Whitehouse.gov Feed

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption appeared first on The White House.

President Biden and Vice President Harris came into office determined to end the COVID-19 pandemic while making progress toward a world that is safe from biological threats. Today we are releasing the final annual global health security report of the Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. Government Support for Global Health Security – Protecting Lives and Safeguarding Economies, which highlights progress in global health security and identifies remaining challenges.

The Biden-Harris Administration has advanced a bold agenda to prevent the devastating toll of outbreaks and pandemics, including investing more than $3 billion in strengthening global health security (GHS) since 2020. These investments have helped to: prepare countries around the world to more effectively prevent, detect and respond to biological threats; build stronger and more effective regional and global institutions to support health emergency preparedness and response; and respond rapidly to numerous outbreaks – from Ebola to mpox – to limit the health and economic impacts on the American people, as well as people living around the world. U.S. leadership in global health security is built on decades of investments in global health and research and development, as well as strong partnerships with other countries, regional and multilateral institutions, civil society, and the private sector.

REDUCING THE RISK OF NEW THREATS EMERGING AND BUILDING COUNTRY CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO THREATS

The most effective way to limit the impact of biological threats is to stop them at their source. The United States is working with countries and partners around the world to ensure they have the capacity to identify and stop emerging threats before they grow into regional or global threats. Central to these partnerships is the development of a shared plan based on gaps in each country’s capacity, as well as country ownership to sustain global health security capacities once U.S. Government support has ended. Highlights from the report include:

• More than 100 countries are building stronger global health security capacities: Over the last four years, the Biden-Harris Administrationexpanded formal Global Health Security partnerships from 19 countries to more than 50 countries and one regional group. The United States has also leveraged financial resources and diplomatic channels to mobilize support for 50 additional countries to strengthen their health security capacities, for a total of more than 100 countries receiving support. For example, through U.S. support to the Pandemic Fund and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) COVID-19 Response Mechanism, over sixty countries received financing to strengthen core health security capacities. The United States is not the sole provider of these resources, as countries around the world contribute, including through co-financing by low and middle-income countries.

• Measuring the impact of U.S. investments: The Biden-Harris Administration is focused on measurable results of these investments. Of the 25 formal GHS partner countries that have received U.S. support for at least two years, five have achieved the U.S. target of “demonstrated capacity” in at least five technical areas, and an additional five countries are close. We can also see the impact of investments when threats emerge. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – a U.S. government GHS partner since 2015 – has successfully contained five Ebola outbreaks since 2020, dramatically improving detection and response times. In 2022 the government of DRC detected an Ebola outbreak in 48 hours and contained the outbreak with only five lives lost to the disease.

• Country ownership on global health security: Many United States GHS partner countries are leading their own responses to crises, with U.S. collaboration when needed. For example, the U.S. Government is partnering with Nigeria to build stronger capacity on zoonotic diseases, disease surveillance, and health emergency management, among other areas. In 2023, Nigeria experienced outbreaks of anthrax, a zoonotic disease that can cause severe illness in people and animals. Nigeria activated national response mechanisms to coordinate collaboration across the human and animal sectors and reduce the risk for further disease transmission. Nigeria also collaborated with Ghana to exchange strategies for anthrax prevention and control. These and other measures helped curtail the impact of anthrax in Nigeria.

• Reducing the risk of biosafety and biosecurity incidents: Expanding biosurveillance capacity and the rapid evolution of technology are critical for health security, but can also elevate the risk of accidental and deliberate incidents. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken significant steps to minimize the chances of laboratory accidents; reduce the likelihood of deliberate use or accidental misuse; ensure effective biosafety and biosecurity practices and oversight; and promote responsible research and innovation. For example, the United States secured inclusion of biosafety and biosecurity as a critical component of the Pandemic Fund grants to support laboratory strengthening. One of the projects, the Caribbean Public Health Agency Train-the-Trainer Workshop on the Safe Transportation of Infectious Substances, resulted in certified trainers well-positioned to serve as national trainers and advisors in biosafety and safe transport protocols, ensuring safer practices across the region. The U.S. global health security bilateral partnerships also build capacity in biosafety and biosecurity: the GHS partner countries with at least two years of U.S. Government support demonstrated a net improvement in biosafety and biosecurity capacity from 2018 to 2023.

• Modernizing biorisk management: The Administration released the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, marking a major new step in modernizing biorisk management. This policy streamlines and expands oversight of research of concern across the entire U.S. Government – setting a new global standard for effective research oversight. The Administration also introduced a new framework for biotechnology safeguards on federally funded purchases of synthetic DNA and RNA. These safeguards, which include Know-Your-Customer screening, will reduce the likelihood of misuse of synthetic biology. 

BUILDING MORE EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING SYSTEMS

Strong national systems within the United States and other countries are essential to global health security. However, each country, including the United States, operates within a regional or global system that can either facilitate or hamper quick and effective responses to health emergencies. The Biden-Harris Administration has invested in building stronger multilateral systems and partnerships to strengthen global health security. 

Multilateral Partnerships

• Multilateral Negotiations: Through strong leadership and diplomatic outreach to World Health Organization (WHO) Member States, the United States helped secure an ambitious suite of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that will strengthen health emergency prevention, preparedness, and response. The United States is actively negotiating a pandemic agreement, with the goal of putting in place practical measures to prevent future pandemics, and strengthening the international community’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a pandemic. The United States has also supported successful negotiations through the United Nations (UN) and UN agencies such as WHO on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; antimicrobial resistance; biosafety and biosecurity; and biological weapons nonproliferation; among other areas.

• Multi-country Partnerships: The Biden-Harris Administration has worked closely with our allies and partners to advance initiatives critical to improving health security. For example, the G20 has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining stronger links between health and finance ministries. The G7 has committed to support more than 100 countries to strengthen their global health security capacities, and has led progress in transforming pandemic preparedness and response financing. The U.S. Department of State launched the Foreign Ministry Channel for Health Security to foster greater diplomatic engagement among Foreign Ministries on global health security. The Quad, a diplomatic grouping between the United States, Australia, India, and Japan, delivered more than 400 million safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine doses to Indo-Pacific countries and almost 800 million doses globally; advanced health security priorities in the Indo-Pacific region; and recently launched the Quad Cancer Moonshot, which will deliver up to 40 million doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine and support other efforts to address cervical cancer to the Indo-Pacific. Since its inception in 2014, the United States has actively engaged in the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), a partnership of over 70 countries, more than 10 international organizations and coalitions, and more than 30 non-governmental organizations, including private sector and civil society partners, working together to accelerate implementation of the International Health Regulations.

Financing

Limitations in the existing systems to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response left countries and financial institutions ill prepared to effectively contain COVID-19, contributing to the health and financial crises that resulted in the deaths of over 1.2 million Americans and an estimated $14 trillion in economic losses to the U.S. economy. On day one, President Biden called on his Administration to transform the existing financing institutions and to cultivate new financing sources for global health security that are more effective and sustainable, and that are less dependent on U.S. government assistance. 

• Expanding Reliable Financing for Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness: The United States was instrumental in the creation of the Pandemic Fund in 2022, the only multilateral financing facility dedicated exclusively to pandemic preparedness financing for low- and middle- income countries. The Pandemic Fund made significant progress in its first two years, awarding grants totaling $885 million, which mobilized an additional $6 billion in investments, to support 75 countries and economies across six geographic regions. The Pandemic Fund also effectively pivoted to support countries to prepare for mpox outbreaks as part of the global response to the ongoing mpox public health emergency. The United States has supported the Pandemic Fund’s $2 billion replenishment goal by pledging up to $667 million by 2025, calling on other donors to step up their contributions and end the cycle of panic and neglect.

• Strengthening Existing Financing Institutions to Support GHS: The United States is working to evolve Multilateral Development Banks to be better equipped to respond to the increasing frequency, scope, and complexity of global challenges, including pandemics. The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supported the establishment of the International Monetary Fund Resilience and Sustainability Trust and its goal of supporting low-income and vulnerable middle-income countries to access long-term, affordable financing to address longer-term challenges, such as health emergencies.

• Improving Timely Access to Emergency Response Financing: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries and institutions lacked the liquidity to procure the medical countermeasures (MCM) needed to mount effective and timely responses. The U.S. Development Finance Corporation helped develop and lead a G7 Surge Financing Initiative, through which G7 development finance institutions (DFIs), the European Investment Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and global and regional health stakeholders are developing and deploying innovative financing tools to accelerate access to MCMs in health emergencies. The United States also supported the establishment of the Day Zero Financing Facility, a suite of tools that will enable Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, to quickly meet demand for vaccines during a pandemic, including up to $2 billion in bridge financing loans. The United States also supports the roles of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Fund, and other regional and multilateral organizations in the development of solutions to surge financing for MCMs during emergencies.

• Increasing International Coordination and Cooperation in Health Security Financing: During health emergencies donors often surge rapid financial and technical support, with limited effective means for transparency and coordination, which can lead to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and gaps in support. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken action to enhance the impact of financing though increased coordination and cooperation including supporting the establishment of the G20 Finance-Health Task Force to strengthen coordination between Finance and Health Ministries; and contributed to improved international mpox response coordination.

EXPANDING ACCESS TO MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized expanding access to quality medical countermeasures (MCMs) around the world, building on decades of global health and health security leadership by the United States. The United States has long led the world in innovation, research and development. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital role of U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing the life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines needed to protect American lives and livelihoods, and national and economic security against future biological threats, whether naturally-occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Biden-Harris Administration has strengthened sustainable global manufacturing and supply chain capacity; donated vaccines, diagnostic tests and treatments and support for their delivery; expanded pandemic response financing for MCMs; and strengthened legal and regulatory systems to ensure quality products and overcome barriers to rapid access. 

• Investments in Research and Development for Preparedness: While there will always be new or evolving biological threats, developing effective countermeasures for known threats is a critical piece of preparedness. For example, the U.S. government invested billions of dollars in mRNA technology in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved in the United States and around the world, and were crucial to developing the mRNA vaccine technology that can be leveraged in a future pandemic, as well as potentially treating other diseases. The U.S. supports the goals of the mRNA Technology Transfer Programme, a capacity-building initiative in low- and middle-income countries to sustainably produce mRNA vaccines. Similarly, the United States Government invested more than $2 billion in the JYNNEOS vaccine as part of smallpox preparedness. These investments directly led to product licensure for both smallpox and mpox. On September 13, 2024, WHO announced pre-qualification of the JYNNEOS vaccine for global use, including in the Africa region in response to ongoing mpox outbreaks. The JYNNEOS vaccine that has now been used to protect Americans and people living around the world from mpox; it would not exist without the investment and technical expertise provided by the United States.

• Investments in Biotechnology: The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized transforming our biotechnology capabilities, including catalyzing advances in science, technology, and core capabilities and has advanced a whole-of-government approach to strengthening U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing, including for health security. The United States Government’s historic investments in science and technology, from basic science to piloting innovative financing mechanisms to real-time research during health emergencies, are transforming the tools and approaches we use to detect, contain and respond to health threats. These efforts support the ambitious international goal of developing vaccines, treatments and diagnostics within 100 days from the onset of a potential pandemic.

• Support for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI): CEPI is working to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines against emerging disease threats, and to transform capability for rapid countermeasure development in response to future threats. Notable achievements include: the market authorization of the world’s first Chikungunya vaccine and technology transfer to regional producers for regional supply to LMICs; the advancement through clinical development of vaccine candidates against Lassa, Nipah, and coronaviruses, among others; and the launch of a new Disease X Vaccine Library with six viral families prioritized as high risk.

• Expanding Access to Publicly-supported Medical Inventions: The U.S. supports broad access to medical inventions facilitated by public investments and science, including through: the NIH proposal to promote access to products that rely on NIH-owned inventions (“Promoting Equity Through Access Planning”); fair pricing guarantees in funding agreements between manufacturers and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA); and appropriate provisions in a Pandemic Agreement for timely and equitable access to pandemic-related health products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NIH licensed COVID-19 technologies arising from NIH intramural research to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) for access through WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP). Such contributions are an important step toward facilitating wider availability of lifesaving interventions around the world.

• Respecting Countries’ Rights to Protect Public Health: The United States respects countries’ right to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all. The United States respects and does not call out countries for exercising health rights and flexibilities enshrined in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including with respect to compulsory licenses, in a manner consistent with TRIPS obligations. Toward that end, the United States endorsed negotiations of a temporary waiver of WTO intellectual property rules to support access to COVID vaccines.

STOPPING BIOLOGICAL THREATS AT THEIR SOURCE

In February 2021, just a few weeks into the Biden-Harris Administration and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, DRC and Guinea experienced two unrelated Ebola outbreaks. Since then, the United States Government has supported responses to numerous outbreaks, from Ebola disease and Marburg virus disease to mpox, avian influenza, Oropouche virus, as well as ongoing threats including dengue, cholera, measles, malaria and HIV. United States Government support to emergency response is closely linked with ongoing bilateral investments in preparedness, with the goal of each country developing the capacity and resources to lead and coordinate responses to threats as soon as they emerge. Examples of U.S. Government support to outbreak responses during the Biden-Harris Administration include:

• COVID-19 Pandemic: Starting in 2021, the United States invested $16 billion in the global COVID-19 response. The Administration accelerated global access to COVID-19 vaccines, including sharing nearly 700 million COVID-19 vaccine doses with countries around the world, as well as diagnostics and therapeutics, supporting health workers, securing supply chains, and combatting mis- and disinformation on safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. The United States was the world’s largest donor to the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) and provided global leadership to raise additional billions in critical funding through the U.S.-hosted and co-hosted Global COVID-19 Summits to save lives globally, end the pandemic, and build stronger health security.

• Mpox Outbreaks: The worldhas faced two regional or global outbreaks of mpox during the Biden-Harris Administration. In 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration mounted a robust response to the spread of clade IIb mpox by making vaccines available to those at risk, making testing more convenient, and providing treatments to those who needed them both in the United States and worldwide. During the ongoing clade I mpox outbreak, the U.S. Government has committed over $500 million to support mpox preparedness and response activities in mpox-affected countries in Africa, and the U.S. Government has made more than one million mpox vaccine doses available for global use. The United States has delivered additional support through technical assistance and in-kind contributions to surveillance, case investigation, procurement of diagnostic kits, consumable reagents, other laboratory supplies, and personal protective equipment.
• Marburg Virus Disease (MVD): After learning of the MVD outbreak in Rwanda in September 2024, the United States committed to making nearly $11 million available to address urgent health needs in Rwanda and surrounding countries, including for surveillance and contact tracing, infection prevention and control guidance, and exit screening. Within days of learning of the MVD outbreak, CDC deployed three senior scientists to Rwanda to support its response. Although there are currently no FDA-approved vaccines or drugs against MVD, the United States contributed thousands of investigational vaccine doses and a small number of investigational therapeutics doses, which arrived in Rwanda within a week of the U.S. Government learning of the outbreak. The United States has also contributed hundreds of MVD tests and units of personal protective equipment.

• Enhanced U.S. Government Response Coordination: Building on work in previous Administrations, the Biden-Harris Administration has successfully shepherded the “Playbook for Biological Incident Response” and a “Biological Incident Notification and Assessment” protocol from concept stage to an established and well-exercised process for rapid communication and coordination when biological threats emerge. This playbook and the protocol serve to give U.S. federal agencies “off-the-shelf” tools to respond to biological threats from all sources – natural, accidental and deliberate – that avoid response delays that cost lives and resources.

While we have made progress since emerging from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, continued investment of financial, political, and technical resources is needed to ensure success in building stronger preparedness today, sustainability of those efforts, and resilience to future biological threats. Both at home and abroad, willingness to invest critical financial and political resources has waned as global health security competes with other priorities for attention and resources. Collective action across sectors and throughout the world is needed to ensure we do not cycle once more into neglect, rather that we sustain and build on the significant progress made. Success in these efforts will make Americans safer, protect our economy and reduce international reliance on U.S. resources and expertise during times of crisis.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Global Health Security Annual Report Demonstrating the Impact of United States Leadership and Investments appeared first on The White House.

East Room

11:36 A.M. EST
 
THE FIRST LADY:  You’re so quiet.  It’s like a classroom.  (Laughter and applause.) 
 
So, in the intermission, were you all, like, dancing and everything?  (Laughter.)  Get a little movement.  You know, you’ve been sitting for a while.
 
So, thank you for standing.  But, you know, I’m glad you get a little — like you said, Robin, a little movement, right?  It’s — that’s what it’s all about.
 
So — oh, please sit down.  Please.  (Laughter.)  If you feel all stretched out by now.
 
So, before I begin, I just want to say I’m so glad that you got to come here today because the White House is decorated.  (Applause.)  And the theme this year is “Peace and Light.”  So, I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that, just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel — I don’t know — a little — a sense of joy, because I think we all need, like, this — you know, we all need to feel joy now during this — this time of the season, during — just during this time. 
 
So, anyway — (laughter) — okay.  Now I’ll start.  You’re all reading into that.  (Laughter.) 
 
Anyway, for decades, for centuries even, at dinner tables and in waiting rooms, in whispered conversations, you know, when we meet our friends for coffee, women have been talking to each other about our health.  Isn’t that true?
 
AUDIENCE:  Yes.
 
THE FIRST LADY:  So, today, we brought that conversation to the White House.  (Applause.)  Today, we are saying to women everywhere: We hear you, and we will get you the answers you need.
 
So, thank you for joining us for the White House Conference on Women’s Health Research.
 
The United States has the best health research in the world, yet women’s health is understudied and research is underfunded.  And so many of you have said this.  And the United States economy loses $1.8 billion in working time every year to menopause symptoms that upend women’s lives.
 
And that’s what Maria Shriver and I talked about on that Saturday afternoon in April last year.  So, Maria keeps this quote next to her phone — you have a stationary phone?  (Laughter.) 
 
MS. SHRIVER:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)
 
THE FIRST LADY:  — in her office, and it says, “Why go to the moon?”  And your uncle, President Kennedy, asked, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, because they are hard.”
 
So, Maria, thank you for carrying on that mission, pushing for breakthroughs that are never easy but possible.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
So, a little more than a year ago, President Biden launched — thank you, Joe — (laughter) — the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, building on the foundation of decades of work in women’s health from many of you in this room.
 
And Carolyn made sure yesterday, as we were doing speech prep, that I understood — she said, “Jill, you know, I know that we’re doing this now, but there are some women” — like Carolyn — “who’s been doing this research forever and ever and ever.”  And I just want you — to say we — we recognize that.  So — (applause).
 
So, it — you heard from Carolyn, you know, our incredible — and our incredible team here at the White House who’s ensured that government-funded research, you know — and they will include women from the beginning.
 
And that means designing studies and separating the data, which everyone has said, and reporting findings to create treatments specifically for women and for we- — men.  I mean, we’re not going to leave you guys out.  (Laughter.)
 
And we’ve invested nearly $1 billion in this research on women’s health.  (Applause.)
 
So, a- — over this past year, I’ve traveled around the country, and I have met, honestly, some really incredible researchers.  And I’ve been to universities and the New York Stock Exchange to bring people together and create connections across industries. 
 
And the women of this country are paying attention.  Researchers and business leaders are too. 
 
So, we brought all of you into this room to elevate all this information: discoveries that will change how we treat menopause symptoms — we’ve talked about this all this morning; research that uses genetics to find the cause of extreme morning sickness.  And I heard this a couple weeks ago, and I was particularly interested because my own granddaughter was going through the same thing — because we’re going to be great-grandparents.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, funders and founders who are seeing the market for women’s health products triple, advocates who are making sure that women know that solutions are at our fingertips if we just keep fighting for them.
 
Together, we’ve laid down a new line, a marker of our progress toward closing the gaps in women’s health.  Everything that you’ve heard today — and hasn’t it been, like, so informative and fascinating?  I mean, I love these forums because I always learn something new.  I just — you know, it’s just so inspiring.  Because this is our new normal. 
 
And today isn’t the finish line; it’s the starting point.  We — all of us, we have built the momentum.  Now it’s up to us to make it unstoppable.
 
It has been the honor of my life to serve as your first lady and to join you in this work, but my work doesn’t stop in January when Joe and I leave this house.  I will keep building alliances, like the ones that brought us here today, and I will keep pushing for funding for innovative research.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, join me.  Be the researcher who makes sure that each proposal you work on considers women from the beginning.  Be the investor who searches for the next breakthrough product of [or] treatment.  Be the voice in every space, from boardrooms to classrooms to laboratories, who asks, “What are we doing to advance women’s health?”
 
Let’s make a promise to all those women out there right now, sitting in a parking lot somewhere, in a doc- — after a doctor’s appointment, wondering why you’re not being heard — so, maybe feeling, you know, like you’re all alone.
 
And — well, I’ll just have to stop here for one second.  I did hear during that little intermission thing — like, we’re not putting our doctors down — right? — so, some doc ba- — in the back said, “You know, it sounds like you’re putting the docs down.”  We’re not putting the docs down.  I don’t want you to feel that way.  That, you know — but I think the docs are joining us and saying, “Hey, we want the answers.”  So, I just want to make that 100 percent clear.
 
So, the White House, all of us here, we will keep fighting for you until your worries turn into answers, your symptoms into solutions.  Until women everywhere benefit from the lifesaving and world-changing research that we know is possible. 
 
A new future can ring out from this conference, one that — one that answers the call from women who have been waiting for too long.  Let this be the moment that we push harder, the moment that people say changed the world of women’s health forever. 
 
Thank you.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Please.
 
So, I’m so grateful to have a president who — (laughs) — who heard us — (laughter) — and took action quickly.  So, without Joe, really, this wouldn’t have been made possible.  And that’s the power of someone who understands how to make things happen in government — because God knows, Joe, you’ve been for — what? — 50 years.  (Laughter.)  (The president makes the sign of the cross.) 
 
So, someone who has fundamentally shifted how our nat- — nation approaches women’s health research.
 
So, please welcome my husband, your president and champion, I think, of all of us.  So, my husband, Joe Biden.  Come on, Joe.  (Applause.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank God she said “yes” the fifth time I asked her to marry me.  (Laughter.) 
 
Please have a seat. 
 
You know, I — as they used to say in the Senate, a point of personal privilege: I — when — no man deserves one great love, let alone two.  When I was introduced to Jill, my younger brother — my youngest brother said, “You’ll love her; she hates politics.”  (Laughter.) 
 
Well, look, I — hello, everyone.  My name is Joe Biden; I’m Jill Biden’s husband.  (Laughter.)  Let’s be honest, we wouldn’t be here today without Jill. 
 
Across our administration and across Congress, across the country, the work we’re doing on women’s health research is some of the most important work this administration has ever done.
 
And I’ve always believed that our nation is at its best when we — when we plumb the endless possibilities that exist for all our women and girls.  And that includes their health.
 
Women on- — are half our population, to state the obvious.  But like Jill said, for too long, they’ve been underrepresented when it comes to health research.  And that’s real. 
 
You know, that’s why, over a year ago, we launched the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research.  And the goal was to fundamentally change and improve how we approach and invest in women’s health research — we weren’t doing enough of it — and to pioneer the next generation of scientific research and discoveries that are going to improve care for — women receive all across the country.
 
Because the fact is the health of our moms and grandmothers, sisters and daughters, friends and colleagues affects not just women’s well-being but the prosperity of the entire nation.  And that’s a fact.  We haven’t gotten that through to the other team yet.  (Laughter.)  No — no, I mean it, across the board.  Anyway, I won’t get into that.  (Laughter.)
 
But that’s why, in my State of the Union address this year, I called on Congress to invest $12 billion in women’s health research to benefit millions of lives — (applause) — and families and communities all across America.
 
Folks, but my administration wasn’t going to wait for Congress to secure the funding.  We looked for other ways to prioritize women’s health with existing dollars that are already in the government and to get important work started.
 
And I knew where to start: Rosa DeLauro.  (Applause.)  Rosa, stand up.  I’m not joking.  As they say in souther- — you all think I’m kidding.  I’m not kidding.  (Laughter.)  She’s incredible.  Every important thing I’ve ever tried to get done that no one paid attention to, you were there for me.  I mean it sincerely.  You’re the best, Rosa.  What you did on Child Tax Credit — I mean, across the board. 
 
And, folks, women’s health is — is a — something that — that matters so, so very much.  Along with members that are here today, you — she’s going to keep this effort going to — when we leave.  When we leave — when Jill and I leave.
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Fight like hell.  (Laughter.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’re going to fight like hell.  And w- — I — I’m the — we’re — we’re no longer going to be president and first lady, but we’re not going away.  (Laughter.)  And so — (applause).
 
Along with members here, like Diane [Diana] and Lauren.  Where — where is Diane [Diana]? 
 
REPRESENTATIVE DEGETTE:  Right here. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.  Stand up, kiddo.  Let them see you.  (Applause.)
 
And, Lauren, thank you. 
 
So, I’m so proud that, to date, we’ve secured $1 billion so far in women’s health research from different government agencies.
 
You know, our new agency, ARPA-H, which is patterned after Advanced — it’s called Advanced Research Projects and Agencies for Health — is based on DARPA, which is the Defense Department program for Advanced Research and Projects Agency.  That drove breakthroughs — the Defense Department broke breakthroughs in everything from the Internet to GPS.  It had a big budget for doing everything else, but it also had this specific individual budget. 
 
And ARPA-H does for biomedicine what DARPA does for technology, driving breakthroughs to prevent, detect, and treat diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and so much more.  We’re using their funding to drive breakthroughs in women’s health in ovarian cancer and menopause, in migraines, in high blood pressure for pregnant women.
 
The National Institute of Health is using their funding to break down the silos — a lot of silos in government, a lot of silos across the — in America — to make more progress and do it more quickly.
 
For example, we know that heart disease is the leading cause of death for women.  But we don’t know — we don’t know enough about how menopause may affect heart disease.  And that’s going to change now.  We’re going to learn so much more.
 
And the Department of Defense is dedicating funds to research women’s health issues like arthritis, cancer, chronic fatigue that affect women in the military, but this research is going to benefit all women — all women.
 
Our work doesn’t stop here.
 
Look, you know, the addition to — in addition to launching the Women’s Health Research Initiative earlier this year, I signed an executive order that — directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken — ever taken in the history of this country to improve women’s health issues.
 
And, look — (applause) — it ensures that women’s health is integrated and prioritized all across the entire federal government — all research projects and budget plans, across the entire government.  And it spurs new research and innovation on a wide range of women’s health needs throughout their lives.  And it does so much more — so much more.
 
Folks, there’s literally never been more comprehensive effort from the federal government to spur innovation in women’s health research in our entire history. 
 
And thank you, by the way, kiddo.  (Laughter and applause.)  I — no, I mean it.  (Applause.)  I mean it.
 
If I can digress for a moment, I — I would — I have been the beneficiary of a lot of the research that’s been done.  I had a — two cranial aneurysms.  I had two nine-hour operations.  They took the top of my head off twice; they couldn’t find a brain the first time.  (Laughter.) 
 
But all — all kidding aside, I mean the research that’s going on across the entire world.  I visited every single solitary major health center in the world — in the world — seven of them.  And, you know, a lot of wha- — what happens, even in not just women’s research, but, you know, docs who are great, they walk by the mirror, and they see a Pulitzer Pri- — a — a Nobel Prize about to be won and — rather than sharing the data.  But that’s all changing.  That’s all changing. 
 
And this initiative lays the groundwork for discoveries and research for generations to come.  Mark my words.  And the benefits we gain tomorrow will happen because we made the decision to do something about them today — today, now. 
 
And all of you in this room are leading the way, and that’s not hyperbole.  You really are.  It’s a hell of a com- — combination of people that make things change.
 
Let me close with this.  And my daughter, Ashley, sitting here, she runs a — she works for women — she runs a women’s health shel- — women’s health center — shelter in Philadelphia. 
 
And — and, you know, this holiday season is a time not for gratitude but for reflection.  Gratitude is important, but we got to reflect on what’s going on. 
 
And let me say to you that it’s been an honor of my life to serve as your president the last four years.  But I’m — and I’m forever grateful.  I really am.  (Applause.) 
 
But folks, it’s not a joke.  We’re blessed to live in America.  We’re blessed to live in America.  I’ve been to over 140 countries.  I mean, but for the grace of God, I could’ve been born a lot of other places.  Literally the greatest country on Earth, that’s who we are.  But we got to raise up even more than we are now.
 
I often say, America can be summed up in one word.  I was on the Tibetan Plateau with Xi Jinping, and he said, “Can you define America for me?”  And I — this is all on the record.  I said, “Yes, one word: possibilities.” 
 
Think about it.  We’re the only nation in the world where people — they think there’s arrogance in that.  But we’ve never failed to get things done when we set our mind to it.  It’s all about possibilities.  Anything is possible.
 
That’s what the Women’s Realth — Health Research Initiative is all about: possibilities.  You know, and that’s what this conference is all about.  That’s what you’re all about.  Researchers, innovators, investors; businesses, advocates, elected officials; public, private, and non-profit leaders unleashing the drive and discovery and the talent and imagination that you have in this room — a spirit of innovation inherent in who you guys are. 
 
I really mean it.  Think about it.  Turn and look at the people to your left and right who you know are engaged in this.  It’s all about the possibilities and belief we can do things, we can change things fundamentally.   
 
I think inherent in the American con- — conscience is setting a bold vision and taking concrete steps to make our dreams a reality, holding on to one more thing that we can never lose: hope — hope, hope, hope.  Because what we need — we need to raise the expectations of the American people up.  We got to let them know we haven’t forgotten.  Whether it’s a business or labor or whether it’s politics, whatever, we haven’t forgotten. 
 
You — you guys go out there.  You take care of all of these folks.  Guess what?  How many of them think that we just sort of forgotten?  Why aren’t we focused?
 
Because of you and your fearless determination, you’re making real progress.  You’re really making progress. 
 
There’s still so much more to do.  And we’re going to take all of us to get it done.  I know it’s a battle.  But I know I have a hell of a lot of — a hell of an army here.  (Laughter.) 
 
You know, when I look around at all of you here today — and I mean this sincerely — I know it’s a battle we’re going to win.  We’re going to win this battle.  
 
We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  And there is nothing we’ve ever set our mind to we’ve been unable to do when we’ve done it together.  It’s not beyond our capacity, when we work together.  And that’s what you’re all doing: working together. 
 
And so, I — and I want to close by thanking my wife for Ji- — I mean, Jill, I tell you.  Like I said, when we got married, my brother said, “Don’t worry; she doesn’t like politics.”  Well, I tell you what, you stepped up, kid.  (Laughter.)  You’ve stepped up.
 
And in case you wonder, when she speaks, I listen.  (Laughter and applause.)
 
Thank you all so very, very much.  Let’s get this done.    Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
11:57 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden at the First-Ever White House Conference on Women’s Health Research appeared first on The White House.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SUBJECT:       Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code:

Section 1.  (a)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) (the “Act”).

(b)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Energy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(e)(1)(A) of the Act.

(c)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(f)(2) of the Act.

(d)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense for funds transferred to Department of Defense accounts and to the Secretary of Energy for funds transferred to Department of Energy accounts, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(c), 1353(e)(1)(D), and 1353(e)(3) of the Act.

(e)  I hereby delegate to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as appropriate, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(a), 1353(e)(1)(A), 1353(e)(2), and 1353(f)(1) of the Act.

Sec. 2.  The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any provision of any future public law that is the same or substantially the same as the provision referenced in this memorandum.

Sec. 3.  The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post Memorandum on the Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:31 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good afternoon, everybody.   

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Foggy day.  Foggy day. 

So, this afternoon, President Biden delivered a major address on his economic legacy.  After decades of trickle-down econ- — economics, President Biden has written a new playbook that’s growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up.  His administration has delivered the strongest recovery in the world and laid a strong foundation for years to come by investing in America, empowering workers and u- — unions, lowering costs, and supporting small businesses. 

Over the last four years, we have made remarkable progress, and the results speak for themselves: over 60 million jobs created, the lowest average unemployment rate of any administration in 50 years, inflation down faster than almost any other advanced economy, and incomes up almost $4,000.  The list goes on. 

As you heard the president say, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up, or do we backslide to trickle-down economics? 

With that, I will turn it over to Jared Bernstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to further discuss the economic progress that we have made. 

Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.  Great to be here with you again.  I want to thank my team, as always, for helping me to prepare to speak to you today. 

The president, as you just heard, gave a legacby — legacy speech today wherein he spoke about the strong economy that his administration is leaving to the incoming team and how we got here, given what we faced when we took office. 

He then lays out a set — a set of — he laid out a set of benchmarks, which I will go through with you in a minute, against which the incoming administration’s economic stewardship should be judged. 

The speech makes clear that while the pandemic was the acute source of economic stress four years ago, the damage done by decades of Republican fealty to trickle-down economic policy was a long-term underlying source of economic pain for millions of America — Americans. 

The speech goes through the policy implications of that agenda — offshoring jobs with no concern for workers and their communities, anti-unionism, and disinvesting in American infrastructure workers’ industries — and contrasts that with the Biden-Harris agenda of middle-out, bottom-up growth, which implies a very different agenda: investing in workers in key industries of future growth and prod­­­­uctivity, union power, full employment, labor markets, fair taxation, and taking on corporations and lobbies like Big Pharma on behalf of the American middle class. 

The timing is not accidental.  As Karine said, a quote from the speech, “With the outcome of this election, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow from middle out and bottom up by investing in all of America and in all of Americans, supporting unions and working families, or do we backslide to an economic theory that benefited those at the top while working people in the middle class struggled for a fair share of the growth?”  

The president, as his speech — at the end of his speech, the president ticked through a set of benchmarks, indicators by which the — the conditions of the current economy that the incoming team has inherited can be assessed and judged. 

Sixteen million jobs with the manufacturing and a construction boom.  In four years, we’ll know if the — that job growth and booms will continue or not. 

Historic lows in unemployment.  Record new businesses.  Significantly closing the racial wealth gap.  More people covered by health insurance than at any time in history.  Our tax code is fairer.  We’ve gone after concentrated corporate power, and in four years we’ll know if this power goes back to big corporations or not. 

Let me end my introductory comments today with a little bit of a reflection on the economics, speaking as the chair of the CEA, of the economic theory behind what the president talked about in his speech today.  I should say the economic theory and the economic outcome.  This is far from just a theoretical or an academic exercise. 

The president talked about achieving a soft landing, and this is the idea of considerably lower inflation without giving up much on the economy’s demand side — that is, lower inflation without higher employment.  As you know, many economists told us we couldn’t get there.  We’d have to have a recession to have as much disinflation as we’ve seen. 

In fact, that did not occur, and one of the reasons it didn’t is because the job market.  You know, I heard the president mention full employment a couple times in his speech today.  The job market has stayed uniquely strong for uniquely long, and that’s given workers bargaining clout along with his union agenda. 

And so, as prices have come down — as inflation, I should say — as inflation has come down and wages have gone up, we’ve had real wage gains now for about a year and a half on a — on a yearly basis.  Last seen: 1.5 percent real year-over-year.  That’s — that’s real — tha- — that’s a considerable pace of real wage gains. 

This helps support strong consumer spending, and that’s been a core factor keeping this economy moving forward a- — above trend growth rates and leading to a situation that you heard the president talk about today, where the U.S. economy really is the envy of the world.  And I say that as someone who recently came back from Europe, where I was frequently accosted by people who wanted to just talk about how we’ve achieved the innovation, the productivity, the persistent full employment that — that we have. 

That’s the consumer side of the story — the consumer spending side of the story.  It’s 70 percent of our nominal GDP, so it’s extremely important to keep the economy moving forward. 

But I often think of consumption as today’s story and investment as tomorrow’s story.  I think what the president talked about today that was so important and so compelling — especially given the fact that many of these benefits are going to unfold 2, 4, 5, 10 years from now, if the incoming folks nurture the seeds we’ve planted versus take them out — this investment agenda i- — has the potential and is already transforming economic growth, production, innovation, building up new domestic sectors in this economy in the area of clean energy, battery production, chips.  And — and that kind of investment agenda, that speaks to future growth rates.  That speaks to future opportunities.  That speaks to future productivity growth. 

Now, we’ve already — as the president said in his speech today, there’s been a trillion dollars of private investment that has flooded into those sectors — into clean energy, into semiconductors, into providing infrastructure for this country.  All of that, again, is a complement to the consumer spending side of the agenda, the soft-landing agenda that sets us up for a future based on the kinds of investments the president talked about today.

With that, I’ll turn to your questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Good to see you, Jared.  Thanks for doing this and subjecting yourself to all of us.  (Laughter.) 

One of the benchmarks that President Biden didn’t mention in his speech was the U.S. budget deficit, which is closing out the fiscal year last year, like, above 6 percent of GDP.  How sustainable is that as an inheritance of the incoming administration?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  The president spoke about this a bit in the speech in the context of doubling on the TCJA tax cuts, of course, most of which expire at the end of next year.  And he talked about over fi- — I think he mentioned 5 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts if Republicans fail to offset that. 

I think that stands in stark contrast to the budgets that — that we’ve passed that have three — the most recent one with $3 trillion of deficit reduction. 

So, the first point is that if you look at the fiscal outlook that we’ve tried to craft in our budgets — now, obviously, we were — were not able to get those through Congress, but we certainly — that’s what we’ve been fighting for — they’re characterized by significant deficit reduction and a great deal more fairness in the tax code, which is something he talked about today. 

So, I think he correctly took a stance that the extens- — the full extension of the — of the Trump tax cuts would be both significantly damaging our fiscal outlook and, even worse, creating more unfairness in the tax code and increasing after-tax inequality.

In terms of whether 6 percent deficits are sustainable, I think that when we — what — what you really want to see, it’s very h- — I think it’s hard and probably not that advisable to say, “This number is okay and that number isn’t.  Once you get to this level of debt to GDP, you’re in trouble.  Once you go over it” — you know, the — the markets don’t really work that way. 

Given the extent of the debt that we face so far, we still have very successful auctions to — you know, to — to explain, you know, what I’m talking about. 

But I do think that what you want to see is, when you get to a full-employment economy with above-trend growth, you’d like to see that number coming down.  So, I think it’s much more of a delta story.  You’d like to see that number coming down, and one of the reasons you don’t is because decades of trickle-down economics and Republican tax cuts have broken, have severed the linkage between strong economic growth and revenue flows to the Treasury.  We tried to correct that in our budgets, but the politics have blocked us from getting it there. 

Q    But basically, you believe the current situation is not sustainable based off your budget proposals? 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I think that when you get to an economy — I think that when you’re an economy like ours — no, I wouldn’t say it that way.  I would say, when you’re an economy like ours, with all the kinds of indicators the president discussed today — full employment, above-trend GDP growth, historically low unemployment — yes, your budget deficit should be going down because the revenues that come into — the revenues that come into your coffers are outpacing your — your outlays. 

And that’s the budgets that we’ve written.  That’s something we’ve tried to embed in our budgets, and, you know, we haven’t been able to get them passed. 

What’s worrisome — and the president talked about this today — is that the incoming administration is making sounds of going in the other direction, which I would consider fics- — fiscally reckless. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    Jared, it’s been a — a little while since I’ve seen you, so I want to ask you a question about the speech and — and the context for it.  I mean, so many voters cited inflation and just their pessimism about the economy in their — in exit interviews as — as we were watching the election. 

So, what is the — what is the purpose of sort of going out and saying, “Well, we did all this right”?  Against that backdrop, it’s kind of like water under the bridge, right?  You know, sort of, your account of the economic progress is against the backdrop of people having said, “No, that’s not what we want to do.”

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, as I tried to express in my topper here, in my introductory remarks, the purpose was really twofold.  One was to lay out a set of benchmarks.  I mean, I think the president quoted Reagan in the speech, saying, “Sometimes facts can be stubborn things,” but they are facts. 

So, lay out a set of facts that are unequivocally correct about above-trend growth trending at 3 percent on real GDP, lowest average unemployment in 50 years, 16 million jobs, and so on — real gains in average income of $4,000 since we got here.  Lay down a set of facts, benchma- — 20 million new businesses — small businesses created.  Lay down a set of benchmarks against which the progress of the incoming administration should be judged. 

I mean, this is — the — the incoming team, in no small part, ran hard against this economy.  And so, it’s entirely possible that, in some short amount of time, that they start making very different sounds about how — how they own these great results.  And we wanted to be sure that we set down the benchmarks that the Biden economic agenda delivered. 

Secondly, how did we get there?  So, those are the benchmarks, but how did we get there.  We certainly didn’t get there with trickle-down economics.  We got there with the new playbook that Karine and I referenced, and that’s a playbook that invests in American workers.  It invests in American bargaining power.  It believes in union strength.  It believes in fair competition.  It believes in fair taxation and a more reasonable fiscal outlook.  It believes in pushing back on concentrated corporate power.

All of those parts of the Biden economic agenda got us to where we are in terms of the positive indicators that we had in this — that I — we outlined today. 

Now, at the same time, nobody is denying the inflation that you — you asked about, and, in fact, the president hit that head on in two ways. 

One, first, he talked about our efforts to get inflation down.  So, remember, in mid-June, you saw inflation peak, and after that, it turned around and came down pretty quickly to now it’s within target — it’s — it’s close to the Federal Reserve’s target rate, and that’s why you see them cutting rates. 

And so, how did we get there?  Well, we did a great deal of work on trying to unsnarl supply chains; the president talked about his release of oil from the strategic reserves; and, of course, a full set of cost-cutting measures going after junk fees, health care, and so on. 

The incoming administration has talked about repealing measures that would directly raise costs, not to mention adding a set of sweeping tariffs that would act like a national sales tax, pushing the wrong way on inflation. 

So, it seems to us entirely important to reference all of those developments in this — in this case.

Q    Can I just follow up?  So, you know, given that there’s this lag in the economy — like something happens, and then there’s a lag when you see the effect — you know, how long will it be before, say, Trump’s tariffs sort of make themselves felt?  Because, you know, I think your — you know, the White House itself looked at the possibility of repealing or removing the U.S.-China tariffs to sort of address inflation and realized there would be only a very modest impact, so —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Okay.  So, first of all —

Q    Like, what — what’s your prediction —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Sure.  I can give you some economics on that —

Q    — for the lag?  Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — the lag structure. 

First of all, it’s really important in this conversation dis- — to distinguish between targeted tariffs that are designed to protect American industry and American taxpayers’ investment against unfair overcapacity trade practices of the type that China has engaged in with sweeping tariffs of multi-digit percent tariffs on everything coming in from Europe and China.  Totally different worlds. 

The first prodec- — protects produ- — American producers.  The second hurts American consumers. 

How quickly does that happen?  Quite quickly. 

So, let’s talk about how a tariff works.  And, again, I think we’ve gotten some misguided explanations in this regard from the other side.  The other country doesn’t — the — the exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff.  Technically, the tariff is paid by the importing company.  It’s paid upon customs receipt by the importer.  Now, that business then typically pushes that tax or tariff forward to their consumers. 

And that’s why studies have shown that fairly quickly — I don’t want to cite a number, but I think it’s months ra- — versus — I don’t want to cite a time period, but I think it’s more months than — than quarters.  So, pretty quickly, I think, we’ve seen in the past. 

Oh, you know what’s a good example is the washing machine tariffs.  That — they hit very quickly.  I think it was a matter of weeks or months before we saw the price effects on washing machines and on dryers — American dryers, even though they weren’t tariffed.  So, the price effects worked pretty quickly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Chair.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hi, M.J.

Q    Hi.  Nice to see you. 

You know, over the last year or so, I think we’ve all seen you field a lot of questions about this disconnect between what you describe as a strong economy versus the people’s generally pessimistic economic outlook.  I just wondered — and it’s related to the last question — what would you say is the reason that there wasn’t enough of an improvement in people’s economic outlook by Election Day?  I assume you’ve had some time to reflect on the results of the election. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It seems clear, if you look not just at our election but at elections and approval ratings across the globe, that not just inflation — because by the time the e- — election came along, inflation was back down within distance of 2 percent, so it was back down close to the Fed’s target — so, not inflation, but the price level, the cumulative impact of inflation — so the fact that people could still remember what things used to cost, that was a force that really whacked incumbents in every elect- — I think, virtually every election we’ve seen across the globe.  So, that was a very powerful force. 

Now, look, from our perspective, we needed to do two things.  We needed to get inflation down, because you’ll never get — people will never be able to acclimate to the higher price level unless inflation comes back down to around 2 percent.  And that was behind our work on unsnarling supply chains, which became very important in this space.  One of the graphics that, you know, I — I like to tout from our CEA team is, if you look at supply chain measures of stress, which go way up and way down, pandemic and post-pandemic, and you plot them against commodities, goods inflation, they — they track each other very closely with a bit of a lag.

And so, getting inflation back down to target was very much an important part of agenda.  But that just means prices are rising more slowly.  It doesn’t mean they’re falling.  And, in fact, to have a broad decline in the price level, you would need a deep recession that nobody wants. 

So, what you need to happen is for incomes to catch up. 

Now, that — those dynamics were happening.  They were occurring.  And I’ve spoken about this from the podium before.  I theorized, you know, probably a couple of years ago — and one of my colleagues and I are trying to write an academic paper about this — I theorized a couple of years ago that if inflation came down and people had enough time to acclimate to the new price level — an acclimation that would be very much aided and, in fact, was essentially — it had — had to be aided by rising real wages or incomes — eventually they’d start to get — you know, to get acclimated and to feel better. 

And, you know, pa- — one — one tr- — you know, sort of, ape- — what’s the word I want?  Sort of a trivial example of that is, you know, when I started driving, gas was 60 cents a gallon, but I don’t walk around annoyed that gas isn’t 60 cents a gallon because, while prices have gone up, incomes have gone up more. 

That’s where we are.  Inflation is back down.  Prices — the price level remains too high from the perspective of consumers and voters, and that’s partly — you know, a big part of the answer to your question. 

I sense you want to say something else.

Q    Well, just this — this long memory that people have on —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — price levels.  I mean, do you feel like you, the president’s economic team, the president himself, could have done anything differently over the last few years to better address that, better, you know, sort of meet people where they are?  I mean, you’ve known that that is where people’s heads —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — have been at for a while. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, the question of “could you have done something different and better,” I always feel like, “Sure.”  You know, you could always im- — nobody’s perfect, and you can always improve on what you did. 

But on the issues I’m talking to you about, we were one of the first folks to be — to be talking about this, to be understanding the difference between inflation and price levels from people’s perspective. 

I mean, I don’t know if you remember, but I brought this to our senior staff one day.  You know, I brought this — well, I think it might have been the only time I did this — I brought a handout to our senior staff and said, “Let me talk to you about the difference between inflation and the price level and how people feel about that.”  And, you know, economics doesn’t think that much about the price level.  It thinks a lot about inflation.  And, you know, not at all a critique of the mandate of the Fed, that — that’s the cr- — congressional mandate and the one they follow, but it’s full employment and stable inflation. 

So — and you’ll hear Chair Powell talk about that — that, “I recognize the price level is a stress to people, but my job is to get inflation down.”

So, it’s something we’ve been on for a long time, and it’s behind the cost-cutting work that we tried to do here.  We cut costs in health care.  The president talked tobay [today] about junk fees.  You saw the energy results from the SPR release and so on. 

We tried to get a lot more competition going in the grocery sector, where there’s definitely not enough competition, leading to pretty high markups and profit levels that we’ve talked about and used the bully pulpit to convey our — our concern about, but, you know, we live in a capitalist economy, and so prices are generally determ- — determined by private markets. 

But where we could — and health care is a great example, because the government is in 9 percent of the health care market.  So, health care is about 18 percent of GDP; about half of that is the government.  So, there’s an area where we could and did make a huge difference: insulin; capping prescription drugs, which kicks in, by the way, in a couple of weeks — the $2,000 cap on prescription drugs.  We’re very proud of that agenda.

You know, could we have done more or talked about it differently?  You know, I — I think we did what we could.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Hey, Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hey.

Q    Good to see you. 

One of the things the president mentioned today at Brookings was some — he — he had a note of regret about not signing the COVID checks the way that Donald Trump did.  And I just was wondering if that’s something you ever talked about or if, you know, following up on M.J.’s question about what could have been done differently, was that a debate that happened at all?  Would you have recommended anything to the president in that regard?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It’s not something I recall talking or debating about.

I mean, I will say two things about that.  One is — just to bring it back to the economic space in which I’m — I’m more comfortable — certainly, those checks were instrumental in what I described earlier, which was getting businesses and consumers to the other side of the crisis. 

You know, we gave people more buying power than they had at a time — and there’s been a lot of second-guessing on this, so I’d love to set the record kind of straight — in 20- — in January of 2021, it was peak COVID deaths.  Okay?  The unemployment was stuck at 6.7 percent.  And I just looked back the other day; the last jobs report when we came in was a negative.  It had been revi- — it’s been revised differently.  I think it’s actually been revised to be a bigger negative, but it was a negative.  In other words, we’d lost, I think, 140,000 jobs, according to the print that was in December of ’20.

So, this was a very challenging economy.  You know, people who say, “It was fine, and you shouldn’t have done anything,” are forgetting.  You know, that’s — that’s amnesia. 

So — so, we’re very proud of the fact that this income got into people’s hands quickly.  Who was asking about the lag a second ago?  Boy, there’s a really tight lag there.  You know, this — this money got out quickly.  It got into the economy quickly, and it very quickly set up an economic expansion that is today the envy of the world.  The president isn’t hyperbolic when he says that, and I say that having recently come back from Europe.  Is the en- — that set up that full employment expansion that we’ve enjoyed since then.

And two — so, I said there’d be two points.  Two, he was kidding. 

Q    Oh, wait, he was kidding about signing the checks?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  He was — he was kidding.

Q    Oh.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny. 

Q    Thanks.  Thanks, Jared.  I just wondered if you have had the chance yet to speak to your successor in the Trump administration, and if you’ve got any advice for him.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I have not.  I don’t know who will be sitting in my chair yet, so I haven’t spoken to that person. 

And then, advice?

Q    Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a good question — one I haven’t thought of.  I would say, read the president’s speech today.  (Laughs.)  Really, I’m not — I’m not being facetious. 

The president’s speech today is the best advice I could give to any member of the incoming economic team, because what it says is we have planted some very important seeds in growing domestic industry, which I think both the outgoing and the incoming administration share the strong desire to see American industry stand up independently, more resilient supply chains. 

Yes, we still believe in very robust trade flows.  So, obviously, part of my advice would be not to do sweeping tariffs.  Certainly, small tariffs — you know, targeted tariffs that protect against unfair dumping, sure.  But I would be — it would be to nurture — you know, I mean, I guess this — this may not be the most mellifluous advice that they want to hear, but nurture the seeds that we’ve planted. 

This is not a blue-state thing or a red-state thing.  And, in fact, the president was very clear on this today, most of the investments under the IRA, under CHIPS, even under Infrastructure, are going to red states, not blue states.  Most of them are going to people with relatively lower incomes or lower levels of education, so very much a working-class issue.

So, nurture the seeds.  Don’t stomp on them. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Is there anything that you have seen or heard from the incoming administration’s economic plans that you like or that could be in line with what you have done here?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, I’ve heard, certainly, commentary about getting on a more fiscally sustainable path.  So, I’m thinking about Josh’s question a moment ago.

What I can’t put together is how you get there from here — well, not from here — how you get there from what I — I believe to be their fiscal agenda. 

And, in fact, there have been many scorekeepers across town who have been scoring the cost of not just extending fully the TCJA tax cuts but going further — tax cuts for overtime, tax cuts for Social Security, tax cuts for tips.  And so, if you — if you tout that all up, by one study, there was an upper bound of north of $10 trillion in terms of adding to the deficit and the debt. 

So, I like some of the sound I’m hearing about getting on a more sustainable fiscal path, but then I’m hearing a po- — a policy agenda that goes the wrong way on that.

Q    Just to follow up, you said that most of these projects are in red states.  Certainly, the — your administration didn’t get a whole lot of political benefit from that.  But I’m wondering, why is that?  Is it because it’s easier, there’s less red tape, there’s less regulations in red states, you can get projects up and going faster than in blue states?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, it’s — it’s not so much that.  It’s more that — that these projects were targeted to communities that had been historically left behind.  This president believes — and I think he probably shares this belief with, you know, the incoming president to some extent — this president believes that while there are absolutely positive attributes to globalization, the idea that globalization didn’t leave behind American communities and didn’t hurt anybody and uplifted everybody is clearly wrong and — and even bereft.  I mean, to blithely say, you know, “Here’s another trade deal; everybody is going to love it and be fine,” is just denying the impact of the China shock and the hollowing out that happened to the very communities we’re talking about. 

So, these plans were designed in part to disproportionately send their investments to communities that had been hollowed out and left behind: energy communities, communities where factories — where anchor factories were lost.  And that’s behind where those investments have flowed. 

Q    But a lot of battleground states are — were deindustrialized and left behind. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, it — that —

Q    I mean, you could of put projects anywhere. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — no — so, go to —

Q    Why red states, is what I’m asking.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, no.  Go to Investment.gov —

Q    Well, yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — and you’ll see that there are lots of projects there too.  So, it’s not that — it’s not that 90 percent were in red and 10 were in blue.  It — I don’t know what the division is, but I think it’s probably fairly close.  It’s that a lot more — you know, when the president talked about this today, he framed it as, like, “This may not” — you know, “Some may look at this and say this is not my greatest political move.”  You know, that’s not where he’s coming from.  When he said, “I’m president for all Americans,” he meant it, and he over delivered.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Hi, Jared.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a question sort of about legacy.  Biden billed this — billed the speech this m- — this afternoon as about an economic playbook, something that is successful and should be replicated, but it didn’t have a lot of electoral success and it didn’t — you know, in the minds of voters, as other folks have said, they don’t see it as a — a success for them.  I — I just wonder, what gives you or what gives the president confidence that this — this should be or would be —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So, here you have to —

Q    — replicated in the future?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a totally fair question.  Here you really have to get under the hood, and I’ve done this.  If you ask people what they think about paying $35 for insulin versus $400 a month, it’s not going to surprise you that that polls somewhere between 80 and 150 percent.  I’m making the second number up, but it polls north of 80 percent. 

If you ask people how they feel about an infrastructure project that restored a bridge in their area, again, your — you get poll num- — you’ll get approval numbers in — in the high 70s and high 80s.

If you ask people — and now I’m talking about Democrats and Republicans — how you feel about this new computer fab that’s going — a micro- — a microprocessor chip fab that’s going up in your town, in your area, that’s going to provide, you know, thousands of jobs building these fabs, which are three foot- — football fields long, and lots of jobs staffing them, jobs that the president today said can pay up to, you know, $100,000 for a non-college-educated person, not only are they going to say, “Yes, we like that,” but a number of Republicans — I think a double-digit number of Republicans — have sent notes to the incoming administration saying, “Don’t repeal that stuff.”  

So, part one, get under the hood and look at how people feel about many of the actions that the president talked about today. 

Part two, which — you know, I’m not denying the premise of your question at all — it gets back to inflation.  And I probably haven’t said enough about that today.  I talked to M.J. and others about the difference between the price level and how if you remember what things cost, that really sticks in the craw of many in the electorate, not just here but globally.  But re- — this — this inflation was a global inflation, so let’s not forget that.  In fact, cumulatively — we have good scatter plots on this in our forthcoming Economic Report of the President — this in- — this inflation cumulatively was about the same in the U.S. as it was in Europe and G7 countries. 

Where we stand out from the pack is not in cumulative inflation; it’s in growth.  It’s in productivity.  It’s in innovation.  It’s in job creation.  And so, that’s — you know, that’s — that’s an important part of the puzzle too. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, we got to start to wrapping it up. 

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you for being here, Jared.  I just want to ask you — a lot of this has been sort of reactive to the new administration that’s coming in.  The president-elect posted, in the course of last hour as we’ve been gathering, that any company or person investing a billion dollars or more into the country will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including environmental approvals. 

Is there any consequence to something like that?  Maybe this is a question that’s more about the environment more broadly, but economically, is there any reason why there’s — this should be something that’s reconsidered against tough scrutiny?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I would hesitate to respond to a tweet from the incoming president, just because I’d like to know more about what he’s talking about and whether that’s something they’re actually planning or something —

Q    To be fair, that’s all we know about what he’s talking about. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Right.

Q    Yeah, that’s fair. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So — so, I probably wouldn’t say much about that. 

I will say the following that speaks to that a little bit.  I keep flacking our forthcoming book.  So, in — (laughter) — in the Economic Report of the President, out in a few weeks, one of the chapters in that — one of — and it — it’s not like we make any money; it’s just point and click.  So, it’s a — you know, this is just the intellectual sharing.  (Laughter.) 

We’ve had tremendous foreign direct investment.  And, yes, we’ve definitely tried to make — you know, clean the brush out so — there’s — I’m cer- — to — to help diminish the burm- — burden from permitting and things like that.  And there’s more to do in that space, and I think there are members of Congress — I — I — that — that is, I believe, a bipartisan issue that we — we could be working on.  So, if the Trump team is serious about trying to clear some of that brush, sure.

But one thing I often hear too — one thing I hear too often from — from him and them is without regard for any impacts of some of the — some of the guardrails that are there for a reason.  So, that’s why you shouldn’t really just respond to a tweet.  You need to look at what’s the impact of taking down guardrails that are embedded in that — in that tweet, but not — not realized — not recognized.  But without — you know, even with the current situation being as it is, we’ve had tremendous inflows of foreign direct investment. 

I mean, TSMC, as you well know, I suspect, is building plants and already testing chips — and, I think, quite successfully — in their — in their fabrication plants in — in Arizona, I believe.

And, of course, across the country, we’ve seen these investments play out. 

And when I think about the pictures in this chapter, the — you know, the — the foreign direct investment charts like — they spike up like that.  We’ve certainly seen historical investments in manufacturing facilities in this country. 

We recently hit a hi- — a peak in its contr- — in the contribution of manufacturing facilities in this country, its contribution to GDP was recently the highest it’s been since the early 1980s.  So, that’s not just domestic investment, that’s global investment.  We’re very proud of it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Go ahead, Jared.  Last question.

Q    Thank you.  So, the — the — I guess, more broadly, the audience for the address today, was it, like, you said, just for the American people to — to know sort of what you were and then kind of how to judge the next four years, or is this kind of a call to action for members of Congress, for Democrats to think before maybe they go along with some of these policies legislatively?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I mean, I think that in some ways, sure, the latter of what you said, in the sense that the president was very clearly outlining two very alternative economic playbooks, and he was very critical of the former — the trickle-down model — and — and, you know, very much underscoring the progress that we’ve made with the invest in America, invest in workers, worker — invest in unions, invest in tax fairness, invest in domestic industries in this country. 

That’s the agenda, you know, that he obviously argued today is far superior to growing the economy in a lasting way to trickle-down tax cuts for rich people, which, as I said earlier, simply worsen the fiscal outlook and enrich their beneficiaries. 

What I would say in terms of, you know, a me- — I don’t know that there was some sort of, you know — no hidden message to politicians in there, but I’ve tried to say today, one, I think, useful way of looking at what he talked about today is this investment agenda.  You know, strong consumer spending at 70 percent of our economy, that’s important.  But investment, you know, is another 10, 15 percent, and that’s important too. 

Consumer spending helped us get to where we are, helped us — strong consumers on the backs of a strong labor market, easing inflation, strong real wage and income gains, that’s helped get us to where we are.  And, in fact, a healthy American consumer off the backs of a strong full-employment job market will always propel this economy forward because consumer spending is 70 percent of our GDP.  In Europe, it’s 55 percent.  In China, it’s 40 percent.  So, that’s a natural place for us to have gone.

But for investing in the future, you got to plant seeds.  So, the message to anyone — D, R, whomever — from the speech today is nurture those seeds.  Take those seeds that we’ve planted — and, by the way, these are not sprouts in the ground.  I mean, these are seeds that have a hundred — that have a trillion dollars of private capital backing them.  So, they’re sprouting. 

I think I better put this tortured metaphor aside pretty soon.  (Laughter.)  But, you know, th- — those sprouts need to be nurtured.  And I don’t care if you have a D or an R next to your name, you need to roll up your sleeves and start nurturing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Nurturing. 

All right.  Thank you so much, Chair.  Appreciate it.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will be nurturing —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I’ll bet you will.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — those seeds.  (Laughter.)

All good?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah, it’s good.   

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Jared.  Appreciate it. 

Q    We’ll take signed copies of the book.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s right.

All right.  Just have two more things to share with all of you at the top, and then we’ll get — we’ll continue. 

So, today, following the G7’s June agreement and the president’s October commitment, the United States has disbursed $20 billion to a New World Bank fund that will provide economic support for Ukraine.  The U.S. and G7 loans will be paid back by the interest earned from Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets, increasingly putting the cost of the war on Russia, not on U.S. taxpayers.

After Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the G7 made a commitment that Russian sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damages it has caused Ukraine.  The United States and G7 are now making good on that commitment. 

Together, we will leverage income earned from frozen Russian sovereign assets to provide a total of $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration, ERA, loans to Ukraine.  This will lend vital support to the people of Ukraine as they defend their country, and it also makes clear aggressors and tyrants will be responsible for the damage they cause. 

And finally, tomorrow, the president and the first lady will host the first-ever White House Conference on Women’s Resear- — Health Research.  The conference will bring together business — business, philanthropic leaders, academic researchers, advocates, investors, and administration officials to dicu- — discuss the president and first lady’s historic leadership to advance women’s health research. 

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden created the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research to fundamentally change how our nations approaches and funds women’s health research.  The reality is, despite making up more than half the population, women have historically been understudied and underrepresented in health research.

To help close these gaps, President Biden called on Congress to make a transformative investment of $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research in his 2024 State of the Union.  He also signed an executive order to advance women’s health research and innovative, directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to expand and improve women — research on women’s health.

Since its launch in November of 2023, we’re proud that the initiative has galvanized nearly $1 billion in funding to close gaps in research.  And tomorrow, you will hear directly from the president, you will hear directly from the first lady, who are going to discuss this progress and the work that still remains. 

And stay tuned for more.

With that, Josh, as always, it’s good to see you.

Q    Good to see you. 

Given the killing of the UnitedHealthcare executive, what would you say to Americans who might sympathize with Luigi Mangione’s purported manifesto indicating that insurance companies ultimately care more about their profits than the health of their customers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just s- —

Q    Is that — is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry.

Q    — premise, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you — is that premise accurate in any way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top — offer up, certainly, our condolences to the victims and his loved ones.  We are certainly tracking the latest regarding this deadly shooting. 

As you all know, local enforcement is leading the investigation, and the FBI certainly is supporting.  So, we will know more as they complete their work, and we’re going to give them the space to do just that. 

And we are grateful to law enforcement for apprehending the suspect, and we stand ready to provide further support if needed. 

And so, while we’re certainly not going to comment on the investigation, we condemn — we condemn violence in the strongest term. 

And so, I’m just going to be really careful here and not comment on this case, as we do normally.  It’s not — it’s our usual step forward, as — as we talk about these types of situations. 

Obviously, this is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of com- — corporate greed is unacceptable.  And so, that is as far as I’m going to go.

I’m going to let the investigation move forward, and I’m not going to speak to any manifestos or anything that has —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — is coming out to this.

Q    Let me follow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    This administration has made price gouging a priority.  It’s talked about junk fees.  The president just outlined part of this in his economic speech. 

Are Americans treated fairly by their insurance companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think what — I want to be careful, because this is indeed connected to this case, connected to this ongoing investigation.  I do want to be mindful in how — what I say from here, and I’m going to let this open investigation continue and let — let the law enforcement do their job.  I think it’s important that we give them the space to do that, and I don’t want to speak to what has been said by this particular individual. 

Obviously, we are going to continue to condemn any form of violence.  That is unacceptable. 

And so, that is as far as I can go from here, given that this is an ongoing investigation, and speaking to it would not be the right thing to do right now from this podium.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Okay.  A couple questions about drones.  There have been repeated drone sightings in the Northeast, especially in New Jersey.  These are not small drones; some of them are pretty large.  They’re flying at low altitudes.  They’re flying in flocks.  Has the president been briefed on this situation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are certainly aware.  The president is aware.  So, we’re closely tracking the activity and coordinating closely with relevant agency, including DHS and FBI, to continue the — to investigate these incidents. 

Don’t have anything beyond that to share.  Obviously, this is something that DHS and FBI are tracking very, very closely, and so I would have to refer you to — to them directly.

But aware, keeping an eye out, and looking into the incidents that you just mentioned.

Q    Right.  A couple still, though, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    — has the — has the federal government ruled out that these are controlled by foreign entities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And do you know if they’re conducting surveillance
over these areas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I cannot make any pr- — any kind of predictions or — or comments about that specifically from here.  This is something that DHS is looking at and FBI, so I would have to refer you to them. 

I don’t have anything beyond that we’re tracking this very closely.  Obviously, we’re all aware of the incidents that have been reported.  I — I’m not going to go into what they could be or could not be from here.  That is something that obviously is being looked at — those — those respective agencies that I just mentioned.

Q    When was the president briefed on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline, but he certainly have — has been made aware of this in his — in his update.

Q    Okay.  And the New Jersey governor said, you know, it’s frustrating that there aren’t answers about where these are coming from, that people are very concerned about this.  What’s the White House message to the people up there who are frustrated that there isn’t any information right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and, obviously, we hear them and we understand that.  We are closely tracking this.  We are monitoring the incidents that have been put forward and — and certainly made public.

And we have two respect- — two agencies that I’ve already mentioned that are looking into this, working closely with folks on the ground, trying to get to the bottom of it. 

I don’t have anything more to share beyond that. 

Go ahead, Andrea.  I was trying to see who else I can call —

Q    (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — because I know I called on you already.

Q    So, I just want to follow up on your comment — or your — your —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — desire to not comment, necessarily, on the UnitedHealthcare thing.  But you did use the words “corporate greed.”  So, just to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You mean, just in general in this administration?  Or — or —

Q    Well, I mean, in terms of — in ter- — you — you talked about the horrific response.  I’ll just read it back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    “Obviously, this is a horrific response.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you mean in my answer.

Q    You know, your — “This is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of corporate greed is unacceptable.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, I mean, are you saying that you buy the argument that this violence was specifically targeted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — at some sort of corporate greed by UnitedHealthcare?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is that anything — right? — any type of violence on whatever it is — right? — whether it’s political violence or — or any kind of violence, we are going to — we’re going to continue to say it is unacceptable and we’re going to condemn any form of violence. 

And that’s what — I was bringing it more so in a broader spectrum of — of what we have been pretty consistent in saying at this podium, in this administration — certainly this president as well.

Any form of violence — any form of violence, whether — what it is, we are going to certainly condemn it.

Q    And then just to switch gears.  The president today, during his remarks at Brookings, talked about leaving office but not going away and continuing to work on polarization and division issues.  Do you have anything to share with us in terms of the president’s plans?  He’s cut short his, you know, sort of — you know, what will he be doing over the holidays?  Can you just sort of give us a little readout on — on what he’s planning and whether, you know, there — there would be a foundation or — or how he envisions working on polarization?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you’re talking what his —

Q    Post.  Post.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what his world will look like post his presidency?  Look, I’m going to let the president speak to that.  Obviously, he gave you a little bit of a window of his thinking of what he sees his world post-January 20th.  I don’t want to get ahead of him. 

This is someone, if you think about it — right? — in — in — more broadly, he has had a 52-year career in public service.  So, he is a public servant to his core and always believes in doing everything that he can to make Americans’ lives better.  And you saw him do that in the last almost four years.  And he’s going to continue, certainly, doing that in the next 41 days — the last 41 days of his administration. 

And so, that is inherently who he is.  He talks about continuing to do the work that he truly believes in. 

Obviously, he talked about polarization.  This is something that he’s talked about for some time.  And this is also a president — whether he was president, vice president, or senator — and you know this, if — if you followed his career very closely — he has — he has found ways to reach across the aisles to get things done on behalf of the American people.  And so, I’m sure that is something that he wants to continue to — to speak to. 

But I — I don’t have anything to share.  I’m going to let him certainly lay that out when he feels is the right time to do so.

Q    And just, really quickly, I know that Kirby spoke with us earlier, but the — the question that I have is on Syria and the — it looks like the government there now is sort of — or the ch- — direction seems to be to embrace an open market economy.  Can you say anything more about further contacts that you’ve had with — with the opposition forces there in Syria and what your — your, sort of, understanding is about the direction that that government will take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I will say is — and what you’ve heard from many of my NSC colleagues over the past couple days, and certainly from the president on Sunday when he spoke to the developments in Syria on — on Sunday, when he gave — gave remarks in the Roosevelt Room — so, what we can say and what I can say is that we are in contact with all the Syrian groups, including through — with inter- — intermed- — including intermediaries, as we work to do whatever we can to support the Syrian people through a transition.  And so, that’s what I can speak to. 

You heard the president say that various leaders of the rebel — rebel grou- — groups, including HTS, are saying what we view to be the right things publicly, obviously.  But what is important is what they’re saying closely matches their — what they’re saying — their actions closely match their words, and that’s what needs to be seen. 

But I’m not going to go beyond that at this time.  But certainly, we are in touch with Syrian groups.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly following up on the — the murder of Brian Thompson.  Can you give us any sense of how the president himself has been processing those headlines?  I think even just setting aside the debate that it has prompted about the health care industry, I think just the image itself has been so shocking to a lot of people. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and I’m going to be honest, I haven’t had a — a deep-dive conversation with this — the president about this.  Obviously, I know that he has been updated.  Certainly, have — have talked to him about what — what has been reported, and he’s been updated by senior members — other senior members of his team.  So, haven’t gone into the images or anything like that specifically. 

But what I can say and what we’ve been really consistent — and I just mentioned this to one of your colleagues — is denouncing violence and how horrific this — obviously, this incident is.  And it is important to certainly continue to — to say it’s unacceptable, continue to say that we condemn it. 

And we are trying to be really mindful because this is an ongoing legal matter.  And so, what we say at this podium, as you know, goes far and wide and — and has impact.  So, we’re trying to su- — be super, super careful from here. 

But the thing that I can say is condemn the violence that we have — that we saw certainly last couple of da- — the — couple days ago on this — on this issue.

Q    And just separately, can you confirm that the president still opposes the death penalty?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  N- — he — his view has not changed on that.

Q    Okay.  Given that his view on that hasn’t changed, can you talk to us a little bit about — I know you’re not wanting to, you know, share anything that you’re not prepared to share yet, but given that that has been his stance, is he currently considering the possibility of the commutation of inmates that are currently on death row?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to go ahead of the president’s thinking.  Certainly, we will have more to announce on pardons and commutations, as I’ve said many times before, but there’s a process.  He’s reviewing it.  He’s thinking through it.  I’m just not going to get into any specifics from here at this time. 

When he’s ready to make announcements, we’ll certainly, obviously, share that with all of you.

Go ahead.

Q    Quickly, you mentioned the president can speak for himself on a lot of these issues.  Will he give a year-end press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share.  Obviously, the president is going to — wants to continue to engage with all of you.  I don’t have anything to share on — on that.

Q    The former defense min- — Israeli defense minister was here today.  Any updates on where the hostage negotiations stand?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to update you on that.  As you know — and we’ve been pretty consistent about this and — and pretty forthright on saying how we’re — certainly continue to be committed and working 24/7 to get the hostages home.  This is a priority for this president, and he wants to do everything and continue to do everything that we can to do that.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is going to be traveling to Israel this week to meet with Israeli officials as part of our close consultations on a range of important issues, including our efforts to reach a hostage release and ceasefire deal in Gaza, and so — and the latest development in Syria and — and for discussions about Lebanon and Iran. 

So, that is happening.  Jake will be going to the region.  And, as you probably already know, he’s going to be meeting with the hostage — the hostage — the families of hostages in Gaza.  And so, they’re going to be meeting this afternoon, if they haven’t already.  And this is something that — as you know, he has spoken to this before.  Jake Sullivan regularly meets with the families of these hostages, and he has done that multiple time throughout this past — past year.  And so, that is — that is something that he’s — he will be — he’s been doing — he’s going to be doing today. 

And so, we have been really clear.  This president has been really focused on his commitment on bringing Americans who have been wrongfully detained, held hostage.  I think we have brought home over 75 Americans who are unjustly detained around the world.  And so, that commitment continues. 

And so, that is certainly what we’re going to work on 24/7 from here.

Q    And — and to that note, the president said that he believes that Austin Tice, the American journalist held in Syria, is alive.  What exactly is that based off of?  And has there been any movement in terms of securing his release? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top that that is a priority.  You heard that from the president when he took, I think — he made a statement and certainly took a question about this on Sunday.  Finding Austin Tice is a ti- — top priority of this administration. 

The FBI and State Department have offered up to $11 million in reward to — to anyone who can provide information. 

We do not know where he is located.  We do not know.  But we continue to hope that he is alive.  And I think that’s what you hear from this — this president: that he is hopeful that he is still alive. 

And we’re talking through, certainly, this with the Turks and others to find him and to bring him home, and that is our commitment from this president.

I will say, more broadly, to answer the question, there is no indication that he’s not alive, but there’s also no indication about his location or his condition. 

So, again, we are hopeful.  We are hopeful that he is, and we’re going to continue to do the work to bring him home.

Q    Sorry, just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, when the president says he believes he is alive, are you saying he’s really saying that he’s hopeful he’s alive?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, there’s no indication he’s not alive.  There isn’t.  But at the same time, we do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  That is just the — sadly, the realities that we’re in.

You heard what I just laid out about what the FBI and the State Department have done: offered up $11 million in r- — awar- — rewards to anyone who can provide more information.  I think that shows our commitment to bringing him home, and that’s what you’re going to continue to see from this president.

Again, I — I talked about how he has — in his administration, has brought home more than 75 Americans who have been wrongfully detained.  And so, I think you can see this president and hear this president’s commitment to doing that, getting Austin Tice home to his family.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Can you detail how recently — or when most recently President Biden himse- — himself spoke to the Tice family, what the engagements with the family look right now, and then, what, with some specificity, is being done to try to secure more information?  Is there a hostage recovery effort that’s taking place that is physically in Damascus on the ground?  There are American troops there.  What more can you tell us about that outfit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t — I would have to check in.  I don’t have a — any update on — on a conversation that — when is the last time the conversation — the president had a conversation —

Q    None — none since the fall of Assad, that you know of? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just — I — I don’t — I just want to be super mindful. 

Q    Got it.  Got it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just haven’t had that conversation, so I don’t have anything to share with you on the last time the president has spoken with Austin’s family.

As you know, Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor, spoke to his family just last week.  So, that has occurred.  There has been engagement and — and — from us with the family.  So, just want to make that clear. 

Look, I — I just laid out how the FBI and the State Department has offered up $11 million in — in rewards — right? — to try and get more information. 

We do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  And so, we are trying to do everything that we can to get that information. 

We are committed to bringing him home.  And so, that is what you heard from the president, certainly, on Sunday when he was asked directly this question — or asked a question arou- –about Austin.  And so, that is — continues to be our commitment. 

So, we are certainly working through the Turks and others to find — to find him and bring him home. 

So, that is the actions that we have been taking.  And so, I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q    If you have anything more to share, I trust you’ll tell us. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    Let me ask you, if I can — following up on a question that was asked to Jared that — that raised this thought for me: Have you had any conversations with your successor —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to the podium, Karoline Leavitt?  And, specifically, what advice would you give to her when she takes the podium?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I was asked a questions like — a question like this when her announcement was made.  And certainly, I wish her all the luck.  And this is a great job.  I love this job.  It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as the White House press secretary to this president — to President Biden, to this administration.  And — and I hope she enjoys it, and I hope — you know, again, I — I just wish her well.

This has been an experience that I will always remember — (laughs) — a lifetime — one of — one of those experiences that will live with you forever.  And — and, you know, I know people say how tough this job is and how unre- — unrelenting it could be, but I enjoy it.  I’ve enjoyed this opportunity.  I’ve enjoyed speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.  That is a big deal.  That is an important job. 

I have not spoken to her, but certainly wish her well.

Q    Obviously, you wish her well.  So, those are good wishes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But in terms of advice, what is your advice? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look — look, one of the things that we have — I hope you all agree — in this administration, is we have brought back the norms of how to engage with the press, having these press briefings, doing these back-and-forths, and trying to do that in the most respectful way that we can.  And I think it’s important.  It’s important.

We did that not because of all of you here — obviously, we respect the work that you do, but also what — what — the job that you do and what it means to the American people.

Q    So, to be clear, would you urge the new White House to have a daily press briefing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I am not going to —

Q    That seems easy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  No, no.  No, no.  I — I think they have to decide for themselves how they want to move forward with a Trump administration.  That is for them to decide. 

What I can say is bringing back the norms, I thought — I think — we believe, not even “I” think — the president believed was incredibly important to do.  Having this back-and-forth with all of you, we believe was important to do on behalf of the American people. 

Being able to have the freedom of the press — right? — and respecting the freedom of the press is, indeed, very much a part of our democracy.  The — we call you all the “fourth of state,” right?  That is incredibly important to have — to have that be part of this administration.  The job that you do, reporting on what we’re doing, even when we disagree with
all of you — not all of you; with some of you.  (Laughter.)

I won’t say “with all of you” — a blanket “all of you.”  (Laughter.)

But even when we disagree, just generally — right? — even when we disagree, we believe it’s important to have that back-and-forth, and it’s healthy, it is part of our democracy, and we want to continue to respect — certainly continue to respect that.

I’m not — it is up to them.  I’m not sitting behind the — the Resolute Desk, and that is for that person to decide — the next person to decide how they’re going to move forward. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep. 

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, two quick ones.  One on the U.S. Steel matter.  Is the — can you give us an update on the timeline?  And is the president committed to making a decision one way or the other before he leaves office, or is it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a possibility he’ll let —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — his successor make that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any update for you on that.  I don’t have an update.

Q    Next one.  Same question: TikTok.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What about TikTok?  (Laughter.)

Q    Is the president — is the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — I was —

Q    — committed to making a determination —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do I like TikTok?  What — (laughs).

Q    — on TikTok —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — before he leaves office, or is that something he might leave to his successor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — so, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Justice, who has put out a statement on this, and the court’s finding that, and I quote, the government “has offered pers- — persuasive evidence demonstrating that the act is narrowly tailored to protect national security” and — another quote here — “to counter a well-substa- — substantiated national security threat.”

I’ll just reiterate: The administration and a strong par- — bipartisan majority of Congress that passed this law have been clear that we want to — we want to see is a divestment, not a ban.  We’ve been very clear about that.  You’ve heard us talk about that from here ad nauseam, I’m sure, for all of you. 

So, this is not about banning the app.  This is about preventing the PRC from being able to exploit data gathered on many Americans.  So, this is about protecting our privacy and — American privacy.  And so, that’s what we’ve been very clear about that. 

Outside of that, I would have to refer you to the Department of Justice.

Q    This is a presidential determination under the law that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — I would refer you to the Department of Justice since there was just a — a decision made about this, so I’m going to refer you to this on that.

Go ahead.  I —

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  One on Brazil.  One on Haiti.

Haiti —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Haiti — do you have a reaction to the massacre that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — recently happened?  One hundred and eighty people were killed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are horrified — horrified by the reporting that nearly 200 people in Haiti were needlessly mass- — massacred, as you just stated, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And so, we strongly, strongly condemn this vicious and — and criminal act.  And we call upon all of the international community to immediately stand with the people of Haiti and provide assistance to the Kenyan-led multinational security support mission. 

But it is incredibly sad to us, what we — been reported, and it’s horrific.  And, I mean, these are people who were needlessly massacred, again, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And it is — it is certainly disheartening to hear.

Q    And in Brazil, the president — President Biden met with President Lula of Brazil last month.  Today, President Lula was — he was undergoing surgery.  Has the president been following this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he is aware, and — and, you’re right, the president was in Brazil recently.  He — he enjoyed President Lula’s warm — warm welcome to Brazil just a couple of weeks ago, just last month.  And so, we are pleased to hear that his operation this morning went well.  And certainly, we wish him a speedy recovery.  And as you just asked me, the president is aware and is tracking. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One of the first things that the president did when he took office was rescind former President Trump’s order creating a Schedule F that would have allowed thousands upon thousands of civil servants to be fired if they were determined to be in a — in a policy-making position.  And the administration has finalized regulations that would make doing that harder for a future president, but the president never got behind any of the bipartisan bills that would have prohibited future presidents from reclassifying civil servants, employees to make them more easily fireable.  Does he regret not doing that, considering that President-elect Trump has indicated he wants to immediately bring back Schedule F and begin firing lots of civil servants?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is — and you stated this in your question to me, and I think the president has led by example.  You said what he was — what he did the first couple of days, couple of weeks, even months when he stepped into this office, into this administration, and trying to protect, certainly, and turning back some of the policies — policies that were put forward.  And the reason he did that is because this is a president who believes that public servants deserve — they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect because they are working on behalf of — of their fellow Americans. 

And so, he took those actions because he believed that.  And he took that — those actions because he was able to lead by example in this office. 

And so, I’m not going to get into what the next administration is going to do or not do, but what I can say is — really, very much into how you led into your question to me, is that he respects public servants, and he certainly has led by example from here.

Q    But the president, he had a democratic trifecta when he came into office, and yet he did not put any of his political capital into getting Congress to include, in any of the must-pass bills, legislation that would have prohibited future presidents from doing what Donald Trump has — has vowed to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And the regulations that the administration has finalized can be undone.  They can be unwound.  And all of what happened — of what the administration did can be for naught. 

Why did the president not, if he — if he respects and — respects civil servants so much, did he not put any political capital into safeguarding —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — their status in legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, Andrew, I’m not going to litigate each policy, each legislation.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  And so, that is something that I’m not going to get into.

What I will say is the president took action.  You said it in your question.  He took action to undo some of the policies that were put forward by the last administration that harmed these public servants that were working very hard to the work — to do the work on behalf of the American people.  And he did lead by example.  He did.  He took steps, and — and he did that because he believes in respecting and showing some dignity to those workers.

And he undid a lot of the harm that was caused — policies, obviously, to these public servants.  And I think that is showing leadership.  That is showing how you can take action to do the right thing. 

And so, I would — so, I would obviously take a little offense to your question, but I’m not going to litigate each legislation.  You said it yourself in asking me this question — original question.  The president did take action.  He did lead by example, and I think that’s important here.

I’m going to take one last question.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly.  Has the president been briefed on the fires out in California?  Is the White House in touch with officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he certainly has been kept up to date to the fires in Malibu, California, more specifically.  So, we are certainly praying for communities out west that have been, in fact, impacted by the wildfires.  And administration officials, as we normally are, are in close touch with local and state officials on the ground.  Their counterparts and FEMA has issued a — a Fire Management Assistant Grant to help reimburse California for firefight- — -fighting cost.

And so, we are obviously always grateful to the brave firefighters who go out there and put their lives on the line to protect people and save lives.  And so, we stand ready — as we normally do, stand ready to pr- — to provide any further support.  And so, we certainly, as we do at all times when we see this type of extreme weather that’s created, this type of havoc that communities on the ground, folks on the ground, need to certainly pay close attention to what’s being said to them.  Evacuate, if needed.  And we want them to be stafe [safe] and to stay safe.

All right.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you (inaudible).
Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

3:42 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein appeared first on The White House.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to global illicit drug trafficking declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking –- including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Message to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

On December 15, 2021, by Executive Order 14059, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by global illicit drug trafficking.  

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking — including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, must continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Press Release: Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

East Room

7:25 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Loretta, thank you.   Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You know, first of all, welcome to the White House, all the Special Olympics. 

And thank you, Loretta, for that introduction and your leadership — and one of our nation’s great special athletes. 

You’ve appeared in 8 World Games, completed in 10 different sports, won 12 medals, run 26 marathons — holy God — speak 5 languages, earned 3 honorary degrees.  And you’re only 71 years old.  (Laughter.)  You’re amazing.  You’re truly amazing.  All of you are. 

Before I really begin, what I want to say — let me say something about the Shriver/Kennedy family.  You know, your mom — your mom just didn’t open her heart to that Special Olympian.

When I got elected in 1971 — ‘72, I was 29 years old.  I wasn’t legally old enough to be president [senator]; you have to be 30 to be sworn in. And shortly after I got elected, I had to wait 17 days to be eligible to be sworn in — but in the meantime, on the anniversary coming up on the 18th of this month, I was down in Teddy’s office — Teddy Kennedy’s office, who took care of me — hiring staff.  And I got a phone call from my local fire department, telling me there had been an accident.  And the poor firewoman they put on the call for me said — I said, “How are they?”  They said, “Uh, uh, um, she’s dead.  Your daughter is dead.  And I’m not sure your two sons will make it.” 

And I — I, for a while, was very angry at God.  And I have — and if you come to my office, I hope you get to see it — a cartoon my dad gave me years later, when I was saying something about “I wish my deceased wife would have been able to see a certain thing in my house.”  And he went up to the local store — local shopping center and came back with a cartoon, and it was in a gold frame.  I’ve had it for, now, 34 years at my desk.  And it’s “Hägar the Horrible.”  And Hägar the Horrible, the Viking, his ship was struck by lightning, and he’s standing on the top of a sinking ship and looking up at God and say, “Why me?”  And the next frame is a voice from Heaven comes back and says, “Why not you?”  “Why not you?”

That was my dad.  It was just about getting up, making sure —

And while I was getting up, your mother helped me.  Your mother, your family contacted me, because I didn’t want to be sworn in.  I told my governor-elect that I wasn’t going to be sworn in.  I didn’t want to do it.  And — but your family —
your family —

And, by the way, one of the reasons I won was because of Sargent Shriver.  He showed up — (applause) — no. 

One of the oldest historic towns in America is New Castle, Delaware.  We have a thing in it, before every election, on election night, called the Torchlight Parade, and it’s been going on for, now, 90 years — longer.  And we — I needed help.  I — N- — Nixon won my state by 60 percent of the vote, and I won by 3,200 votes.  And, like you, I had a sister smarter than me.  (Laughter.)  And (inaudible).

And your dad went out of his way.  Your dad came to that event and energized the crowd and talked about “this young guy is going to be okay.”  I’ll never forget it.

So, you know, I know from a different angle what a lot of you must feel when you have someone reach out to you when you’re really down and things aren’t working. 

And, you know, but here in the East Room, we hosted heads of state.  And we ordered — I order- — we’ve ordered — ordered — awarded Medals of Freedom.  Just the other night, we celebrated Kennedy Center’s Honors.  But being here with the Special Olympians is something I cherish in my — from all my time being president.  I mean that.  And for that, I want to thank Tim and the whole Shriver family for making it possible.  (Applause.)

I think you all underestimate what you do for the community, but you give people hope.  They look at you.  They see your damn bravery.  They see your courage.  They see you standing up under circumstances they don’t think they can handle, and you do it.  And it’s all about hope. 

My dad used to have an expression.  He’d say, “Joey, a
job is about a lot more than a paycheck.  It’s about your dignity.  It’s about being able to look people in the eye and say, ‘We’re like everybody else.’” 

When you’re treated with dignity, it changes everything.  And you make people realize they have an obligation to do that.

Tim, you and your childr- — your siblings, your children, your grandchildren continue your parents’ mission of service, empowering others to reach their God-given talent.  Eunice and Sarge would be proud.  I feel them here today, and always do, by the way. 

Thank you for all the supports [supporters] of the Sp- — Special Olympics, including for Congress who are here tonight.  One of my good friends, Steny Hoyer, is over there.  (Applause.)

Steny talks about the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  It’s really the Western Shore of Delaware.  (Laughter.)

And Tony Coelho — where’s Tony?  Congressman?  Tony, good man.  (Applause.)

And Senator Roy Blunt.  Roy?  (Applause.)  Thank you, Roy. 

We’ve worked for decades to make our country more accessible and more just. 

Above all — above all, the athletes here, and to your loved ones, I say, thank you, because you give us hope.  If you can do what you did, why can’t we do so much more?  (Applause.)  You’re some of the most — you’re some of the most driven people I’ve ever met. 

For me and Jill, it’s a true honor to host you here at the White House.  And this is your house, the People’s House.  I mean it: your house.

The Special Olympics are close to my heart.  As it was mentioned already, ’71, I attended the Delaware first-ever Special Olympic competition: a track meet at old Wilmington High School.  I was a county councilman at the time, an organization that I had just begun.  I’ve just be- — I’ve become a big fan ever since.

In 2009, I flew with Mark Shriver to Boise, Idaho, for the Winter Games.  In 2010, Jill and I were proud to host all of you at the Naval Observatory, the vice president’s residence.  In 2011, Jill led the presidential delegation to the World Summer Games in Athens. 

In 2018 — my son Beau, who passed away because of a year in Iraq — set up the Beau Biden Foundation and partnered with you to protect people with intellectual disabilities and abuse.  And when he passed away, all that he had raised for his conflict went to you.  It’s something — sometimes our — our son — well, I won’t get into that.

Throughout it all, it’s been clear the Special Olympics is a movement of hope.  That’s what it’s all about: hope and inclusion — no one is excluded — spreading joy, building confidence, opening hearts.

President Lincoln once said everyone deserves, quote, “a fair chance in the race of life.”  That’s what this is all about.

Disability isn’t something broken to be fixed.  For millions of Americans, disability is a source of identity and pride.  Every American has an equal right to be recognized for who they are with dignity and with respect.

That’s why, as a senator, I cosponsored our nation’s first major disability rights bill, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Now, I know I look like I’m only 40, but I’ve been around a while.  (Laughter.)  That was in 1990, and, ladies and gentlemen, that act had a profound impact on people.

Look, the fact is that there’s so much more.  Why, when I was vice president and president, our administrations made major investments in education, employment, community-based care for people with disabilities.

And that’s why Kamala and our whole administration have worked to stop the use of subminimum wage so no — so tens of thousands of Americans can finally get fairly paid for what they do when they do it and not subminimum wage.  (Applause.)

That’s why we continued to push to end so-called Social Security marriage penalty, so people with didlebil- — dis- –disabilities who don’t lose part of their monthly benefits when then marry a person in a similar circumstance that they love.

You know, I want to thank Patrice, another star athlete who’s here tonight, working so hard to make all this happen. 

And that’s not all.  We also sent your CEO, Mary, to represent the United States this year at the historic G7 meeting that finally recognized sports as essential — as essential to global disability policy because of you.  It matters.  You’re affecting people’s lives all around the world, not just here.

Let me close with this.  I know this work is about a lot more than sports.  It’s about community.  It’s about health.  It’s about opportunity.  It’s about who we are as a nation.  What is our character?  Where is our heart?

The Special Olympics oath is “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

That’s the basic American spirit — your spirit.  You instill it in everybody.  You represent literally — and I mean this from the — I give you my word as a Biden — you represent the best America has to offer — the very best America has to offer.

You know, I mentioned — I’ve mentioned many times before that my mom had an expression.  My mom was Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden.  She’d look at me, “Joey” — I used to stutter very badly when I was young, even into high school.  She’d — “Joey, look at me.  Look at me.”  “I’m looking at you, Mom.”  She said, “Remember who you are.  You’re a Biden.”  And I thought, “Well, that’s like (inaudible).”  (Laughter.)  She said, “Look at me.  Joey, bravery resides in every heart, and someday — someday it will be summoned in every heart.”

Day after day, that’s what you and your entire organization do.  You rise up.  You lift one another up.  You summon immense courage.

And every Special — Special Olympic athlete here tonight and across America, we love you. 

Every new person I bring to the Special Olympics, they walk away stunned.  They walk away stunned about your courage.

I’d like to make a toast to the moment.  To supporters and volunteers and, above all, the incredible athletes and their brave and courageous hearts — you got something for me to toast? 

I have to admit to you.  I’m going to hold this with my left hand.  My grandfather, Ambrose Finnegan, was an all-American football player at Santa Clara.  He’d say, “Joey” — I’m the only Irishman you’ve ever met that’s never had a drink in his life.  (Laughs.)  Anyway.  But “when you toast without liquor” — which I don’t have here, I’ve got to admit it — (laughter) — “you’ve got to do it with your left hand, not your right hand.”

(The president offers a toast.)

So, cheers.  Cheers.  And please, please keep inspiring the country.

And I really — I’m going to say one more thing.  I should shush up, but one more thing.  You know, I think you underestimate — I generally believe you underestimate the impact you’ve had on so many people — so many people.  Especially when they’re down, especially when they think it’s over, you lift us up.

So, thank you, thank you, thank you.  I love you. 

And my — there’s an old — my — my grandfather used to use this — what he facetiously referred to as an “Irish blessing.”  He said, “May those who love us, love us; and those who don’t, may God turn their ankles, so we know they’re coming by their limp.”  (Laughter and applause.)

Enjoy the White House.  It’s your house.  (Applause.)

7:39 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Christmas For All Dinner in Celebration of Unity, America, and Special Olympics appeared first on The White House.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, the President signed into law:

H.R. 2950, the “Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023,” which codifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Costal Program and supports efforts to assess, protect, and enhance important costal landscapes.

Thank you to Representatives Huffman and González-Colón, and Senators Cardin and Graham for their leadership.

H.R. 5302, the “Michel O. Maceda Memorial Act,” which designates the Air and Marine Operations Marine Unit of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection located at 101 Km 18.5 in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, as the Michel O. Maceda Marine Unit.

Thank you to Representatives González-Colón, Mark Green, Salazar, Radewagen and Soto, and Senators Rick Scott, Rubio, and Padilla for their leadership.

H.R. 5536, the “Grant Transparency Act of 2023,” which establishes transparency requirements for notices of funding availability for Federal grant programs.

Thank you to Representatives Fry and Crockett, and Senators Cornyn, Hassan, and Peters for their leadership.

H.R. 5799, the “James R. Dominguez Memorial Act of 2023,” which designates the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, as the James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint.

Thank you to Representatives Tony Gonzales, Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, and Ciscomani, and Senators Cornyn, Sinema, Cruz, and Manchin for their leadership.

H.R. 7218, the “BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Reauthorization Act of 2024,” which reauthorizes programs supporting research and resources related to Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias through fiscal year 2029.

Thank you to Representatives Guthrie, Tonko, Chris Smith, and Waters, and Senators Collins, Capito, and Kaine for their leadership.

H.R. 7438, the “FIFA World Cup 2026 Commemorative Coin Act,” which directs the Department of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of the FIFA World Cup 2026 and will be held in the United States for the first time in 32 years.

Thank you to Representatives LaHood, Larsen, Bacon, and Castor, and Senators Young and Butler for their leadership.

H.R. 7764, the “Commission to Study the Potential Transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution Act,” which establishes a commission to study the potential transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution.

Thank you to Representatives Wasserman Schultz, Turner, Boyle, and Max Miller, and Senators Casey, Crapo, Fetterman, Collins, and Rosen for their leadership.

H.R. 8932, the “FAFSA Deadline Act,” which requires the release of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid by October 1.

Thank you to Representative Houchin and Senator Cassidy for their leadership.

The post Press Release: Bills Signed: H.R. 2950, H.R. 5302, H.R. 5536, H.R. 5799, H.R. 7218, H.R. 7438, H.R. 7764, H.R. 8932 appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to Belgium and Luxembourg to attend the Commemoration of the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge on December 13-14, 2024.

The Honorable Bill Nelson, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Thomas M. Barrett, United States Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The Honorable Michael M. Adler, United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium

The Honorable Harry Coker, Jr., National Cyber Director, Office of the Cyber Director, The White House

The Honorable Terri Tanielian, Special Assistant to the President for Veterans Affairs, Domestic Policy Council, The White House

The Honorable Sheila Casey, Executive Director of Joining Forces, The White House

###

The post President Biden Announces Presidential Delegation to attend the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge in Bastogne, Belgium and Luxembourg City, Luxembourg appeared first on The White House.

Nikki Giovanni was a brilliant poet, a big-hearted educator, and an unapologetic voice for justice and equality.

As a leading voice of the Black Arts Movement, she used her poetry to celebrate Black joy and resilience – while also speaking out for racial and social justice.

Nikki was committed to lifting up the next generation too. Over more than three decades as an educator, she empowered her students to express themselves through creative writing, mentoring hundreds of them along the way.

Throughout her career, Nikki never stopped demanding, and fighting for, an America that lives up to our highest ideals: of freedom, opportunity, fairness, and dignity for all. She leaves behind a storied legacy — in literature, education, and in the fight for a more just America.

Doug and I send our prayers to her family, and to all who were touched by her work.

###

The post Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on the Passing of Nikki Giovanni appeared first on The White House.

Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer welcomed Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo to the White House yesterday to discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues.  Mr. Finer thanked Foreign Minister Murillo for Colombia’s leadership in serving as the first Country Chair for the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, an initiative the United States and 21 regional partners launched in 2022 to collaborate on migration issues.   They also discussed challenges to democracy in the hemisphere and underscored the importance of maintaining the strong U.S.-Colombia relationship. 

###

The post Readout of Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer’s Meeting with Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo appeared first on The White House.

In 2020, Nikki Giovanni’s majestic voice echoed her powerful words, “and sometime, there has to be something called courage. You have it in your hands.”

Born in segregated Knoxville, Tennessee, she became a renowned activist, professor, and literary legend who had that courage in her hands and in her heart.

A pioneering poet of the Black Arts Movement and the Civil Rights era, she used her pen to advance racial and gender equality and confront violence, hate and injustice, alongside some of the most esteemed artists and icons of the past century.

Author of over 25 books, her wit and intellect earned her numerous accolades, including the Langston Hughes medal, an Emmy award, and a Grammy award nomination. A three-time cancer fighter, Nikki offered words of wisdom that gave hope to countless others fighting disease and despair.

Jill and I send our love and condolences to her family—including her wife Virginia, her son Thomas, and her granddaughter Kai—and all those who loved and admired that something special, her courage.

May God bless Nikki Giovanni.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the Passing of Nikki Giovanni appeared first on The White House.

For four months in a row now, inflation has been close to the level right before the pandemic. While price increases have been hard for working families, household incomes are up almost $4,000 more than prices during this Administration. We will continue to fight to lower costs for American families.

###

The post Statement from National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard on the November 2024 Consumer Price Index appeared first on The White House.

Over the last four years, President Biden and Vice President Harris have taken action to uphold universal human rights around the world. From protecting brave individuals defending life and liberty to securing some of the largest political prisoner releases in recent history, to holding account those who misuse technologies like commercial spyware for human rights violations and abuses, the Biden-Harris Administration has worked to support human rights defenders, civil society and journalists. Three historic Summits for Democracy generated millions of dollars in commitments from the U.S., international partners, and the private sector to support civil society and investments in democratic renewal. Through our engagement in multilateral organizations, we have held countries that have violated human rights to account, advanced the status of women and girls, and safeguarded protection for LGBTQI+ human rights defenders. The United States is strongest when we protect people fighting for justice for all at home and abroad through these actions:

Protected Human Rights Defenders and Secured the Release of Political Prisoners

• Advocated for the Release of Unjustly Detained Individuals Globally.  The U.S. raised international awareness of the plight of political prisoners and their families and advocated for the release of all unjustly detained individuals worldwide. Notable accomplishments included: working with international partners to secure the release of 16 unjustly detained prisoners held by the Russian government, including four Americans, in the largest prisoner swap since the Cold War and securing the release of 357 Nicaraguan political prisoners, including human rights defenders and Catholic leaders.
• Empowered Journalists, Civil Society, Workers, and Reform-Minded Leaders.  The Department of State protected journalists and promoted media freedom through the Journalism Protection Platform and joint efforts with UNESCO, provided direct financial support to almost 900 civil society organization (CSOs) in 86 countries through the Lifeline: Embattled CSOs Assistance Fund since 2021; promoted inclusive labor markets and protecting the rights of all workers in line with the Presidential Memorandum on Advancing Worker Empowerment, Rights, and High Labor Standards Globally, worked with partners to equip young leaders with essential skills, such as through the Community of Democracies’ Youth Democracy Network; and elevated the voices of Indigenous youth into global civic conversations by establishing the Indigenous Youth Leadership Coalition.
• Supported Local Human Rights Defenders and Organizations through USAID’s Powered by the People (PxP) Award. In 2024, USAID channeled over $2.5 million to human rights defenders, and organizations protecting and promoting human rights across 28 countries. This included providing rapid relocation, emergency legal assistance, digital security, psychosocial support, and a global help desk.
• Sustained Support to Human Rights Defenders in Ukraine. The U.S. continued to support human rights defenders working to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world. For example, since the start of the war, USAID has helped more than 50 civil society organizations, including the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), which documented possible Russian crimes against Ukrainian civilians. In recognition of this work, CCL was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022.
• Strengthened Civilian Protection. The State Department elevated human rights considerations in security decisions and partnerships, including U.S. arms transfers and security trainings, to higher standards through efforts such as the Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance (CHIRG).
• Expanded Human Rights Programming. In 2024, USAID provided $19.25 million 19 Missions to support human rights defenders and address human rights violations and abuses, combat digital repression and cyber threats faced by HRDs, enhance protection of environmental rights defenders, combat Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and trafficking in persons, support access to justice for victims of human rights violations, and support comprehensive programming to enable persons with disabilities to understand and realize their rights. In 2024, USAID’s Justice, Human Rights, and Security Rapid Response Award supported 20 USAID Missions nearly $7 million for rapid response activities to meet urgent crises.
• Worked to protect Human Rights Online. Outlined best practices and actions that online platforms can take to implement for robust support for human rights defenders under threat through the Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online.

Mobilized Action to Address the Misuse of Commercial Spyware

• Protected Against Commercial Spyware Misuse. The Biden-Harris Administration advanced a whole-of-government approach to curb the misuse and proliferation of commercial spyware. The President’s Executive Order set standards and safeguards for the domestic government use of these commercial surveillance tools, while the novel application of visa restrictions—including dozens of new designations announced this week, financial sanctions, and trade restrictions has discouraged commercial spyware companies from targeting U.S. citizens or undermining human rights globally.  The Administration has successfully internationalized this pioneering effort through the Joint Statement on Efforts to Counter the Proliferation and Misuse of Commercial Spyware, now endorsed by 22 countries with this week’s formal addition of Latvia. The U.S. has also driven global consensus through language in the Human Rights Council resolution on the Promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, which for the first time recognizes the threat commercial spyware misuse poses to democratic values and the exercise of human rights. The United States has committed $3 million in programming for capacity building, research, and advocacy for the private sector, academia, and government partners.

Upheld Human Rights and Accountability

• Expanded Tools for Accountability.

• To date this year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated more than 100 individuals and entities associated with human rights abuse across more than 20 jurisdictions. These actions targeted an array of activities, including national and transnational repression, forced disappearances and hostage taking, gender-based violence, forced labor and human trafficking, and human rights abuses perpetrated by terrorist groups and criminal organizations.
• The State Department publicly designated over 80 officials for their involvement in gross violations of human rights, sanctioning over 240 individuals and entities for serious human rights abuses under the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Program, and taking steps to impose visa restrictions on over 8,000 individuals for undermining democracy, repressing marginalized groups, transnational repression, and other activity adverse to U.S. interests, including additional actions announced today.
• The State Department also released business advisories to highlight the legal, financial, and reputational risks posed to businesses,  including  those operating in Russia and Russia-occupied territories of Ukraine, and Hong Kong.

• Fought Political Repression. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) worked to target political repression in 2024 through related actions in Georgia, Iran, Burma, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.  OFAC designated an international assassination network led by a narcotrafficker operating at the behest of the Iranian government in January and, in March, the designation of a commercial spyware consortium that distributed spyware technology that was used to target Americans. 

• Reduced Human Trafficking and Forced Labor. OFAC focused on actions to disrupt human trafficking and forced labor throughout 2024, including actions targeting the Venezuela-based criminal organization; a Syria-based narco-trafficker also under legal prosecution for human trafficking; and a Cambodian businessman and four companies he owns for forced labor in online virtual currency investment cyber scam centers.

• Administered International Justice.
• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) secured historic sentences in three high profile cases this year concerning human rights violations in Iraq, Ethiopia, and Croatia. In addition, the Department charged three individuals with fraud related to their alleged participation in human rights violations in Rwanda, Syria, and Bosnia.
• On December 9, 2024, DOJ unsealed an indictment in the Northern District of Illinois charging two high-ranking Syrian officials under former President Bashar al-Assad with war crimes. The indictment charges the former Syrian intelligence officials with engaging in a conspiracy to commit cruel and inhuman treatment of civilian detainees, including U.S. citizens, during the course of the Syrian civil war.
• On December 5, 2023, following a joint FBI-HSI investigation, DOJ indicted four persons affiliated with the Russian military for war crimes.  The defendants allegedly interrogated, severely beat, and tortured a U.S. national during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.  The Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia initiated the case, the first such indictment since the amendment of the War Crimes Act. 

• Empowered Human Rights and Defense. U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) dedicated Human Rights Office continued human rights training and education for partner forces, the implementation of civil-military dialogues including the human rights NGO community, and the integration of human rights considerations into Command exercises.

• Provided Human Rights and Law of Armed Conflict Training. The Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) provided Human Rights and Law of Armed Conflict training to foreign security partner forces that receive resources and support pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 333.  Over the last year, DIILS faculty conducted numerous advanced-level trainings across dozens of countries and resident courses on a variety of legal topics attended by participants from over 70 countries.

Bolstered Atrocity Prevention and Response

• Issued a National Atrocity Prevention and Response Strategy. The U.S. Government takes timely and effective action to anticipate, prevent, and respond to atrocities, in coordination with partner governments, and international, civil society, and local partners. The White House-led Atrocity Prevention Task Force coordinates these efforts and the United States Strategy to Anticipate, Prevent, and Respond to Atrocities was launched in 2022 to achieve impact through concerted action in countries at risk of atrocities.
• Documented Atrocity Risk. This year’s Elie Wiesel Act Report reflects several Administration priorities.  As part of ongoing work to incorporate women’s rights and inclusion into atrocity prevention efforts, the report incorporates gender-based violence as a potential early warning sign of atrocities and reinforces that conflict-related sexual violence should never be considered an inevitable result of armed conflict.  The report also notes U.S. leadership in training on how to address atrocity risk and critical documentation work through the Conflict Observatory program.

Engaged Multilateral Institutions to Hold Countries to Account

• Re-Engaged with the UN Human Rights System. The United States rejoined the UN Human Rights Council in 2021 to highlight and address pressing human rights concerns and to uphold the universal values, aspirations, and principles that have underpinned the UN system since its founding. We also issued a standing invitation to all UN thematic human rights monitors to visit the U.S. and assess our human rights record at home.
• Called Attention to Concerning Human Rights Situations. U.S. leadership led to the establishment of mechanisms through the UN Human Rights Council to investigate human rights violations and abuses in situations around the world, including Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Iran, Russia, Sudan, and Ukraine.
• Kept Human Rights Violators Off UN Bodies. The U.S. led successful efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women and deprive Russia of a seat on the Human Rights Council.
• Aided Human Rights Integration in Haiti. U.S. support for the Multinational Security mission (MSS) has been critical in responding to the crisis in Haiti. The MSS and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights established a partnership focused on integrating human rights into security operations since the deployment of the MSS to Haiti.
• Supported Intersex Persons. The U.S. supported the first-ever UN resolution on combatting discrimination, violence, and harmful practices against intersex persons, raising the credibility and influence of intersex advocates and their allies and meaningfully updating how gender is understood in the UN’s work.

Addressed Threats Posed by Transnational Repression

• Combatted Transnational Repression.  The United States worked with multilateral partners to raise awareness, counter the threat, and promote accountability for acts of transnational repression (TNR) —by leading a working group on transnational repression under the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, aiming to raise international awareness of the threat TNR poses, affirming our shared commitment to countering the threat, and sharing best practices and lessons learned. We delivered a statement on behalf of more than 45 countries at the 56th Session of the Human Rights Council to address the urgent and growing threat of transnational repression, and announced the Khashoggi Ban, a policy restricting those engaged in TNR from obtaining U.S. visas and traveling to the United States.

Prevented and Responded to Gender-Based Violence

• Preventing and Responding to Gender-Based Violence Globally. Over the last two fiscal years, the United States maintained the highest-ever level of investment—$250 million—to address gender-based violence globally. This work is guided by the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally. In the third and most recent iteration of the Strategy released in 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking decisive action to further our commitment to prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally through programming, policy, and diplomatic efforts. The Strategy also made updates to address 21st century threats, such as online harassment and abuse, and the ways in which climate change exacerbates the risk of gender-based violence.

• Promoted Accountability for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. President Biden issued a historic Memorandum on Promoting Accountability for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in November 2022 directing federal agencies to marshal sanctions authorities to promote justice and accountability specifically for conflict-related sexual violence. The Administration has since issued nearly two dozen sanctions against perpetrators of conflict-related sexual violence around the globe. This year included a designation of five armed groups and their leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo implicated in sexual violence; two designations in Haiti, one of a former member of Parliament and one of a gang leader responsible for gender-based attacks; an action targeting a Rapid Support Forces commander in Sudan who for CRSV; and sanctions against three former government of Uzbekistan officials for sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors at a state-run orphanage.
• Supported Documentation of Sexual Violence. In June, Vice President Harris launched the Dignity in Documentation Initiative, which provides support for survivor- and civil society-led efforts to investigate and document CRSV in line with the Murad Code, named for Nobel Laureate and survivor Nadia Murad. Today, we are proud to announce additional aligned commitments to the initiative, including $8 million from the Department of State and $4 million from USAID for a total of over $22 million committed to this work.
• Countered Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence. By founding and co-leading the 14-country Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, the Administration has advanced global policies to address online safety for women and girls by shaping a range of multilateral policy instruments tackling online harms through the G7, G20, APEC, and UN. The Administration has also invested at least $15 million in targeted funding to prevent and respond to technology-facilitated gender-based violence.  

• Advanced Women, Peace, and Security. The United States is committed to addressing the root causes of violence and conflict as a top national security priority. In 2023, the United States issued a U.S. Strategy and National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, which is currently being implemented by the Department of Defense (DOD), USAID, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security. For example, DOD has engaged in Women, Peace, and Security-focused security cooperation activities with Allies and partners to ensure meaningful participation of women in decision making and ensure that crisis and conflict operations do not negatively impact the protection of civilians or their equitable access to relief and recovery resources.

• Defended the Rights of Women and Girls. In October 2022 and February 2023, Secretary Blinken announced a new visa restriction policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“3C”) to restrict the issuance of visas for current or former Taliban members, members of non-state security groups, and other individuals believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, repressing women and girls in Afghanistan through restrictive policies and violence. In December 2023, the U.S. designated two individuals under the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Program for repressing women and girls in Afghanistan, including restricting their access to secondary education. The U.S. remains unwavering in our commitment to support the Afghan people, especially Afghan women and girls, in their struggle for an inclusive, stable, peaceful Afghanistan. 

Combatted Hate-fueled Violence

• Launched Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism. The U.S. led “Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism,” represent a set of international best practices for effective public policy against antisemitism. This landmark global effort has been endorsed by 42 countries and multilateral organizations since its introduction in Buenos Aires in July 2024. The United States continues to demonstrate global leadership through ongoing efforts to expand endorsements and deepen adherence.
• Protected LGBTQI+ persons in Uganda. In December 2023, As directed by President Biden, the United States released a fact sheet outlining actions taken to address threats posed by democratic backsliding in Uganda, promote accountability for human rights abuses, and curtail direct assistance to the government.
• Advanced Racial Equity and Justice Globally. The United States has partnered with governments and  international organizations to combat systemic racism, discrimination, violence, and xenophobia globally, including through the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
• Expanded International Disability Rights. The President reestablished the role of Special Advisor on International Disability Rights at the Department of State and actively supported the first-ever G7 Ministerial on Inclusion and Disability in Italy in October of this year, where global leaders discussed disability rights issues related to independent living, artificial intelligence (AI), humanitarian response and emergency management, and sports.

Supported and Sustained Democracy

• Inaugurated the Summit for Democracy. President Biden launched the historic Summit for Democracy in 2021 to strengthen democratic institutions, protect human rights, and accelerate the fight against corruption, both at home and abroad.  Under President Biden’s leadership, the United States has taken concrete steps to advance previous commitments and initiatives launched over the past three years in the areas of advancing technology for democracy, media freedom, countering the misuse of technology, and improving financial transparency, gender equity and equality, and rule of law. 
• Fought Anti-Corruption Globally. The Biden-Harris Administration established countering corruption as a “core U.S. national security interest,” and issued the first-ever United States Strategy on Countering Corruption. Since then, the United States has taken action at home and around the world to curb illicit finance, hold corrupt actors accountable, forge multilateral partnerships, and equip frontline leaders to take on transnational corruption.
• Surged Support to Countries experiencing Democratic Openings. In 2024, USAID’s Partnership for Democratic Development (PDD) advanced gender issues and women’s rights across its funded portfolio of programs to improve women’s engagement with and access to municipal services.
• Elevated Technology and Democracy: The Biden-Harris Administration set high standards for the government use of surveillance technologies, including AI and commercial spyware; expanded support for internet freedom technologies and cybersecurity that is essential to human rights defenders; and has used accountability measures, export controls, and voluntary commitments to enlist the private sector to combat authoritarian use of technology. Through the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, endorsed by over sixties countries, and as chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, the Administration strengthened the global commitment to a free and open internet.

• Underscored that respect for human rights is the foundation of safe, secure, and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, the United States signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law.
• The Administration developed a Joint Statement on Responsible Government Practices for AI Technologies, to which the 41 countries of the Freedom Online Coalition committed.
• The U.S. government launched the Export Control and Human Rights Initiative under which 26 countries have subscribed to a Code of Conduct by which subscribing states commit to apply export controls to prevent the proliferation of goods, software, and technologies that enable serious human rights abuses. 
• The Administration implemented more than $12 million for programs utilizing AI as a tool to advance democracy, promote human rights and labor rights, and foster justice and accountability.
• In March, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence in part to ensure that technology is developed, deployed, and governed consistent with universal human rights, the rule of law, and appropriate legal authorization, safeguards, and oversight, such that it supports, and does not undermine, democracy, civil rights and civil liberties, and public safety. 

• Supported Public Interest Media. In 2024, USAID gave a grant to the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) for core operation support to 16 public interest media outlets to investigate corruption and violations of human rights in Asia and the Pacific, Africa and the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean, including media outlets operating in exile. This support allows organizations to continue their operations and sustain content production to ensure continued access to high-quality journalism. Since 2022, IFPIM has made 45 grants in 22 countries and territories that cumulatively represent more than $15 million in direct funding and support.

• Advanced Responsible Business Practices. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration released the United States’ second National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct, which compiled commitments to promote business practices and supply chains around that world that respect human rights, good governance, and labor standards. The National Action Plan has:

• Brought stakeholder voices to the table through a new Federal Advisory Committee on Responsible Business Conduct, which held its first public meeting on November 14 and will provide ongoing recommendations and consultation to strengthen the U.S. approach to business and human rights.
• Supported businesses to advance human and labor rights due diligence by providing new guidance and resources, including a Labor Rights InfoHub.  
• Promoted access to remedy and protected stakeholders from retaliation in U.S.-supported development finance projects.
• Combatted Industry Labor Abuses. In June 2022, President Biden signed the historic National Security Memorandum on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Labor Abuses (NSM-11), directing agencies to put their authorities to work to tackle the problem of IUU fishing and associated labor abuses in the seafood supply chain. IUU fishing can take many forms, ranging from the small-scale misreporting of catch, to large-scale, coordinated efforts by transnational crime syndicates that may also involve forced labor and other human rights abuses.

###

The post Fact Sheet: For Human Rights Day, Highlighting the Biden-Harris Administration Global Human Rights Accomplishments appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

10:45 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining our gaggle today.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get into your questions.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good morning.  I know you’re all still focused on the news coming out of Syria, as are we.  Just a couple of points at the top. 

We continue to carefully monitor developments there, as you would expect that we are.  The President is staying fully briefed by his national security team, and that will remain the case going forward.  This is something that he had been — and the team had been watching develop over the last week or so, and certainly he’s going to stay completely up to speed and informed on it.  As a matter of fact, he’s also, as you know, reaching out to counterparts in the region.  He spoke with King Abdullah yesterday. 

I don’t have any additional calls to read out at this time, but I think it’s safe to say that he will be — he will stay in contact with our counterparts in the region.  And he has directed the national security team to do the same. 

Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, will be traveling to Israel tomorrow.  Certainly there will be a lot on the agenda in those discussions, but Syria will no doubt be at the top of that list. 

And then, I think you can expect to see, in coming days, other Cabinet-level and other national security-level individuals traveling to the region and/or having conversations with their counterparts.  So, stay tuned for that.

Now, as for what’s actually happening on the ground, it remains an open question exactly how this is going to play out politically.  As you know, there are multiple rebel groups that are in Damascus right now, multiple opposition groups that are involved.  And as the President said, they’re all saying the right things, but we’re going to have to watch and see what they actually do. 

We want to make sure that, at the end of this, whatever the governing authority looks like, whatever institutions are preserved — and again, we noted that the opposition groups have made clear that they want the Syrian army, for instance, to stay intact — that the Syrian people get to determine what their future looks like and that whatever processes are put in place, they are Syrian-led.  And we want to assist in that, and we will certainly do that internally and externally. 

Internally to the region, we have the ability to communicate with the opposition groups, and we’ll continue to do that.  And we also, as I already highlighted, will maintain open communications with counterparts and interlocutors in the region but outside Syria.

We want to make sure that the aspirations of the Syrian people are fully met.  They have suffered enough over 14 years.  And we’re going to be working very, very hard to do that, particularly through existing U.N.-led processes.  But it’s got to be — ultimately, it’s got to be a Syrian-led evolution here towards better and more representative governance. 

We believe it is in our interest, our national security interest, that Syria be stable and secure and that, again, the Syrian people are able to determine their future.  It’s in our interest in the region. 

It is also in our interest that we continue to put pressure on ISIS, and so the counter-ISIS mission by our troops in Syria continues.  The President talked about a wave of strikes we conducted on Sunday, 75-somewhat strikes on ISIS camps and facilities.  You can expect that that kind of activity will continue.  We don’t want to give ISIS an opportunity to exploit what’s going on.  They love nothing more than ungoverned space.  And back to my first point, we want to make sure that all of Syria is properly governed and that the Syrian people, again, have a say in that. 

So, the pressure on ISIS will absolutely continue, because that, too, is very much in our national security interest, and we’ll stay at that. 

I want to just briefly also — as I’m sure you guys will ask, and so let me just let you know — we don’t have any additional information on Austin Tice.  This development could present an opportunity for us to glean more information about him, his whereabouts, his condition. 

But as you and I are speaking here this morning, I can’t report that we have any additional context.  We will work this, as we have, very, very hard.  And we’ll keep the Tice family as informed as we possibly can.  We want to see him home with his family where he belongs.  The President mentioned that as well over the weekend, and I can assure you that we are pushing as hard as we can to learn as much as we can, but I don’t have any additional context to share with you today. 

I think it’s important, before I leave the topic of Syria, to just take a step back and review some of how we got here.  And it is true, I think unequivocally true, that much of the developments that we’ve seen in Syria is an outgrowth of the fact that Assad’s biggest supporters, Russia and Iran, are significantly weakened now.  And that is tied directly, as the President said, to unflagging American support for Israel in their fight against Hamas and in the effort to secure a ceasefire with Hezbollah.  And it is absolutely an outgrowth of our support for Ukraine that has consistently weakened Russian military forces and certainly caused the Russians to refocus the great locus of their military efforts on that war in Ukraine that they started. 

And there’s just no way to look at it and see otherwise.  They are both significantly distracted and weakened by the efforts in the Middle East and in Europe and American support for our allies and partners in both places. 

It isn’t just that Russia and Iran were unwilling to help Assad after 14 years; it is that they were unable to.  And again, the United States played a major role in that. 

Lastly, if I could, just a programming note.  Jake will be meeting this afternoon with hostage families, right on the eve of his travel to Israel.  And as I mentioned earlier, certainly Syria is going to be at the top of the agenda.  But without question, the most important thing Jake is going to want to talk to the Israelis about is how we can try to get a hostage deal in place so that we can get their loved ones back home where they belong, get them the answers that they deserve and that they need.  And so, he’s going to be having another opportunity to have that conversation with them today.

I would remind that this has been a regular drumbeat for Jake.  He does this on a routine basis, keeping them informed and updated.  I am not in a position today where I can tell you that we have a deal that is on the brink of completion; that is not where we are.  But it is fair to say that we are working this extremely hard.  We do think there’s an opportunity here to get a hostage deal in place, to get these families reunited, to get a surge of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  But again, there’s an awful lot of work that still has to be done.  Hamas continues to be the obstacle to that outcome, but we’re pressing on it really, really hard.

With that, I can take some questions.

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

Q    Hey.  Thank you both.  Just had a couple of Syria follow-ups.  Does the administration have any concerns about Israel moving its troops into the buffer zone in Golan Heights?  And also, with Israel’s military operations in Syria, does it have the U.S. blessing to attack chemical strategic weapon sites?

And then, just finally, you sort of talked about the nexus of Ukraine in the fall of Assad.  Has the administration, in its interactions with the incoming administration, been making that argument and perhaps trying to make the pitch for why there needs to continue to be Ukraine support? 

And if there’s anything generally you could offer on the coordination briefing of the incoming Trump administration, how that’s gone down with what’s going on in Syria.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, Aamer, there’s an awful lot there. 

Look, on the Israeli operations over and around the Golan Heights, I’m going to let the Israelis speak to that.  I would point you to what they’ve already said, that these are exigent operations to eliminate what they believe are imminent threats to their security, and we certainly recognize that they live in a tough neighborhood and that they have, as always, the right to defend themselves.  But I’m going to let them speak to what they’re doing and the particulars of it. 

There is, as you know, a 1974 disengagement agreement that that all parties have signed up to.  We obviously still support that agreement, and we’re in close touch with our Israeli counterparts here, as these things kind of develop.

I will say, just on the chemical weapons piece, I mean, we do know that Assad had preserved at least some capability that he had proven in the past willing to use it on his people.  And, look, you know, there’s a lot of uncertainty right now, as I said in my opening statement, about how the political situation is going to unfold.  Lots of different rebel opposition groups involved here.  Not all of them are groups that we countenance, at least not officially. 

So, we too have concerns about the existence and potential use of chemical agents in Syria.  So, I think I’d just leave it at that.

As for your question about the discussions with the new team, let me put it this way: Nothing that we’re doing and nothing that we’re saying ought to come as a surprise to the incoming team.  We have the ability and have had conversations with appropriate officials in the incoming Trump team, particularly about what’s going on in Syria but also what’s going on in Ukraine and in the Middle East writ large.  So those conversations have happened.  They are still happening.  And I have every expectation that, going forward, Jake Sullivan and other leaders here in the National Security Council will, as appropriate, continue to keep the incoming team informed. 

They will decide for themselves what policies they might want to keep in place, what approaches they might want to continue and which ones they won’t.  I can’t speak for what their prerogatives are going to be.  All I can speak to is what our prerogatives are, and I kind of lay a little bit of them out in my opening statement. 

We believe it is in our national security interest that Syria emerge from this as a stable, secure, sovereign state; that the Syrian people have a say in determining what that sovereignty looks like, what their government looks like.  It’s got to be a process that meets their aspirations as they define those aspirations.  That’s in our national security interest.

And it’s also in our national security interest that ISIS can’t exploit it and that the pressure needs to be kept up on that group. 

So, that’s — we’ve been very, very open about that with all of you.  We’ve been open about it with ourselves.  The President has made sure that we’re focused on those two national security interests.  And we certainly have been open about it in our conversations, as appropriate, with Trump officials that are coming in.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with McClatchy.

Q    Thanks, Sam.  John, you just mentioned (inaudible) on Austin Tice’s whereabouts and condition.  Obviously, the President said the administration believes that he’s alive, on Sunday.  Can you help just square that circle for us?  How do you know that he’s alive if you don’t know where he is or his condition?  And do you have high-confidence sources, like the Tice family has said, telling you that he’s alive and was being held in the Damascus area?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I’m obviously going to be a little careful here, because, you know, we want to see him back with his family, and I’m not going to get into intelligence information here in an on-the-record gaggle. 

I would just tell you that our going assumption is that he’s still alive; that we have no indication, no information to the contrary.  But we also don’t have complete information about where he is or what his condition is.  So, I’m just being as honest with you as I can.  No indication that he isn’t alive, but also no indication about where he is or what his condition is. 

And that is why, as I said in my opening statement, we believe that the developments in Syria could present an opportunity to gain more context, more information, which could then potentially give us options for how to move forward.  But the goal remains the same: We want to get him back to his family, where he belongs. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell with NBC.

Q    Hi, John.  Thank you.  With reference also to what the Israelis are doing, that buffer zone, if you could be a little bit more — do you think that these are appropriate defensive moves?  Are you at all concerned, if they’re not temporary, that this could provoke other reactions from other neighbors?  In particular, what concerns might you have about what Turkey does with the PKK and others, including the SDF, whom we support in the northeast region?  Thank you very much. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Andrea.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record — again, we support this disengagement agreement from 1974.  I’ll let the Israelis speak to what they’re doing. 

The only thing I would say differently or additionally to what I said before on this question to Aamer is that, as things go forward, what we want to see from all actors inside Syria and outside Syria are actions that help the Syrian people get to governance that they can believe in and governance that, again, meets their aspirations.  We don’t want to see any actor, inside or outside, take actions or do things or espouse policies or programs that run afoul of that process.  And that’s why the President is going to stay engaged with our counterparts outside Syria, and we are going to maintain communications with those inside Syria to make sure that that’s where we go.

Again, I’d point you back to what the Israelis have said.  This is an exigent move.  They’ve said publicly that they don’t envision this being some sort of a long-term set of operations.  And so, I think I’ll just — I’ll leave it there.  We don’t want to see any actor, again, move themselves in such a way that makes it harder for the Syrian people to get at legitimate governance. 

And then, you know, you asked a little bit about the Turks, which is sort of a tangential thing to what you’re — I think your first question.

Look, number one, the Turks have a legitimate counterterrorism threat that they too have a right to deal with; they too have a right to defend their citizens and their territory against terrorist attacks.  And they have come under those kinds of terrorist attacks in the not-so-distant past.  So we recognize they have that right, and they’re an important NATO Ally. 

We have interest, as I said, in going after ISIS, and that means partnering with the Syrian Democratic Forces.  And that will continue.  And where those two goals overlap, or potentially conflict, we will have — as we have, we will have the appropriate conversations with the Turks about how both those outcomes can be achieved.  And I think I’ll just leave it there.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to David Sanger with the New York Times.

Q    Thanks, John.  Two questions for you on this.  First is, there was a brief reference before to the chemical weapons action that Israel is taking, and they’ve also announced that they sank whatever there was of the Syrian navy overnight as well.  Is the U.S. providing intel?  And obviously, we’ve been tracking their chemical weapons sites for more years than I can think.  Is there any U.S. help going on to them, even if it’s just intel support and so forth?

And then the second just goes to your argument that because of the U.S. actions that have weakened the Russians and the Iranians, and the Iranians’ inability to strike Israel, you thought that the administration made it possible for all of this to happen.  I’m sure you’ve heard the alternative argument here, which is: Had Netanyahu listened to President Biden’s advice and not attacked Hezbollah, which we were discouraging him from doing for fear of a wider war, that, in fact, it’s unlikely that you would have seen Assad fall.  So I was just wondering if you would just take that head on.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  I’m not going to — as you know, we have robust intelligence-sharing with Israel, as you might expect we would, and I’m not going to characterize what that looks like. 

I’ve already kind of responded to the issue about our view of what they’re doing.  And again, I’d point you back to what they’ve said, that these are exigent circumstances and non-permanent operations that they’re conducting.

On the counterargument, as you put it, for going after Hezbollah: Again, I think you need to take a step back here.  And I don’t think it’s — I don’t think that anybody should overemphasize one particular operation, whether it’s against Hamas or against Hezbollah, as being the game changer here.  It is the sum total of American support for Israel and their ability to defend themselves.  And it is very much — and this is a point that I think is getting lost here, David — very much this ceasefire, in fact, that we mediated between Israel and Lebanon, and Hezbollah, that sent a strong signal to people in the region that Hezbollah was done, Hezbollah was out of it.  They weren’t going to come to Hamas’s assistance, and Iran wasn’t going to be able to rely on them.  And don’t mistake for a moment that there weren’t groups in Syria that paid attention to the fact that Hezbollah was no longer in the fight. 

But I think the fact that in the aggregate we have been robust in our support of Israel’s right to defend itself, and backing that up with real arms and ammunition, as well as diplomatic efforts, played a real role here.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Karen with the Washington Post. 

Q    Just to (inaudible), as you say, beat a dead horse: On the Israeli actions in Syria, the U.N. Envoy for Syria gave a very strong statement this morning about what the Israelis are doing.  They’re both in the disengagement zone and (inaudible) in Syrian territory itself — I mean, they’re in Quneitra — and some of the air strikes.  And said, “This has to stop.”  You said you recognize the disengagement agreement.  You said, ask the Israelis what they’re doing.  The Israelis have said what they’re doing.  The question is not what are the Israelis doing.  The question is does the United States agree with it.

And separately, on the north, Turkey and the SNA have said that their forces have pushed the SDF out of Manbij and across the Euphrates River.  The SDF said this morning that that’s not true, that there is fighting going on in Manbij.  Does the United States believe that the SDF should just move across the river and let the Turks take that over?  Or what is our position on that particular (inaudible), not only in and around Manbij but other places?

MR. KIRBY:  On the first question, Karen, I really — at the risk of just repeating what I’ve said before, which I’m sure nobody wants to hear again, I really don’t have anything more to add.  I’ve addressed this question about Israel’s operations in and around and over the Golan Heights, and I’m just going to leave it there.

On your second question, we’re not in a position to verify the exact operational status of Manbij.  We have been in close contact with the Turks about this, and certainly remain in close contact with the Syrian Democratic Forces about trying to make sure they stay focused on the counter-ISIS mission that we are partnered with them on.  That’s our priority, and we’re going to continue to do that. 

And one of the reasons why we have said publicly in the past that some of these operations elsewhere along that border, conducted by Turkish military forces, are problematic is because it does have that risk of pulling the SDF away from the counter-ISIS mission, which we don’t want to see happen.  And those are conversations that we’re having with the Turks as well. 

And as I said in my opening statement, you’re going to see continued outreach by the national security team with counterparts in the region about what’s happening in Syria.  And I can assure you that some of those conversations are going to be with our Turkish counterparts as well.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Amy with Foreign Policy.

Q    Thanks.  On the call on Sunday night with a senior administration official, if I recall, they said that the U.S. has contacts with all groups in Syria, which presumably includes, then, HTS.  Could you just give us more detail on what those interactions have been like, what channels you’re using?  And have you explicitly communicated what steps you’d like to see from them to see them get delisted as a terror group?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to go into great detail about what the vehicles actually look like.  There are some opposition rebel groups that we have communicated directly with for many, many years.  There’s open lines of communication, and they stay open and we use them. 

Now, there are other groups where we communicate in various other ways, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.  But I don’t think it’s helpful for me to go into the mechanisms that are in place at this early stage. 

I would just reiterate what the senior administration official said, which is absolutely true: We do have ways to communicate with all of them, and we are pulling on those ways, as you would expect that we would. 

And then, your second question sort of implies that we’re on a path towards delisting.  And I would just say that there’s no — there are no discussions right now about changing the policy with respect to HTS, but we are watching what they do.  As the President said, Mr. al-Jolani and others are saying all the right things.  This only just happened within the last couple of days, so we got to watch and see what they actually do and the degree to which they make good on their pledges. 

So we’re just not at a point now where we can have a serious discussion about delisting anyone at this point.

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

Q    Thank you.  If I could just touch again on the communications with these rebel groups.  Has the U.S. specifically spoken with Mohammed al-Bashir since he’s been named the caretaker, or are there plans to either directly or through an intermediary?

And you also talked a bit about how there’s coordination with the Trump team on all of these topics relating to the Middle East.  Does President Biden specifically plan to speak with President-elect Trump about the situation in Syria since Sunday?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any conversations with al-Bashir to speak to, but I’ll tell you what I’ll do: I will take that question.  I’m not aware of any conversations that anybody has had with him at this early stage, but I’ll take the question.

And then, I don’t have any additional conversations with President-elect Trump to speak to at this point.  I would say that we remain in touch with his key incoming — the people he’s designated as his key national security team leaders, and certainly that includes Jake’s ongoing conversations with Congressman Waltz.  But I don’t have any specific conversations with President Trump to speak to at this time.

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

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I just wanted to follow up on my colleague’s question about your discussions with Turkey.  I’m wondering if you’ve specifically — if the administration has specifically spoken with them about refraining from attacks on the SDF, particularly in the northeast.  We’ve seen reports that they’re attacking Kobani today, so I’m wondering if those talks are going on through diplomatic channels.

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the details of the discussions, Lara, but as I indicated, we have and will remain in close touch with our Turkish counterparts to deconflict as best we can and to make clear what we believe our national security interests are in Syria.  And as I said in my opening statement, one of those is the counter-ISIS mission, which does require partnering with the SDF.

Q    And then also, just — I wanted to follow up on the chemical weapons question as well.  The Israelis have said that they’re making some moves to ensure that chemical weapons don’t — Assad’s chemical weapons don’t end up in the wrong hands.  Does the U.S. have any role in this at the moment?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I sort of dealt with this question a little bit earlier.  I mean, we’re not involved in the Israeli operations that they’re conducting.  These are Israeli operations, and I’m going to let them speak to them.

Again, we remind that the Israelis have made clear these are temporary measures to ensure their own security.  They have a right to defend themselves.  And as I said earlier, you know, we certainly share concerns about the potential existence of and/or potential use of chemical weapons in Syria.  And I think I’m just going to leave it at that. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Robbie with Politico.

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  First, what’s the White House’s view of how Assad’s fall, if at all, has altered the prospect for hostage talks with Sullivan going to Israel, even indirectly?

And second, going off of Lara’s question on the U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters, as you know, the Kurds oversee about 50,000 ISIS detainees and their families in those camps in northeast Syria.  Are you urging Turkey to halt — to urge its own militias to halt that offensive against Kurdish forces?  And is there any fear of instability in the northeast risking the security of those camps?  Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, what was your first question?  I missed it.

Q    Just on — how has the fall of Assad, if at all, altered the prospect for hostage talks with regards to Gaza, even indirectly?  You talked about Sullivan going to the region, possibly new pathways to negotiations there.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, Hamas has got to be looking out at the world today and realizing that the cavalry is not coming to rescue them.  And so, one would hope that recent developments in Syria reinforce for them that they are just increasingly isolated and ought to take a deal. 

So, certainly, when Jake goes to talk about the potential for a new hostage deal, he goes with, obviously, the developments of the last few days in the background of all that as context.  And it remains to be seen whether Hamas will move, but they absolutely ought to move because there is nobody coming to their assistance.  They can’t rely on Hezbollah.  They certainly can’t rely on Iran.  And this is the time to make a deal.  So we’ll see what happens.  They have consistently been an obstacle on that.

And then, on your second question, we are absolutely concerned about these detention facilities in Syria.  They’re not — you mentioned some in the north and the east.  There’s actually some in the north and the west as well.  Some of these detention facilities do house ISIS fighters, largely of a lower level, but nevertheless ISIS fighters.  And so, we are talking to all of our counterparts, including the Turks, about the status of those detention facilities and about our collective concern of the potential for them to be opened up or for people to be able to get out. 

Now, I will remind — or maybe you know this — I mean, most of them in the east are run by the SDF, who are our partners.  And so, you know, we know we can rely on their ability to continue to properly safeguard those facilities, the ones that are in the east.  But it is a concern, no question about it, and it’s part of the conversations that we’re having.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Keleigh with NewsNation.

Q    Hi, John.  Thanks for taking my question.  Kind of following up on President Biden and then President-elect Trump, both on, you know, foreign policy, kind of talking about different developments, either with Syria or in other places, I’m just curious how this may affect or have an impact on the remaining 41 days or so of President Biden trying to cement his foreign policy legacy.  So, this in regard to Syria as well as in other conflicts.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not really sure how to answer that one, except to say that, as I sort of mentioned at the beginning, we believe that developments in Syria very much prove the case of President Biden’s assertive foreign policy and our constant and unrelenting support for partners and allies.

One of the things that he started doing at the very beginning was revitalizing alliances and partnerships that, as we came into office, we believed had been let to lapse, or disrespected or ignored, and he turned that around to a fare-thee-well.

We have closer relations in the Indo-Pacific than we’ve ever had before and improved trilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea.  We have the AUKUS deal, which is now putting Australia on a path to a nuclear-powered submarine.  NATO is bigger and stronger than it’s ever been before.  And where there weren’t alliances, President Biden created coalitions to get things done, such as the 50-plus nations to go support Ukraine and the 20-plus nations that are helping us in the Red Sea defend against Houthi attacks against commercial shipping. 

I think what the President is focused on with the time that he has left is continuing to use this assertive foreign policy and the advantage that our alliances and partnerships give us to see better outcomes.  We’re starting to see bet- — well, you know, certainly it’s early goings in Syria, but we believe that this assertive foreign policy has impacted events in Syria.  It remains to be seen where it’s going to go, but also to finish

so many of the things that we started, and one of those things is to try to get a ceasefire deal — or, I’m sorry, a hostage deal with Hamas. 

But, I mean, my goodness, just since the election, you know, we’ve brokered a ceasefire with Lebanon, between Israel and Lebanon.  And he cemented a huge economic opportunity in Africa with the Lobito rail corridor, which you all probably saw last week.  And we secured deals with China on artificial intelligence.  And we brought additional people that were wrongfully detained from China back home.  And all this is just since, you know, Election Day. 

So what the President is focused on is, with the time he has left, continuing to move these balls forward.  And again, I think you’re going to see that. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Danny with the AFP. 

Q    Hey there.  Thanks for that, Admiral.  Just a couple of things.  Firstly, at the G7 virtual meeting this Friday, what is the President going to be discussing with the other leaders in terms of Syria?  Are they going to be coming out with some kind of agreement on backing a transitional government, for example? 

And secondly, just wanted to ask what you guys think of the fact that the possible incoming Director of National Intelligence previously met with Assad.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Syria and Ukraine will absolutely be on the agenda for the G7.  We’ll have more to say about that agenda as we get a little closer to the end of the week.  So I don’t want to steal anybody’s thunder, but you can bet that those two topics will be front and center.  And again, we’ll have more to share. 

I’m not going to comment on individuals that the incoming team and the President-elect are — that he’s looking at or has announced for various jobs.  That’s not our place here at the National Security Council.  We’re focused, as I said earlier, on certainly, in the national security space and the foreign policy space, executing on the President’s agenda and trying to finish out the time we have left in the strongest way possible. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And unfortunately, we only have time for one more question because we’re about to get kicked out of our room.  So, over to James Rosen.

Q    Okay, thank you so much, Sam.  And thank you, Admiral.  I actually have two questions. 

First, senior administration officials have acknowledged that the fall of Aleppo to HTS came as a surprise to the U.S. intelligence community.  What accounts for that intelligence failure?  And from where did HTS, apparently under the nose of our intelligence community, acquire all of its weapons, training, and funding?  That’s the first question. 

MR. KIRBY:  You want to go with number two first, or you want me to just take that one?

Q    If you would take that one, please. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about intelligence issues here in this gaggle, James.  As I said, we’ve been watching events unfold here for more than a week in Syria.  We’ve been staying abreast of it as best we can, keeping the President abreast of it. 

No doubt that things have moved quickly.  I’m not going to deny that one bit.  And we believe, as I mentioned to David Sanger — we believe that a factor in the fast nature of this was, in fact, that the ceasefire deal between Israel and Lebanon, that that sent yet another strong signal to folks in the region that Iran’s so-called Axis of Resistance was a lot weaker than people had anticipated.

Q    Before I go to the second question, you have nothing you want to say about where HTS derives its support from? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into that at this point. 

Q    Second question: I want to follow up on what David Sanger asked you and give you an opportunity to defend President Biden and his legacy, but also take issue with some of what you’ve had to say here so far. 

This notion that the Biden administration played this indispensable role in creating and handing over to the incoming administration a vastly revamped Middle East marked by Israeli triumphs over Iranian proxies, and this corresponding diminution in Iranian power and capability. 

From the Israelis’ perspective, contrary to what you said, which was that President Biden’s support has been unflagging and unrelenting, it has, in fact, flagged and relented at various points.  To wit, President Biden himself publicly proclaimed Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks to be, quote, “over the top.”  He withheld at least one arms shipment from the Israelis, and he used the world stage repeatedly to denigrate and otherwise criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu and his conduct of these conflicts. 

Indeed, much of what the Israelis have done that has served to weaken Iran has been done against the advice and warnings of Mr. Biden and his national security team.  So my question is this: Isn’t it disingenuous, at a minimum, for the Biden team to be crowing over this checkered record of support for our closest strategic ally in that region?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    You don’t want to address anything else or the fact that he said it was over the top, the fact that he withheld an arms shipment from them, the fact that he’s been so critical, the fact that he advised against the very offensive against Lebanon that you’re now saying was so critical to the fall of Assad?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think your (inaudible) merits a response, James.  It’s just wrong on so many fronts.  And I’m not going to belabor everybody’s time by going through it point by point. 

This is the President who put fighter aircraft up, not once but twice, to defend Israel.  No president has done that before.  No president has gone to Israel while they’re at war, like President Biden has done.  And no president has done more to send shipments and arms to Israel so that they can continue to defend themselves. 

I could go on and on, because the premise of your question is just so incredibly wrong, but I’m not going to do that and waste everybody’s time.  If you and I — you want to have a conversation, I’m happy to talk to you offline on this.  But, my goodness, there is so much wrong with your question, it just befuddles me.  And I don’t have the time to address it right now.

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you, James.

That is all the time we have for our gaggle today.  I know we have a lot of hands still raised.  I’m so sorry we weren’t able to get to you. 

As always, reach out to the NSC press distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks, everyone.

11:29 A.M. EST

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

Brookings Institution

Washington, D.C.

12:43 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m — I’m here to steal her back.  (Laughter.) 

You’re the best, Cec.

DR. ROUSE:  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  You really are.  Thank you. 

Well, this is only a 400-page speech.  (Laughter.)  You know, we — I wanted to talk about how we’re — the economy, and it is a — it is a daunting task to talk about the transition we’re trying to initiate here.  

I want to thank you, Glenn.  And thank you, CeCe, for the introduction and for the leadership you’ve se- — you served as the chair of the — my Council of Economic Advisors.

And it’s great to be back at Brookings Institution.  I started here 400 years ago as a senator.  (Laughter.)  God, it’s hard to believe.  That’s long ago.  Oh, I don’t want to admit it.  Anyway.  But — and then as vice president.  And I was — when I was thinking about running for president, I came here, and now as president.

Last month, I spoke to the Economic Club of Washington D.C. about the pivotal actions we took to rescue the economy from the devastating harm caused by the — by the way the — in my view, the pandemic was handled and how we delivered immediate economic relief to those most in need.  We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, managed the soft landing that most people thought was not very much likely to happen.

Today, here at Brookings Institution, I would like to talk about pivotal actions we’ve taken to rebuild the economy for the long haul, you know, and how we’re — how we’re at a critical, in my view, moment in the direction the economy is going to take.

Next month, my administration will end and a new administration will begin.  Most economists agree the new administration is going to inherit a fairly strong economy, at least at the moment — an economy going through a fundamental transformation that’s laid out a stronger foundation and a sustainable, broad-based, highly productive growth.  And it is my profound hope that the new administration will preserve and build on this progress. 

Like most grace [great] economic developments, this one is neither red nor blue, and America’s progress is everyone’s progress. 

After decades of trickle-down economics that primarily benefitted those at the very top, we — we’ve written a new book that’s growing the economy — the middle-out and the bottom-up — that benefits, thus far, everyone.  And that’s going to be the test with go- — going forward. 

Over 16 million new jobs — that’s new jobs — the most in any single presidential term in American history; the lowest average unemployment rate of any administration in the last 50 years; 20 million applications for new business records — I mean, it’s — it’s for a new business — for ri- — that is a record, I should say; stock market hits record highs.  I wish I owned a lot of stock.  (Laughter.) 

You know the worst part of all this that I can acknowledge at Brookings?  For 36 years, I was listed as the poorest man in Congress.  (Laughter.)  What a foolish man. 

Anyway, 401(k)s are up.  More than a trillion dollars in private-sector investment in clean energy and advanced manufacturing in just two years alone.  After decades of sending jobs overseas for the cheapest labor possible, companies are coming back to America, investing and building here, and creating jobs here in America, in my view, where they belong.

And, of course, this economic growth is not without pain.  The entire world faced a spike in inflation due to disruptions from the pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine. 

We acted quickly to get inflation down with the help of Republicans and Democrats.  Inflation came down to pre-pandemic levels.  Wages have increased. 

But still, too many working- and middle-class families struggle with high prices for housing and groceries and the daily needs of life. 

At the same time, as inflation and interest rates continue to fall, we’ve entered a new phase of our economic resurgence. 

With the outcome of this election, we also face an inflection point: We do — do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, investing in all of America and Americans, supporting unions and working families as we have the past four years?  Or do we — or do we move backward — in my view, backslide to an economy that’s benefitted those at the top, while working people and the middle-class struggle to — for a fair share of growth and economic theory that encouraged industries and live- — livelihoods to be shipped overseas? 

And I might add, I’m not anti-corporation.  For 36 years, I represented corporate America.  I — my state has more corporations in — registered in my state than every other state in the Union.  So, I’m mildly accustomed to corporate America, and to see it grow is useful and helpful and necessary. 

But to make the most of the opportunities ahead, I want to share key pages from our middle-out, bottom-up economic playbook and lay down what I believe to be a new set of benchmarks to measure against the next four years and see whether this theory is more than just a phenomenon.

Four years ago, when I came to office, 3,000 Americans were dying per day from the pandemic that infected and the- — had profound effect on our economy — not only ours but around the world.  Millions of Americans lost their jobs, were at risk of losing their homes.  Hundreds of thousands of factories and businesses — excuse me — yes, hundreds of thousand closed and — creating despair in communities.

I remember I — when I was campaigning and they’d say, “My dad used to work at that factory.  My grandfather worked at that factory.  It’s gone.”  People lost hope.  They lost hope, and particularly through the Midwest and other areas of the country.

Supply chains was shattered.  Prices soared on everything from cars to homes to appliances.

The previous administration, quite frankly, had no plan — real plan — to get us through one of the toughest periods in our nation’s history. 

In fact, there’s an old saying, “If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” 

Over the course of decades of Republican leadership and — and I’m not a — those of you who know anything about me and my career in the Senate, I had as many Republican friends as Democratic friends, for real.  I’m not — I’m not of these — anyway, I won’t get going.  (Laughter.)

But I’ve never been a big fan of trickle-down economics.  The w- — it was a hammer that was hammering working people.

My dad used to say — my dad was a well-read — well-read man who didn’t get to — he got accepted to go to Hopkins and — but during the war, he never got to go.  But my dad used to talk about — he said, “Dad” — “Joey, not a whole lot trickles down on my kitchen table at the end of the month.”

Slashing taxes for the very wealthy and the biggest corporations, diminishing public investment in infrastructure, in education, in research and development. 

And keep your eye on it.  We’re going to find out whether or not what they want to do on each of those areas — continue to slash — makes sense or not. 

Offshored jobs and factories — I took off- — for cheaper labor overseas. 

Destroying unions while imposing costs on — on those products made in America. 

And despite the mythical reputation to pay for itself, trickle-down economics deeply worsened our fiscal outlook, in my view. 

To offset the costs, advocates of trickle-down economics ripped the social safety net by trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare, trying to deny access to affordable health care and prescription drugs. 

Lifting the fortunes of the very wealthy often meant taking the rights of workers away to unionize and bargain collectively. 

And, by the way, I’m all for the very wealthy.  I’m not joking.  If you can make as much money as you can, good for you.  But everybody’s got to be — pay — pay their fair share.

It meant rewarding short-termism in pursuit of short-term profits, extraordinary high executive pay, instead of making long-term investments, in many cases. 

As a consequence, our infra- — our infrastructure fell further behind.  A flood of cheap imports hollowed out our factory towns. 

Remember “Infrastructure Week”?  We had Infrastructure Week for four years.  Nothing got built.

Well, everybody said when I wanted to have an infrastructure bill that mattered — over a trillion three hundred billion dollars — we’d never get it done.  We got it done.

The next president has a game plan I laid out.  And, by the way, he’s going to find, since I made a promise I’d invest as much in red states as blue, he’s going to have a trouble not doing it.  He’s going to have a lot of red state senators who were opposed to all of it and didn’t vote for it deciding it’s very much in their interests to build the facilities that are on this (inaudible).

Economic opportunity and innovation became more concentrated in few major cities, while the heartland and communities were left behind. 

Scientific discoveries and inventions developed in America were commercialized in countries like China, bolstering their manufacturing investment and jobs instead of the economy. 

Even before the pandemic, this economic agenda was clearly failing.  Working- and middle-class families were being hurt. 

The pandemic and the economic crisis revealed a failure for everyone to see and to feel. 

And, you know, one of the things that’s going on here — (the president’s teleprompter shuts off) — they just turned off my — I’m going to go off my — I lost the electricity here.

But anyway, one of the things we found is that, you know, we — we invented the semic- — the computer chip, the size of the tip of your little finger, to power our everyday lives, from vehicles to advanced weapons, cell phones, everything in between.

The United States invented these computer chips, but over time, we stopped making them.  In the very beginning, we had — we produced 40 percent of them in the world. 

Well, they all went overseas, almost — virtually all.

So, when the pandemic hit, we found out how vulnerable America was.  Supply chains abroad got shut down in the Far East because people got sick.  The factories making the chips closed.  And all of a sudden, everybody started learning about supply chains, a phrase that was probably used more in the last four years than the last 40 years.  No, I’m serious.

You couldn’t get these chips.  Prices soared.

For example, it takes over 3,000 chips to build an American automobile — 3,000.  But when the overseas factories making those chips shut down, the production stopped and the cost of new cars soared.

You know, it didn’t have to be that way, and I was determined to change that.

I remember looking at my staff and saying, “I’m going to South Korea.”  And they said, “You’re what?”  Oh, you think I’m kidding.  See the guy next to you?  He’s a brilliant economist.  (Laughter.)  He didn’t think I was so brilliant going overseas there.  (Laughter.)

But all kidding aside, I came into office with a different vision for America that’s been consistent with my record — good, bad, or indifferent — since I’ve been a senator: grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up; invest in America and American products.  And when that happens, everybody does — the wealthy still do very well, and all of America, no matter where they lived, whether they went to college or not.

I was determined to restore U.S. leadership in industries of the future.

You know, four years later, we have proof that the playbook is, at least now, working. 

You know, within the first two months of office, I signed the American Rescue Plan — the most significant economic recovery package in our history — and I also learned something from Donald Trump.  He signed checks for people for 7,400 [1,400] bucks because we passed the plan.  And I didn’t — stupid.  (Laughter.)

But all kidding aside, I realize we’re talking about the impact of politics, but the economic basic principles is what we’re (inaudible).

You know, we helped vac- — that — passed that act, we helped vaccinate the nation and has returned to full employment.

This was just the beginning.  

We understood we needed long-term investments for the future.  Investing in America agenda, which includes my Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act — together, they mark the most significant investment in America since the New Deal.  And that’s a fact.  I mean, whether it’s good or bad, that’s the fact. 

The Inflation Reduction Act alone is the most significant investment in climate and energy ever, ever anywhere in the entire world.  We were told we couldn’t get it done.  We got $368 billion.  

We make these investments — when we make them, we buy America.  “Buy American” has been the law of the land since the ‘30s.  I won’t go back — it takes too much time, but you go back to the laws Lincoln pass- — Lincoln, my lord — if you go back to the laws that Roosevelt passed about allowing unions to resist being stepped on and organize, well, there’s a prevision — a “Buy America” prevision.

I was a senator for a long time.  I thought I was pretty informed.  I didn’t know it existed.

And, by the way, former presidents didn’t know.  If they knew, they didn’t say anything about it.

It says that the money that a president authorizes, that Congress has spent, should be used by the president to hire American workers and buy American products.

There was an exemption.  If you couldn’t find the American product, American worker, you could go overseas, but you had to show it.

Well, guess what?  Past adminiscration, including my present [predecessor], failed to “Buy America.”  But not on my watch.

We’re modernizing our roads; our bridges; our ports; our airports; our clean water system; affordable, high-speed Internet systems; and so much more.

And, by the way, if you think about the high-speed Internet systems, they’re as consequential to farmers as electricity was during the — during the administration of — of Roosevelt.  I’m serious.  You can’t function without it.

And we’ve incentivized building all these large federal projects within — with American products and American union — mostly union labor, new pathways into these jobs, including a record number of registered apprenticeships that we’ve made sure occurred.

As I noted earlier, when I came to office, semiconductor manufacturing had moved overseas.  I was determined to bring it back so we wouldn’t be at the end of the supply chain; we’d be beginning of the supply chain.  And that’s what we’ve done with my CHIPS and Science Act, which has attracted $350 billion in private-sector investment in America, including from Korea and from Taiwan.

These — I remember when we went to — to — I digress; I shouldn’t because it’s a long speech, but to digress just a moment — I went to South Korea and I met with Moo- — Yoon and — and I met with Samsung.

I said, “Why are you making this billions-dollar investments in — in what we call the ‘Field of Dreams,’ outside of Columbus, Ohio?”  He said, “Because you have the most capable workers in the world, and it’s the safest place in the world for me to make my investment.”

These investments are building what they call a new “fab.” You all know this.  But a fab is — new factories.  But they’re these giant, giant things as big as football fields.  And guess what?  When they’re built, they employ thousands of people.  And guess what?  The average salary: $102,000, and you don’t need a college degree to do the job.

These investment — massive chips factories, these fabs, these — the size of several football fields.  As I said, in the “Field of Dreams” from all across America — from New York to Ohio to Arizona.

I mean, you know, and when I ask these companies why they’re investing — again, not a joke; I give you my word.  And you all know th- — you’re businesswomen and -men.  You all know it.  They say we have the most qualified workers in the world. 

Everybody thinks that — you know, I have trouble with my union friends.  They’re not very good salesmens for themselves.  Everybody thinks — the average person out there thinks — they say, “I want to be electrician.”  Five years later — five years later, as an apprentice, you can become an electrician.

Look, the CHIPS investments are creating over 125,000 jobs so far.  Many of those jobs are paying over 100 grand a year, and we don’t need to come a college degree, as I said. 

And it’s not just fabs.  These investments are creating opportunities for entire communities, small businesses, creating even more jobs.

When they move — when you build — for example, you build one of these fabs, whether it’s in Syracuse or wherever they’re — they’re — and they’re all over the place.  Guess what?  You know what happens?  They end up building drugstores, coffee shops, automobile dealerships.  They build entire communities because thousands of people move in who can afford — can afford to live a decent life.

In fact — and we knew in the beginning this wasn’t can- — going to come to fruition in my campaign — my — my administration.  It takes time to get this done, but watch, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years from now.

We’ll soon be the only economy in the world to have all five of the major chip companies operating in the United States of America.  It’s not only cr- — creating thousands — it will create thousands of jobs, and good-paying jobs building chips factory, it wa- — also creating those jobs for workers installing more sol- — solar panels, batteries, selling more electric vehicles than ever before.

You know, that’s a construction boom and a manufacturing boom all across America.  It’s just going to continue to pick up with the billions of dollars being invested.

When faced with unfair practices from abroad, we’ve taken a tough but targeted actions on behalf of the American worker, American businesses, and factory towns.

You know, we know the pandemic and Russian war in Ukraine and infl- — and inflation created enormous pain and hardship all across America.  It’s true for every major economy in the world.  But we took aggressive action that brought prices down.

For example, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, causing gas prices to spike globally, I ordered the biggest release of — ever in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  That’s all the — you all know — most people listening wouldn’t — but that’s all that oil we’ve saved up.

And — and we challenged the oil and gas companies to take their record profits and invest more in production — invest more in production. 

Today, American energy production is at record levels, including in oil and gas production.  Gas prices are down to three bucks — three bucks, below the price before Russia’s invasion. 

In addition, we’ve successfully pushed [purchased] back all oil — all the oil released at a much lower price, and we’ve refilled the facilities, making the taxpayers, in the process, $3.5 billion.  Brought it out — s- — got it back; a hell of a lot cheaper to fill it back up.

Now inflation is coming down faster than almost anywhere in the world, in advanced economies. 

As inflation eased and the strong labor market persisted, inflation-adjusted wages and incomes began to rise.  Average tax f- — average after-tax income is up almost $4,000 than prices on aver- — for average Americans. 

Eighty percent of working-age Americans have jobs — near a decade — a multi-decade high. 

We’re creating a record jobs sixty percent of all Americans who chose to pursue a four-year college degree — who chose not to pursue a four-year degree. 

With our historic backing of union, public support for unions is the highest it’s been in more than a half a century, and the labor movement is expanding and changing in new companies are — and industries. 

Here’s why it’s important for all workers.  I asked the Treasury Department, when I was pushing for union expansion — and I — to do a study, and they found that when union wages go up, everybody’s wages go up across the board.  It matters.

The middle-out and bottom-up playbook is also — is also asking that the very wealthy begin — the most profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share.

I won’t use the usual ci- — cite that you usually — we got a thousand billionaires in America.  Their average federal tax is 8.2 percent.  Anybody want to trade with them?   

Well, look, my predecessor’s $2 trillion tax cut overwhelmingly benefitted the very wealthy and the biggest corporations, delivering tax cuts to the top 1 percent — worth more than 50 times the tax cuts that went to middle-class — families received. 

My approach is leading to better results for everyone.

I kept my commitment that no one — it didn’t make me very popular with Democrats — no one earning less than $4,000 a year would se- — $400,000 a year would pay an additional single penny in additional taxes.  No one. 

Not only I fought hard to expand the Child Tax Credit for working families, but cut child poverty nearly — it was — it cut child poverty nearly in half.  And, by the way, it increases economic growth.  More women can go back to work.  More women can grow the economy.  Expanded tax credits to make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act.  By the way, my — the other team tried to re- — get rid of it.  Fifty-one votes, okay?  

After a decade of severe underfunding, I fought hard to make the IRS have a budget with enough personnel and technology.  And it’s awful hard — it’s easy to go after my taxes.  Not a problem, you know?  And I — I make a good living.  You pay me a lot of money as a — as a president.  But for the very wealthy, it’s awful hard.  You need more personnel. 

And guess what?  We finally — after the fight — got more personnel.  Never did I think I’d be fighting to get more tax collectors.  We got more folks in the — in the department. 

The result: The IRS has already collected over $1 billion in unpaid taxes from the super wealthy that had not been paid in the past.

Look, folks, our economic playbook also includes increasing fair competition.  I’m a capitalist, but capitalism without competition is not capitalism; it’s exploitation.  But not on my watch.

My Inflation Reduction Act took on Big Pharma, reduced the price of insulin for seniors with diabetes to pay only 35 bucks a month until the — close to the average of $400 a month.

You know, when I was trying to sell this to the American public, I’d go around the country doing town meetings and say, “Anybody has a prescription from a major drug company in America?  Come with me and get on Air Force One.  I will take you to Toronto, to Berlin, to Rome, to anywhere in the world, and I’ll get you that same exact prescription, from the same exact company for somewhere between 40 to 60 percent less.”

Well, the Inflation Reduction Act also finally gives Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors across the board.  It’s already passed. 

Starting next month, out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for seniors — total prescription drug costs — will be capped at $2,000 a year no matter how much they spend, no matter how expensive their drugs.  And you all know it, because some of you, like me and others, have lost families to cancer and cancer treatment.  Those drugs — cancer drugs — can cost 10-, 12-, 14 million — thousand dollars a year.

These other reforms not only save seniors money, not only saves the patient money, but guess what?  It saves every one of you taxpayers money because the federal government is not paying out $160 billion over the next 10 years that it had to pay now, because they’re not paying that.  They’re paying 35, not 400 bucks for the prescription — exorbitant prices of pharmaceutical companies have been cha- — they’re charging.

We’re also lowering costs by eliminating junk fees.  Junk fees are those hidden costs that can add up to hundreds of dollars for the average American family — you know, hidden costs like excessive banking overdraft fees.

So, I — I didn’t realize they had the power to do this, but we brought them down from an average of $35 a month for an overdraft to $5 a month.  It costs the banks a lot of money, but it was fair.  Thirty-five bucks to deal with an overdraft. 

And, in addition to that was late fees for credit cards; apartment application fees — I know most of us don’t even look at that, but just the ap- — just to apply; hidden hotel fees; or family seating arrangements on flights.  A lot of you got that one down.

I don’t know about all of you, but — maybe it’s the Irish in me — but just — I hate being played for a sucker.  (Laughter.)  No, I’m serious.  People get angry when they find this out.

Fair competition is especially important for small businesses that have been crushed by decades of concentrated corporate power.  That’s important because small businesses represent nearly 50 percent of the entire GDP of the American economy.

Because of our policies and confidence of entrepreneurs in the economy, we’ve seen 20 million in — since I became president, 20 million new business applications during this administration — the most of any presidential term in history — a record. 

Black businesses ownership — back — Black businesses ownership is doubling.  Hispanic business ownership is up by 40 percent since the pandemic.  The share of women in business is also on the rise.

It all has benefitted not just those groups but all of the economy.  Every single application for a new business license is like a — like an act of hope, of confidence.

There’s so much more from our playbook.

The bottom line is, in four short years, we’ve come a long way from a cri- — (coughs) — excuse me, my cold — I apologize — from the crisis we inherited.

We not only — we not only beat the pandemic; we broke from the economic orthodoxy that has failed this nation, in my view, for a long time — a theory that led to fewer jobs, less economic growth, and bigger deficits.

I had a fundamentally different theory.  My theory was the strongest economy is built from the bottom up and the middle out — from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down.

And the best way to build that in America was to invest in America, invest in American products and invest in the American people — not by handing out tax breaks to those at the top. 

And I’m not looking — look, I — I won’t get in — we can talk about taxes. 

But it was — it’s long past time for America to make a generational investment in our infrastructure, in our manufacturing base, in the technological edge in our clean energy future.

I know it’s been hard for many Americans to see, and I understand it.  They’re just trying to figure out how to put three squares on the table.  But I believe it was the right thing to do, not only to lift Americans out of economic crisis caused by a pandemic, but set America on a stronger course for the future.  And we did that.

We don’t only — don’t take my word for it.  Here’s how Time Magazine and other commentators describe the economy I’m leaving to my successor, and there’s a number of these quotes: “President-elect Trump is receiving the strongest economy in modern history, which is the envy of the world.”

I’m going to say something outrageous.  I know a fair amount about foreign policy.  I’ve known every major world leader for a long — I’ve been around 500 years.  (Laughter.)  I know these guys.  And I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t change their econ- — their economy with ours.  Can you think of one, any major nation that says, “I want to trade — I don’t want to trade.  I’ll keep mine.  I like what I’m doing”?

Let me close with this.  By all accounts, the incoming administration is determined to return the country to another round of trickle-down economics and another tax cut for the very wealthy that will not be paid for — or, if paid for, is going to have a real cost — once again, causing massive deficits or significant cuts in basic programs, from health care, education, veterans benefits.

On top of that, he seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer.  Who does he think pays for this?

I believe this approach is a major mistake.  I believe we’ve proven that approach is a mistake over the past four years. 

But we all know in time — we all know in time what will happen. 

I’ve never agreed with Ronald Reagan’s approach to the economy — although, I got along with him very well — but I did agree with something he said.  President Reagan said, and I quote, “Facts are stubborn things.”  “Facts are stubborn things.”  They are.

Here are the facts.  A set mark of benchmarks, if you will, that we should measure the success or failure of our next four years: During my presidency, we created 60 million new jobs in America.  Will the next president create jobs or, like Herbert Hoover, be the only president to lose jobs in his administration?

During my presidency, we see the lowest average unemployment rate of — than any administration in 50 years. Will the unemployment be higher or lower in the next four years?

We’ve long — we have a — we have a — had a strong economic growth of 3 percent, on average, on a yearly basis.  Will the next president have a stronger or weaker economic growth?

And inflation.  Yes, inflation.  We’re battling through worldwide effects of the pandemic, Putin’s war in Ukraine, and the supply chain disruptions.  I’m leaving the next president with an inflation rate that’s near 2 percent.  Where — where will inflation be at the end of the next president’s term?

Look, these are simple, well-established economic benchmarks used to measure the strength of any economy, the success or failure of any president’s four years in office. They’re not political, rhetorical opinions.  They’re just facts — simple facts.  As President Reagan called them, “stubborn facts.” 

And one more fact I prep- — as I prepare to leave office: You know, there is no country on Earth better positioned to lead the world in the years to come than America.  Think about it.  What stunned me — and, again, I’m going to say something outrageous — I have as much experience in foreign policy as any president in the history of the United States has had.  I was chairman of Foreign Relations Committee.  I — anyway, I spent a lot of time.  I know all of them.

Well, the decisions we make over the next four years have been transformative to the nation. But I tell you what, what stunned me — and it’s not — I’m not being a hyper-American here — I can’t name a single country in the world that doesn’t think — I’ll put it this way: If we’re not leading the world, who does?  Not a joke.  I’m not being wise guy.  If we do not lead the world, what nation leads the world?  Who pulls Europe together?  Who tries to pull the Middle East together?  How do we (inaudible) the Indian Ocean?  What do we do in Africa? 

We, the United States, lead the world.  And you all are extre- — extremely experienced women and men.  You know many of these leaders.  You know many of these countries.  Find me one that says we’re not or wish we weren’t.

Look, my hope and belief is that the decisions and investments are now so deeply rooted in the nation that it’s going to be politically costly and economically unsound for the next president to disrupt to c- — or cut.

You know, some of my friends in the Republican Party when I do States of the Union who holler and like, you know, those things — they’re against all the things we did.  Keep your eye on them.  Tell me when they want the programs we voted for them — to cut in their states.  Show me the most conservative Republicans willing to take away the factories that are going to be built in their states. 

Going to be interesting.  Going to be interesting.

Look, I pray to God — because I think everybody has an opportunity to reconsider their going — growth — I pray to God the president-elect throws away Project 2025.  I think it’d be an economic disaster for us and the region.

In fact, consider one additional fact: The historic investments we’ve made went to more red states than blue states.  Not a politically smart thing to do, and I knew what I was doing.  I knew people would be angry.  But the reason the red states — and they need it more because of the decisions they made — decisions they made and geography.

Will the next president stop a new electric battery factory in Liberty, North Carolina, that will create thousands of jobs?

Will he shut down a new solar factory being built in — in Carterville [Cartersville], Georgia?  Are they going to do that?

You know, will we deny seniors living in red states $35-a-month insulin?

I believe the only way for a president to lead America was to lead all of America.  And I believe the economy I’m leaving at the moment — and others could do better than I did; I’m not saying I was perfect — but ends up, at this moment, the best economy, strongest economy in the world and for all Americans, doing better. 

So, we got a lot to do, and I’m — I’m — I’m leaving the presidency, but I’m not going away — in bad news for you all — (laughter) — because I think we can — we got to bring this country back together.

When I announced my candidacy for president, I said I was running for three reasons.  One was to restore the soul of America, just decency in the way we treat one another — politically how we treat one another.

I know you know that when I — back when Pat was around and others, we had vicious fights.  We’d go and sit and have lunch together in the Senate dining room.

I’m taking more of your time than I should.  But one of the things that I realized when I was vice president — Barack wanted me because of my background in foreign policy and my ability to work in the Congress fairly well.  And so, about five years, six years in, I decided to go up to the Senate dining room — I’m president of the Senate — to sit at the table where Democrats and Republicans sit together and began to listen again, just talk to people.

Well, guess what?  No place to go. 

You’ve been to the senator’s dining room where they take you into the ro- — the room where you can eat with other senators and other people.  But right — the doors on the left of that elevator are a private dining — it used to be a long buffet table.  You walk in — a long table sitting, I guess, 16, 18 people on the right, parallel with the table.  And you walk through an archway, and there was a table going the other way.  One was the Democratic table.  One was Republican table.  And when there weren’t enough to sit at any one table, then they all sit together.

It’s hard to really dislike an individual that you strongly disagree with when you find out his wife is dying of breast cancer or he just lost a child or he’s having serious physical problems himself. 

We knew each other.  I really mean it.

Barack used to — used to drive Barack crazy when we’d — we met every morning at 9 o’clock and with his last (inaudible) talk to one another when the day ended.  And he always give me — he said, “I know, I know, I know.  All politics is personal.”  But it is.  It is.

I watched Teddy Kennedy and Jim Eastland rip each other apart on the floor and then go down and have lunch together.

So, one is to restore the soul of the country.

The second thing to do — I was trying to do when I — I said I was — when I ran was to begin to restore the middle class, to focus on people most in need.

And thirdly, was to — to bring the cou- — bring the politics together again.  Again, we don’t have to agree with one another, but we sure in hell have to stick with the system that’s allowed us to strongly disagree and yet keep within the confines of the — of the admonitions of the Constitution.

I’ve taken much too much of your time, and I apologize.  But you’re the — among the most informed people in Washington, and I would really appreciate, down the road here a little bit, any constructive criticism you have, and I’m sure you have some.  (Laughter.) 

All right.  Thank you so very much for having me.  (Applause.)

1:20 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden on His Middle-Out, Bottom-Up Economic Playbook appeared first on The White House.

On December 9, Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer met virtually with the Deputy National Security Advisors of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.  Mr. Finer discussed with his counterparts the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the importance of working closely together across their respective capitals and with partners in the region to support the aspirations of the Syrian people and manage risks associated with the ongoing transition. The group discussed efforts to reinforce the ceasefire in Lebanon and reach a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza.  Mr. Finer also noted the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to ensure Ukraine has the strongest hand possible heading into 2025 and to increase costs on Russia for its continued aggression. The group discussed shared concerns over democratic backsliding in Georgia, including through last month’s elections and more recent violence against protestors. 

###

The post Readout of Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer’s Meeting with Quint Deputy National Security Advisors: Xavier Chatel of France, Christian Aulbach of Germany, Pietro Sferra Carini of Italy, and Nick Catsaras and Matt Collins of the United Kingdom appeared first on The White House.

The spirit of innovation is central to who we are as Americans. America invented the semiconductor, the building blocks of the technology of today and tomorrow. Through our CHIPS and Science Act, President Biden and I have made the historic investments necessary to ensure semiconductor manufacturing returns to and remains here in America.
 
Today, thanks to our historic legislation, the Department of Commerce has finalized one of its largest awards to date with Micron Technology, the only U.S. based manufacturer of memory chips. This more than $6.1 billion investment in Clay, NY and Boise, ID supports the construction of several state-of-the-art memory chips facilities as part of Micron’s total $125 billion investment over the next few decades, creating at least 20,000 jobs by the end of the decade. These investments will help the U.S. grow its share of advanced memory manufacturing from nearly 0% today to 10% over the next decade.

I am also proud to say that Micron is building these facilities by utilizing project labor agreements and registered apprenticeship programs, which will further strengthen local economies, support workers, and ensure the construction is completed on time and within budget. Additionally, the Department of Commerce announced that it agreed to preliminary terms with Micron for an additional $275 million investment to expand Micron’s Manassas, VA facility and onshore a critical technology relied upon by our defense industry, automotive sector, and national security community.
 
Our administration knows these landmark announcements are more than investments; they are catalysts for sustained economic growth. When President Biden and I took office, supply chain disruptions led to chips and semiconductor shortages. That is why we worked with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in Congress to pass legislation to make these unprecedented investments that are creating opportunity in red and blue states alike. At the same time, our work has bolstered our national and economic security by promoting the domestic creation of the chips that are responsible for powering nearly every device Americans rely on – from smartphones and vehicles to advanced defense systems and artificial intelligence data centers. This work will make a lasting difference for decades to come and proves that in the competition for the 21st century, we can invest in American industries and American workers at the same time.

###

The post Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on CHIPS and Science Act Investments in Micron Technology appeared first on The White House.

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

1:01 P.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me close with this:

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

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

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

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

1:17 P.M. EST

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