “And, by the way, his wife is a member of a labor union too.”  (Laughter and applause.) 

I’m Jill Biden’s husband.  She’s not here today, but she’s been a long-time union member of the National Education Association.  (Applause.)

And it’s fitting, with all these powerful women here, that we’ve gathered at headquarters of the Department of Labor, named after one of America’s greatest labor leaders — and that’s not hyperbole — Frances Perkins.

You know, we’re honored to be joined by her grandson, Tomlin.  Where are you, Tomlin?  (Applause.)  Thank you, bud.

Saturday, March 25th, 1911, Frances sat down for afternoon tea at her home with a close friend from New York City.  Suddenly, they hear the sound of a distant screams and sirens.  The building was in flames.  Her instinct was to run to the scene.

As she approached the fire and smoke, she recognized the Triangle Shirt[waist] Factory, a company that employed hundreds of workers, mostly immigrants and women, who worked long hours crammed into tight quarters, where managers locked them inside to make clothing.

In an instant, those workers were trapped in a brutal blaze.  With no safe exit, some workers forced to climb out the windows, holding on for dear life until their fingers gave out.  Others just jumped — prayed and jumped.

A total of 150 lives were lost that day.  It was the deadliest industrial disaster in American history. 

Frances was devastated.  But that fire ignited a passion in her.  It strengthened her resolve to fight even harder for working Americans and working families.

In her decades of service, she became a fierce defender of unions and workers’ rights, an architect of the New Deal, the first woman Cabinet secretary — the first woman Cabinet secretary.  I increased on that a little bit — (laughter) — because I know what my family is like.  All of — all the really bright people in my family are women.  (Laughter.)  And the longest-serving secretary of Labor in American history, God love you.

And the story goes, after Franklin Roosevelt asked her to become his Labor secretary, Frances Perkins immediately responded by outlining her goals, what she wanted done.  She said, “I want unemployment relief, overtime pay, child labor laws, minimum wage, worker’s compensation, national health insurance, and Social Security” — (laughs) — many of the benefits we take for granted as a consequence of Frances’s dedication to inciting courage. 

But that — can you imagine walking up to Roosevelt and saying, “Hey, I’ll take the job, but here’s the deal, man.”  (Laughter.)  “Let’s get this straight.”  Like I said, a little bit like when I asked Frances to do my job.

Hard-fought battles and — with Teamsters and, you know, at her — look, a real testament to her skill as an advocate for public servants.

An example that, through the Fair Labor Standards Act, she cemented the idea that if you’re working a full-time job, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty — a simple proposition.  If you work a little extra, you should have extra money for overtime.  Not a crazy idea.  Even — some even argue about it now.

Frances understood what my dad taught me, and I — you’ve heard me say this a thousand times, but it — he really would say this.  He said, “Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck.  It’s about your dignity.  It’s about respect.  It’s about your place in the community.  It’s about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, ‘Honey, it’s going to be okay,’ and mean it.”  That’s my dad. 

In fact, during her 12 years in office, she accomplished everything on her list, except expanded health care for health insurance.  It took 65 years later and a guy named Barack Obama and I to get the Affordable Care Act passed.  (Applause.)  And thank God all of us here have protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act.

Look, it’s clear that Frances Perkins and a generation of activists and labor leaders laid the groundwork for much of what we’ve accomplished in the last four years.

We’re fundamentally transforming the economy by breaking an economic orthodoxy that has failed this nation for generation after generation, in my view: trickle-down economics, the notion that if you — every — the wealthy do very, very well, a little will trickle off — off their tables onto our kitchen table. 

My dad used to say, “Nothing ever trickled on my table, honey.”  (Laughter.)  No, I’m serious. 

My dad was a really well-read man who didn’t get to go — he went — accepted to Johns Hopkins, but during the war, he never got to go.  But my dad was a well-read guy. 

Well, you know, the primary benefits to the very wealthy and the biggest corporations were trickle-down economics, and that didn’t do much for working people and the middle class and left too many people behind. 

Together, we built an economy from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down, and because we know this simple truth: Wall Street didn’t build America; the middle class built America, and u- — (applause) — and unions built the middle class.  (Applause.)  Un- — and that’s a fact. 

In fact, as th- — as the secretary of Treasury will tell you, I asked her to do a study because I was going to get hit, because I knew they’d say by having unions increase in their numbers and their wages go up, we were going to cost people thing.  Guess what?  The study the Treasury did showed that when unions do well, all workers do well -– union and non-worker [non-union], across the board.  (Applause.)

It matters.  It works.  It’s fair.

Kamala and I are so proud of the great job creation record of any — actually, the greatest job correction [creation] of any single president in a single term: over 6 [16] million jobs so far, including over 1.5 million manufacturing and construction jobs — good-paying jobs you can raise a family on and don’t have to require a four-year degree.  And get this: There are more women, especially mothers, in the workforce than ever before in American history.  (Applause.)

We’re so damn proud to have protected pensions of millions of union workers and retirees — (applause) — when I signed the Butch Lewis Act. 

You know, think about that.  Imagine what the average American would say if you were going to do that with their Social Security, which this guy wants to do.  Imagine if he said, “Your pension, you can’t count on it anymore.” 

In addition, we’ve recovered more than $1 billion in back wages and damages for over 600,000 workers here in America.  (Applause.)

We wo- — we’ve pushed for a right to a living wage and your right to overtime pay.

Jobs and factories are coming back home to America because we invested in the American agenda.  We’re modernizing American infrastructure. 

Last time, this guy had — last guy had the job, he had “Infrastructure Week” every week — didn’t build a damn thing.  (Laughter.)  Well, guess what?  We’re — we built a lot.  And guess what’s coming? 

Look, folks, one of the things that is frustrating — I knew this was going to happen because I’ve been around a long time, and I talked over to the secretary of Agriculture and other places.  Guess what?  All the things — we have $1.4 trillion in economic — in — in infrastructure growth.  That’s thousands of good-paying jobs. 

The CHIPS and Science Act investing billions of dollars — billions of dollars — building these fabs that are going to house hundreds of people working, thousands, and they’re going to be ba- — getting paid about average of $102,000 a year and don’t need a college degree.

So much — so much is going on.  But it’s going to take a little bit of time.  But we got to make sure to protect — protect the — the onslaught that’s going to come, because it’s hard to see right away.

And, by the way, I know I got criticized by putting as many of these programs in red states as blue states — actually more.  Well, guess what?  The red state guys screwed it up.  (Laughter.)  And we got a be- — benefit — we — we represent all of America, not just — not just blue America, not just Democrats, but all of America. 

Look, as we do all this, we’re — we’re buying America, using American workers, using American products.  And we’re standing up to Amer- — for American steelworkers against China’s unfair trade practices.

We appointed a National Labor Relations Board that actually believes in unions and has pro-union members on the board.  (Applause.)  A strange notion.  And a special thank you to the chair of the board, Lauren McFerran — (applause) — (inaudible) — who is here.  Where are you, Lauren?  There — thank you, Lauren. 

Don’t be so shy.  Raise your — stand up.  Let everybody see you.  (Laughter and applause.)

And it’s no accident — no accident that petitions to form unions have doubled — doubled under my presidency.  (Applause.) 

I got all this credit for walking the picket line.  It never crossed my mind not to walk the picket line.  (Laughter.)  No, I’m serious.  I didn’t think it was any big deal.  I walked a lot of picket lines.  The fact that I was president, I hadn’t thought about that.  And then Pamela [Kamala] walked the picket line.  We support the right to fair contracts.  

Here’s one, you know, that doesn’t get enough attention: When workers in sectors like construction, manufacturing, mining inhale toxic silica dust on the job, it can lead to lung cancer and other deadly diseases.  It’s been a major problem for decades, even under Secretary Perkins.  She led an investigation, but despite the science, big business blocked the regulation.

But not on our watch.  Not on your watch.  With your help, we carried Frances’s — Frances’s mantle and issued a rule that finally reduces such dangerous exposure. 

And, by the way — (applause) — our secretary — the secretary of Veterans Affairs is sitting in front of me here — one of the really good guys.  I really mean it.

And, you know, we — what we’ve done — what we did for the CHIPS and Science Act, and then we went — made sure we were going to take care of veterans.  We said all those folks, in my generation, exposed to Agent Orange couldn’t prove that their illness was a consequence of it and all those, like my son’s generation, that were exposed to toxic burn pits in Iraq and other places, that it’s assumed that — my son came back, for example, with Stage Four glioblastoma.  More brain injuries than anything else.  And guess what?  They’re entitled to the benefits that they were going to get if they had not lost their lives — their family.  (Applause.)

And to ad-lib here a little bit, I — I think the American people are beginning to figure out all we’re doing is what’s basically decent and fair — just basically decent and fair.

We have a lot of sacred obligations — I got into trouble for saying this before, but we only have one truly sacred obligation: to prepare those we send into harm’s way and pre- — care for them and their families when they come home.  And that’s a simple proposition.  Finally, that’s happening.

What — what you got?  Another million now?  A million you’re taking care of.

I make no apologies.  I’m so damn proud of that.  (Applause.)

Look, folks, in our four years together, we’ve made historic investments that have changed the course of the nation’s future and will have a lasting impact for decades to come.

And I’m here to say, to state the obvious, we could not have done this without the dedicated professionals here at the Department of Labor and all across this administration.  (Applause.)  Could not have done.

And I’m damn proud to be known as the most pro-labor administration in American history, because we are.  We are.  We make no apologies.  (Applause.)

Look, let me close with this.  Frances Perkins once said, “The people are what matter to government, and the government should aim to give people — all people under its jurisdiction the best possible life” — “the best possible life.”

For my dad, it was a simple proposition: Everybody deserves a shot.  No guarantee, but a shot.  Everybody deserves a shot.

All of you have helped the — upheld that vision, putting the people first, no matter who they are.

Another important legacy of our administration is making sure we learn from history, lift up stories that often have gone untold.

Earlier this year, during Women’s History Month, I signed the first-ever executive order on recognizing and honoring women’s history to increase representation of women and historic sites — in historic sites all across America.

Today, I’m proud to stand here in the Frances Perkins — Perkins Building, headquarters of the Labor Department, to designate Frances Perkins Homestead in Newcastle, Maine, a national monument.  (Applause.)

And Secretary Haaland is also going to be announcing five new national historic landmarks to honor women’s contributions to American history.  (Applause.)

They includes Charleston Cigar Factory — (coughs) — excuse me — where Black women led a workers’ strike that opposed gender and racial discrimination and advocated for better pay for working conditions.

Look, too many people want to rewrite history or ignore it.  Look, we wa- — all we want to do is make — le- — make sure we record history — record history — the good, bad, and the indifferent — who we are. 

I was able to show up at Indian Country and apologize for what we did to the Indian Americans, for the schools we made them go to and took them away, off the reservations with their parents.

Throughout our history, women’s vision and achievements have strengthened this nation, to state the obvious.

That’s why I’ve kept my commitment to have an administration that looks like America, and that includes having more women in senior access all across the board, starting with my amazing vice president, Kamala Harris.  (Applause.)

It’s about time we honor them in building the American Women’s Museum and — History Museum on the Mall — (applause) — and the Women’s Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall.  (Applause.)  

And, by the way, it’s time for Congress to move in authorizing that legislation — moving it forward.  They should do it now, before this Congress ends.  (Applause.) 

Folks, our administration is coming to an end, but our work continues.

We get up.  We keep going.  We keep the faith.  I know I will.  I know you will.  We just have to remember who in the hell we are.

We’re the United States of America.  (Applause.)  There is nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together — nothing, nothing, nothing.  (Applause.)

May God bless you all.  And may God prote- — protect our troops.  (Applause.)

And now I will sign the proclamation.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  (Applause.)

Here.

(The proclamation is signed.)  (Applause.)

12:57 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden Honoring our Nation’s Labor History and the Biden-Harris Administration’s Work to Strengthen America’s Workforce appeared first on The White House.

Today, families in Madison, Wisconsin, are grieving the loss of those who were killed and wounded at Abundant Life Christian School. It’s shocking and unconscionable.

We need Congress to act. Now.

From Newtown to Uvalde, Parkland to Madison, to so many other shootings that don’t receive attention – it is unacceptable that we are unable to protect our children from this scourge of gun violence. We cannot continue to accept it as normal. Every child deserves to feel safe in their class room. Students across our country should be learning how to read and write – not having to learn how to duck and cover.

Jill and I are praying for all the victims today, including the teacher and teenage student who were killed and those who sustained injuries. We are grateful for the first responders who quickly arrived on the scene, and the FBI is supporting local law enforcement efforts. At my direction, my team has reached out to local officials to offer further support as needed.

My administration has taken aggressive action to combat the gun violence epidemic. We passed the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years, I have taken more executive action to reduce gun violence than any other President in history, and I created the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. But more is needed. Congress must pass commonsense gun safety laws: Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

We can never accept senseless violence that traumatizes children, their families, and tears entire communities apart.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on Shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Wisconsin appeared first on The White House.

WASHINGTON – Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to renominate the following individual to continue serving as a key leader in his administration:

• Anton Hajjar, Nominee to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors

Anton Hajjar, Nominee to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors

Anton Hajjar was previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate via voice vote, and sworn into office as a Governor of the United States Postal Service on May 28, 2021.

Anton Hajjar is the former General Counsel of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and has significant experience representing unions and union workers. Since his retirement from active practice at the end of 2016, he has concentrated on pro bono legal work in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

He worked for seven years for the National Labor Relations Board in the New Orleans regional office and the Appellate Court Branch in Washington, D.C. In private practice, he was a Principal with O’Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, PC and Of Counsel with Murphy Anderson PLLC. Hajjar has written articles and given presentations to federal judges, lawyers, union officials and lay audiences on labor and employment subjects. He has been an advisor and pro bono attorney in numerous employment discrimination cases. In 2002, he was elected to membership in the American Law Institute, and has served as a member of its governing board since 2010. The American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee presented Hajjar with its Pro Bono Attorney of the Year Award in 2012 and a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2023. 

Hajjar has a J.D. from Tulane Law School and clerked for the Honorable John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Before law school, he was employed for three years as a U.S. Customs Inspector. Hajjar has also worked as merchant seaman, factory worker, truck driver, laborer, and hospital attendant.

He now lives in Chevy Chase, MD, with his wife Sandra Hughes, who was a labor attorney and consults on aging issues. They have two adopted children, Claire and Gregory, who were born in Lebanon. They have one grandchild.

# # #  

The post President Biden Announces Key Nominees appeared first on The White House.

            Few Americans have had deeper influence in shaping labor and social policy in the United States than Frances Perkins.  Perkins became the first woman to serve as a Cabinet Secretary when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed her as the Secretary of Labor in 1933.  During the subsequent 12 years, Secretary Perkins played a pivotal role in constructing the New Deal and helping to guide the country out of the Great Depression by designing and leading the implementation of sweeping labor and economic reforms that have made life better for generations of Americans.  The longest serving Secretary of Labor in United States history, Secretary Perkins was the architect of many programs and standards — including a minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, and prohibitions on child labor — that have endured as the backbone of Federal support for workers and families and continue to benefit millions of Americans today.  Secretary Perkins chaired President Roosevelt’s effort to investigate the benefits of social insurance and then worked to achieve passage of the Social Security Act, which became one of the most successful programs in the United States to prevent poverty among older adults.  When the United States and other nations initially failed to face the horrors of the Holocaust, Secretary Perkins demonstrated leadership on behalf of immigrants and refugees by actively working to bring Jewish children and adults from Europe to the United States to ensure their safety.
     The Perkins Homestead in Newcastle, Maine, played a pivotal role in Frances Perkins’ life and supported her work to deliver lasting protection and benefits to American workers and families.  The rural setting of the Perkins Homestead on the Damariscotta River was the place she felt most at home.  She spent her childhood summers there and returned frequently for respite throughout her career.  Continuously owned by her family for over 260 years, the Perkins Homestead remains much as it was during Secretary Perkins’ lifetime, including the buildings, structures, gardens, and paths where she spent substantial time throughout her life.  The core area contains historic structures including a brick house, an attached barn, a gravel driveway, a garden, and portions of a stone wall.  The surrounding landscape of the Perkins Homestead contains additional portions of the stone wall, an ice pond, walking trails, a family cemetery, foundations of the 18th and 19th century Perkins Homestead buildings, and remnants of a pre-Revolutionary era garrison.  Visitors to the Perkins Homestead today can wander through these places where Perkins returned time and again during her Government service.  They can view the stone wall where she sat listening to the radio on September 1, 1939, when it was reported that the Germans invaded Poland, prompting her to rush back to Washington, D.C., to assist the President.  Preserving the core area of the Perkins Homestead and its associated historic objects will ensure that current and future generations have the opportunity to learn about Secretary Perkins’ foundational contributions to the Nation’s social and labor policy through the place that helped shape her as a person and support her throughout her extraordinary career.
     Frances Perkins was born in Boston as Fannie Coralie Perkins in 1880.  At the age of 25, she changed her name to Frances Perkins, which she used for the rest of her life, even after marriage.  She graduated in 1902 from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, where she credited a class trip to a nearby mill with inspiring her early interest in improving working conditions for women and children.
     After college, Frances Perkins worked with social service organizations in Chicago and Philadelphia, including settlement houses for poor and unemployed people and an organization to support and protect immigrant and Black women and girls from labor and sexual exploitation they faced upon arrival in these cities looking for work.  These experiences deepened her resolve to help reduce poverty and support the working poor.
     In 1911, while employed at the New York City Consumers’ League, Frances Perkins heard the sirens of fire engines racing to put out flames that had engulfed the nearby Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.  Running to the site of the fire, she witnessed the horrific scene of workers, mostly young women, jumping to their deaths after being locked in the factory.  In total, 146 people died in the fire –- including many immigrant workers.  Perkins later cited that tragic day as the impetus for policies that would become central to the New Deal.
     Perkins’ subsequent work at the New York Factory Investigating Commission, where she investigated and advocated for worker health and safety reforms, led to 33 new State laws that improved worker safety, workplace sanitation, and working conditions; provided workers’ compensation; and placed limits on child labor.  These were some of the first workplace health and safety standards in the Nation, and they became models that other States and the Federal Government adopted.
     In 1919, Perkins was named to the New York State Industrial Commission, making her the first woman appointed to serve in a New York State government administration.  In 1929, newly elected Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Perkins to become the State’s Industrial Commissioner and oversee the labor department.  As the United States careened toward the Great Depression, Perkins used her position to shine a national spotlight on rising unemployment while also helping workers in New York and elsewhere by connecting them to jobs through a State employment service and inviting surrounding States to participate in an unemployment insurance system.  Her early warnings regarding the depth of the Nation’s economic problems and her work to develop solutions established Perkins as a national leader in the 20th century employment and labor reform movements.
     When President Roosevelt formally asked Perkins to join his Cabinet as Secretary of Labor, she responded by saying that if she accepted the position, she intended to execute an ambitious plan of action that included establishing maximum hours and minimum wages, ending child labor, developing unemployment relief through public works, providing unemployment insurance, and creating an old-age pension and a national health insurance program.  After detailing her plan, she asked if President Roosevelt was sure he wanted this list of policies put in place, explaining that, “you won’t want me for Secretary of Labor if you don’t want those things done.”  President Roosevelt responded that he would back her; he had promised the American people that he would improve their lives, and he intended to keep his promise.
     At a time when few women were in leadership positions and just 13 years after the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, Frances Perkins became Secretary of Labor.  During an unprecedented 12 years in the position — from 1933 to 1945 — Secretary Perkins achieved hard-fought social and economic reforms, often over vocal opposition and personal attacks from critics.  She summarized her work in a five-page letter to President Roosevelt, describing the reforms as “a turning point in our national life — a turning from careless neglect of human values and toward an order . . . of mutual and practical benevolence within a free competitive industrial economy.”  The list of accomplishments detailed in her letter encompasses many programs and laws that continue to undergird the Nation’s economy and social safety net, including establishing Social Security and contributing to the development of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.  She also helped create millions of jobs across the country through the novel Civilian Conservation Corps and Public Works Administration. 
     As Secretary of Labor, Perkins often supported the rights of workers to organize unions and to negotiate with employers through collective action, laying the foundation for the rebirth of American labor –- including through helping write recovery legislation that provided a right to collective bargaining and laid the groundwork for the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act).  She used her post not only to advance labor protections in national policy, but also to call personally for workers’ fair treatment and access to the halls of power.  She persuaded President Roosevelt not to deploy Federal troops to quell the 1934 San Francisco General Strike, and instead encouraged the parties to settle their differences, which was accomplished within a week, and she frequently advised President Roosevelt to help resolve contentious strikes for the benefit of workers.   
     At the close of her time at the Department of Labor, Perkins had accomplished nearly all of the items in the ambitious plan she laid out for President Roosevelt when he asked her to serve, but she lamented the one exception:  health care benefits for American workers.  Historians have also noted that, because of deep racial inequities and injustices of the time –- including segregation -– the benefits of the New Deal were not available to all Americans initially. 
     When her time as Secretary of Labor concluded, Perkins continued in public service as President Harry Truman’s appointee to the United States Civil Service Commission, a post she held from 1945 until 1953.  She then became a lecturer at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, a role she held until her death in 1965. 
     When Secretary Perkins died, the Secretary of Labor at the time, W. Willard Wirtz, recognized her legacy as central to the New Deal, stating that “every man and woman in America who works at a living wage, under safe conditions, for reasonable hours, or who is protected by unemployment insurance or social security is her debtor.”  The final resting place of Secretary Perkins is near her daughter, husband, sister, parents, and grandparents in the Glidden Cemetery, located a half mile north of the Perkins Homestead in Newcastle, Maine. 
     Throughout Perkins’ life and career, the Perkins Homestead served as a place of rejuvenation and reflection, including during her time as Secretary of Labor.  Throughout her working life, she continued the family tradition of summer visits to Maine, often living there with her daughter from August into September.  Perkins and her sister became joint owners of the property in 1927 and it stayed within the family until 2020.  Perkins wrote about how the woods surrounding the brick house and the shoreline at the Perkins Homestead’s edge restored and comforted her, and how the brick house provided a place for her to relax and to recover from her work as Secretary of Labor.
     The Perkins Homestead, originally over 200 acres, was settled by Perkins’ great-great grandfather in the early 1700s.  A mid-18th century garrison existed on the property that was in use for 3 years during the French and Indian War. 
     The core area, on the west end of the Perkins Homestead, has a brick house built by the Perkins family in 1837 along with a connected barn.  The two-story home is constructed of bricks manufactured on site at the family brickyard.  The east end of the Perkins Homestead borders the Damariscotta River and has a family cemetery, foundations of the 18th and 19th century Perkins Homestead buildings, the remains of the brick kilns, wharves, and a clay pit from the 19th century brickyard, as well as the remains of the garrison.  Agricultural fields, pastures, woodland, and planted trees connect the two sides of the Perkins Homestead.
     The National Park Service first documented the Perkins Homestead through the Historic American Buildings Survey in 1960, while Secretary Perkins still occupied the home.  In 2009, the National Park Service listed the Brick House Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places; the Brick House Historic District included the brick house, adjacent structures, and the wooded and agricultural lands extending to the shoreline of the Damariscotta River.  In 2014, the Secretary of the Interior designated this same 57 acres as the Perkins Homestead National Historic Landmark, recognizing the property’s historic importance and nationally significant association with Frances Perkins.
     The Perkins Homestead contains several objects that reflect Secretary Perkins’ lifelong commitment to supporting and protecting American workers.  Hanging above a doorway in the brick house is a custom “No Smoking” sign that reflects the lasting influence the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire had on Perkins.  It reads:  “Please Do Not SMOKE In Any Part of This Building.  DANGEROUS.  F. Perkins.”  The brick house also includes Secretary Perkins’ Award for Distinguished Service, which the Department of Labor presented to her on March 4, 1963, on the occasion of the Department’s 50th anniversary.  The Award citation reads:  “For her courage in entering an arena previously considered a masculine domain; for her strength in guiding the Department through a dozen years of domestic stress and international travail; for her spirit in waging the good fight for good objectives; and finally, for herself.”  
     Conserving the Perkins Homestead will ensure that the family home and surrounding landscape that were a constant source of support for Secretary Perkins will remain protected and accessible in perpetuity for the benefit of all people to learn about her life, her unparalleled contributions to labor and social policy that would eventually benefit generations of Americans, and core principles at the heart of the New Deal that she championed:  economic security and dignity for workers.
     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 on land 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 Perkins Homestead was designated a National Historic Landmark on August 25, 2014, establishing its national significance as the ancestral home and lifelong summer residence of Frances Perkins, the first woman to serve as a Cabinet Secretary and one of our Nation’s most influential and effective public servants whose legacy includes the historic New Deal; and
     WHEREAS, the Frances Perkins Center has been managing and preserving the approximately 57-acre Perkins Homestead, including the objects identified above and additional archives and collections illustrating the historic value of this site, and has expressed support for inclusion of the Perkins Homestead in the National Park System; and
     WHEREAS, the Frances Perkins Center has donated to the Federal Government for the purpose of establishing a unit of the National Park System fee interest in the core area comprising approximately 2.3 acres of land in Newcastle, Maine, which includes several historic objects associated with the Perkins Homestead and Perkins’ life located on this site, including the brick house, the connected barn, and portions of the stone wall; and
     WHEREAS, in support of the establishment of a national monument to be administered by the National Park Service, the Frances Perkins Center has also indicated its intent to develop a partnership with the National Park Service to help manage, oversee, interpret, maintain, and protect the Perkins Homestead (including the core area) and the historic objects it contains as appropriate; and
     WHEREAS, the Frances Perkins Center has indicated an interest in donating a majority of the remaining approximately 54.7 acres of the 57-acre Perkins Homestead to the Federal Government in the future; and
     WHEREAS, the designation of a national monument to be administered by the National Park Service would recognize the historic significance of Frances Perkins and her role in the New Deal, particularly her contributions to social welfare, safe working conditions, and protection of workers’ health and well-being, and would provide a national platform for preserving and interpreting this important history; 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 Perkins Homestead in Maine;
     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 on lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be part of the Frances Perkins National Monument (monument) and, for the purpose of protecting those objects, reserve as part thereof all lands and interests in lands 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 monument’s boundaries are coextensive with the Perkins Homestead National Historic Landmark boundaries, and the reserved Federal lands and interests in lands within the monument’s boundaries comprise approximately 2.3 acres.
     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, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, including withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing. 
     The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights.  Specifically, the Frances Perkins Center retains reserved rights to occupy and use the premises; complete preservation, maintenance, and renovation work; and store and maintain artifacts currently located in the brick house.  These reserved rights shall expire not later than 25 years after the date of this proclamation. 
     If the Federal Government acquires any lands or interests in lands not owned or controlled by the Federal Government within the boundaries described on the accompanying map, such lands and interests in lands shall be reserved as part of the monument, and objects of the type identified above that are situated upon those lands and interests in lands shall be part of the monument, upon acquisition of ownership or control by the Federal Government.
     The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the monument through the National Park Service, pursuant to applicable legal authorities and consistent with the purposes and provisions of this proclamation.  For the purpose of preserving, interpreting, and enhancing the public understanding and appreciation of the monument, the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, shall prepare a management plan for the monument.  The management plan shall ensure that the monument fulfills the following purposes for the benefit of present and future generations:  (1) to preserve the historic objects and other resources within the boundaries of the monument, and (2) to interpret in its entirety the story of Frances Perkins and the history of the New Deal, including the impact Perkins had as the first woman Cabinet Secretary; the complexities of Perkins as an individual and of her ideas, perspectives, and views; and her role in advancing hallmark labor, economic, and social reform within the historical and political context of the early-to-mid 20th century. 
     The National Park Service shall consult with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; local communities; nongovernmental organizations; and the general public in the region of the monument — including the Frances Perkins Center and the Damariscotta River Association — in developing the management plan for the monument, which shall include resource management, interpretation and education, visitor access, and services at the monument.  The National Park Service shall also consult on all aspects of the management plan with the Penobscot Nation and other Wabanaki Peoples, whose ancestral lands include areas in Maine near the monument.
     The National Park Service is directed, as appropriate, to use applicable authorities to seek to enter into agreements with other entities, including the Frances Perkins Center, to address common interests and promote management efficiencies, including the provision of visitor services, interpretation and education, establishment and care of museum collections, and preservation of historic objects. 
            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 its 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
sixteenth 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 Frances Perkins National Monument appeared first on The White House.

On Wright Brothers Day, we celebrate the bold vision, steadfast determination, and transformative innovation of Orville and Wilbur Wright.  Their aircraft, which completed the first sustained, controlled, and powered flight 121 years ago, forever altered the course of human history and took our Nation to new heights.

     The Wright brothers embody the best of America’s grit, heart, and unstoppable spirit of ingenuity.  Before they took to the skies that fateful December day, the Wright brothers had spent years conducting arduous research, redesigns, and dangerous trials.  They were driven by the belief that what so many had written off as impossible could actually be done — that sustained, controlled, and powered flight was possible.  And on the sand dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903, they were proven right — their aircraft, the Wright Flyer, took flight for 12 seconds.  In less than a minute, that one feat altered our understanding of technological possibilities and human potential forever, laying the foundation for putting a man on the moon; breaking the sound barrier; and beginning a new, deeper exploration of our universe. 

     My Administration has been committed to building on their legacy of innovation and advancement.  We have made improvements to modern air travel — from making airports more accessible through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to making air travel safer.  And we have harnessed the spirit of American ingenuity in everything we do, like tackling the climate crisis, working toward ending cancer as we know it, and ensuring that the technologies of the future will benefit Americans for generations to come.

     On Wright Brothers Day, we honor two visionary men from Dayton, Ohio, who chose to look to the sky with not just wonder but with an ambition to take Americans where no one had gone before.  Because of their work, generations of visionary scientists, engineers, and dreamers and doers have followed in their footsteps, believing that, here in America, we do big things and nothing is beyond our capacity. 

     The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963, as amended (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143), has designated December 17 of each year as “Wright Brothers Day” and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2024, as Wright Brothers Day.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth 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 Wright Brothers Day, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

4:47 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining our gaggle late in the day today.  Kirby has some words here at the top, and then we’ll get into as many questions as we can. 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon.  Sorry for the late afternoon gaggle.  Obviously, lots going on here.  So, again, thanks for joining late.

I do want to start by expressing our deep condolences to all the victims and the families, and certainly the community of Madison, today.  Just horrific news, and news that no family, no parent, no sibling, no son or daughter ever wants to hear.  So, just terrible. 

And we will continue to stay focused on the community there in Madison, and we’ll obviously offer whatever help may be required or needed of local and state authorities. 

I can tell you that the President has been briefed on the school shooting there and that senior White House officials are, as you would expect we would be, in touch with our local counterparts there in Madison to provide whatever support that they need. 

Now, I want to address a couple of more things here before we take your questions, and first to the continued interest in drones. 

And just at the outset, I think it’s important to remember a bit of context here.  There are more than 1 million drones that are lawfully registered with the Federal Aviation Administration here in the United States, and there are thousands of commercial, hobbyist, and law enforcement drones that are lawfully in the sky on any given day.  That is the ecosystem that we are dealing with.  And it is legal.  It is proper.  In fact, in many cases, these drones provide valuable services, both on the commercial side and on the law enforcement, public safety side. 

And with the technology evolving as it is, we have every expectation that the number of drones in the skies over the United States is going to increase over time.

Now, with respect to what’s going on in and around New Jersey, the FBI has received now tips of some 5,000 reported drone sightings in the last few weeks, about 100 of which they felt needed to be followed up on.  So out of 5,000 tips, they did the analysis and determined that about 100 required following up on.

We also have federal government resources and personnel supporting state and local officials as they investigate these reports.  We’re obviously quickly working to help state and local authorities prioritize and follow up on the leads that are still being followed up on.  As Secretary Mayorkas said, we have sent additional advanced detection technology to the region, and of course, we’ve sent some trained visual observers as well.

Having closely examined the data, having closely looked at the tips and collated them as best we can from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and even stars that were mistakenly reported as drones.  We have not identified anything anomalous or any national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the Northeast. 

The work continues.  So that said, we obviously
recognize the concern among many communities.  We continue to support state and local authorities, as I said, with technology and law enforcement support.  And we will continue to follow up, as appropriate, on the leads that are still active. 

But I want to stress again: Our assessment at this stage is that the activity represents commercial, hobbyist, law enforcement drones, all operating legally and lawfully, and/or civilian aviation aircraft. 

As we continue to work through the leads that are out there, we’ll continue to share what we can.  And I would add that this assessment that I just read out is coming from law enforcement officials. 

I want to add that we urge Congress to enact counter-UAS — unmanned aerial systems — legislation that has been proposed and repeatedly requested by this administration that would extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to help identify and counter any threat that does emerge.  There are gaps and seams, for instance, between the various government agencies — federal, local and state.  And this counter-UAV, counter-drone legislation would help us close some of those gaps and seams.  So we need Congress to act. 

And so, when Congress reconvenes in January, we’re going to be calling on them to put in place a bipartisan task force [commission] to examine congestion in the skies and to help set appropriate rules to address the public’s concerns.

Now, additionally, there have been a limited number of visual sightings of drones over military facilities in New Jersey and elsewhere, much of which is, of course, restricted airspace.  Such sightings near or over DOD installations are not new.  And DOD takes unauthorized access over its airspace seriously, as you would expect them to do, and they coordinate closely with federal and law enforcement authorities as appropriate.  And they are actively engaged with local commanders to ensure that there are appropriate detection and mitigation measures in place. 

And lastly, if I could, turning to North Korea and Russia. 

Throughout this conflict, we’ve seen North Korean support for Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war, including the transfer of missiles, artillery ammunition.  And, in October, of course, we announced that more than 1,000 North Korean troops were deployed to Russia on a purported training mission. 

In reality, Russia, due to Ukraine’s strong defense, and out of military desperation, sought additional support to facilitate and to perpetuate its war. 

Over the past few days, we have seen these North Korean soldiers move from the second lines on the battlefield to the front lines on the battlefield meant to be actively engaged in combat operations.  It’s not surprising — and of course, it’s also not surprising that now North Korean soldiers are suffering losses on the battlefield in response to Russia’s escalation, which, of course, the introduction of North Korean soldiers represents in terms of escalation.

The United States has announced new assistance, including the use of long-range capabilities to degrade North Korean and Russian forces before they attack.  And we have continued to surge security assistance, announcing two drawdowns in just recent weeks, and one USAI package.

Today, the Biden-Harris administration is announcing new sanctions on nine DPRK — North Korean — individuals and seven entities, including banks and shipping companies, all of which is over, of course, Kim Jong Un’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as the DPRK’s continued ballistic missile testing. 

These sanctions contribute toward broader efforts to degrade the DPRK’s ability to continue generating revenue for its weapons of mass destruction program and for providing munitions and ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine. 

We’re going to continue to hold accountable all actors who facilitate financially and militarily Russia’s illegal and brutal war in Ukraine.  And it goes without saying, or at least I hope it goes without saying, that we stand by Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they defend their freedom, their territorial integrity, their sovereignty, their citizens, their lives, and their livelihoods.  That’s been a consistent theme, it’s been a consistent effort by this administration since Mr. Putin decided to cross the line in February of ‘22.  And I can assure you, with every day that we have left in this administration, we’re going to make good on that commitment. 

With that, I can take your questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Nandita with Reuters.

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about President-elect Trump’s comments on Ukraine today.  He’s obviously raised doubts about President Biden’s strategy of sending long-range missiles to Ukraine.  Today he said Ukraine has to agree to a deal.  I’m curious what you think of Trump’s comments and what they mean for President Zelenskyy and the future of Ukraine.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to engage in a public back-and-forth here, but I do want to make a couple of points. 

There are things you’ve heard me say before, but, my goodness, if you need to hear, I’ll say it again: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  We’re not going to have talks about them without them involved.  We’re not going to force their hand in terms of what their next steps might be. 

President Zelenskyy was elected by the Ukrainian people to be their representative in the executive branch of their government, and he is.  And he gets to decide if and when there’s going to be a negotiation. 

Now, we all believe there should be a negotiated end to this war.  That’s probably the most likely and the best way it’s going to end.  We recognize that.  But President Zelenskyy gets to determine under what terms, what conditions, when, and how he wants to engage in negotiations.  And as we have made clear to him in the past, so I can today: When he makes that decision, as long as President Biden is Commander-in-Chief, he will find in this administration a supporter as he moves forward to negotiating.  But he gets to determine that.  And if he does do it, he gets to determine the conditions.

What we’re going to — the third thing I’ll say is that between now and that day, whenever that day is, we’re going to make sure that his army has what they need to continue to succeed on the battlefield and to push the Russians back and to make it harder on Mr. Putin to continue to fight this war. 

I mean, even as we’re talking here, it is true that the Russians have made some plodding progress in the east, and it is true that they are going after Ukrainian lines in and around Kursk, but they’re doing it with North Korean soldiers, because that’s how desperate he is.  And the progress that they’re making in the east, yes, not denying that they’re making progress, but it’s coming at a heavy cost for Russian soldiers as well. 

One of the things that Mr. Putin has had to buy a lot of in terms — and he’s bought a lot of missiles, he’s bought drones, he’s bought artillery shells, and he’s getting them from all kinds of different places.  He’s also had to buy a lot of body bags.  And I think that shouldn’t be forgotten.  And that’s it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aamer with the AP.

Q    Hey.  Thank you, John.  One question I had was: Did the administration consult with President-elect Trump’s team before the decision to loosen restrictions on the use of American-provided ATACMS? 

And then, just secondly, on your point about North Koreans now being seen moving up to the front lines, is there anything specific triggering this?  And is there an assessment of how many North Korean troops have been injured or lost thus far?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  So, let me take your second one first.  I don’t know that we have an exact number, but we do believe that they have suffered some significant losses, killed and wounded, but it’s difficult for me to put an actual number on it.  I would say certainly in the realm of dozens, several dozens. 

And we’re just now starting to see this movement of them from the second line to the front line.  So it’s a fairly new development, Aamer, and we might be able to have a little bit more granularity as days go on, but I wouldn’t have put it in this opening statement if we didn’t assess that these were fairly significant losses.  Again, we just don’t have a hard number on it, but just the figures that we are seeing and trying to triangulate tell us that, again, this has not been an insignificant set of losses for these guys. 

And, look, we said it at the time: If they want to enter the fight, they do so at their own peril, and now they’re learning what that means.

On your first question: Look, the conversations that we were having inside the administration about ATACMS started before the election.  All I can assure you is that in the conversations we’ve had with them since the election, and we’ve had it at various levels, we have articulated to them the logic behind it, the thinking behind it, why we were doing it, and to stress to them that this was in response, quite frankly, to the North Korean troops being put on the battlefield, which they did before the election.

Q    John, just real briefly, is it incorrect when President-elect Trump said that he wasn’t consulted?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, Aamer, I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth with the President-elect or his team.  I can only tell you the decision about ATACMS was made before the election, before we had a result, and it was made internal to this administration, as it should be.  And it was made because of a decision by Putin to use North Korean troops, which was a decision he made before the election.  So, all that happened pre-election.

Post-election, we have had the appropriate level of conversations with the incoming team about various national security issues, including the war in Ukraine, to explain what we’re doing, what we’re seeing, why we’re doing it, you know, so that, as I said the other day — I think I said this in the briefing room — there should be no decision we are taking or that we have taken in recent weeks that should come as a surprise to them.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Francesca with USA Today.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  I had a question about something else that the President-elect had said today.  Kirby, he said that the U.S. military and both President Biden know where the drones are coming and going from.  He indicated perhaps that you know more than you’re letting on, and said that you should stop keeping people in suspense, that you should tell them what you know.  Could you just respond to that and whether the administration does know more, whether the military and the White House do know more about where the drones are coming and going from?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve talked to you guys last week.  We did a backgrounder over the weekend.  And I’m talking to you all today.  And today, as I think you hopefully picked up in my opening statement, we are now able to tell you what our assessment is to date, and our assessment is to date, as I indicated, what we believe these things are. 

Now, again, that’s the assessment to date.  So I would say that we are making a very good-faith effort to be as open and direct with all of you and with the American people as we can.  And that will continue.  That will continue all throughout the coming days.  There’s absolutely no effort to be anything other than as upfront as we can be. 

Now, what we’re not going to do is speculate, and we’re not going to hypothesize.  We’re not going to provide content that we can’t be sure is accurate. 

So, you know, I recognize that some of the criticism over the last few days has been that we haven’t said more of what we know.  It’s because we didn’t have as much information as we do now after a few more days of extra resources, extra personnel, extra analysis. 

And so, that’s why I’m coming out here at 4:30 on a Monday to let you know what we’ve learned.  And we’re going to continue to do that, because we know there are, you know, ongoing concerns about this. 

But I want to stress again: Please, if you do anything in your coverage, please make sure that you remind people that there are over a million legal drones in the country and that thousands of them are flying around on any given day, legally, lawfully, performing valuable services, including for the betterment of citizens on the ground.  It’s okay to fly drones.  It’s legal to do it, you know, if you’re registered with the FAA, and our assessment is that the vast, vast majority are. 

And the other thing I’d ask you to please keep front and center is that we’re watching — we’re monitoring this in real time and analyzing it in dang near real time.  And still today, on Monday, we have not seen anything that indicates a threat to national security or a public safety risk.  And obviously, if we did, we would, as appropriate, take the right action, do the right things, execute the right policies, and be as transparent with the American people about it as we could.

Q    Kirby, if I just could really quickly, not to get into intelligence assessments, but is there anything that you’re seeing in the intelligence that perhaps he was referring to that you’re not able to tell us about right now?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  I mean, the short answer to that is no.

Look, you know that I’m always careful when I’m asked about intelligence assessments one way or another.  But if there was something there that would indicate — that would contradict my statement that there was no national security threat at play right now that we know of, or a public safety risk, obviously I wouldn’t say it that way.  You know, it’s not like there’s a bit of intel out there that I’m obfuscating or obscuring from you. 

If we had information, intelligence or otherwise, that told us that there was a national security threat posed by this drone activity, I would say that.  Maybe I wouldn’t be able to tell you exactly what the threat is or who it’s from or what the purpose is, but I would.  And I can’t — I just can’t say that to you honestly, because we haven’t seen it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Kayla with CNN.

Q    Thank you.  And thank you, Admiral, for doing this. 

First, I just wanted to see if you could elaborate at all on the nature of the discussions between the White House and Trump teams on Ukraine, in which the President-elect has said he wants to see a ceasefire on day one. 

And second, I wanted to see if you could comment on the impeachment of President Yoon in South Korea, what it means for the alliance, and whether the U.S. believes, as some in the country do, that President Yoon should be charged with insurrection.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I will defer to the incoming team to speak to whatever policies that they want to pursue from a national security perspective.  That’s the appropriate thing.  You know, they should speak to whatever decisions that they believe they’re going to make or approaches that they want to take.  I mean, that’s not for me to comment on or to go into any depth on.

I would just tell you — well, I don’t want to just repeat what I said before.  I’d point you back to my previous answer.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  We want to put President Zelenskyy in the best possible position so that if and when he’s ready to negotiate an end to this war, he can do it from a position of strength, from a position of some leverage.  And that’s why we continue to flow so much security assistance to him in these closing weeks of the administration.  And that’s going to continue.

What the next team decides to do or how they want to handle that, that really would be for them to speak to.  And I just don’t think it’s useful or productive for me to go beyond that. 

Obviously, we continue to watch events in South Korea very, very closely.  A significant ally.  Remains a significant ally.  An alliance that is incredibly healthy now after the result of these last four years of really working on our alliances and partnerships in the Pacific. 

As you know, the President spoke with the acting president, Han Duck-soo, over the weekend — I think it was on Saturday evening — to congratulate him and also to reaffirm our commitment to the South Korean people, to the alliance.

I will not speak to internal domestic issues inside South Korea, your question about whether he should be charged with insurrection.  Those kinds of things are for South Korean officials, South Korean legislators, the South Korean people to determine, not the United States.  All I’ll say is that, as the President said to Acting President Han Duck-soo, this is an important relationship for us, it’s a terrific alliance.  The United States is going to stay committed to it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Cheyenne with ABC.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this.  The President-elect also mentioned changing a trip to Bedminster.  Do you have any reason to believe that Bedminster, New Jersey, has been at all at risk with any of these drone sightings?

And also, you’ve talked about the thousands of drones flying around legally on any given day.  What’s your explanation for why this became a concern just recently in New Jersey?  Do you think it’s just a chain reaction?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know the answer to that.  I don’t.  But I can tell you we’re working hard to triangulate all of these sightings.  And as I said, of the 5,000 that the FBI took in, and the local law enforcement, there were about 100 that were deemed — that required, I should say, to follow up on. 

So, I don’t know.  I can’t explain the number of sightings.  Many of them are duplicative.  In other words, you might get, like — this is an example, not — a hypothetical example — but you might get 10 sightings of a single aircraft.  So that counts as 10 sightings, but it may only be one aircraft.  So, as this has become a story locally and certainly through the media, more and more people are looking skyward, and more and more people are seeing things, and more and more people are calling them in and taking video of them.  But in a lot of instances, it turns out to be the same thing seen by multiple people.  But I just can’t explain.  I don’t know.

But your question, I think, gets to why I made those comments at the beginning: to remind people of the sheer size and scope of unmanned aerial systems that are flying legally and lawfully every day over this country.  And again, it’s to our benefit, commercially and even from a public safety and law enforcement perspective.  So, that there are lots of drones in the sky I think is without dispute, and that the vast, vast majority of them are doing good things for people on the ground also should not be in dispute. 

As for the issue of Bedminster, it is already designated as restricted air space, so it is unlawful to fly in that space, with or without it being a manned aircraft, without the FAA’s approval.  So it’s already restricted.  I can’t speak to the President-elect’s travel or what he’s decided to do or where he’s decided to go, but I think it’s important to remember that it is already restricted airspace.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  I have a couple of questions.  First, the mother of Austin Tice has sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, asking him to hold Israeli strikes outside of Damascus because she believes that Austin Tice might be held in a jail there.  Do you think that Israeli strikes might affect his chances of being found alive?  And I have another question.

MR. KIRBY:  I really don’t have anything for you on that one, Nadia.  That’s a — you know, I think that’s a question better put to the Tice family and to the IDF. 

I would just tell you that we continue to work very, very hard to try to find out where Austin is, how Austin is, and stemming from that information, what we can do to try to get him home.  And sadly, regrettably, I just don’t have additional detail to provide for you on that today.  We’re still working this very, very hard. 

Q    Okay.  Also, the President-elect Trump said today that Turkey holds all the keys to what’s happening in Syria.  In fact, he’s insinuating that Turkey is a major player of what’s taken on unfolding events in Syria, and he praised President Erdoğan as a smart guy.  What’s your assessment of Turkey’s role on what we have seen so far in the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no question that the Turks are significant players here in whatever the outcome in Syria is going to be, as they have been over the course of the last 14 years.  And that’s why Secretary Blinken went to Turkey last week.  It’s why we continue to have conversations with them at all different levels about what they’re doing, what their concerns are.

As I have said in the past, they have legitimate concerns with a terrorist threat along that border with Syria.  Turkish citizens have fallen victim to terrorist activities there.  You can’t very well blame the Turks for being concerned about that threat. 

On the other hand, we have a relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces to go after ISIS.  We want to keep that focus of them and us, and so we have certainly talked about our concerns with respect to that mission set as it relates to Turkey’s military operations on the other side of that border. 

And if there’s a need — as there’s a need to deconflict and to work through some of those overlapping concerns, well, we’ll do that because Turkey is, as you rightly said, a NATO Ally. 

So they have had, and legitimately so, have had a large interest in what’s going on in Syria.  We recognize that.  We also recognize that sometimes their goals aren’t exactly the same as ours, and so we talk to them about that, and we’ll continue to do so.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex with the Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thanks so much.  Real quickly — Kirby, I noticed you said that this assessment is coming from law enforcement.  Just checking if any intelligence agencies, or especially military intel, is part of what went into this assessment, knowing that some of the drones went over Langley and Wright-Patt.

And just trying to get a sense of, you know, how did the administration work to get this info.  You mentioned, you know, you didn’t have it before.  Now you do.  Sort of what went into this?  Is this like — you know, were there a bunch of meetings?  Did FBI send a bunch of folks out?  Can you just give us some detail on how you’ve gotten to this point now in the assessment? Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  I kind of already did, Alex.  I said we surged resources, detection capabilities.  We surged personnel, including visual observers, from federal agencies, predominantly DHS.  The military, the Defense Department has surged some additional detection capabilities, certainly with respect to Naval Weapons Station Earle and Picatinny Arsenal. 

So, the assessment I was able to offer today was really the result of the collective action of all of these efforts, including continued work by local law enforcement and state officials. 

The work continues.  This is our assessment to date.  We will continue to look at this as hard as we can.  But it is really the result of an influx of resources and personnel applied to this particular problem set. 

I think the Pentagon already spoke to Wright-Patterson.  There was no — as I understand it, no disruption of operations.  I think some of the original reporting out of there was lacking some context that I think the Pentagon added to and provided. 

And, look, on intelligence, I would just say that this is a true interagency effort, and we’re all working really hard to apply the right resources to the problem set and to be as open and transparent with people as we can be.  And I think I best leave it at that.

Again, I want to foot-stomp what I said earlier.  It’s important for people to understand the ecosystem of drones over the skies of the United States.  I mean, there’s a lot of activity.  And again, the vast, vast, vast majority of it is legal and lawful.  And we believe — again, to date, our assessment is that the sightings thus far have been of that ilk.  But we’ll continue to keep looking.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We have time for one more question, and we’ll go to Robin Wright.

Q    Thank you, John.  Can I take you further afield to Syria and ask you: Has there been any more contact between the United States and HTS?

And secondly, can you give us a sense of what Iran is doing in Syria?  The head of the IRGC said that there have been evacuations of 4,000 citizens from Iran.  Do you have a sense of what Iran is doing in the aftermath of Assad’s demise or what it’s planning to do?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I can tell you, on HTS, as Secretary Blinken indicated, we have been in direct contact with HTS, as we have been with other groups.  We also have indirect ways of communicating with all those groups as well, and we’re pulling on all those levers to make sure that we can very closely monitor this transition to what we hope will be — well, we hope it will be a peaceful transition, but to a stable, secure, sovereign Syria that meets the aspirations of its people. 

But I don’t have any additional or specifics about conversations with HTS, except to reiterate what Secretary Blinken said.  We have been in touch with them and I suspect we will be going forward. 

I also think, Robin, you shouldn’t — no one should expect that we’re going to get into a detailed readout of every single conversation that we have with every rebel group or opposition leader as it unfolds.  I wouldn’t expect that you’re going to see that. 

And as for Iran, you know, I would be lying to you if I said we had, you know, perfect visibility on everything that Iranian leaders are doing or deciding when it comes to Syria.  I can go so far as to say we certainly have seen indications that the Iranians are pulling people and resources out of Syria.  That is true.  But at what scale and on what timeline, it’s difficult for us to be very granular on that.  We just don’t have perfect visibility.  But it’s clear to us that they certainly weren’t willing or able to come to Assad’s rescue.  And in the aftermath of his departure, it’s clear to us that they are reevaluating, I think is the best way to put it, their presence in Syria and have already started to move some people and some resources out. 

That’s really as far as I can go.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you, everyone, for joining us today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, please reach out to the NSC press distro, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks all.

5:24 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Today, as we commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, we celebrate the tremendous progress our country has made in bringing clean drinking water to all Americans – and we recommit ourselves to the work still to come.  

I am proud to have been one of the Senators who supported this landmark legislation. Before the Safe Drinking Water Act, America’s drinking water was unreliable and too often polluted with industrial waste or disease-causing contaminants. The Act was passed to meet these challenges head-on, and five decades later, our nation enjoys some of the safest drinking water in the world.

Along with the long-standing leadership of Vice President Harris, I have fought to ensure that the full vision of the Safe Drinking Water Act is realized by tackling the key challenges facing our drinking water system today, including toxic lead pipes, PFAS “forever chemicals,” aging water infrastructure, and pollution impacting our rivers, streams, and wetlands. Our Administration combined historic investments – including more than $50 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – and regulatory policies – including the first-ever requirement to identify and replace lead pipes within ten years – to make historic progress investing in key water infrastructure, including in Indigenous and rural communities, while also creating good-paying jobs and helping advance environmental justice.

Vice President Harris and I have always believed that every person in this country deserves to turn on a faucet and have clean drinking water. And because of my Administration’s investments and actions in water safety, a new legacy of clean, high-quality drinking water for our families and communities will continue to be felt for generations to come.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the 50th Anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act appeared first on The White House.

Action Uplifts Women’s History by Honoring the First Woman Cabinet Secretary, Longest-Serving Secretary of Labor, and a Key Architect of the New Deal

Today President Biden will sign a proclamation establishing the Frances Perkins National Monument in Newcastle, Maine, to honor the historic contributions of America’s first woman Cabinet Secretary and the longest-serving Secretary of Labor.

Frances Perkins was the leading architect behind the New Deal and led many labor and economic reforms that continue to benefit Americans today. During her 12 years as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, she envisioned and helped create Social Security; helped millions of Americans get back to work during the Great Depression; fought for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively; and established the minimum wage, overtime pay, prohibitions on child labor, and unemployment insurance.

During a visit to the Department of Labor’s Frances Perkins Building, President Biden will showcase Frances Perkins’s foundational legacy, which civil rights and women’s rights leaders have built upon to further expand opportunities for all Americans. The President will also highlight how his Administration has continued to stand with labor and strengthen America’s workforce. President Biden is proud to be the most pro-union and pro-worker president in history, including creating the Made in America office; requiring Project Labor Agreements on nearly all major federal construction projects of over $35 million; signing the Butch Lewis Act to save more than one million pensions; and becoming the first president in history to walk a picket line.

The designation of this new national monument advances President Biden’s March 2024 Executive Order to strengthen the recognition of women’s history. In addition to establishing the Frances Perkins National Monument, today Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland will announce five new National Historic Landmarks that will increase the representation of women’s history in historic sites across America and additional new actions to advance President Biden’s Executive Order.

Frances Perkins National Monument

At a time when few women were in leadership positions and just 13 years after the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, President Roosevelt asked Frances Perkins to become his Secretary of Labor. Perkins told President Roosevelt that if she accepted the position, she intended to execute an ambitious plan to protect American workers. Over her 12 years as Secretary of Labor, Perkins accomplished nearly everything on her list and laid the groundwork for the labor policy and social safety net that we continue to build on today.

The new national monument boundary encompasses the 57 acres of the Frances Perkins Homestead National Historic Landmark site in Newcastle, Maine. The Perkins Homestead played a pivotal role in Frances Perkins’ life and was the place Perkins felt most at home. She spent her childhood summers there, and returned frequently for respite throughout her ground-breaking professional career.  

Owned by her family for over 270 years, the Homestead remains much as it looked during Perkins’ lifetime. The 2.3-acre core area of the Homestead has been donated to the National Park Service and is reserved as part of the new monument, including the Perkins’ family home known as the brick house, a barn and outbuilding, gardens, and part of the stone wall surrounding the property. The remaining Homestead landscape extends from the core area to the Damariscotta River to the east, and contains other buildings, structures, gardens, and the paths used by Perkins and her family throughout her life. These lands are currently owned by the Frances Perkins Center which has been managing and preserving them, and they will be reserved and protected as part of the national monument if they are ever donated to the Federal Government in the future.

Advancing Women’s History and Telling a More Complete American Story

The establishment of the Frances Perkins National Monument furthers the Administration’s commitment to recognizing women’s contributions to our country. TheBiden-Harris Administration has invested more than $40 million to restore and support sites that recognize and elevate the stories of women who have shaped American history. Today, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is announcing additional new actions that advance the President’s Executive Order on Honoring and Recognizing Women’s History, including:

• Secretary Haaland is announcing five new National Historic Landmarks, DOI’s highest recognition of a property’s historical, architectural, or archeological significance. These include:
  • The Charleston Cigar Factory in Charleston, South Carolina. This new landmark, historically known as the American Cigar Company Building, will recognize the site where cigar factory workers – led by Black women – went on strike for better pay and working conditions, and against gender and racial discrimination on the job.
  • The Furies Collective House in Washington, D.C. This new landmark recognizes the former home of a group of young activists who created a social and political community credited with recognizing the existence and needs of lesbians in the women’s movement in the early 1970s, and who published a newspaper focused on questions of women’s identity, relationships, and roles in society.
  • The Lucy Diggs Slowe and Mary Burrill House in Washington, D.C. This new landmark includes the residence of Lucy Diggs Slowe, the first dean of women at Howard University, and her partner Mary Burrill. An advocate for educational parity between men and women students, Slowe helped modernize student affairs at Howard and other historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
  • Azurest South in Petersburg, Virginia. This new landmark is designed in the International Style, an architectural style developed in the United States and Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that dominated mid-20th century architecture, by Amaza Lee Meredith, a pioneering Black woman architect.
  • The Peter Hurd and Henriette Wyeth House and Studios in San Patricio, New Mexico. This new landmark recognizes the home and workspace of 20th century Realist painter Henriette Wyeth.    

• The National Park Service is announcing a $500,000 grant from the Historic Preservation Fund to support the renovation of the Seneca Falls Knitting Mill, a part of the Seneca Falls Village Historic District. The Fund’s support will enable the National Women’s Hall of Fame to expand its programming on women’s history and restore the mill, which was one of the few places in Seneca Falls, New York to employ women during its 150 years of operation.
  
• As directed by President Biden, DOI is releasing a new report on representation of women across sites of national importance, including National Historic Landmarks, national monuments, and national park sites. The report assesses which existing federal sites are significant to women’s history and offers opportunities to improve the recognition of women’s contributions to our country across the National Park Service, including through the National Historic Landmark program.

Background on Antiquities Act Designations

President Theodore Roosevelt first used the Antiquities Act in 1906 to designate Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming. Since then, 18 presidents of both parties have used this authority to protect natural and historic features in America, including the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, the Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, the Pullman National Monument, and the César E. Chávez National Monument.

The Frances Perkins National Monument will be President Biden’s 13th use of the Antiquities Act and his fourth new national monument commemorating a site that helps tell a more complete American story. Other designations under President Biden include the creation of the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument, the Springfield 1908 Race Riot National Monument, and the Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument.

###

The post FACT SHEET: President Biden Designates Frances Perkins National Monument appeared first on The White House.