Whitehouse.gov Feed

Since Day One, the Biden-Harris Administration has championed an ambitious equity and racial justice agenda to ensure the full and fair participation of all communities in American life. Despite progress being made, entrenched disparities in our laws and public policies have often denied equal opportunity to historically underserved communities, including rural communities, communities of color, Tribal communities, LGBTQI+ individuals, religious minorities, people with disabilities, women and girls, and other communities impacted by persistent poverty. Redressing these opportunity gaps can drive stronger economic growth for all Americans. For example, research finds that the gaps in labor market opportunities for women and people of color cost the U.S. $2.6 trillion in foregone GDP in 2019; closing these gaps would increase economic output by an additional $3.1 trillion in 2029 alone. A report released this week from Brookings and MIT illustrated the success of these efforts – supporting economic comebacks in communities across the country.

Through the implementation of two historic Executive Orders on equity and the President’s landmark Investing in America Agenda and other key legislation, the Biden-Harris Administration is working to advance opportunity and make real the promise of America for everyone.

Today, marking the first anniversary of the signing of President Biden’s second Executive Order on equity, federal agencies, including all Cabinet-level agencies, are releasing their 2023 Equity Action Plans, which include over 100 community-informed strategies and actions to address systemic barriers in our Nation’s policies and programs. The Biden-Harris Administration also released a new White House Progress Report on Equity, which highlights examples of the more than 650 actions agencies have undertaken since the release of their 2022 Equity Action Plans. Agencies acted to increase access to federal contracting dollars, capital, and lending programs for small disadvantaged businesses; reduce discrimination in the housing market; advance environmental justice and invest in disadvantaged communities; address health disparities, including disparities in maternal health outcomes in communities of color; build economic prosperity in rural communities; promote equity and fairness in the justice system; support victims and survivors of gender-based violence; root out bias in the design and use of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence; and bolster civil rights enforcement.

“Since day one of our Administration, President Biden and I have been fully committed to ensuring that every person in America has equitable access to opportunity and the ability to thrive – whether that be supporting small businesses, forgiving $137 billion in student loan debt, investing billions of dollars in our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, removing lead pipes, cutting prescription drug prices, and taking on the maternal health crisis with the urgency it demands,” said Vice President Kamala Harris. “As we mark the one-year anniversary of the second equity Executive Order, we celebrate the hundreds of government-wide equity accomplishments and recommit to addressing the barriers that remain. Together, we will continue to advance equity across the federal government, not only in hiring and appointments but in the historic investments we are making in communities that had been overlooked for far too long.”

Now more than ever, it is critical to reject the narrow, cramped view of American opportunity as a zero-sum game. When we lift each other up, we are all lifted up.  Across the Federal Government, agencies will take new actions to advance equity and justice for underserved communities, including by:

Addressing Inequity in Economic Opportunity

• Improving Financial Health of Underserved Businesses and Communities. Families build wealth by starting small businesses, yet many entrepreneurs who are veterans, women, or people of color still face discrimination by U.S. banks, are charged higher interest costs, and experience difficulties when trying to obtain the fair and affordable financing options needed to grow their businesses. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs), such as banks and credit unions, serve as frontline financial supports to low- and moderate-income communities by providing loans, grants, and financial products to businesses and consumers who otherwise are unable to access capital and services through traditional banking institutions. The Department of the Treasury invested nearly $9 billion through investment through the Emergency Capital Investment Program that scales the capacity of these low- and moderate-income community financial institutions in providing loans, grants, and forbearance for businesses and consumers, especially in low-income and underserved communities. In addition, for the first time in 40 years, the Small Business Administration issued new Small Business Lending Company licenses for nonbank lenders to expand capital access to traditionally hard to reach small businesses. These actions will enable these critical institutions to better serve their local communities and ensure that all people have equal opportunity to prosper through business ownership.
   
• Ending Gender-based Workforce Discrimination. Women have persistently lower wages and fewer workplace benefits than men, with disparities that are even more pronounced for many women of color. The Department of Labor (DOL) will implement Good Jobs Principles aimed at improving wages in female dominated sectors and administer the Fostering Access, Rights, and Equity grant program for women impacted by gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace. DOL will also work to reduce caregiving penalties for women and low-paid workers by expanding and tailoring the National Database of Childcare Prices, key analytical tools to evaluate how childcare prices are linked with gender and racial inequality in the labor force.

Addressing Inequity in Housing and Community Investment

• Ending Discrimination in Home Appraisals. Every American deserves the opportunity to be a homeowner. But many Black and Brown families still face housing discrimination, like the indignity of removing family photos from their walls just to obtain a fair valuation when they put their home up for sale. One study by Freddie Mac found that 12.5% of appraisals for home purchases in majority-Black neighborhoods and 15.4% in majority-Latino neighborhoods resulted in a value below the contract price (the amount a buyer is willing to pay for the property), compared to only 7.4% of appraisals in predominantly white neighborhoods. To combat property appraisal bias, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the PAVE Initiative. As part of the Equity Action Plan, HUD will partner with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers to tackle appraisal bias and discrimination in the housing market. The new collaboration will include online training for counselors, roundtable discussions on bias and discrimination, educational material distribution, and appraisal-related training—all aimed to promote fairness in the housing market.
   
• Expanding Safe, Accessible, Affordable Transportation. The Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that at least 1 million people and businesses were displaced by decades of harmful urban renewal projects and legacy policy decisions in the buildout of the Federal highway system. From 1955 to 1977, the federal government selected land that cut through low-income communities and communities of color to build the Nation’s highway system – destroying once vibrant and affordable neighborhoods, exacerbating racial segregation, stifling economic mobility, widening disparities in health outcomes and furthering community isolation in areas with low access to jobs and institutions such as grocery stores and banks. DOT will redress these chronic disinvestments by implementing the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhood Grants Program, a first-of-its-kind federal program funded through the President’s Investing in America agenda. Over $4 billion is available over five years through this program, with nearly $3.4 available in the latest round. In the first round of the program DOT awarded a total of $185 million to 45 projects through the Reconnecting Communities Program, aimed at restoring community connectivity through the removal, retrofit, mitigation, or replacement of eligible transportation infrastructure facilities. As these place-based construction projects begin to reach completion in 2024, they will cumulatively help combat transit-related burdens faced by 47% of the U.S. population who spend at least 15% of their annual income on transportation and the 8% of American households without access to vehicles.
  
  Addressing Inequity in Health
• Making Childbirth and the Postpartum Period Safer. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will improve maternal health outcomes to combat the maternal health crisis which disproportionally impacts Black women, Native women, and women in rural communities by addressing gaps in insurance coverage and disparities in the birthing care infrastructure. This includes expanding postpartum coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program from 60 days to 12 months of continuous care, with the potential to reach an estimated 720,000 Americans annually who would be eligible for essential care for a full year after pregnancy if all states extended postpartum coverage. Data from Medicaid and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that more than one-half of pregnancy-related mortality occurs in the 12-month postpartum period and about one-third occurs between 7 and 365 days post-delivery. Additionally, pregnancy-related deaths are three to four times more common among Black or African American and American Indian/Alaska Native women than among white women.
• Combatting Child Food Insecurity. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) will help close the summer hunger gap for children eligible for free and reduced price school meals by implementing new summer nutrition options, including to-go or home-delivered summer meals in certain rural communities and a summer grocery benefit for children known as Summer EBT. For Summer EBT’s inaugural year this summer, 36 states, D.C., all five U.S. territories, and four Tribes launched the program in January 2024, which will serve close to 21 million children with a total of nearly $2.5 billion in grocery benefits. This is around 70% of the total population of children eligible for Summer EBT. USDA expects additional states and Tribes will provide Summer EBT in 2025. Rigorous evaluations of a multi-year demonstration project showed that summer grocery benefits decreased the number of kids with very low food security by about one-third and supported healthier diets featuring more fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
  
  Addressing Inequity through Environmental and Climate Justice
• Tackling Environmental Injustice. Every person in this country deserves to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy environment. However, for far too long, communities across our country – including many communities of color, Tribal communities, low-income communities, and people experiencing persistent poverty – have faced environmental injustices, such as bearing the brunt of toxic pollution, enduring underinvestment in infrastructure and critical services, and suffering disproportionate impacts from climate change. President Biden is advancing the most ambitious environmental justice agenda in history to address this, including signing a historic Executive Order that calls on the Federal Government to bring clean energy and healthy environments to all and mitigate harm to those who have suffered from toxic pollution and other environmental burdens like climate change; replacing lead pipes and taking action to protect communities from PFAS pollution; accelerating Superfund cleanups; tightening air quality enforcement near polluting facilities; and more. HUD’s Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, has already awarded nearly $300 million in loans and grants to improve the homes of thousands of low- and moderate-income Americans through clean energy and climate resilience projects.
   
• Delivering on the Justice40 Initiative and Reducing Pollution. President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative set a goal to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of certain climate, clean air, clean water, and other federal investments to disadvantaged communities that have historically been left behind or overlooked. Over 500 programs across 19 federal agencies are being reimagined and transformed through the Justice40 Initiative to maximize benefits to disadvantaged communities such as cleaner air, good-paying jobs, and affordable clean energy. Key categories of federal investments included in the Justice40 Initiative are: climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable and sustainable housing, training and workforce development, pollution remediation and reduction, and water and wastewater infrastructure. The President’s Inflation Reduction Act also makes historic investments in environmental justice for all, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) single largest investment in environmental justice in EPA history through the new competitive Community Change Grants program. The program will deliver $2 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding to support new community-driven projects that deploy clean energy, strengthen climate resilience, and build capacity for communities to achieve a healthier, safer, and more prosperous future for all.
   
• Reforming Disaster Assistance Program to Help Survivors Recover Faster. Studies have found that people of color and low-income communities experience significant barriers to recovery following natural disasters. To improve the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Individual Assistance program to advance equity, FEMA will be simplifying processes, removing barriers, and increasing eligibility to reach more disaster survivors. FEMA will expand home repair assistance, allow for the re-opening of the applicant registration period when the President adds new counties to the major disaster declaration, and simplify the documentation requirements for continued temporary housing assistance.
   
• Today’s announcements build on actions the Biden-Harris Administration has taken to advance equity, as outlined in the new White House Progress Report on Equity. Below are examples of recent accomplishments included in the new Equity Action Plans. Explore the 2022 and 2023 Equity Action Plans at www.performance.gov/equity.
   
• Supporting Disadvantaged Farmers. USDA has helped more than 39,000 farmers and ranchers who were in financial distress retain their farms and continue farming. President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act allocated $3.1 billion for USDA to provide relief for distressed borrowers with certain direct and guaranteed loans, and to expedite assistance for those whose agricultural operations are at financial risk due to factors outside their control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the law was signed in August 2022, USDA’s Farm Service Agency has provided over $2.1 billion and counting in immediate assistance (as of February 12, 2024).
   
• Ensuring Contracting Opportunities for Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs). The Department of Treasury awarded $1.2 billion in FY 2023 to SDBs, representing for the first almost 12% of eligible small business dollars available for Treasury contracts. In addition, Treasury awarded a total of over $2 billion to businesses of all sizes, including to Women-Owned Businesses and Minority-Owned Businesses. These steps further President Biden’s goal of ensuring 15% of federal contracts go to SDBs by 2025.
   
• Expanding Mental Health Support Services for Students. The Department of Education funded 264 grants with $1 billion in Bipartisan Safer Communities Act funds to more than 40 states to increase the supply of school-based mental health professionals under the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant and the Mental Health Services Professional Demonstration (MHSPD) Grant Program. At least 40 states used “high poverty” in their definition of high-needs school. The Department estimates these 5-year grants will result in an increase of 14,000 mental health professionals. In FY 2023, nearly 50% of the MHSPD grants include a partnership with Minority Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), or Tribal Colleges. Additionally, the Department aims to ensure that school districts serving historically underserved student groups, including students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, students who are English learners, students experiencing homelessness, and others have the resources they need to support learning recovery. This includes the allocation of $122 billion in ARP funds to school districts based on their level of poverty under Title I and the ARP’s Maintenance of Equity requirements to protect high poverty schools from reductions in State and local education funding.
   
• Expanding Care for Women Veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has expanded breast cancer screenings and mammograms for veterans with potential toxic exposures and supported access to reproductive health services for veterans and VA beneficiaries. VA has also dramatically expanded one-on-one maternity care coordination for women veterans – the fastest growing cohort of veterans at VA. Women veterans are also enrolling in VA health care at higher rates under the PACT Act, and VA recently hosted its first Women Veterans Experience Action Center, helping more than 340 women veterans apply for the care and benefits they deserve.
   
• Fostering Community Development in Rural and Tribal Communities. The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) made $725 million in FY 2023 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Abandoned Mine Land grants available to eligible states and the Navajo Nation. The funding will provide good-paying jobs to coal communities and at the same time return legacy coal sites to productive uses, fostering community and economic development.  Additionally, DOI announced new regulations to improve implementation of the Buy Indian Act to promote economic development opportunities in Indian Country. The final rule was developed in consultation with Tribes and ultimately is working to eliminate barriers that inhibit Indian Economic Enterprises (IEEs) from competing on certain construction contracts and expanded IEEs’ ability to subcontract construction work consistent with other socio-economic set-aside programs.
   
• Using Rental Payment History to Advance Home Ownership. HUD has taken additional steps through the Office of Single-Family Housing (SFH) to support wealth-generation activities for prospective and current homeowners. Specifically, SFH expanded access to credit by incorporating a borrower’s positive rental payment history into the mortgage underwriting process. Using rental payment history promotes a more inclusive credit evaluation, which in turn can expand homeownership opportunities to first-time homebuyers. This guidance is expected to continue to expand homeownership opportunities for borrowers where a positive rental payment history can make a difference when combined with other assessment factors for determining eligibility for Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgage financing. HUD estimates this policy change will enable up to 5,500 borrowers per year to qualify for an FHA-insured loan.

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Annual Agency Equity Action Plans to Further Advance Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government appeared first on The White House.

History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games. Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant who came to the United States with his family as political refugees, has spent more than two decades serving America with integrity in a decorated career in law enforcement and public service.  From his time in the Justice Department as a U.S. Attorney to his service as Deputy Secretary and now Secretary of Homeland Security, he has upheld the rule of law faithfully and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the values that make our nation great. 

This impeachment already failed once on a bipartisan vote. Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about the border should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security. Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Secretary Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment — reversing from years of their own demands to pass stronger border bills. Giving up on real solutions right when they are needed most in order to play politics is not what the American people expect from their leaders. Congress needs to act to give me, Secretary Mayorkas, and my administration the tools and resources needed to address the situation at the border. The House also needs to pass the Senate’s national security supplemental right away. We will continue pursuing real solutions to the challenges Americans face, and House Republicans have to decide whether to join us to solve the problem or keep playing politics with the border.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on House GOP’s Baseless Impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

10:24 A.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good morning.  Good morning, everybody.  Okay, so I have a couple of things at the top before we get going. 

We applaud the bipartisan coalition of senators who came together to pass the supplemental agreement this morning, which protects America’s national security interests. 

This bill will enable the Ukrainian people to defend themselves against Russia’s ongoing brutal and unprovoked attacks.  It will provide Israel with what it needs to protect its people against Hamas terrorists, and it will deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people around the world, including innocent Palestinian civilians suffering in Gaza who have nothing to do with Hamas. 

The President urges the House to send this legislation to his desk immediately so that he can sign it into law.  The costs of inaction are rising every day.  America’s leadership matters, and the world is watching — is watching what the White — the House Republicans do. 

I also want to highlight a win for the American people against Big Pharma.  Yesterday, a district court in Texas dismissed a case and — it brought against President Biden’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. 

When President Biden came into office, he vowed to lower healthcare costs for American families.  By — by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, the President and congressional Democrats finally allowed Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors, while every single Republican in Congress voted against it. 

Despite Big Pharma’s attempts to block the program, the administ- — this administration is moving forward on fully implementing it. 

The bottom line is: Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay two to three times more for their prescription drugs than other developed nations. 

President Biden will continue to stand up to Big Pharma and take action to lower healthcare costs for millions of senior — seniors and their families. 

Today, our thoughts — our thoughts are with the families of the three students who were tragically killed one year ago at Michigan State University, the five students who were injured as a result of this horrific gun violence, and the countless others traumatized by that day. 

Tomorrow also marks another painful tragedy, as we remember the 14 students and 3 educators who lost their lives six years ago at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

From Michigan to Florida, American children and educators are being gunned down in classrooms, on college campuses, and in their own homes and communities as guns remain the number one killer of kids in America. 

The President has met with countless survivors of gun violence who have turned their pain into purpose by advocating for commonsense gun safety measures that protect communities and save lives. 

In Michigan, young leaders demanded action from their legislators, ultimately leading to the most significant package of gun safety reforms to ever pass in the state. 

In Parkland, students successfully organized and saw Florida pass a major gun safety package that included a red flag law and raised the age of purchase — firearms.

Young people across the nation marched for their lives.  And thanks to their collective efforts, President Biden was able to sign into — into law the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years with Bipartisan — with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. 

The President continues to stand with millions of young Americans who are calling on Congress to do more — calling on Congress to do more. 

As the President often says, nothing is beyond our capacity when we act together.  And that includes ending the epidemic of gun violence once and for all. 

So, with that, my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, is here to give an update on what’s happening in the Middle East. 

Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Just an administrative note this morning — I’m sorry, this afternoon.

Q    It’s still morning.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, good morning to you.  (Laughter.) 

But this afternoon, the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons will meet at the White House for the third time now since the administration took office to reaffirm our commitment to combat human trafficking. 

This task force is a Cabinet-level activity created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 that coordinates the federal government’s anti-trafficking efforts.  And that includes implementing our national action plan to combat human trafficking, which we released back in December of 2021. 

Secretary of State Blinken, Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall, Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden will all chair this meeting and host it.  They’ll give remarks, and they’ll have an opportunity to hear from leaders across the — the interagency and Cabinet-level agencies about their accomplishments in trying to help us combat human trafficking as well as the challenges that they’re — they’re facing and the things that we got to do better to — to address this problem. 

So, that’s it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    Could I get an update from the administration’s perspective on how the talks in Cairo are going today?  Is the White House seeing any substantive progress in those discussions?

I believe one Egyptian official said we could see a potential final draft of what a hostage deal could look like after today.  So, what’s the — what’s the perspec- — what’s your perspective?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re — look, we’re — we’re glad that these discussions are ongoing.  And as I’ve said before, they have been — they’ve been constructive and they’ve been moving in the right direction. 

But I don’t have a specific update for you today.  And I wouldn’t want to get ahead of discussions, as they’re occurring as you and I speak right now.  

So, very much reflective of the effort that the President has put into this, and the whole national security team is devoted to this.  We want to get those hostages home as soon as possible, and that work is going on. 

Q    And a quick follow-up.  I know you were asked yesterday, but since Secretary Austin remains — his health issues are ongoing, has the President spoken with the Secretary in the last couple of days?

MR. KIRBY:  He has not spoken to him that I’m aware of.  I’m not aware of — of a call yet.  He respects that the Secretary is, you know, still hospitalized, still being seen to by doctors for this bladder condition.  And I think he wants to respect that process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks very much.  John, do you have any indication that the Israelis are holding off on a Rafah offensive because of the strong words that President Biden has had about this issue?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that we have any indication that — of their timing one way or the other, Jeff.  And that would be something for them to speak to. 

But as you heard the President say, we don’t — we don’t believe that it’s advisable to move forward with a major operation in Rafah unless or until there has been proper accounting for all the civilians that are there. 

Q    And the — the King yesterday had some pretty strong words about the deaths of Palestinians.  What was President Biden’s sense of that meeting?  And — and does that impact his own advocacy with the Prime Minister of Israel as well?

MR. KIRBY:  The President too had some pretty strong words about civilian deaths and how there’s been too many.

Certainly, the conduct of the operations was of discussion yesterday.  I won’t go into more detail than that, but you can expect, of course, they talked about the conduct of the operations. 

And as for what effect that conversation yesterday will have or the President’s own thinking on — on the — on the conduct of the operations — which, again, he’s been very candid about on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision-making — I couldn’t say.

I would just leave you with this: We have consistently conveyed our concerns to our Israeli counterparts, including the Prime Minister, about moving forward in Rafah in a major way without due consideration of civilians.  And we have consistently conveyed privately and publicly — but privately, too — our concerns about the need to continue to look for ways to reduce civilian casualties. 

As the President said yesterday, there’s been too many.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, the President said that there should be a credible and executable plan in place to safeguard civilians in Rafah before Israel were to launch any kind of ground invasion.  What is — in the White House view, what would a credible plan look like?  How would you ever realistically move 1.4 million people out of the way?

MR. KIRBY:  I think what — what — first of all, you know, they’d have to — they’d be the ones that have to come up with this plan.  I think what we want to see in any kind of a plan to make it credible would be to account for — as I think M.J. was asking me yesterday, to account for the now more than a mil- — a million people — some estimates up to a million and a half — that are seeking refuge in Rafah. 

It’s a small geographical space — the Gaza Strip.  Period.  It’s really small down there around Rafah.  And you got a million to a million and a half people that are seeking safety. 

And so, any credible plan that can be executable would have to take into account their physical movement — safe movement, as well as proper subsistence for them — you know, food, water, medicine, access to healthcare — and — and, you know, be able to stay together as family units.  So, all of that would have to be factored in. 

Q    Does the White House believe there is any possible plan out there that would be executable, given the infrastructure situation within Gaza right now?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we haven’t seen what the Israelis are thinking or what — what exactly they’re putting pen to paper on.  Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he had tasked his army, the IDF, to do exactly that.  So, we’ll see what they come up with.

Q    On this funding fight — obviously, you’re urging Congress to act — you all have been fairly optimistic.  But realistically, I mean, Speaker Johnson doesn’t seem to have any interest in bringing up this bill to fund Ukraine and Israel.  So what is plan B?  Is there a plan B if Congress doesn’t get this done?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into hypotheticals.  I think the President was very clear in his statement: It’s really important that the House now take this up and get it to his desk.  As Karine said, it get — if it gets to his desk, he’ll sign it.  It’s critical. 

This — as we’ve said before — we said it when we submitted the supplemental back in October — there is no magical pot of money from which to draw to try to support these allies and these partners and to try to support — oh, by the way — significant humanitarian assistance needs not just in Gaza, but elsewhere around the world. 

Congress needs to act.  They need — they need to be the ones to move forward. 

Q    But are you seeing any cause for optimism that Congress is actually going to do anything?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, it’s —

Q    Because so far it certainly doesn’t seem like the Speaker is moving in that direction. 

MR. KIRBY:  I think today is a — today is a pretty optimistic sign that it got through the Senate.  That’s not an insignificant milestone.  And, again, we’re grateful for the bipartisan leadership in the Senate.  Now it’s time for the House to act the same way. 

Q    And can you say broadly, I mean, this — if this doesn’t get done, this lack of funding, you know — not to mention Trump’s recent comments about NATO — what message broadly is this sending our allies and the world about our ability to follow through on our commitments?  I mean, can we be trusted?

MR. KIRBY:  It sends messages if we don’t get this done.  It sends messages not just to allies and partners, but to potential adversaries as well that the United States can’t be counted on, that we’re not interested in being a leader on the world stage, that we aren’t — aren’t going to be able to stand by our commitments to allies and partners who are fighting really critical fights here.  Israel is in a fight literally for their lives.  And the Ukrainians are, too, for their democracy. 

So, I think it sends a strong signal to the whole world that — that perhaps certain members of Congress aren’t willing to show and demonstrate the kind of American leadership on the world stage that President Biden has. 

Q    Jake Sullivan, yesterday, met virtually with the families of the six American hostages who are in Gaza.  And in a statement after that meeting, the hostage family said that they expressed frustration with the pace of negotiations.  Does the White House share in that frustration?

MR. KIRBY:  We would love nothing more, Arlette, than to have every single hostage back with their families yesterday and the day before that.  We are working with a real sense of alacrity and urgency here to try to get an extended pause in place, but it’s been difficult. 

I can’t blame — nobody can blame these families for being frustrated and for being anxious and being fearful.  Of course, they are.  Anybody would.  Any of you would. 

I — and I think one of the things that Jake conveyed to them was how seriously we’re taking the task and how hard we are working at it.  And as I said earlier, we believe that the discussions have been constructive and that, in general, things seem to be moving in the right direction.  But, you know, nothing is done until it’s all done.

Q    Is something standing in the way from things moving faster?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into the bits about negotiations and — and what the — what the points are that are still being horse-traded.  But there are, in fact, active discussions going on about certain modalities that would have to take place to make this work.  And, again, I think the less said about that publicly, the better.

Q    And then if I could just — on Ukraine really quickly.  Does the President plan on making any personal appeal to the House Speaker in a phone call or having him at the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any personal appeal.  Al- — although, in terms of, like, today — although, as you know, the Speaker was here at the White House and had a chance to hear directly from not only President Biden, but his national security team about the importance of supporting Ukraine and Israel going forward, how important this supplemental funding was.  So the Speaker certainly has heard directly from the President.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, a couple more. 

Go ahead, Aurelia.  

Q    Thank you so much.  I would have two questions on Gaza.  The first one, yesterday during his remarks with the King of Jordan, the President said over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed in this conflict, and this is the best count that has been made public by Hamas. 

So, do you confirm that this death toll is accurate and can be seen as the official death toll in Gaza?  Have you been able to verify this figure?

MR. KIRBY:  The President was referring to publicly available data about the total number of — of casualties.  And as he said, too many of that total number, unfortunately, are innocent civilians.  He was referring to publicly available data. 

Q    Okay.  And my next question is: When the administration asked Israel to come up with a credible plan to protect civilians before it launches a major offensive in Rafah, does that mean that until now you think that Israel has been operating with a credible plan to protect civilians in Northern Gaza, for example?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re not — you know, it’s hard to — I don’t want to get into armchair quarterbacking past operations here.  That said, as you saw when they operated in North Gaza and then as they started to operate more in Khan Yunis, they did take steps to allow safe passage for civilians.  They dropped leaflets telling them where to go and how to get there.  They relied less on airpower. 

So, there were efforts.  That does not mean or does — and it not excuse — excuse any single civilian casualty.  They are all tragedies.  We don’t want to see any. 

But the Israelis have shown an effort in the past to try to account for the movement and the safety of civilians.  And, again, as they ponder and consider major operations in Rafah — now, with everybody moving down there — because of what happened in North Gaza, because of what happened in Khan Yunis — they have a special added burden to make sure that they can provide for their safety and security and sustenance. 

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about Venezuela.  But first about the Vice President traveling to the Munich Security Conference this week.  How important do you think the situation in the Middle East is going to be with the conference?  And what kind of support the U.S. would like to get from allies for Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no doubt that what’s going on in the Middle East, I’m sure, will be a topic of discussion at the Munich Security Conference.  There’s no way it wouldn’t.  And I know the Vice President will have an opportunity to lay out, again, the administration’s approach to the region writ large, as well as our — our work — continue to work with our counterparts in the Middle East specifically.

Q    And about Venezuela.  So, do you have a reaction to the detention by the Venezuelan government of the human rights activist Rocío San Miguel?

MR. KIRBY:  We are aware of reports that Rocío San Miguel and I think a couple of members of her family now have been taken into custody.  We’re deeply concerned about that. 

This is a time when, as I have said before, Mr. Maduro needs to meet the commitments that he made back in the fall about how they’re going to treat put- — civil society political activists, as well as opposition parties, and even those members of — that — that — of Venezuelan society that may want to run for office.  They’ve got to meet those commitments. 

And I won’t go into speculating about what exactly happened here or what we might do as a result.  But I can tell you, we’re watching this very, very closely.  And we’re deeply concerned by her arrest.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, John.  I have two questions on the Indo-Pacific, one question on Ukraine. 

So, first, the Senate bill that just passed, the White — does the White House wish to have more fund for the Pacific in this bill or the next bill, specifically for countering China and helping Taiwan?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as I think he made clear in his statement, is satisfied with the bipartisan work that went into this Senate bill and the dollar amounts that are in each of the buckets there: Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, humanitarian assistance.

Q    Another on the Pacific.  Indonesia is going to have election tomorrow electing a new president.  What are — what are at stake for the U.S. in relations to this Indo-Pacific strategy on this election?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, it’s — what really matters is what’s at stake for the Indonesian people.  And we — we want them to have a free and fair election, and we want the aspirations and the votes of the Indonesian people to matter.  It’s a vibrant democracy.  And so, we look forward to seeing — seeing them be able to go to the polls and — and make their choices and make their voices known. 

We — as you know, we deepened our strategic partnership with Indonesia now.  We’re looking forward to continuing to find ways to improve that bilateral relationship. 

Q    And on Ukraine, one last question.  The U.S. has enough money right now to keep training Ukraine pilots on the F-16 for now, according to the National Guard chiefs.  So, when will this training wrap up?  And what’s the status of sending those planes to Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to talk to the Department of Defense on that.  I don’t have that information. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Janne.

Q    Thank you, Karine and John.  I have two questions on Russia and North Korea.  The Russians’ foreign minister stated that the North Korean Kim Jong Un’s military threats were not (inaudible) and are a threat to risk signal of conflict on the Korean Peninsula and should be taken seriously.  How can you explain the intent of that statement?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry.  I did not get what you mea- — the foreign minister said what?  Russian — this is Lavrov said —

Q    Yeah.  The foreign minister, no — foreign ministry said that North Korean Kim Jong Un’s military threats were not (inaudible) and that is that risk of — signals of that conflict on the Korean Peninsula.  Do you have any comment on this?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we take the continued efforts by Kim Jong Un to advance and develop sophisticated weapons systems and capabilities very, very seriously.  We have to.  And we also take our alliance with the Republic of Korea very, very seriously, which is why, as I’ve said many times, the President has added resources, added capabilities, really invested more in deepening our bilateral relationship with South Korea and our trilateral relationship with South Korea and Japan. 

Q    Russia also has lifted some of North Korean frozen funds and also allowed the North Korea’s financial bank account to be opened in Russia.  So, at this point, can this been seen as compensation for the trade — I mean, armed trade between Russia and North Korea?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t confirm those reports that they’ve actually made those financial transactions and certainly wouldn’t be able to speculate about what — what motivated them. 

But, obviously, we’re deeply concerned about the continuing burgeoning defense relationship between North Korea and Russia. 

Q    Thank you.

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, you’ve been asking Israel to avoid killing Palestinian civilians from this podium many times.  So, I’m going to share the statistics with you.  On day one, there was 198 people were killed; on day 128, 117.  So, on average, it’s a hundred.  So, either Israel is not listening to you or they believe there’s no consequences.  So, which one is it?  Or is it both?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to — look, I’m not going to speak for Israeli military operations, Nadia.  You know that.

Q    I’m not — but I’m not —

MR. KIRBY:  No, no —

Q    — asking you to speak for the Israeli military.  I’m asking for you, because you defending the point of view, always, that no civilian should be killed.  So, the number has never been reduced.  It stayed steady all the time.  So, I’m asking you —

MR. KIRBY:  As the President —

Q    — whether is — the White House’s message to Netanyahu, who defies every Democratic president, whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or Biden — and you know that this is a fact — do you think that they’re not listening to you, or they believe they can get away with it?

MR. KIRBY:  As the —

Q    So, what pressure are you putting on them?  That’s what my question to you.

MR. KIRBY:  As the President said yesterday, too many of the many thousands of people killed in the Gaza conflict have been innocent civilians — too many.  And we have been very, very clear about our concerns with our Israeli counterparts about that. 

And I can’t verify the specific numbers that you’re giving me, but I also — I’m not here to refute them.  Too many is too many, and that’s why we’re going to keep working with our Israeli counterparts to — to do everything we can to get them to reduce the number of civilian casualties.  And they have been receptive.

I — I understand that — that there’s still civilian casualties, and that’s unacceptable.  But they have been receptive to our messaging.  They have been receptive to our ideas and our perspectives in the past.  And we’re going to keep doing everything we can to — to get — to get those numbers down.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Sara.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, yesterday, you said that we need to accept the possibility that some of the hostages being held by Hamas may no longer be alive.  Does the U.S. believe that all of the remaining American hostages are still alive?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t have any information to the contrary.

Q    And one more, if I may.  Of course, any operation in Rafah would be Israel’s decision, and they are the ones who need to come up with — who need to present a credible plan.  But has the U.S., has the President, have any senior U.S. officials offered their thoughts or consultations on what can be done to help Palestinian civilians in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  We have consistently shared our concerns, our opinions, our perspectives, our lessons learned about urban warfare since the beginning of this conflict.

Q    But specifically about, you know, what to do in this case with where Palestinian civilians might be able to go in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not involved in drafting their plan for them.  But we have absolutely committed to them our concerns about what that plan ought to be able to account for, yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    John, when it comes to this credible plan to protect civilians, what happens if Israel does not provide this plan and moves into Rafah anyway?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical, Gabe.  We’ve been clear about what our concerns are and what we want to see. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu said publicly that he’s tasked the IDF to come up with such a plan.  Let’s see what they come up with.

Q    But does the U.S. have enough leverage now if Israel were to ignore it?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to, again, speculate about a situation that hasn’t occurred yet.  We’ve been very clear about our concerns.  And — and we’ll — we’re going to wait and see what the — what the IDF comes up with.

Q    And, finally, by when would the U.S. like to see this plan?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s really going to be determined by whatever timetable the — the IDF is — is on. 

I want to make it clear here: This is a sovereign nation.  They plan their military operations, and they conduct their military operations, and they make the choices.  There — there’s not — it’s not like we give them a homework assignment, and they have to then turn in their plan to us for grading.

We have said that the — from our perspective, as a friend of Israel and as a supporter of their efforts to defend themselves, we would expect that any plan for going into Rafah would properly account for the now more than a million civilians that — that are seeking refuge down there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Niall.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks.  I just want to circle back to my colleague — I think it was Nadia — asked a few minutes ago about the civilian casualties.  And you said Israel has been “receptive” to our concerns.  And for months, we have heard people at that podium talk about, “The civilian death toll is too high.”  It was too high at 5,000, 10,000, 15,000.  Around 28,000 people have been killed.  What does the White House base the assessment that Israel is receptive to its concerns?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, we have seen them take actions — sometimes actions that — that even I’m not sure our own military would take, in terms of informing civilian populations ahead of operations where to go, where not to go.  They have taken steps.

Now, obviously, those steps, while noteworthy, haven’t been enough to reduce the civilian casualties, which is why the President spoke so forthrightly about it yesterday and why we’re going to continue to do everything we can to press the Israelis to be more careful.

Q    But, respectfully, he’s been talking forcefully about it for a long time.  And the Israelis are now — have hammered people into this tiny corner in southwest Gaza, tight up against the Egyptian border, where people think there’s a looming catastrophe happening.  Shouldn’t there be more forceful action than just words?

MR. KIRBY:  We are working very, very closely with our Israeli counterparts.  We’ve made clear our concerns that we would not support a Rafah operation that did not properly count — account for the more than a million refugees that are down in — in Rafah.  We’ve been very, very clear and consistent about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Last question, in the back.  Go ahead. 

Q    Merci, Karine. 

Q    Thank you. 

Q    John, two — I have two question, quickly, on the DRC.  And — but first, on Haiti — the meeting at Fort McNair.  You — you insisted yesterday, again, on the necessity of a significant force, international force on the ground.  Is the U.S. more ready now to get involved in such a force?

MR. KIRBY:  This — so, what we’re really focused on is — is working with Kenya, who — who has agreed to explore leadership of that force on the ground.  So —

Q    But it’s (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  But that — and that’s part of the discussions that are going on at Fort McNair again today.  I would not expect a U.S. force presence on the ground.

Q    And on the DRC, John, we’re seeing, in Kinshasa, demonstrations — anti-Western demonstrations like we saw in Niger, in Burkina Faso, in Mali.  How worried is the U.S. that the situation can —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re — we’re monitoring it closely, as best we can.  I don’t have anything specific to — to relay today. 

But I can tell you that we’re — we’re obviously in close touch with our colleagues at the State Department and, of course, our — our embassy personnel down there in Africa.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Awesome, thanks.  Thanks, John.  Appreciate it.  Thank you.  Thanks, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right, Seung Min. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Maybe tomorrow we’ll start at 9:30.  (Laughter.)

Q    On that note, a quick — (laughter) — a quick housekeeping question.  Is there a particular reason —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — for the — is — should we expect to see POTUS —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — later today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I — obviously, I want to be careful with that.  I always am.  There’s always a possibility to hear from the President.  I don’t have anything to share about any- — anything to add on his schedule that’s public facing.

It’s starting early, honestly, because of my schedule.  And I appreciate you all being here at 10:15.  I have — I also have a busy schedule, just like all of you.

But no, I don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Okay.  And I wanted to drill down a little bit on Speaker Johnson’s resistance to bringing up the Senate bill.  So, what is the White House strategy to get that Senate bill through the Senate, aside from your public comments and public pressure on Speaker Johnson?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, a couple of things I do want to — to — do want to lay out.  I love to do this, as you know.  Washington Post.  Speaker Johnson said “the package’s failure to address U.S. border security makes it a nonstarter.”  “Johnson… helped torpedo an earlier version of the legislation that includes sweeping border security measures and other re- — reforms.”

Axios.  “Johnson criticized the lack of border security provisions in the bill.”  And then “Senate — Senate Republicans largely rejected a package that included border security provisions… due in no small part to Johnson.”

The Hill.  “Johnson slammed the package for excluding border security provisions.”  But there — “but earlier this month… Johnson declared the foreign-aid-plus-border security package dead on arrival.” 

I mean, it is very confusing from what’s coming from the Speaker.  Very confusing.  He’s been very clear for years, even as recently as November, December of last — of last year, saying how important it is to deal with the border, “We can come up with a bipartisan solution.” 

And all of the sudden, he wants to — he wants to not move forward with the border, as we know.  And now, we have a bipartisan support coming out of the Senate to move forward with an important package — a national security package — obviously, that does include the border — and he doesn’t want to move forward. 

And, you know, we should not be playing politics with our national security.  That’s where we are.  We should just not be playing politics with our national security. 

Look, we have been very clear.  We’re going to continue to be clear: Congress has to act.  They need to act.  These pro- — these components that are included in the national security supplemental or what came out — obviously, out of the Senate is critical.  It’s crital to — it’s critical to our national security — not just abroad but here at home. 

And so, we’re going to continue to call on Congress to act, call — and politics should not be be- — should not be part of this.  It should not be part of our national security efforts here. 

Q    So, there is no strategy aside from the public pressure.  I mean, are you encouraging Democrats to do a discharge petition or any other sort of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it is up to —

Q    — procedural maneuvers on that?


MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is up to Democrats in Congress to figure out how they’re going to move forward in their — in their procedure — right? — to get this done. 

And also, Repub- — remember, this is a bipartisan — a bipartisan — has bipartisan support, certainly, out of Senate.  And you’ve always said — you’ve always heard us say there is bipartisan support for — for — for these important — important components to the national security supplemental.  So, we’ve always said that. 

And so, look, we are going to put the pressure on.  You saw that in the President’s statement.  You saw — you saw that when I came and spoke here at the top.  We have to put public — public pressure here, because it is something that is critical — critical to Americans, critical to our national security not just here, obviously, but abroad. 

And — and, you know, I said at the — at the end of my — my topper, when I was talking about this particular piece, is, like, the world is watching.  The world is watching, and they’re not just watching what’s happening here at the White House.  They’re watching what’s happening in the House, right?  They’re watching what House Republicans are going to be doing, because the Senate did their job.  So, what is the House going to do?

Q    And one on CPI, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    We’re seeing some price pressures that can’t necessarily be explained away by shrinkflation or continued issues with supply chains.  If you look at the cost of services, such as auto repairs or healthcare, those costs are still rising. 

So, what is the White House’s message or what is — to Americans who, for example, may have to take out a loan to fix their car?  What specifically is the administration doing to lower the cost of services?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And that’s a good question.  And, look, we’ve been very — very clear here that prices are still too high.  We’re going to do everything that we can to lower costs.  That is something that we’ve done, whether it’s junk fees — right? — whether it’s healthcare; whether it’s the Inflation Reduction Act that also includes healthcare provisions in there to — so that Medicare can — can certainly negotiate with Big Pharma, hence lowering some prescription drug costs, which is incredibly important.  Energy costs.  All of these things are incred- — important to the American people.  So, we’re going to continue to do that. 

We’ve looked — we’ve — because of the President’s action, he’s been able to lower costs at the pump.  And so, that’s mattered as well to Americans across the country. 

So, we’re going to continue to do the work. 

Obviously, we understand there’s more work to be done, but this is an economy that is in a much different place than it was a year ago; a much different place, obviously, than it was three years ago.  When you see — when you see eggs and milk and products like that at the grocery store going down — they’re lower than they were a year ago — that’s important. 

And so, when you see, you know, 14.8 million jobs being created in this administration, that’s important.  When you see unemployment under 4 percent, that’s important. 

But, obviously, we’re going to continue to do the work to make sure that we do everything that we can to lower costs.  And that is a number-one priority for this President.  When he talks about his economy or his economic policy, economic plan, that’s what you see.

Go ahead.

Q    Committee chairs have sent a letter to the Attorney General asking for the release of the transcripts and recordings related to Hur’s investigation.  Given your insistence that the special counsel’s characterizations of the President’s demeanor were inaccurate, are you eager for this material to be made public?  Do you support their release?


MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look — and I just want to be really clear, it’s not just us.  There was also a bipartisan voices and the legal — illegal experts who have said it was wrong — flatly wrong.  Right?  It was — it was gratuitous.  It was inappropriate how that was characterized in — in the special counsel report.

I will add that this was a 15-month investigation that interviewed 150 witnesses, examined 7 million records, and cost $3.5 million of the tax- — taxpayer money — 3.5 million taxpayer dollars.  They explored every theory and found that there was no case to be made. 

So, House Republicans wasted their time, are waste — continuing to waste their time, and they’re not being serious to do their jobs.  We just — I just went back and forth about, you know, this important piece of — piece of legislation that just came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way to deal with our national security concerns, and they’re not doing their job. 

They are saying — obviously, Speaker Johnson is saying he’s not going to move forward with that.  So, we want them to pass that.  We want them to pass legislation to help secure the border and work with — on the real issues. 

You know, for any other specific on the tran- — the transcript or anything related to that — the letter, I would certainly refer you to my colleagues —

Q    So, you won’t say —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — at the White House Counsel. 

Q    Given that you think the report is flatly wrong and gratuitous, you can’t say if you want the material to be made public, if the American people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — no, what I can say —

Q    — should see this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — it’s being — they’re discussing it.  They’re looking at it.  There’s a process that’s involved.  And so, the White House Counsel can — obviously, has taken these questions from all of you.  And so, they’re looking into it.  I just don’t have anything further to say about that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is the President a fan of “The Daily Show”? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  I was not expecting that.  I — I would have to ask him. 

Q    Did he watch Jon Stewart last night?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sounds like you did, Jeff.  Was it good?

Q    He was pretty critical of the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, really? 

Q    — as well as the former President.  And I guess my question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He said this about President Biden?

Q    He was critical of both. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Got it.  Oh, you said, “As l- — as well as the former.”

Q    “As well as.”  Yeah. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I gotcha.  Gotcha, gotcha. 

Q    Does — and so, my kind of follow-up to that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — more jokey question is: Does — does the White House feel like it made the right decision putting President Biden out on Thursday night and to have the press conference that he did?  And related to that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — do you feel like the White House’s response pushing back against the Hur report was as quick and as robust as you would have liked it to have been?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m assuming this is responding to Jon — “The Daily Show”? 

Q    Partly, yeah —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Okay.   

Q    — and other critics as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, look, you — I think, and we believe, the President went out on Thursday — on the day that the report came out, it was important — we believe it was important for the — for the American people to hear directly from this President and to lay out in a very forceful way what we thought about — about the special counsel report — what he thought about the special counsel report.

And not only that, he took your questions.  He stood there and took questions from all of you.  I think that’s important.  It’s important.  He believed that’s important to — to have — to do. 

And then the next day, by the request of the White House Correspondents’ Association, which we obviously have a good relationship with and respect, we were asked to bring — to bring Ian Sams to the podium, from — obviously, the spokesperson from — from the White House Counsel, and he did.  And stood here for 45 minutes, approximately, and took questions. 

And so, I think we are going to do everything that we can, especially as it relate — obviously, as it related to the special counsel report, which we believe — let’s not forget: It said there is no there there.  Right?  It said that the — the case is closed.  So, let’s — you know, that’s what they said.  There’s nothing to prosecute.  So, we want to be really clear there. 

But we also — the President is going to stand and defend himself.  The characterization, the way that report was characterized was not — not just me saying this — legal experts on both sides said it was flatly wrong and it was gratuitous and it was inappropriate. 

And so, the President is going to defend himself and — to the American people and make that very, very clear.  And so, we believe — he believes he did the right thing.  And, you know, we’re going to continue to — to speak on this very, very loud and clear. 

But anything specific related to next steps and what happens after — after last week, certainly my — the White House Counsel’s Office can answer that more specifically.

Go ahead, Joe Joe. 

Q    Yeah.  Thanks.  I wanted to circle back to a question that Admiral Kirby was asked about President Biden yesterday now saying 27,000 Palestinians have died in the war in Gaza.  That appeared to be numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry.  Last fall, President Biden said he had, quote, “no confidence” in those figures because of the health ministry’s ties to Hamas.  Does President Biden and the White House now have confidence in the figures coming from the Gaza Health Ministry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the Admiral kind of went into this a couple of times with some of your colleagues about the data. There’s data out there that speaks to — speaks to the — the lives lost — innocent lives lost, obviously, in Gaza — the Palestinian lives. 

And so, we have said over and over: One — one is too many, and we mourn those lives.  And we’re going to continue to be really clear about that. 

And not only that, you know, you hear us talk about the humanitarian pause.  We want to make sure that happens.  We want to make sure that moves forward.  That’s why you see Secretary Blinken was in — was in the region recently. 

You hear that from the President.  He just spoke to the Prime Minister, Netanyahu, just a day or so.  And those conversations are — are about — and also, obviously, meeting with King Abdullah.  All these conversations are about what can we do to make sure we do everything that we can, obviously, to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza and also get those hostages home. 

That’s what we want to see.  And that’s why it’s so important that — also that that national security supplemental got out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  And we need to get that moving as well, because that has important humanitarian assistance, as well that — that the people in Gaza are going to need.

And so — and also, people in Israel are going to need as well, really important humanitarian aid. 

So, you know, I don’t have anything to add to what the Admiral shared with all of you, but we mourn — certainly we mourn the lives lost in Gaza.  And obviously, we want to make sure that that’s — that — that doesn’t happen — that doesn’t continue to happen. 

Q    But it seems like there’s been an evolution in terms of how the White House — how the administration is viewing the numbers being reported out of Gaza from the — from the health ministry.  I mean, is that fair to say that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, here’s the thing: We know thousands of lives have been lost.  We know that.  We know that.  And, you know, we’re going to speak to that when asked.  We’re going to say that is not okay.  Right?  We’re going to say that is not okay. 

Obviously, we’re also going to continue to say Israel has a right to defend itself.  We’re going to also have those conversation with the Israeli government on how to make sure that we cont- — that we — that they make sure that they follow the international humanitarian law and that they protect civilian lives — innocent civilian lives. 

So, those conversations are going to continue to happen.  But we know — we know thousands of lives have been lost. 

Go ahead.

Q    The House is expected to have round two of their attempt to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security Secretary, today.  Has the President been in touch with Democratic leadership about their efforts to block it?  We know that every vote counts, so has he been checking in to make sure that all Democrats are actually going to be there for the vote?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can — I can tell you that, obviously, the Office of Leg Affairs here who does — who deals directly with Congress, they’re in regular touch with congressional members.  I don’t have any specific conversation that the President has had on this particular issue. 

Look, you know — and I kind of — I’ve been saying this for the past couple of minutes.  It’s like the — the House Republicans need to do serious work — work that actually matter, work that’s actually — the American people care about.  This is — this is not it. 

The impeachment of Mayorkas — let’s not forget: Mayorkas played a big role in trying to get — when we were — when the border — border security conversation was happening and there was a deal that came out of the Senate — a bipartisan negotiation deal, Secretary Mayorkas was very much involved in that.  And we wanted to see meaningful change. 

And Republicans got in the way.  They got in the way and didn’t want to see that happen. 

Now they want to continue — continue on the sa- — the shameful process of impeaching him.  It’s baseless.  It is baseless. 

And so, look, they should drop this.  There’s a bipartisan — you know, a bipartisan agreement that came out — out of — for the national security supplemental.  They should focus on that instead of doing another political stunt. 

So, we’re going to be — you know, we’re going to be forceful about that.  And, look, they need to do their jobs.  They need to do their jobs instead of playing political games.

Q    And on another topic really quickly.  The Washington Post is reporting that the CDC is expected to shift its COVID isolation guidance, saying that you don’t have to isolate once you’re fever-free for 24 hours and symptoms are mild and improving.  Does the White House feel this is long overdue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I saw that reporting.  Want to be really careful because CDC is going through their pr- — process.  They’re going to decide the guidelines, so I don’t want to get ahead of that.  So, let’s — let’s let CDC go through their process.  I just don’t want to get ahead of them.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  I just wanted to return to what Joey was asking you about with those — the numbers. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Because the President is not generically saying or — or broadly estimating thousands of lives have been lost.  He’s saying a very specific number of 27,000.  So, if he’s not relying on the Gaza Health Ministry numbers that he’s previously disparaged, what is he — is he relying on something else to arrive at that figure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the Admiral spoke to this, and he said there’s data out there.  So, we can get back to you on that.  He said it, so we’d have to connect with him on that piece.  But that’s how he responded to one of your colleagues. 

And so, I think the point that we’re trying to make is, indeed, thousands of lives have been taken — innocent lives, innocent Palestinian lives — and that’s a tragedy.

Q    But 27,000 is a lot more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — than a thousand, so (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — but I hear you.  No, I hear you.  I hear you.  And that’s — I’m not going to refute what the President said, obviously. 

And that’s too many, right?  One — we say one is too many.  The number should be zero. 

And so, what the President wanted to do yesterday is make sure that, you know, he was very clear that lives have been lost, innocent lives have been lost, and we mourn those lives.  And we want to make sure that, you know, that doesn’t continue. 

And so, our policy is still the same, but we want to make sure that innocent lives are protected. 

And that was the point that the President was trying to make. 

And — and, you know, I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there.  I know that Kir- — Admiral Kirby spoke to data that’s out there.  So, obviously, I would refer you to him.

Q    I just — you guys aren’t citing other data, necessarily.  I — I was assuming that you’re just sort of saying “public data” so that you won’t have to admit that he’s using these numb- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I —

Q    — the Gaza Health Ministry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I hear you, Matt.  I’m going to have to refer you to — to what the Admiral said just moments ago.

Q    And then I just wanted to ask for a point of clarification.  Earlier, you were asked about the transcripts being released —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as some House Republicans have called for.  And you said that House Republicans are wasting their time and they’re not being serious.  Were you referring to something else?  Or are you referring to them calling for the transcripts to be released as “not being serious” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just —

Q    — and “wasting time”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- — what I’m saying is that there are a bunch of things that matter to the American people that they have just not focused on.  Right?  That’s what I’m talking about. 

As it relates to the transcripts, that’s something that, obviously, the White House Counsel is — is looking at.  They said they’re looking at it, so I would refer you to them. 

Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks.  Seung Min asked you about the possibility of a discharge petition.  And I wanted to follow on that and ask if the President has had any conversations with progressive Democrats in the House specifically.  Because if you were to pursue a discharge position, it would likely hinge on folks who have expressed real reservations for providing additional military aid to Israel but who are probably broadly supportive of the President’s agenda.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have — I don’t have conversations to read out to you on that particular issue or topic.

Q    And then on inflation.  I know you were asked about it earlier, but there are elements of the report — food, shelter, or services — that all kind of accelerated certainly above estimates.  And I’m wondering — you said the economy was in a much different place.  Is there any worry that inflation might actually be picking back up and that we could see sort of a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have concerns —

Q    — a boomerang effect?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — basically.  Look — and you — you’ve heard Jared say this from this podium — and many others who are part of our economic team — is that we’ve — we certainly — we look at trends — that is something that we do here — and not read too much to — to — you know, to data from one month.  That is how we operate here.  And others do as well. 

But we certainly understand that there’s more work to be done to lower costs.  That is something that we’re aware of.  And so, certainly not going to get into forecasting from here.  We’re going to try and continue to make co- — progress in lowering inf- — in lowering inflation as we transition to a steady and stable — stable economic growth, which you hear us speak to that very often. 

And so, what I will say is, inflation is down two thirds from its peak.  Core inflation is the lowest since May 21st [2021].  Prices fell over the last year — as I mentioned before, gas, milk and eggs — all important products that matter to — to the American people.  And we know that rental inflation has slowed, but it takes a while to show up in CPI. 

And so, look, that’s — what we say, we look at the trend.  We see how — how the economy is moving, and we don’t focus on — on a one-month — one-month data.  And so, I think that’s what’s important here. 

But we’re also going to do — continue to do the work to lower costs. 

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, I — I’ve seen reports that a task force has been created to prevent the accidental retention of presidential records.  What is their deadline?  What is their mission?  Does the President think this is going to work, or does — or is there an expectation that people are still going to walk home with records?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to refer you to — the specifics of that task force, obviously, to the White House Counsel’s Office.  But the President believed it was important enough — right? — to move forward with a task force.  He takes this very seriously — you know, this process of documents — takes it very, very seriously and wants to make sure that we — you know, the next stages, the next steps of this moves in a — continues to move in a transparent way. 

So, as far as any specifics to it, I would refer you to the White House Counsel’s Office.

Q    So, you don’t have a deadline, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have a —

Q    — that they would need to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline —

Q    — get it done before the next president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I don’t have a timeline for you. 

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Hi, Karine.  Earlier, you mentioned that the President or the White House thought it was a good idea for him to come out last Thursday.  Just want to clear it up.  Was it the President’s idea to come out Thursday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was the President’s idea.  Yes.  He wanted —   

Q    It was his idea? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was his idea.

Q    And how forceful was he when he, you know, came out and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I —

Q    He said he wanted to do it at that time? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you saw the President out — do this — make a statement, take questions from all of you because he wanted to do it.

Q    Did anyone advise him against it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into private conversations that the President has.  The President is the President of the United States.  If he says he wants to speak to — directly to the American people, he’s going to do that. 

Q    And following up on something that Mary asked and some others have asked as well.  Independent of whether House Republicans are asking for those transcripts, why won’t the White House commit to releasing even a redacted version of the transcripts if it has classified information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not saying that we’re not committing.  I’m saying that they’re looking at it.  I’m saying that they, meaning the White House Counsel’s Office, is looking at it.  I just — I just don’t have anything to share with you at this time.

It is not a “no,” and it is not a “yes.”  It is: We are looking at this.  There’s processes, there’s protocols, and they’re looking through that. 

Q    And finally, it’s our reporting that the notebooks that were part of this investigation are currently in the custody of the FBI.  Does the White House or does the President want those notebooks back?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything for you on that.  I don’t.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The White House this afternoon is convening the descendants of families of civil rights icons and Black historical figures like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, MLK, Malcolm X, et cetera.  What — this is also perfectly timed for Black History Month. 

What — what does the White House hope to achieve with this convening?  This is the first time of such a thing happening.  And what will be discussed?  Will they — will they be discussing the rollbacks on affirmative action and attacks on DEI perhaps? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we’re honored to have the — over 30 descendants convene later today at the White House, as you just stated, to celebrate Black History Month.  It’s — and — and as we work to advance the values — the values their ancestors spent their whole lives trying to achieve. 

So, the legacy of these icons and their families can’t be understated.  The Biden-Harris administration looks forward to continuing to work with these generation of leaders to improve outcomes for Black Americans. 

And we’re proud of what we’ve been able to achieve, if you think about the record Black — low Black unemployment, which is really important; if you think about Black-owned business — small businesses that has really boomed under this administration; making sure that we increase homeownership and also lower — lower healthcare costs. 

And so, those are the things that, obviously, we’re going to continue to work on.  We’re proud that we’ve been able to do.  We are honored to have over 30 descendants here at the White House, especially in this important month of Black History Month where we acknowledge the — the sacrifices that they’ve all made. Don’t have anything specific or any details to share.  But this is an important moment, and we are looking forward to having them here.

Q    One more question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The D.C. City Council had a preliminary vote the other week on a Secure D.C. bill that expands the detention — detention for youth and adults who commit violent crimes, establishes drug-free zones, et cetera.  Given the President’s signing of a overturning of a D.C. criminal code last year, does the White House have a position on this new D.C. bill that seeks to address public safety here in the nation’s capital?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as police chiefs will tell you across the country, we’ve seen, actually, a significant drop in crime last year, in 2023.  And so, obviously, the President’s efforts to fund the police and measures to prevent crime are working.

According to this 2023 FBI data, there has been significant, obviously — a drop in — in crime, including one of the largest yearly declines in homicides ever. 

And so, look, if you even compare it to what we saw — what we saw in Trump’s administration in their final year, we saw that in the U.S., in this country, that the largest increase in murders ever recorded. 

So, the President took action.  We’re seeing — we saw — we’re seeing a decrease in — in last year.  And so, look, we want to do more.  Obviously, the President respects the D.C.’s right to pass measures that strengthen both public safety and public trust but not, certainly, going to comment directly on the proposal that’s still being debated.  So, we’re going to let D.C. go through their process.

And we’re going to do everything that we can to continue to lower crime here in the U.S. 

Okay.  All right.  I have one more.  Go ahead, Tia.  I haven’t called on you.

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.

Q    Is President Biden aware of the outcome of Pakistan’s election recently?  And is there any stance from the White House on that upset outcome where a majority of the seats in that Parliament are independent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, yes, the — the President is very much aware.  Millions of Pakis- — Pakistanis turned out to vote last week, including record numbers of Pakistani women, members of religious and ethnic minority groups, and young voters. 

So, certainly, we congratulate the Pakistani people for participating in last week’s elections — including poll workers, civil society members, and journalists and election observers who have protected Pakistan’s democratic and electoral institutions. 

And so, we are — we are proud to stand with likeminded democracies, as we consistently convey clearly, both publicly and privately, to the Pakistani government and across the Pakistani political spectrum the need to respect the will of the Pakistani people and ensure a transparent election process.  It is critical, and it is obviously important. 

All right, everybody, I’ll see you tomorrow.  Thanks, everybody. 

11:18 A.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Vice President Kamala Harris met today with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. The Vice President and the King discussed latest developments in Gaza and the Vice President thanked the King for providing vital humanitarian assistance to Gaza, including the eleven airdrops of medical supplies to the field hospital that Jordan has established in Gaza. The leaders also discussed the situation in Rafah. The Vice President reaffirmed the Biden-Harris Administration’s position that a military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for the more than one million people sheltering there. 

The Vice President and the King also discussed the importance of maintaining stability in the West Bank. The Vice President thanked the King for his continued leadership in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  She reiterated the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to a two-state solution, and noted it is the best path to durable peace and security. She emphasized the Palestinians’ right to dignity, security and self-determination.

###

The post Readout of Vice President Kamala Harris’s Meeting with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan appeared first on The White House.

State Dining Room

2:13 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon.

Q Good afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: Before we begin, I’m going to make this statement and let it stand on its own. I’m not going to take any questions, but I’ll be taking questions tomorrow or the next day. But I don’t want anything to get in the way of this statement, to be very blunt about it. Not that you wouldn’t just focus on the statement.

Earlier this morning, the United States Senate, as you all know, voted overwhelmingly, by a margin of 70 to 29, to move forward with a bipartisan national security bill.

Now — now it moves to the House, and I urge Speaker Johnson to bring it to the floor immediately — immediately.

There is no question that if the Senate bill was put on the floor in the House of Representatives, it would pass. It would pass. And the Speaker knows that.

So, I call on the Speaker to let the full House speak its mind and not allow a minority of the most extreme voices in the House to block this bill even from being voted on — even from being voted on. This is a critical act for the House to move. It needs to move.

And the bill provides urgent funding for Ukraine so it can keep defending itself against Putin’s vicious, vicious onslaught.

We’ve all seen the terrible stories in recent weeks: Ukrainian soldiers out of artillery shells, Ukrainian units rationing rounds of ammunition to defend themselves, Ukrainian families worried that the next Russian strike will permanently plunge them into darkness or worse.

This bipartisan bill sends a clear message to Ukrainians and to our partners and to our allies around the world: America can be trusted, America can be relied upon, and America stands up for freedom. We stand strong for our allies. We never bow down to anyone, and certainly not to Vladimir Putin. So, let’s get on with this.

Remember, the United States pulled together a coalition of nearly 50 nations to support Ukraine. We unified NATO; we expanded it. We can’t walk away now. That’s what Putin is betting on. He’s ve- — he just flatly said that.

Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin. Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands.

As I have said before, the stakes in this fight extend far beyond Ukraine. If we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself just to Ukraine and the costs for America and our allies and partners is going to rise.

For Republicans in Congress who think they can oppose funding for Ukraine and not be held accountable: History is watching. History is watching. History is watching. Failure to support Ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten.

I want to be clear about something, because I know it’s important to the American people: While this bill sends military equipment to Ukraine, it spends the money right here in the United States of America in places like Arizona, where the Patriot missiles are built; and Alabama, where the Javelin missiles are built; and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, where artillery shells are made.

And the way it works is we supply Ukraine with military equipment from our stockpiles, and then we spend our money replenishing those stockpiles so our military has access to them — stockpiles that are made right here in America by American workers. That not only supports American jobs and American communities, it allows us to invest in maintaining and strengthening our own defense manufacturing capacity.

Look, this bill meets our national security priorities in the Middle East as well. It includes greater support for our troops serving in the region who continue to defend against mili- — militia attacks backed by Iran.

It also provides Israel with the — what it needs to protect its people against a terrorist group like Hamas and Hezbollah and others. And it will provide lifesaving humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, who desperately need food, water, and shelter. They need help.

And finally, this bill includes critical funding for our national security priorities in Asia, because even as we focus on the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, we must not take our eye off our national security challenges in the Pacific.

It’s the responsibility of a great nation. And we are a great nation that the rest of the world looks to. And I mean that: The rest of the world looks to us.

The stakes were already high for American security before this bill was passed in the Senate last night. But in recent days, those stakes have risen. And that’s because the former President has set a dangerous and shockingly, frankly, un-American signal to the world.

Just a few days ago, Trump gave an invitation to Putin to invade some of our Ally — NATO Allies. He said if an Ally didn’t spend enough money on defense, he would encourage Russia to, quote, “do whatever the hell they want,” end of quote.

Can you imagine a former President of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it. And the worst thing is he means it.

No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Well, let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will.

For God’s sake, it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous, it’s un-American.

When America gives it word, it means something. When we make a commitment, we keep it. And NATO is a sacred commitment.

Donald Trump looks at this as if it’s a burden. When he looks at NATO, he doesn’t see the alliance that protects America and the world. He sees a protection racket.

He doesn’t understand that NATO is built on the fundamental principles of freedom, security, and national sovereignty, because, for Trump, principles never matter. Everything is transactional. He doesn’t understand that the sacred commitment we have given works for us as well.

In fact, I would remind Trump and all those who would walk away from NATO: Article 5 has only been invoked once — just once in our NATO history — and it was done to stand with America after we were attacked on 9/11. We should never forget it.

You know, our adversaries have long sought to create cracks in the Alliance. The greatest hope of all those who wish America harm is for NATO to fall apart. And you can be sure that they all cheered when they heard Donald Trump — when they heard what he said.

I know this: I will not walk away. I can’t imagine any other president walking away. For as long as I’m president, if Putin attacks a NATO Ally, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory.

Let me close with this. You’ve heard me say this before. Our nation stands at an inflection point — an inflection point in history — where the decisions we make now are going to determine the course of our future for decades to come. This is one of those moments.

And I say to the House members, House Republicans: You’ve got to decide. Are you going to stand up for freedom, or are you going to side with terror and tyranny? Are you going to stand with Ukraine, or are you going to stand with Putin? Will we stand with America or — or with Trump?

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together to send a message of unity to the world. It’s time for the House Republicans to do the same thing: to pass this bill immediately, to stand for decency, stand for democracy, to stand up to a so-called leader hellbent on weakening the American security.

And I mean this sincerely: History is watching. History is watching.

In moments like this, we have to remember who we are. We’re the United States of America. The world is looking to us. There is nothing beyond our capacity when we act together. In this case, acting together includes acting with our NATO Allies.

God bless you all. May God protect our Speaker.

And I promise I’ll come back and answer questions later.

Thank you.

2:21 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden on Senate Passage of the Bipartisan Supplemental Agreement appeared first on The White House.

On Tuesday, February 13, Lael Brainard, National Economic Advisor, and Tom Perez, Senior Advisor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, met with county elected officials to discuss how President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is spurring historic investments in clean energy and manufacturing in communities too often left behind and positioning them for an economic comeback. The meeting was held during the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference with participation from Administration officials, private sector executives, and non-profit leaders.

The meeting opened with remarks by White House leadership about the President’s focus on delivering for areas left behind by trickle-down economics and the importance of collaborating with local government when implementing economic policy. The Brookings Institution and Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented a new report that finds that a disproportionate share of recent investments in strategic sectors is going to economically distressed counties – delivering on the President’s commitment to ensuring no community is left out or behind. This report confirms similar findings by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on clean energy investments spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act.

County officials shared their on-the-ground experiences accessing federal programs and attracting private sector investment. Administration officials then spoke about the resources available to county officials, which can ease the costs of preparing industrial sites or delivering on projects. Private sector experts in advanced manufacturing offered expertise on how firms strategically consider different localities for investment, the role of financing, and how to approach site readiness. The session concluded by identifying potential resources available from the public, private, and non-profit sector for county officials to continue driving equitable economic growth in communities across the country.

Participants:

• Lael Brainard, Assistant to the President and National Economic Advisor
• Tom Perez, Senior Advisor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
• Joelle Gamble, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House National Economic Council
• Alex Jacquez, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Development and Industrial Strategy, National Economic Council
• Stephanie Sykes, Special Assistant to the President for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
• Cassandra Robertson, Director of Labor Policy, National Economic Council
• Matthew Chase, CEO and Executive Director, National Association of Counties
• Mark Ritacco, Chief Government Affairs Officer, National Association of Counties
• Michael Matthews, Legislative Director, National Association of Counties
• Alejandra Castillo, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, Department of Commerce
• Jigar Shah, Director of the Loan Programs Office, Department of Energy
• Brian Anderson, Executive Director, Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization

• Dan Hardcastle, Special Policy Advisor, Department of Housing and Urban Development
• County Executive Sara Innamorato, Alleghany County, Pennsylvania
• County Executive Ryan McMahon III, Onondaga County, New York
• Commissioner DeMont Davis, Clayton County, Georgia
• County Executive John Olszewski, Baltimore County, Maryland
• Hon. Manuel Ruiz, Supervisor, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
• Geoff Segal, Senior Vice President, Macquarie Group
• Chuck Whipple, Vice President and Director of Business Development, ECS Southeast
• Joe Parilla, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
• Dr. Raj Varadarajan, Senior Partner Emeritus at Boston Consulting Group
• Ann Lichter, Director, Resource Rural
• Lisa Hansmann, Senior Advisor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

###

The post Readout of White House Meeting with County Officials on Investing in All of America appeared first on The White House.

Today’s report shows that wage growth has been the strongest of any economic recovery in 50 years. At a time when growth and employment remain strong, inflation declined by two thirds from its peak but we know there’s still work to do to lower costs.

That’s why I’m fighting to lower costs for middle class families—from the cost of insulin and other prescription drugs, to eliminating hidden junk fees that companies use to rip you off, to calling on corporations to pass savings on to consumers instead of hiding price increases by shrinking package sizes. I will continue standing in the way of Congressional Republicans who want to cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, raise costs for middle class families, and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the January Consumer Price Index appeared first on The White House.

This bipartisan supplemental agreement is critical to advancing America’s national security interests. It will allow the United States to continue our vital work, together with our allies and partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine’s freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. It will provide Israel with what it needs to protect its people against Hamas terrorists. Significantly, this agreement will provide life-saving humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with Hamas. 

I applaud the bipartisan coalition of Senators who came together to advance this agreement, and I urge the House to move on this with urgency. We cannot afford to wait any longer. The costs of inaction are rising every day, especially in Ukraine. Already, we are seeing reports of Ukrainian troops running out of ammunition on the front lines as Russian forces continue to attack and Putin continues to dream of subjugating the Ukrainian people. There are those who say American leadership and our alliances and partnerships with countries around the world do not matter. They do. If we do not stand against tyrants who seek to conquer or carve up their neighbors’ territory, the consequences for America’s national security will be significant. Our allies and adversaries alike will take note. It is time for the House to take action and send this bipartisan legislation to my desk immediately so that I can sign it into law.

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on Senate Passage of the National Security Supplemental appeared first on The White House.

When President Biden came into office, he vowed to lower health care costs for American families. By passing the Inflation Reduction Act, the President and Congressional Democrats finally allowed Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors – while every single Republican in Congress voted to keep health care costs high, even for their own constituents.
 
Yesterday’s decision in the Western District of Texas is an important step in this Administration’s defense of the law.  Despite Big Pharma’s attempts to block prescription drug negotiation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is moving forward with their critical work to negotiate for lower drug prices for the first ten drugs selected for the negotiation program. Millions of seniors take these drugs every year for conditions ranging from diabetes to heart disease, blood cancers, Crohn’s disease, and more – and some pay nearly $6,500 per year out of their own pockets for one drug alone.
 
Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay two to three times more for their prescription drugs than other developed nations. President Biden and this Administration will continue this essential work to lower health care costs for millions of seniors and their families.

###

The post Statement from Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on NICA v. Becerra appeared first on The White House.

Cross Hall

4:22 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Good afternoon.  Let me start by welcoming His Majesty, the King of Jordan.  He’s been a good friend.  Abdullah, welcome back to the White House, man.  Welcome back.  And, by the way, Barack is looking at you in the corner over there.

And along with Qree- — Queen Riana [Rania], who is meeting with Jill now, and the Queen — and the Crown Prince Hussein.  Where — is the Prince out here?  I thought he was coming out.  Any rate. 

We’ve known each other for many years.  And His Majesty has been a good friend all those years, a steadfast partner alongside the Queen, and a beloved leader to their people.  The partnership between the United States and our ally Jordan is strong and it is enduring. 

Today, the King and I discussed with our senior foreign policy staffs what — the issue that’s front and center in the Middle East and well beyond: the war between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas.  Over four months ago, on October the 7th, Hamas attacked Israel in an act of sheer evil, massacring more than 1,200 innocent women, men, and children — the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. 

More than 250 hostages were taken.  A hundred and thirty-four are still being held hostage by Hamas.  We don’t know how many are still alive.  The anguish that their families are enduring week after week, month after month is unimaginable.  And it’s a top priority for the United States to bring them home. 

I’ve made clear the United States shares the goal of seeing Hamas defeated and ensuring long-term security for Israel and its people.

After the October 7th attacks, Hamas retreated back into Gaza, where its leaders live in underground tunnels, stretching for over 100 miles beneath civilian infrastructure, including — including schools, playgrounds, and neighborhoods. 

The past four months, as the war has raged, the Palestinian people have also suffered unimaginable pain and loss.  Too many — too many of the over 27,000 Palestinians killed in this conflict have been innocent civilians and children, including thousands of children.  And hundreds of thousands have no access to food, water, or other basic services.

Many families have lost not just one but many relatives and cannot mourn for them or even bury them because it’s not safe to do so.  It’s heart-breaking. 

Every innocent life [lost] in Gaza is a tragedy, just as every innocent life lost in Israel is a tragedy as well.  We pray for those lives taken — both Israeli and Palestinian — and for the grieving families left behind. 

Not only do we pray for peace, we are actively working for peace, security, and dignity for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people.  And I’m working on this day and night with the King and others in the region to find the means to bring all these hostages home, to ease the humanitarian crisis, and to end the terror threat and to bring peace to Gaza and Israel — an enduring peace with a two-state solution for two peoples. 

As the King and I discussed today, the United States is working on a hostage deal between Israel and Hamas, which would bring immediate and sustained period of calm into Gaza for at least six weeks, which we could then take the time to build something more enduring.

Over the past month, I’ve had calls with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as well as the leaders of Egypt and Qatar, to push this forward.  The key element of the deals are on the table.  There are gaps that remain, but I’ve encouraged Israeli leaders
to keep working to achieve the deal.  The United States will do everything possible to make it happen. 

The King and I also discussed the situation in Rafah.  As I said yesterday, our military operation in Rafah — their — the major military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible plan — a credible plan for ensuring the safety and support of more than one million people sheltering there.  Many people there have been displaced — displaced multiple times, fleeing the violence to the north, and now they’re packed into Rafah — exposed and vulnerable.  They need to be protected. 

And we have also been clear from the start: We oppose any forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

Today, the King and I also discussed in detail how to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza.  From the very beginning, my team and I have relentlessly worked to get more aid in.  I urged Congress for months to make sure that our nation’s support for Israel and — also includes urgently needed aid for Palestinians.  And I’ve spoken repeatedly with partners across the region, including the King, to help facilitate the flow of such aid into Gaza as much as possible and that will actually get to the people that there — that are — need it.  

We worked to get the Rafah Crossing open.  We worked to get Kerem Shalom open.  And we insist that we remain — it remain open — both remain open.  We’re working to open other routes as well.  And we’re also working relentlessly to make sure aid workers can get the aid where it’s needed once it gets through.

I want to recognize Jordan and the King specifically for all he has done to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, including just a few days ago.  He personally got in a plane and helped conduct an air drop of urgently needed medical supplies into Gaza. 

I understand that two of his children have also joined those air drops.  They helped fly humanitarian supplies in.  And for years, the Queen has been passionate — a passionate advocate for the Palestinian people, particularly women and children.  Your family’s leadership, Your Majesty, and humanitarian commitment are commendable. 

And at the same time, we’re working to create the conditions for a lasting peace, as we talked a lot about upstairs, with the Israeli security guaranteed and Palestinian aspirations for their own state fulfilled.  I say this as a long — lifelong supporter of Israel.  That’s the only path that guarantees Israel’s security for the long term.  To achieve it, the Palestinians must also seize the opportunity. 

As I discussed with the King today, the Palestinian Authority must re- — urgently reform so it can effectively deliver for the Palestinian people in both the West Bank and Gaza.  Once Hamas’s control of Gaza is over, they must prepare to build a state that accepts peace, does not harbor terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 

And together, we will keep working to complete what has — what we started: to integrate the region, to bring about peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbors, including a Palestinian state.  That effort was already underway before the October 7th attacks.  It’s even more urgent today. 

No one — no one understands better than our allies and partners in the region, including the King, what we need.  I’m grateful to him for his friendship, including his and Jordan’s unique role — unique role: custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem. 

We’re grateful for this friendship.  We saw that again just two weeks ago when three brave American servicemembers were killed in an attack at a military outpost in Jordan, close to the Syrian border, by radical militant groups backed by Iran, operating in Syria and Iraq.  Since then, U.S. military forces have struck targets in Iraq and Syria, and our response will continue. 

We’re grateful for our partners and allies like the King who work with us every single day to advance security and stability across the region and beyond.  It’s difficult times like these when the bonds between nations are more important than ever. 

And Jill and I are pleased to welcome him and the Queen and the Crown Prince to the White House today. 

Your Majesty, over to you.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Thank you, sir.

(President Biden moves from one side of the podium to the other.)

Mr. —

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  I switched sides on you.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Sorry.

Mr. President, thank you for your gracious hospitality accorded to me and my delegation today.

My visit today carries an added meaning as our countries this year mark 75 years of exemplary strategic partnership.  However, we had hoped we would be marking this major milestone during better circumstances in my region and the world.

Unfortunately, one of the most devastating wars in recent history continues to unfold in Gaza as we speak.  Nearly 100,000 people have been killed, injured, or are missing.  The majority are women and children.

We cannot afford an Israeli attack on Rafah.  It is certain to produce another humanitarian catastrophe.  The situation is already unbearable for over a million people who have been pushed into Rafah since the war started.

We cannot stand by and let this continue.  We need a lasting ceasefire now.  This war must end.  We must urgently and immediately work to ensure the sustainable delivery of sufficient aid to Gaza through all possible entry points and mechanisms.  And I thank you, Mr. President, for your support on this.

Restrictions on vital relief aid and medical items are leading to inhumane conditions.  No other U.N. agency can do what UNRWA is doing in helping the people of Gaza through this humanitarian catastrophe.

Its work in other areas of operation — especially in Jordan, where 2.3 million are registered — is also vital.  It is imperative that UNRWA continues to receive the support it needs to carry out its mandate.

The potential threat of Palestinian displacement beyond the borders of Gaza and the West Bank is something we view with extreme concern and cannot be allowed.

At the same time, we must ignore — we must not ignore the situation in the West Bank and in the holy sites in Jerusalem.

Nearly 400 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since October 7th, including almost 100 children, and over 4,000 injured. 

Continued escalations by extremist settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem’s holy sites and the expansion of illegal settlements will unleash chaos on the entire region.

The vast majority of Muslim worshippers are not being allowed to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque.  Christian churches have also voiced concerns about increasing and unprecedented restrictions and threats.

It is also important to stress that the separation of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be accepted.

Seven decades of occupation, death, and destruction have proven beyond any doubt that there can be no peace without a political horizon. 

Military and security solutions are not the answer.  They can never bring peace.  Civilians on both sides continue to pay for this protracted conflict with their lives.

All attacks against innocent civilians — women and children — including those of October 7th, cannot be accepted by any Muslim, as I have previously stressed.

We must make sure the horrors of the past few months since October 7th are never repeated nor accepted by any human being.

We must together, along with Arab partners and the international community, step up efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and immediately start working to create a political horizon that leads to a just and comprehensive peace on the basis of the two-state solution — an independent, sovereign, and viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital but living side by side with Israel in peace and security.  This is the only solution that will guarantee peace and security for the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as the entire region.

Your leadership, my dear friend, Mr. President, is key to addressing this conflict.  And Jordan is ready to work, as always, with you towards peace. 

Thank you.

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Thank you.

4:36 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan After a Meeting appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. met today with His Majesty King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the White House. Both leaders acknowledged the 75 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Jordan and the enduring partnership and friendship between our two countries. 

The President and King Abdullah II discussed the latest developments in Gaza and affirmed their commitment to work together to produce an enduring end to the crisis. Both remain committed to achieving a durable, lasting peace to include a two-state solution for the Palestinian people with Israel’s security guaranteed. Both President Biden and King Abdullah II reiterated their shared commitment to facilitating the increased, sustained delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians in Gaza. President Biden thanked His Majesty for Jordan’s critical leadership and partnership in this effort.

The President and King Abdullah II also discussed the importance of stability in the West Bank and in the region more broadly. The President underscored the importance of upholding the status quo at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, recognizing Jordan’s crucial role as the custodian of Muslim holy places in Jerusalem. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together to realize a more stable and prosperous future for the Middle East and its people, and President Biden confirmed unwavering U.S. support for Jordan and the Jordanian people. 

###

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:10 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wow, that was a flash.  (Laughs.)  My goodness.  Is that a Polaroid?

Q    It is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Whoa.  Taking us back. 

Okay.  I think — is the mic okay?

Q    Yeah, it sounds good. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah?  Okay. 

All right, everybody.  Happy Monday and good afternoon to everyone.  Hope everyone got some rest after last night’s Super Bowl. 

The President was able to catch some of the game.  And on his behalf, I want to extend a big congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on their third Super Bowl win in just five seasons.  And also congratulations to all the Swifties out there. 

The President looks forward to welcoming them back once again to the White House to celebrate their latest victory.  As you know, it is a White House tradition. 

And so, without ado, don’t have anything much more — I know — I know you guys are excited about that.  We have our — the Admiral here — my colleague, John Kirby — who is here to discuss the visit of King Abdullah of Jordan and the latest on the Israeli hostages who were freed in Rafah and also the Lobito Corridor Private Sector Investment Forum.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you so much, Karine.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  As you know, the President is hosting King Abdullah here at the White House this afternoon.  It’s the 75th year of diplomatic relations between Jordan and the United States, and this meeting will help further strengthen our enduring bilateral relationship. 

During the meeting, President Biden and the King will discuss the ongoing situation in Gaza, of course, and efforts to help produce an enduring end to this conflict. 

They’ll also discuss increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza and a vision for durable peace, to include the viability of a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed.

Now, before we get into questions, I just want to express how pleased we are to hear the news of two Israeli hostages freed last night by Israeli Defense Forces in Rafah.  After 128 days, Fernando Simon Marian and Louis Har are now reunited with their families where they belong. 

That’s where all the hostages belong, quite frankly.  And so, President Biden and his entire team is going to continue to work around the clock to ensure and to secure their release.  We will spare no effort to do so, and that includes capitalizing on recent progress in negotiations with our counterparts in the region.  And those negotiations are ongoing.

Now, we’ve also seen reports that civilians were killed over the weekend in Rafah due to Israeli operations.  I can’t confirm those reports, but as we have said many times, the proper number of civilian casualties is zero.  We don’t want to see a single innocent civilian death — Israeli or Palestinian.

But let me be clear: There can be no enduring end to this crisis until Hamas releases the men and women that they are holding hostage — all of them.  Their release and a prolonged humanitarian pause is also essential for bringing critical relief to in- — the innocent people of Gaza who have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying conflict.  And this remains our paramount objective. 

Now, as Karine teased, just a real quick note on Africa.  Last Thursday, the United States, the government of Zam- — Zambia, and the Africa Finance Corporation convened the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Lobito Corridor Private Sector Investor Forum — try to say that 10 times — in Lusaka, Zambia. 

This was the first PGI investor forum held outside of the United States, bringing together more than 250 business and government leaders.

With over a billion dollars in U.S. and G7 financing, the corridor will ultimately connect Africans from western Angola to Tanzania and the Indian Ocean through rural bridges, upgraded 4G and 5G digital connec- — connectivity, increases in solar power, investing in agribusiness and food security, and the biggest rail investment in Africa in U.S. history.  

So, very exciting.  We’re — we’re very, very pleased to be able to move this forward — this — this development project.  And — and it’s exciting, and we’ll keep you posted.

With that, let me take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, John.  First off, congratulations are in order, I believe.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks.

Q    The President yesterday, in his conversation with Pr- — Prime Minister Netanyahu, reiterated the U.S. opposition to operation — expanded operations inside Rafah to — to root out Hamas’s remaining battalions there.

In your outline a few min- — a few seconds ago about what the end stage — Hamas’s release that’s — the remaining hostages to end the conflict.  Does the U.S. believe that Hamas can remain in Rafah?  Is that an acceptable end game of — you know, how are the Israelis — if they can’t go into Rafah to remove Hamas, how are they supposed to get rid of Hamas from Gaza, which the U.S. has said is their end goal here?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, we never said that they can’t go into Rafah to remove Hamas.  Hamas remains a viable threat to the Israeli people.  And the Israelis and the IDF, absolutely, are going to continue operations against their leadership and their infrastructure, as they should.  We don’t want to see another October 7th. 

What we’ve said is we don’t believe that it’s advisable to go in in a major way in Rafah without a proper, executable, effective, and credible plan for the safety of the more than a million Palestinians that are taking refuge in Rafah.  They’ve — they’ve left the north, and they certainly went south out of Khan Yunis to try to get out of the fighting. 

So, Israel has an obligation to make sure that they can protect them. 

Q    And related to the ceasefire hostage deal talks, yesterday a senio- — senior administration official said that a framework was — was nearly reached but there were gaps remaining.  I was hoping you can provide some clarification on what the remaining gaps are and whe- — on which side of the conflict those gaps are. 

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m sure you can understand I’m not going to get into the — the details of the negotiations. 

We do believe, as I’ve said before, that there has been constructive progress towards trying to get a deal in place for an extended pause and getting all the hostages out.  But it’s not done, and nothing is really negotiated until everything is negotiated. 

And those conversations are ongoing now.  And it would be really irresponsible for me to — to get into the details of it.

Q    And then, just lastly for me.  You — you had said the U.S. response to the killing of the three American servicemembers in — in Jordan would be pha- — phased over — over some time, a few days.  Is it safe to say that the — that the U.S. response at this point is concluded, or is it still ongoing?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re going to have to wait and see. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thank you.  John, Secretary Austin is back in the hospital.  We wish him well, but he’s had to cancel a week — a trip this week to Europe and another gathering of the Ukraine Contact Group, which he could attend virtually if he wanted to.

First off, has the President spoken to Secretary Austin since he was hospitalized?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any conversation between the two of them since — since this just happened yesterday. 

Q    Does the President have any concerns that, with his medical problems, the Secretary can no longer serve?

MR. KIRBY:  Not at all. 

Q    There were conversations in here last week, I know, about the President saying that Israel’s moves into southern Gaza have been, quote, “over the top.”  And there were suggestions that that isn’t necessarily something new.

But that is a slightly more direct commentary on what they may or may not end up doing than we’ve heard from him in the past and we normally hear from world leaders talking about what other world leaders are up to. 

Is he changing his rhetoric on this, given the concerns expressed by members of his party, especially those in swing state Michigan?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been pretty dang consistent, almost from the very beginning, Ed, about —

Q    He wasn’t saying it was “over the top” at the beginning.

MR. KIRBY:  But he’s been very consistent, Ed, about our concerns over civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure and the need for the Israeli Defense Forces to act with precision and deliberateness and due caution about taking innocent life.  I mean, that is not a new position by this administration, certainly not a new position by the President.

Q    Was that what he expressed yesterday in their call?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get beyond the readout.  We — I think we — we offered you a pretty good summary of the things that they discussed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, over the weekend, satellite imagery emerged that indicates that Venezuelan military assets have been moved along their border with Guyana.  Do you have a comment?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve — we’ve obviously been monitoring this closely, ourselves.  Our assessment is that whatever military movements there have been by Venezuela have been of a very — of a small nature and size and scale and scope.  We see no indication that there’s about to be hostilities or that the Venezuelan military would be capable of conducting any significant military activities there. 

We continue to urge a peaceful resolution to this.  And, obviously, we’re going to continue to watch it closely.  You know, I would remind that anything that we’re doing down in Guyana or in that area is done fure- — purely for defensive purposes. 

Q    And on — on Haiti.  The administration is convening a meeting, including the (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s right.

Q    — starting today.  I understand (inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:  Starting today and ending tomorrow, yeah.

Q    Okay.  What — what’s the goal of that meeting?  And when would you like to see this force deployed?

MR. KIRBY:  We think there’s a — certainly a significant need for a multinational security force of some kind down there to help protect the people of Haiti.  You’re right, there are discussions going on.  Started today, will go on again tomorrow over at Fort McNair here in town.  So, we’re — we’re glad to host them.  Look forward to seeing where we can get. 

But the idea, really, is to start to set out the general parameters of what that multinational security force could look like and how it would operate.  It’s a entry-level discussion.  I have no doubt there — there will be follow-on discussions as appropriate.

Q    John, the — on the Jordanian meeting today.  The Jordanians previewed the King’s visit here as an effort to gather support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  The President obviously is — has been a hard no on a ceasefire.  Is that going to be the position he presents to the Jordanian King today when they meet?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s let the conversation happen before we get ahead of it.  We have been very consistent that we don’t support a general ceasefire at this time, which is, you know, again, a ceasefire that would lead to both sides laying down arms permanently and — and ending the war. 

Now, we want to see the war end as soon as possible.  And we believe one of the first steps that’s critical to doing that is a humanitarian pause — an extended pause that — longer than what we saw back in November of a week that would allow us to get all the hostages out, get more aid and assistance in, and then hopefully lead to discussions that — that could get us closer to an end to the conflict.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Oh — (laughter) — thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral. 

So, President Biden had told Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu that any potential ground invasion in Rafah should not happen without a plan to protect civilians there.  Is the President confident that this message is getting through to Netanyahu?  And where are these civilians supposed to go?  So much of the infrastructure has already been destroyed in Gaza.

MR. KIRBY:  He’s confident that the — our Israeli counterparts understand our concerns.  We’ve made them privately.  We’ve made them publicly.

I won’t speak for the Israelis or — or what they may or may not do.  But they — but they’ve heard loud and clear our concerns about where the civilians — that the civilians need to be protected. 

I can’t tell you here, talking, Selina, what that would look like.  But — but we hope and expect that our Israeli counterparts will factor in the safety of those civilians appropriately as they consider future operations down in Rafah.

Q    So, what could that look like, given the situation there?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I can’t get ahead of where we are right now.  That’s really going to be a question for the Israeli Defense Forces.  They know and they understand our concerns.

Q    And Israel’s Prime Minister told ABC News, without presenting evidence, that Israel’s military has killed more Hamas fighters than civilians.  What is the U.S. assessment of that?  And do you agree with what Netanyahu told us?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t have an independent assessment of those figures.

Q    And, just lastly, the White — what is the White House reaction to Trump saying he would encourage Russia to attack NATO Allies if they don’t contribute enough towards defense spending?  What is the message that not only sends to the world but especially to U.S. Allies?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, now you know I’m going to be careful.  I can’t talk about things been said on the campaign trail.  All I can tell you is that under this particular president, President Biden, as Commander-in-Chief, NATO is now more relevant, stronger, bigger than it’s ever been before.  And he has really prioritized our network of alliances and partnerships around the world.  And, of course, NATO is right at the forefront of that when it comes to the security environment on the continent of Europe. 

And that’s what — that’s what the American president ought to be about — be about reinforcing alliances and partnerships and sending a strong signal, particularly to NATO Allies, about how seriously we take our Article Five commitments. 

And you’ve heard from President Biden, gosh, I don’t know how many times: We will defend, if needed, every inch of NATO territory. 

That’s what the Commander-in-Chief of the United States ought to be saying when it comes to NATO.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor.

Q    And just to follow up on that quickly.  Vice President Harris is going to be in Munich with a lot of those European security leaders.  Is part of her duty there to reassure allies that that deterrence is still a force here?

MR. KIRBY:  I have no doubt that the Vice President will take the opportunity while she’s in Munich not only to talk about our — how this administration is pursuing our national security interests in Europe and beyond but how important, again, we consider our network of alliances and partnerships. 

And, Trevor, there’s no other nation in the world — none — that has a network like the United States has because the President and the Vice President and national security team has invested so much energy in the last three years in revitalizing them. 

A lot of allies and partners had a lot of questions when we came into office because they didn’t feel valued.  They didn’t feel respected.  They didn’t feel like the United States was — was willing to continue to lead on — on the world stage.  And we’ve proven that we are.

Q    And on Rafah.  Does the — has the President ever threatened to strip military assistance from Israel if they move ahead with a Rafah operation that does not take into consequence what happens with civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re going to continue to support Israel.  They have a right to defend themselves against Hamas.  And we’re going to continue to make sure they have the tools and the capabilities to do that. 

Q    And what’s the view about the role that Egypt should play there?  Do they need to reopen their — do they need to open that border on their side in order to allow civilians to come through?

MR. KIRBY:  They — Egypt has been a terrific counterpart, with respect to Rafah and — and the use of that gate and allowing people that need to get out to get out — people that — you know, third- — third-country nationals.  And they continue to do that.  They’ve been a terrific partner.

Q    But it is closed — right? — so the average person can’t move through there, so —

MR. KIRBY:  There will be — there have been and I suspect there will be closures at times based on the security environment.  But — but we’re not concerned about our ability to continue to communicate with President El-Sisi about — about the proper use of that gate.

Q    But just to be clear, people are actually penned in right now — Gaza civilians — who are not able to egress — right? — into Egypt.

MR. KIRBY:  You’re talking about Palestinians?

Q    Palestinians who are not able to egress.  So, is that something that the President wants to see movement on?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t want to see any forced relocation of people out of Gaza.  That’s home for the Palestinian people. 

Q    What about voluntary?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, that’s something that we — we have and will continue to discuss with counterparts in the region.  But — but it’s home to those folks.  That’s — Gaza is home.  And they shouldn’t be forced to leave Gaza if they don’t want to leave. 

Now, if there’s going to be operations in Rafah or around Rafah, the Israelis have a commitment, an obligation to make sure that they can provide for the safety of innocent Palestinian — innocent Pal- — Palestinian people that are there.

Q    But you’re not pressuring Egypt to allow them to —

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the specifics of diplomatic conversations that we’re having.  We w- — don’t want to see any Palestinian people forced out of Gaza.  That’s their home. 

If there are people that — that need to leave that are not Palestinians and want to leave, obviously, we’re working with Egypt to do that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Can you just talk to us about the feasibility of moving the entire civilian population out of Rafah?  Is that even physically doable?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s a lot of folks there, M.J. — more than a million.  Some estimates have it almost at 1.5 million.  That’s a lot of people that moved down to Rafah to get out of the fighting. 

And so, again, the — the task of providing for their safety at that number and in such confined spaces is — is difficult.  There’s no question about it.  That’s going to be a heavy lift.  For any military, it would be a heavy lift.  But — but that’s the conversation that we want to keep having with our Israeli counterparts.

That — that — I don’t know what it’s going to look like.  We can’t tell you what it’s going to look like.  That’s really for the IDF to speak to.  But it absolutely has to be accounted for.

Q    But do you think it’s a — it is a realistic goal, that it is viable to try to move those people out of that area?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s see what the Israeli Defense Forces come up with. 

Q    And if they go ahead with the ground incursion anyway before the civilian population can safely be moved out of that area, would there be any consequences from the U.S.?  I know Trevor just asked a question about, you know, potentially stripping, you know, military support or security assistance.  What would the consequence be for Israel if they went ahead and did that anyway?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals on that.  We’ve — we’ve been very clear with our Israeli counterparts privately and publicly about what our expectations are for the treatment of the innocent people that are — that are down there near Rafah. 

And we’re going to continue to — as I mentioned to Trevor, we’re going to continue to support Israel.  They have a right and responsibility to go after Hamas.  We’re going to make sure that they can continue to do that.

But as from the very beginning, we want to make sure that they do that in a way that fully accounts for the preservation of innocent life and civilian infrastructure.

Q    And just since the President is about to meet with a close ally that publicly supports a ceasefire in Gaza, can you just talk to us about whether the President’s thinking on that has evolved at all?  You know, is he a little bit closer to potentially supporting that publicly than, say, a month ago?  Has his thinking on that evolved at all?

MR. KIRBY:  We haven’t changed in terms of our desire to see an extended pause so that we can get all the hostages home with their families where they belong, so we can get additional security assistance in, and we can see a reduction in the violence.  We are still focused on trying to get an extended humanitarian pause.

Q    I’m asking about a permanent pause.

MR. KIRBY:  I know what you’re asking.  We’re — what I’m saying is we support and continue to support an extended humanitarian pause. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, John.  I — you talk — I know you can’t give specifics about consequences.  But, I mean, would the United States’ policy change under any circumstances?  You know, you talk about an obligation to protect civilians.  The President has talked about “over the top,” indiscriminate bombings.  Is there anything — would there be any consequences?  Would the U.S. policy change?  Or is it support no matter what?

MR. KIRBY:  I just won’t get ahead of where we are right now.  And I’m certainly not going to engage hypotheticals.  We want to make sure Israel can continue to defend itself.  We want to make sure that humanitarian assistance continues to flow to the people of Gaza.  And by no means has there been enough.  There needs to be more.  And we want to get all those hostages home. 

We believe that the best way to accomplish those three goals is to get an extended pause in place to bring the violence down, to get people out, and get aid in.  And that’s what we’re focused on. 

And I — I get the — I get the thrust of the question.  I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals about changes in policy.

Q    Is there anything beyond concern that you can give to the Israelis to — to help protect the civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  We have communicated, again, consistently and stridently since the beginning of the conflict — I mean, since the time the President went to Tel Aviv on the 17th of October, just a week or so after the attacks — how important it is that Israel knows it’s going to have our support and that they do everything they can to protect innocent life.

Q    Anoth- — another question, if I may.  What — what does — what — why did the President allow his campaign — the President allow his campaign to go on TikTok despite the national security review of the platform?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to the campaign for that.

Q    But, I mean, it’s still the President of the United States.  He’s still sending — the President is sending a message to Americans about the nat- — about the safety of TikTok by doing this.

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to the campaign on that decision.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  I’m sorry to press you on this issue of — of Rafah.  But, I mean, you say there’s — you know, you’re not going to talk about possible halting military aid; you’re not going to talk about consequences.  What leverage does the White House actually have in terms of ensuring that Israel does not launch a military offensive in — in Rafah, you know, without taking the necessary steps?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I don’t think you’re all that sorry about pressing me on this, but I’ll — I’ll go ahead.  (Laughter.) 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  It’s okay.  It’s all right.  (Laughs.)

Look, it’s not about leverage.  It’s about being consistent.  And I’ve said it before, just in the last few minutes.  It’s about being consistent about our desire to make sure Israel can defend itself so that October 7th can’t happen again, which Hamas obviously wants to do.  And it’s being consistent about the nee- — how they conduct those operations matter.  And we have been consistent since the very beginning in talking to the Israelis about — about the “how,” about operations and how they’re conducted.

And I would tell you that throughout this conflict, there have been moments and there continue to be moments where we have the opportunity and have taken the opportunity to shape their thinking and to help influence the way they have conducted some of these operations.  And that remains today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.  Hi, John.  You referenced the release of two hostages.  But also, there is reports that in the process of this special operation, three hostages were killed, along with 100 Palestinians, including women and children.  Also, Egypt threatened to withdraw from the Camp David agreement if Israel invaded Rafah.  So, how does the White House navigate this rather complex picture?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I tried to address that in my opening statement, Nadia.  We don’t want to see any civilians killed, one — at any time — Israel — Israeli or Palestinian — in the conduct of operations.  The right number is — is zero. 

And so, while we’re very glad that two hostages are now back with their families where they belong, we certainly mourn any loss of innocent life as a result of those operations. 

And it just — it just underscores, I think, a couple of things.  One — and, again, we’re not — I can’t validate the numbers.  I’ve seen the reports, but I can’t confirm them.  But it does underscore two things: one, the difficulty of conducting military operations in such a closed-in urban environment where there are so many people — and as we talked about earlier, even more people now in the south in Rafah than there were before.  So, there — that’s an added difficulty for the IDF.

And, number two, it underscores the obligation that they have and that they know they have to be careful and discriminate and — and very deliberate in how they — in how they go after targets.

Last thing on this, though, and I think it’s an important point — and you didn’t ask this, but it’s an — we do know that Hamas leadership and — and fighters migrated south.  They got pressured in the north, so they went down to Khan Yunis.  Of course, they were already in Khan Yunis, but they kind of congregated there.  And then, as the Israelis put pressure on them in Khan Yunis, they gravitated further south now towards Rafah.

They — their — by their very presence and their operations down there, they are further endangering the people of — of Gaza that are now settled or trying to find refuge down there in Rafah. 

So, there’s — there is — there are legitimate military targets that the Israelis are going to want to go after in Rafah.  Again, we just urge them, as we have, to be careful. 

Q    And, also, I wanted to ask you — the President’s comments.  He referenced “over the top,” and he also said that Israel indiscriminately killing people in Gaza.  Yet, he’s willing to sign off on almost $14 billion in military aid. 

So, how can you reconcile the fact that he’s worried about civilian casualties without any serious review about how U.S. weapons are used in the civilian area?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I think you know we — just last week, late in the week, we issued a national security memorandum that — that codifies existing policies and adds reporting requirements onto those existing policies about our expectations for how military assistance is going to be provided to any foreign actor — and, of course, that includes Israel.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, John.  Just to jump off of Nadia’s question, you’ve been explicit that the U.S. does not support an operation into Rafah without a credible, feasible plan to move and protect civilians. 

Yesterday’s operation — as you’ve also acknowledged, there were reports of civilian casualties.  But is — was the operation yesterday within the grounds of the kind of operation that the U.S. would support in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I can’t really speak to the specifics of IDF operations.  You know I won’t do that.  They should speak to the operations that they conduct and — and what that looks like.

As I understand that — again, this is rudimentary and early information — this was a specific military raid to rescue hostages and not necessarily indicative of some larger operation that they have talked about conducting in Rafah to root out Hamas leaders that have now tried to find refuge among the million or so Palestinians that are there. 

Q    Yeah.  So, just in terms of, you know, what the U.S. would support, is it — is it a question of scale?  Is it a question of — of more targeted operations like this are okay, despite the possible civilian casualties, whereas a mass operation is not okay?  Like, just in terms of U.S. support.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, with the caveat that this is a sovereign nation we’re talking about and they get to decide what military operations they’re going to conduct, what we’ve said is: We wouldn’t support operations, given the current circumstances, where you have, again, more than a million people there with nowhere to go and no plan for some place for them to go so that they can be safe. 

So, we look forward to continuing talking to our Israeli counterparts about what that could look like. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks so much.  John, on TikTok.  Can you explain what are the national security concerns that the administration has about TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  As you know, it’s not approved for use on government devices, and that’s — remains the — the case today.  And I think — again, I don’t want to get into too much of the — of the national security, technical reasons behind that.  But it does have to do with concerns about the preservation of data and the potential misuse of that data and privacy information by foreign actors. 

I think that’s as far as I can go. 

Q    Does the White House believe it’s wise for people to use TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, that’s — that’s not something that I — I’m qualified to say from the National Security Council.  All I can tell you is it’s — it’s banned on U.S. government devices, and we follow that guidance. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    So, yesterday was the second anniversary with the Biden-Harris administration of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.  We have a statement from the NSC, but I’m just wondering how you see the progress so far.  Are you satisfied with the progress?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ve made a lot of progress.  I mean, we’ve initiated AUKUS and that process is moving along on schedule to get Australia nuclear-powered submarine capability.  We’ve elevated the Quad — the Indo-Pacific Quad.  We’ve upgraded our relationships with Vietnam, with Indonesia, and with ASEAN. 

And, of course, as you know, the President hosted the leaders of Japan and South Korea at Camp David and really got not only significant developments in terms of our bilateral relationship with each country, each ally, but improved opportunities to — to get trilateral cooperation in a much better place than it’s ever been. 

I can go on and on, including adding capabilities in and around the Korean Peninsula to — to keep a better eye on what Kim Jong Un is doing and, of course, bolstering all the rest of our alliances and netwo- — and par- — partnerships in the region. 

Q    Does the U.S. believe that all of the remaining hostages are being held in Rafah?  And if so, given that that would include Americans, are there requests by U.S. officials to the Israelis for any assurances for protection of those hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  We — we sadly don’t have a whole lot of specific information about where each of the hostages are, who’s holding them, and in what condition they might be.  And sadly, we have to accept the possibility that some of them are no longer alive.  We just don’t have terrific granularity on that.

We are in constant conversations with our Israeli counterparts about what they know. 

Certainly, we’re in — we remain in touch with the families of the American hostages.  I think Jake Sullivan just met with them a week or so ago.  We’ll — we’ll maintain constant touch with them and try to get as much information as we can. 

But obviously, the whole reason we’re trying to get this deal in place is so that you can provide for the safe and secure passage of hostages out.

Yes, it’s true and we’re glad that two hostages were rescued.  But the lo- — but the — by and — by and large, the greatest number of hostages safely released were done through a hostage deal — right? — a pause in the fighting where they were able to go. 

And that’s why we’re putting so much effort into these current negotiations.  We believe that’s the best way to get hostages in greater numbers out safely. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We have to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you, John.  I have a question about Afghanistan, and then one about Lunar New Year.

Starting with Afghanistan.  The U.N. is holding its second International Conference on Afghanistan since the Taliban took power back.  That’s happening next week in Doha.  So, I just wonder what — what are the administration’s expectations from this gathering?  And do you see this as a move to normalize the Taliban?

MR. KIRBY:  There are no efforts by the United States government to, quote, unquote, “normalize,” as you put it, or to recognize the Taliban.

Officially, we’ve said — we’ve said it numerous times: If they want to be seen as legitimate rulers, they need to meet all the commitments that they said they would meet and make.  And they haven’t done that. 

Q    Do you think the U.N. should be holding this meeting, then?

MR. KIRBY:  I will let the Secretary-General speak for what the — what meetings the U.N. is holding.  Nothing has changed about our policy when it comes to the Taliban. 

Q    And then, very quickly, Happy Year of the Dragon.  It’s a happy year for you, a rabbit.  But — (laughter) — you are a rabbit.  You were born —

MR. KIRBY:  I’m a rabbit?

Q    — in 1963.  Yes, you are. 

Q    I have a follow-up.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  About me being a rabbit?  (Laughter.)  All right.  Thank you.  I did not know that. 

Q    What is the —

MR. KIRBY:  But I appreciate that very much.

Q    What does the President — he’s a horse.  What is it — it’s supposed to be a prosperous year for him.  What is the President’s message for the 20 million Asian Americans who celebrated this — this holiday over the weekend?  He hasn’t issued a message.  What is his message?

MR. KIRBY:  We have, actually, I think, put something out on social media about the — the Lunar New Year.  And, of course, we’re wishing everybody who observes the Lunar New Year a happy one and a prosperous one, even the — even the rabbits.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead, Joe Joe.  Go ahead, Joe Joe.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks.  Admiral, I wanted to clarify the position on TikTok.  So, the administration still has concerns — security concerns about TikTok, even though the campaign has now joined it?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I cannot speak nor will I speak for the campaign. 

Q    Not for the campaign but from the —

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t do that — or their decisions. 

Q    Right.

MR. KIRBY:  Nothing has changed about the national security concerns, from the NSC’s perspective, about the use of TikTok on government devices.  That policy is still in place. 

Q    But surely there must have been some conversation between the White House here and the campaign on whether it was appropriate for the campaign to — to use it, right?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.  Last one.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, just following up on this TikTok stuff.  Is — is the CFIUS review still happening?

MR. KIRBY:  I’d have to refer you to CFIUS.  I’m not in a position to confirm one way or another what they’re — what they’re looking at.

Q    So, is the administration still weighing a ban on TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I have nothing for you on that, Jacqui.  I mean, I’d have to refer you to — to CFIUS.  All I can speak to credibly, which I have today, is that, from an NSC perspective, there are still national security concerns about the use of TikTok on government devices.  And there’s been no change to our policy not to allow that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Awesome.  Thank you.

Q    Can you help me understand, though, like, why — why there wouldn’t be any communication between CFIUS and the administration broadly?  I mean, with the National Security Council, given —

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say there — I didn’t say there wasn’t.  I just said I’m not able to speak to issues regarding CFIUS.  You’d have to talk to them.  It’s an independent body.  And it’s not something I — I can’t speak for them. 

Q    I think we’re all just trying to square why the President would use this platform that his administration is weighing a national ban on because of national security concerns.

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speak to any hypothetical ban.  I can only tell you that it’s not allowed on government devices.  That policy remains the case.  And I just can’t speak for the campaign or their decisions.  I apologize.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.  Thank you so much, Admiral.  Thank you.

All right.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just to — another round on that TikTok question.  Are you aware of any communication between the Biden campaign and anyone who works in the White House about the President joining TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I can’t speak to any conversations on — on — specifically on TikTok.  We got to be really careful — the campaign, 2024, can’t —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  Hold on, hold on, hold on. 

So, we’re not going to comment on any specifics.  And so, certainly, we would defer to the campaign on any strategy.  The CFIUS process is separate and not going to get ahead of — of what we’re going to say here. 

And I would say that the administration is on record for — for supporting the RESTRICT Act, as you all know, something that came up last year.  And it’s a bipartisan bill.  And it is, indeed, tailored and risk-based approach so we can protect Americans’ freedom of speech, and that’s what matters. 

As you know — as you know, there are folks here who are commissioned officers who certain people are allowed to have conversation with the campaign.  But I can’t speak to any specific conversations that are havening — happening about this particular issue. 

Again, it’s under CFIUS review.  Want to be really mindful of not getting ahead of that.  And also, it’s the campaign, so that is something that they would have to — have to speak to. 

And the reason why it is banned on government — government phones or government properties, obviously, devices is because that is an act of Congress.  That is something that Congress wanted — put forward to make sure that no government — government devices are used.

Q    Were you aware before the — before the campaign posted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — to TikTok?  Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I am very, very careful.  As the White House Press Secretary, I have to — I’m in a different — kind of in a different box than most.  And so, I do not communicate with the campaign on any strategy or — or anything like that.  And so, I’m just very, very mindful of that.  I did not know.  I knew as — as you all did.

Q    And then a few follow-ups on the Special Counsel’s report —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — last week.  The — when Ian Sams was here on Friday, he said the White House was considering releasing the transcript of the President’s convers- — conversa- — interview with the special counsel, which you all have objected to that characterization of that.  Do you have an update on that review process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, certainly I’m going to refer you to the — my colleagues at the White House Counsel.  I know the President’s personal attorney, obviously, spoke to this on one of the Sunday shows yesterday.  So, I know they’re — they have been responsive.  The team here have been responsive to those specific questions.  I just don’t have anything to share. 

Q    But, also, the discussion about the Pre- — the President’s ordering it — the creation of a task force to change policies around the handling of classified information in a — in a presidential transition.  Do you have any updates on when the President will create that task force?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any updates on that particular question about the task force.

Q    The President’s personal di- — notes from his time as vice president were among those items that were reviewed by the special counsel, and — and the interagency found they contained classified — in some cases, highly classified information.  Does the President still keep a diary and notebooks now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, that particular question, obviously, the White House Counsel would be able to speak to more directly.  But I do want to remind everyone that this was a 15-month investigation.  And I think the outcome of that investigation, obviously, has been stated, is that counsel — the special counsel has not found any — nothing to prosecute.  And I think that’s important to note. 

And I — anything beyond that, any specific questions about diary or anything like that, I would have to refer you to the White House Counsel.
Q    And then, lastly, when the President hosts the King later, they’re going to be making statements.  Why isn’t the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and given all of these questions about the special counsel and others — why isn’t he taking questions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, let’s be clear.  The day that the special counsel report came out, the President came out in the evening and took — and made a statement and took questions.  He wanted to make sure that you all heard from him directly.  And so, I want to be really — let’s not forget that that did occur on the day that the report came out. 

Look, the President is — is looking forward to welcoming the King — King Abdullah to the — to the White House.  He comes here every year, as you all know, during his presidency.  And so, he looks, certainly, forward to welcoming the King. 

So, that said — and I said this last week, and I’ll just reiterate — there are a variety of factors that go into decision-making, that go into press con- — if there is going to be a press conference or not during foreign — foreign leaders.  It’s — it depends on those — those conversations that we have with the foreign leaders and how that works out.

Look, you’re going to hear from the President, you’re going to hear from the King later — later today, around four o’clock.  I think that’s important.  You’ll hear directly from them.  There’s just not a press — press conference component to this.  Not every trip — not every visit with a foreign leader has a press conference component.

As I stated, King Abdullah has been here almost every year during this President’s tenure, and they — that has not been the case — a two-plus-two has not been the case.

Q    I just want to follow up on that real quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because you mentioned the — that on Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The German Chancellor gave a press conference across the street in Lafayette Park.  It seems the White House here is the road block.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — that is something for the German Chancellor to speak to — as to their government, why they chose to do that.  I can’t speak to that. 

Every — there is — there are two, obviously, when — when a foreign leader comes, there are two governments that have this discussion.  They go through the process of what they want that trip to look like when they’re here at the White House.  And there are dif- — different varying — various factors that play into that.

And so, every trip is different.  Every trip is different.

And with this particular trip, King Abdullah, every time he’s been here, there has not been a two-plus-two.  That’s what I would remind — remind you all of that as well.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that 86 percent of Americans think Biden is too old to serve another term.  That is a higher percentage than what we found in a previous poll in September.  So, clearly, polling shows this is a persistent issue.  What is the White House strategy to try and change that perception?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to continue to lead on leadership, right?  We’re going to continue to focus on what this President has been able to get done, what the President has been able to get done on behalf of the — of the American people. 

And, look, I’ll quote a little bit of what the First Lady said, I think, incredibly well just a couple days ago: President Biden does “more in one hour than most people do in a day. … His age, with experience and expertise, is an incredible asset, and he proves it every day.”  And that’s what we believe. 

We believe that his age and his experience — because he was a senator; because he was, obviously, a vice president; because he has these long — you know, long decades of relationships with leaders, obviously, across the globe — and what he’s been able to do, that’s what we’re going to lean into.  That’s what we’re going to speak to. 
We’re going to speak to how he turned the economy back on its feet.  We’re going to speak to the 14.8 million jobs that he was able to create, how unemployment is at under 4 percent, how is he — he’s able to beat Big Pharma, because Medicare can now negotiate and lower costs for the American people. 

That’s what we’re going to focus on.  And I think that’s the most important thing at this moment, at this time, is delivering for the American people and continuing to do that.

Q    And bouncing off of the previous question.  The numbers show that President Biden has engaged in about 33 news conferences.  Compare that to Obama’s 66 and Donald Trump’s 52 by this time in their presidencies.  Can you explain why the President isn’t doing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q    — more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, and I hear the question, and I know that folks want to hear you all.  And it’s important, because when you all hear from the President, obviously so does the American people.  So, we get the importance of that.  And we’re always going to try to find ways — obviously, outside of press conferences as well — to — for the President to be out there.

And we have found some nontraditional ways.  We think it’s important to try and meet the American people where they are.  And so, that is important as well.  Whether it’s a podcast, that’s an — important or, you know, doing — doing certain things that is not the norm.

Obviously, the person — the President, I should say, takes — you know, takes your questions when he’s on the road as — you know, more often than not.  And he finds it important to have those conversations when you all are out there with him on the road, taking your questions.  And so, he does do that.

As far as press conferences, we’re going to try and make sure when it’s the right time for — for those to happen, certainly we will — we will do so.  But it doesn’t mean that this President does not engage with — with the press corps — with the White — White House press corps or with other reporters, journalists out there who have different — different ways with communicating with the American people as well.  We think that’s important too.

Q    But why is it more effective to forego a Super Bowl interview and in- — instead —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve talked about this.

Q    — post short clips on social media?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve talked about this.  We believe that it is an important, obviously, tradition to — to watch the Super Bowl.  And we think there are different ways to communicate with the American people.  And we’re going to try and find different ways to meet the American people where they are.

And so, that’s a — that’s a choice that we’ve made here that we think is actually important and effective.

Q    Karine, there was some reporting this morning that President Biden told some campaign donors that Prime Minister Netanyahu, quote, “has been a pain in my ass lately” or, quote, “he’s been killing me lately.”  The reason we don’t know what the exact quote is is because the press was not in that meeting that the President had with these donors.

Why is the President not living up to his full transparency pledge in terms of opening all meetings with donors to the press?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think that — so, when the — first of all, I want to be careful.  These are campaign — campaign events, so I just want to be mindful.  Can’t speak to each of them or, really, most of them.  I know that — and as you know, when the President does speak in front of — when he does do some of these fundraising events — right? — there is — when he gives remarks, formal remarks, the pr- — the press pool is in there and they are listening to the remarks and get to — get to hear directly what the President says.

So, I think that’s also very important.  I don’t want to make it sound like he does not — there is not a process there, that when he is in front of donors giving formal remarks, that you all are not in the room as he is speaking. 

I can’t speak to this particular — to this particular scenario.  I think that is something certainly he — he does have private meetings.  That is true.  And when he has those private meetings, those meetings — so that there is candor and — and honesty and so that he can hear directly from folks, those tend to be private. 

But I want to be really careful here in speaking into every — every scenario that happens, because I don’t — I can’t speak to that particular scenario.

Q    Should — should the President of the United States be engaging privately with a random set of financial donors about issues that are of clear public import, like his opinion —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he —

Q    — of the Israeli Prime Minister?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear your question.  But the President has private meetings all the time.  He does.  He has private meetings all the time.  And —

Q    Right.  But these aren’t foreign leaders.  Right?  These are people who are giving money to him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, but —

Q    — to his campaign.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I hear you, but he has private meetings with everyday people.  Some of these donors have — and I want to be super mindful here — have concerns — right? — as well, just like American — everyday American people that he has private meetings with or he sees on the road.  It’s not every meeting that’s going to be public. 

But when he has — when he gives remarks at fundraisers, there is a — formal remarks — there is — the press pool tends to be in the room, or is in the room.  Private meetings are different.  And so, that’s the way it’s been for the — you know, for the past three years in this — this administration. 

Look, I want to be really careful.  These are campaign — obviously, some of them, campaign-, DNC-related meetings, so I just want to be super, super mindful here.

Q    And what’s the distinction between formal and informal remarks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I would — honestly, I’m going to refer you — on anything that’s related to these specific meetings, I would refer you to the campaign, because they’re the ones that put it together.  They’re the ones that bring the folks in the room.  I just want to be super mindful and not go down — too far — too far a rabbit hole here.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Hey, Karine.  Any updates on when the President’s physical might be taking place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he will have a physical.  When we — when we have information on that, obviously, we will certainly share that with all of you.  It will be transparent.  There will be a — a comprehensive report, as we have done the last two years.  Just don’t have a — just don’t have a timeline for you.

Q    Do you — do you plan on the press getting a heads-up before the physical happens, or will we find out once it has taken place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to do it the way that we’ve done it the last two years.  It’s not going to be anything different.  So, the way that we’ve approached this the last two years will be the same way that we do this this year —

Q    And — and does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — this third year.

Q Does the White House think that the — the idea of the President taking a cognition test — a cognitive test, as a part of this physical is a legitimate idea, particularly just on the heels of the special counsel report; more polling, as my colleague Selina just mentioned, showing that many American people have concerns about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I got this question last week, as well.  And I’m just going to say what the — what Dr. O’Connor — it’s kind of a — what he said to me about a year ago when the report came out last year, obviously, on his physical, which is the President proves every day how he operates, how he thinks — right? — by dealing with world leaders, by making really difficult decisions on behalf of the — the American people, whether it’s domestic, whether it’s national security.  And so, he shows it every day on how he thinks, how he operates.  And so, that is how — that is how Dr. O’Connor sees it.  And that’s how I’m going to leave it.

Q    What do you think about the idea of taking that kind of a test?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and I talked about this last week, too, on, I believe, whenever — on Friday.  I have known this president since 2009.  I — he is not just my — my boss, but, you know, he’s also some- — a mentor to me.  And I spent sometimes countless hours with him, whether it’s in the Oval Office, whether it’s on the road.  And I believe, for me — you’re asking me my personal opinion — he is sharp.  He is on top of things. 

He — when we have meetings with him, with his staff, he’s constantly pushing us, getting — trying to get more information.  And so, that has been my experience with this president. 

Anything else outside of that — I just shared with you what Dr. O’Connor said to me, and so I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I know you’re not going to comment on the campaign or its decisions, but does the White House believe that TikTok is giving Americans, especially younger Americans, false perceptions about President Biden and his broader agenda?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to be really careful about speaking to TikTok specifically because there is a CFIUS review.  They’re in an independent body.  And they are going to move forward with whatever they decide to do.  So, don’t want to step into that. 

Obviously, more broadly, as it relates to social media platforms, we’ve always said there is misinformation, disinformation out there that we have to try and combat.  And so, we’ve always been very clear, we’ve always been concerned about our young people and the information that — the misinformation, disin- — that they’re getting and how that’s affecting their lives.  That is a concern that we have.  And we’ve talked about that very explicitly, very clearly.

As it relates to TikTok, going to be really careful because of that CFIUS review.  And so, just want to be super, super mindful. 

So, obviously, just not going to comment on specific cases.

Q    Separately, the Senate is on track to pass the national security supplemental this week.  Still not clear if Speaker Johnson is going to bring that up for a vote in the House.  Does the President plan to have any outreach with House Republican leadership to try to get that across the finish line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know how important the President thinks it is to get that very all-important funding — security assistance to Ukraine; obviously, Israel, Indo-Pacific.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

Obviously, we had this really careful, strategic conversations as well with Senate Republicans and Democrats for the past couple of months for the border security because we th- — we believe that entire package was important.  But, obviously, Republicans got — Republicans, specifically in the House, got in the way and would not move that forward. 

And it’s unfortunate because that is the way, we believe, we would have been able to deal with policy issues and funding issues as it relates to the border, the challenges at the border, and also immigration. 

So, look, we are in constant communication — the team here, the Office of Leg Affairs, and other White House officials are in constant communication, obviously, with the leadership on both sides — on both sides of chamber — in each chamber to try and figure out how we’re going to move forward, how we’re going to make sure that this all-important — all-important funding gets out there. 

And so, conversations are going to continue.  We are –obviously, what we wanted to see is to — the border security component, negotiation piece of that, to be included.  But we are where we are.  And we — but we believe it’s important.  It’s important to move forward.

Q    But would the President get directly involved in those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any conversations to read out.  Obviously, he tends to have private conversations.  We don’t read out every conversation.  He has relationships with folks in Congress.  But his Office of — his Office of Leg Affairs and other White House officials are in regular touch with congressional leadership and keeps — they also keep the President updated as well, which is important. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Just two things.  The first on the guidance we got for the week.  There were public events for the President today and on Friday.  I was hoping you might be able to give us a sense on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, as you make the case that the President has a lot of vigor and is doing a lot of things — (laughter) — what — what is — what has he got planned?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just talk about Friday a little bit, because I think people — I know that an advisory went out on — over the weekend about East Palestine.  All — all of you know that he’s going to be going to East Palestine on Friday.  He’s going to be traveling there.  And it’s because of the invitation that he received from the mayor. 

So, it’s going to be really important.  And while — while the President is on the ground, he’ll — he’ll get a briefing on the ongoing response and speak to the administration’s work to — to keep Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable, which is incredibly important, and support the community as it moves forward. 

He also has heard loud and clear from the folks in East Palestine that they don’t want to be defined by an event.  And so, he’ll — he’ll speak to the administration’s work to deliver on the needs for family businesses that are affected.

And let’s not forget, there is the Bipartisan Railways Safety Act that he is going to continue to call on Congress to — to move forward on.

So, that is going to be a really important trip.  You are correct about that.  The President will be out there meeting directly for the — with the American people. 

I don’t have any — anything yet for tomorrow, Wednesday, or Thursday.  Obviously, when — when things move or we have something to share, we’ll certainly put that — put it — put that out there on the daily guidance.  And, obviously, there’s some movement happening in Congress as well that we’re keeping a close eye on.  And so, once we have more to share, we’ll have more to share on that.

Q    And then, secondly, you — you started the briefing by wishing a congratulations to the Kansas City Trie — Chiefs, as — as well as to all the Swifties out there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    I’m wondering: When the Chiefs are invited to the White House, does the White House intend to also invite Taylor Swift?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s going to be up to the Ka- — to the Chiefs and, obviously, their decision to figure out who’s going to come with them when they come.  And as you know, it’s a White House tradition.  I can’t — I can’t speak to attendance and who will be here. 

But we look forward — we look forward to having them here.  And, obviously, we congratulate them on a — on a great win.

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks so much.  You talked a lot about how — and the President says this too — that people should watch him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — when there are questions about his age.  And then — and the issue seems to be that they are watching him in public events, in — in some press conferences and are coming to this conclusion, many of them, that he is — he’s too old. 

So, what I’m wondering is: Is he behaving differently behind closed doors?  Because we don’t get to see that at all.  And are you — do you see and — when you interact with him privately, is there kind of a different, sort of, level of vigor that is perhaps not as visible when we’re all seeing him publicly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, let me just first say — and I was on the swing with him recently, right?  He went to Wisconsin, he went to Michigan, he went to California, he went to Vegas, and he’s going to go to Ohio later this week.  And so, he visited small businesses and he met with people on the road, obviously, and spent hours with them.  So, folks have seen him and you all have seen him yourselves as you cover this President.

And so, you see him interact.  You see him engage.  And even when he was in Vegas, he took some questions that you all had and that — you know, and — and answer — he tends to answer them in — in a light way, a funny way, and is sharp with his answers to some of you about that.

And so, look — and he is also meeting with world leaders.  He did that with the German Chancellor.  He’s obviously going to do this today with King Abd- — Abdullah.

And I spoke already about my experience with him.  And just to answer your question: I have spent countless hours with this president, whether in the Oval Office or on the road, and I have to say he’s sharp, he’s engaged, he pushes us for information.

Q    But is there anything like — like emails at, like, two o’clock in the morning —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — or, you know, is there any sort of, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think —

Q    Can you sort of put, like, a finer point on what it is exactly that, like, you see that somehow isn’t, you know, coming across to the rest of the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think the fact that when he meets with his te- — his team, when he meets with staff, he is, as I said, incredibly engaged; as I said, very sharp; and asks us back and forth — we go back and forth on whatever information, whatever is — is maybe the news of the day that’s on — that’s — that’s on his mind.  And it happens very often.

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, that’s my experience with him.  But you all see him on the road.  I mean, you know, he was — when we were in Vegas, he was asked about — you know, about — he was asked a specific question about the former President, and he answered that in a — in a fun, sharp, you know, kind of way.  And that’s him.  That is him.  What you see there is him.

And so, look, I think — and I do want to step back for a second, because I think what’s very important, too, is this President’s record in the last three years and what he’s been able to get done.  And that matters.  And that matters.

And so, yes, we’re going to continue to be out there.  The President is going to continue to do everything that he can to speak directly to the American people.  And we believe that is what’s important here: getting that work done, continuing to move forward in a — in a — an impressive record of — in the last three years, especially for any modern president.

Whether it’s dealing with infrastructure, whether it’s dealing with beating Big Pharma, whether it’s getting the economy back on its feet, all of these things are important. 

Let’s not forget what’s going on outside of this country — what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s going on in the Middle East.  This is something that the President has been able to do in a pretty effective way.

Q    And then just to follow up quickly on Matt’s question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When Super Bowl teams are invited to the White House, do they typically have a plus one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I actually — that’s a good question.  I — I can’t answer that right now.  But, look, we — we are looking forward to having them here — the Chiefs.  And they — it was a — it was a great — it was a great — a great win.  And just like we do in every — every — this is a White House tradition, to have the S- — the winners of the Super Bowl here.  And so, we’re looking forward to it.

Go ahead.  I haven’t called on you yet.  Go ahead.

Q    Is the White House doing anything to move the stalled child and biz tax bill in the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.

Q    Is the White House doing anything to move forward the stalled child and biz tax bill in the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, the Pre- — the President supports that bipartisan — bipartisan legislation.  We’ve talked about it in here before.  There’s always conversations that we’re having with congressional leadership and staff on important — obviously important pieces of legislation that matters to the American people.

I don’t have anything to read out.  But obviously, we’re in support of that particular legislation.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  On shrinkflation and the President’s video from this weekend on inflation.  So — thanks, Karine, by the way.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    The — the President is blaming companies again now, it seems, for inflation.  And based on his policies, though, does the President accept any responsibility for where prices are since he came into office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Look, we understand how grocery — how grocery prices are a major concern for hardworking families.  We get it.  We get that there — that there are — the prices are still, you know, kind of — kind of hurting Americans. 

But what we’ve seen is that prices have gone down for eggs, for milk, for seafood.  And that’s important.  They — they are lower than they were a year ago.  And we know that’s not enough.

And so, what we — the President has continued — continuously done — and you see this in this video that you’re speaking of — he’s called on large corporations to pass their savings on to hard — hardworking Americans.  That’s what we’re doing.  And I think that’s important that this Pres- — President sees that. 

And then, in shrinkflation, for so — for folks who are watching doesn’t quite know what that is — what we’re seeing is the size of a product gets smaller even as the prices stays the same.  And that shouldn’t be.  And so, the President is going to call that.

And it’s — you know, and what you’re — you’re seeing, it’s giving families less — less for their — bang for their buck, if you think about that.  And so, the President has said, and I quote, he’s tired of being — he’s tired of seeing the American people being played for suckers.  And that is something that he’s not going to allow.

But as it relates to — as it relates to what the President is going to continue to do, he’s going to continue lower — do everything that he can to lower costs for the American people.  And you’ve seen him do that.

Q    And on — on his doctor, when can we talk to the President’s doctor?  And how come he hasn’t been — they haven’t been asked to come out here and talk with us, given the Hur report that challenges the President’s mental fitness?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, just to speak to the Hur report really, really quickly.  Special Counsel Hur is — as far as I remember, is a — is a — obviously, a R- — a Republican, a — a prosecutor.  He’s not a — he’s not a medical doctor.  He’s just not.  It’s not for him to speak to.  It’s just not.

And — and you’ve heard from — over the past couple of days since the report has been out, you’ve heard from legal experts from across the ideological spectrum, even a former Attorney General.  And he says — and they have come out to say that the stuff in this report that is capturing all of your attention right now is just wrong — is flatly wrong.  It is inappropriate.  It is gratuitous.

And so, going to leave that there.  And it is obviously up for a medical doctor to decide on that. 

Q    But can we talk to his doctor, then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I have said the Pres- — the medical doctor, the President’s doctor is going to do a physical.  He’s going to — and he has always put forth, in the last two years, a detailed — detailed memo on the President’s — on the President’s, obviously, medical physical. 

And so, I’m just going to leave it there.  I don’t have anything else to add.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Just curious, to sort of follow up and get some clarity.  If these transcripts were released, who makes that decision?  Is that the Counsel’s Office?  Is it the President’s personal —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share.  That’s something that the counsel could speak to.  They’ve been answering those questions for the past couple of days.  They have to speak to that.

Q    Has President Biden expressed the desire to have the full transcript released?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have to talk — you have to speak to the counsel.  They’ve been answering these questions for the past couple of days of incoming.  On these particular — on this particular question on the transcript, they have to speak to that.

All right.  Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thanks a lot.  As you know, at the beginning of March, the funding for the government runs out.  What has the President been doing to avoid a government shutdown and make sure that the funding is going to be there at the beginning of March to fund important programs like WIC and SNAP?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, the President thinks that those programs should be funded.  The President thinks that Congress should do their jobs and do the basic part of their jobs and fund that — fund these incredible — incredibly important programs that the American family believe in or need just to survive.

And so, that’s what the President wants to see: Congress get to it, do their job, and make sure that the government does not shut down.  He did his job.  The President did his job a couple months ago, back in the spring of — actually, last year — not even a couple of months ag — and brokered a deal — brokered the deal with Congress, both the House and the Senate, to get a bipartisan deal forward to make sure that — this is during the deficit — remember? — and the — and the debt ceiling.

And so, he brokered that deal.  It became law because two thirds of the House Republicans voted for it.  It got bipartisan support in the Senate.  And that was the deal that he brokered.

Now Congress needs to get there — to get this done.

Q    Has he designated a negotiating team that he wants involved from the White House on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he — we negotiated on this, Brian.  We did.  We negotiated on this.  Two thirds of House Republicans voted for it, a bipartisan support from the Senate. And Congress should do their basic job, which is keep — keep the government open and make sure these very important — -important programs that you just listed out gets funded.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, guys.  We’ll see you tomorrow.
 Thanks.

2:11 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Last week, the White House Office of Public Engagement convened over 100 Latino leaders for Dominican Day at the White House. This event consisted of a policy briefing for local and state officials and a reception to celebrate the Dominican-American culture.
 
During the briefing, participants discussed how the Biden-Harris Administration has advanced economic opportunity for the Latino community through their economic recovery agenda, including the American Rescue Plan, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act. The participants highlighted President Biden’s accomplishments for the Latino community, including growing economic opportunity, tackling student debt, expanding access to higher education, and efforts to enhance access to resources and funding for communities most at need. Biden-Harris Administration officials committed to continuing to work with community leaders to deliver on the President’s efforts to advance equity for the Latino community.
 
During the reception, guests were welcomed by the Second Gentleman who reiterated the Administration’s commitment to the Latino community and highlighted the importance of celebrating the diversity that makes up the fabric of our nation.
 
Administration Participants Included:

• Douglas Emhoff, Second Gentleman of the United States
• Tom Perez, Senior Advisor to the President and Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, White House
• Julissa Reynoso Pantaleón, United States Ambassador to Spain
• Alejandra Castillo, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Commerce
• Elizabeth de Leon Bhargava, Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Johanny Adames, Press Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education
• Sol Ortega, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement, White House Office of Public Engagement

###

The post Readout of Dominican Day Diaspora Event appeared first on The White House.

Washington Hilton Hotel
Washington, D.C.

11:41 A.M. EST
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, hello, hello.

AUDIENCE:  Hello!

THE PRESIDENT:  If you have a seat, take one.  (Laughter.)

Thank you so very, very much.  You know, I want to thank Commissioner McGuire from Ramsey County, Minnesota.  You know, the fact is that it’s an honor to join all of you.  And I want to thank you for how far we’ve come these last three years.  And I want to thank you.

We have more to do, but with your help, we’re making real progress in red counties and blue counties.  I promised to be a president for all Americans — (applause) — whether you voted for me or not.  Well, together — (applause) — no, it’s okay. 

Together, we’re making a big difference bringing this country together and not tearing it apart.

Now, some of you know I started my career as a county councilman.  I — (applause) — I ran for the United States Senate because serving as a local official was too hard.  (Laughter.)  That’s almost true.  (Laughter.)  When folks have a problem, they know where you live, they come knocking on your door. 

Not — not a joke.  I know.

Kidding aside, what you do really matters.  It matters to people’s everyday lives and kitchen-table issues.  You’re answering key questions in people’s lives: Is my neighborhood safe?  Is it going to get better?  Will the bus get me to work on time?  How about the school bus showing up for my kid?  Will my kids have a good future in this hometown?  Are there going to be jobs?
 
That’s what I filled my administration — why I filled my administration with so many who served in county government, starting with Vice President Harris; Tom Perez — the point person in the White House, who wants to join you all permanently, I think — (laughter) — all he does is brag about you; you think I’m kidding, I’m not — (laughter); and others throughout my Cabinet. 

They know what you do.  The measure of success isn’t how partisan — how many partisan points you can score, but can you fix the problem.  It’s really — (applause) — no, it really is basic.  (Applause.)  Democrat and Republican, you fix the problem.

We all share the same belief: We’re here to deliver results for families, for communities, for the country.
 
That’s why I’ve kept my commitment to leave no one behind, to rebuild an economy from the middle out and the bottom up, because if we do that, everybody — everybody does well.

Look at the progress we’ve made together.  And I mean it when I say “we.”
 
I came to office, the pandemic was raging and our economy was reeling.  Counties nationwide faced devastating budget cuts.  But we turned things around.
 
The American Rescue Plan provided $350 billion to state and local governments.  (Applause.)
 
That money put cops on the beat, teachers in the classroom.  Money to keep childcare centers open, families in their homes, small businesses on their feet.  Money directly to every single community in America so all of you — all of you could decide how best to spend your money without having to go through the statehouse or your governor.  (Applause.)  They’re not bad, but you know what you need. 
 
Then we passed the most significant investment in our nation’s infrastructure in generations: roads, bridges, railroads, ports, airports, public transit, clean water, high-speed Internet, and so much more.
 
The American infrastructure plan used to — you know, we used to be the best in the world in infrastructure.  Literally, we were ranked number — ranked number one in the world.  By the time I took office, America was ranked number 13 — had the 13th best infrastructure in the world.
 
How can you have the best economy in the world when you don’t have the best infrastructure in the world?  I don’t know how that works.  (Applause.)

So, today, we’re on our way to leading the world again.  Over 46,000 new projects announced with jobs now, jobs for the next decade in your counties, in your communities.
You know, just like FDR passed the Rural Electrification Act to deliver electricity to nearly every home and farm in America, we’re building affordable high-speed Internet for everyone in America, because the Internet is just as essential today as electricity was then.  (Applause.)

How does your county deal with telemedicine without it?  How do you — I could go down the list.  I’m not going to take your time.  But you know it’s consequential.
 
Last month, I was in Wake County, North Carolina —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Wooo!  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Holy mackerel.  (Laughter.)

— where we’re investing $3 billion — (applause) — to connect the entire state to affordable high-speed Internet by the end of the decade.  We’re doing that in all 50 states, where we’ve already saved 23 million families as much as $75 a month on their infrastructure bill — in their — their Internet bills. 

It’s essential for children to do their homework, small businesses to sell their products, folks to have access, as I said, to telemedicine instead of driving long distances to see the doctor.

We’re also replacing every poisonous lead pipe in America so everyone can turn on a faucet and drink clean water — (applause) — and not worry about brain damage for our children.
 
One recent study shows that reducing the lead exposure for children improves students’ test scores as much as reducing class size [by a third] to — from one tenth — for one tenth the cost.  I mean, that’s — that’s a practical impact.  But mainly, no kid should have to turn on a — no parent should have to watch their kid turn on a water fountain and know there’s lead in the pipe and not w- — and worry about what effect on the brain it has.
 
At the same time, we’re making the biggest investment in climate change ever anywhere in the entire world.  (Applause.) 
 
I’ve been with many of you after devastating floods, tornadoes, wildfires, and hurricanes.  We’re going to keep working together to respond, to rebuild, and boost resilience in e- — to extreme weather. 
 
My administration is also helping to install rooftop solar — (applause) — to build a national network of electric-vehicle charging stations. 
 
We’re revitalizing fence-line communities smothered by the legacy of pollution, like where I lived in Claymont. 
 
We’re promoting clean energy and industries of the future, made here in America — made in America. 
 
What I didn’t realize — and I’ve been around — I know I don’t look like it, but I’ve been around a while.  (Laughter.)  I do remember that.  (Laughter and applause.)
 
But, you know, there’s — there’s so much we’re getting done.  I signed the CHIPS and Sci-
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  (Laughter.)
 
I signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which attracted $640 billion in private companies’ investments that are building factories, creating jobs in America again.  (Applause.) 
 
And here’s an example.  America invented the semiconductor.  I may have said it last time I spoke to you.  That little, tiny computer chip about the size of the — my — the tip of my little finger.  Everything from smartphones, dishwashers, automobiles, nuclear weapons, everything — all these things.
 
Over time, we went from producing nearly 40 percent of the world’s chips to less than about 10 percent. 
 
Now semiconductor companies are moving back to America to produce, back to your counties — (applause) — so folks never have to leave their hometowns to get a good job they can raise a family on.
 
And, by the way, you know, they’re building these — what they call “fabs.”  They’re factories.  You know what those — how much those factories pay?  They pay about $110 a year — $110,000 a year.  And guess what?  You don’t need a college degree to have that job.  (Applause.)
 
And all these companies tell me they’re coming back because they have — we have the best workers in the world.
 
When I got on a plane and went to South Korea, they said, “What they hell are you — what the heck are you doing, Joe?”  (Laughter.)
 
I said, “I’m going to try to convince them to invest here.” 
 
Why?  Remember we had that supply chain issues?  We couldn’t get these chips?  Well, guess what?  Samsung came, and I met with the President of South Korea.  And all of a sudden, I asked the leader of the company.  I said, “Why — why would you invest in America?”
 
He said, “You have the best workers in the world, number one.”  (Applause.)  And he also said, “It’s the safest place in the world I can make my investment.”  (Applause.)
 
Given half a chance — (applause).  Think — think about this in practical terms.  Given half a chance, American workers have never, ever, ever, ever let this country down — ever — when they’re given a chance.  Never.  (Applause.)
 
As I started to say, you know, we — we had a — I didn’t realize that there was a provision in the law back in the late ‘30s having to do with whether or not unions can organize and what limits they had and all of that.
 
But there was a provision also in that law.  It said that when a president is given money by the legislature to spend on a federal project, he should hire American workers and build it with American products.
 
Well, guess what?  That’s what we’re doing.  (Applause.)  That’s why things are moving the way they are.  (Applause.)  That’s why we made historic investments. 
 
For example, we’re expanding registered apprenticeships so people can get paid while they’re learning how to — their careers.
 
For example, when I took office, only two states had registered apprenticeships for teachers.  Now more than 30 states have it.  (Applause.)
 
The American Rescue Plan also made one of the biggest investments ever in local public safety.
 
All of you have done a tremendous job putting these resources to work: hiring more officers for accountable, effective community policing; supporting violence intervention programs that help prevent crime in the first place — and they work.
 
Folks don’t — (applause) — folks don’t always hear about it, but the fact is we’re making tremendous progress. 
 
Violent crime rates are falling all across the nation, down nearly in every major category.  (Applause.)  Record declines in homicides. 
 
We also are investing billions in improving mental health services — (applause) — which I know is another major priority. 
 
You know, after we — the fellow who’s running again — well, I — (laughter).  (The President makes the sign of the cross.)  (Laughter and applause.)  After he did no- — he did not move on making sure that we dealt with vaccinating the American public, we ended up losing over a million people dead — a million people.  A million. 
 
And the studies show that for every one of those who died, there are 8 to 10 significant others who are left behind — brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers — sitting down at a kitchen table with an empty chair.
 
Folks, my top priority to me is to a- — that’s why I asked Dr. — the Sur- — Dr. Vivek Murthy — Admiral Murthy to be the Surgeon General, because — to make mental health a national priority.
 
We’re expanding community clinics, mobile unit clinics, working to treat causes of addiction while cracking down on deadly fentanyl trafficking.

Folks, we’ve spent months working on a bipartisan border bill that included the most humane, fair reforms to our immigration system ever.  It also included the toughest set of reforms to secure the border ever.
 
It was a win for the American people and a win for your counties.  But some of my extreme Republican friends — and, by the way, this is not your father’s Republican party.  I don’t mean to take — I’m not taking on all Republicans.  I really mean it.  The MAGA Republicans — a minority but a pr- — powerful minority — they went out and they killed the deal.  My predecessor said he didn’t like it, it was a loss for him.
 
We have to end the political games, folks.

Who we work for — (applause) — we work for the American people, and I’m going to continue making the case to them, the American people.  (Applause.)
 
Folks, in all, my Investing in America agenda has ignited a manufacturing boom, a clean-energy boom, a jobs boom.  We’re investing in all of America — urban, suburban, rural, Tribal communities.
 
And it’s clear we have the strongest economy in the world: nearly 15 million new jobs since I came to office.  (Applause.)  The longest stretch of unemployment under 4 percent in 50 years.  Growth is strong.  Rages are r- — wages are rising.  Inflation is down.
 
In fact, the costs have fallen from everything from a gallon of gas to a gallon of milk.  We know prices are still too high because of what I call “greedflation” and “shrinkflation.”  I’m calling on corporations to pass their savings on to consumers, for God sake.
 
We’re making real progress.  (Applause.)
 
A recent Washington Post headline summed it up, quote — this is the headline of the Post — “Falling inflation and rising growth give the U.S. the world’s best recovery.”  “The world’s best recovery.”  It’s because you implemented what we did.  (Applause.)  You made it work. 
 
And folks are starting to feel it.  We got a way to go yet.  Consumer sentiment surged 29 percent in the last two months, the biggest jump in 30 years. 
 
Americans have filled a record 16 — filed for a record 16 million new business applications since I came to office, and every one of those applications is a sign of hope.  We’re just getting started, folks.  We’ve got to keep moving.  We have to defend our democracy. 
 
To all — to all the county-elected workers in America — elector- — election workers, thank you.  I never thought I’d have to say this to anybody.  But thank you for your physical courage.  Thank you for your courage and your service to your community.

The idea that I ever thought — (applause) — the idea that I ever thought I’d be standing before over 1,000 county officials and having to thank somebody for being an election worker because they’re putting their life at risk — something’s wrong, folks.  We got to change this.  We got to change the attitude in this country.

Let me close with this.  These past few years, I’ve talked to folks all across America in their communities, at their kitchen tables.  They often tell me how, back in 2020, they were down.  They’d lost their business.  They’d lost faith.
 
But then the laws we passed and the work you did to make them work began to bring them back on their feet, creating new jobs, new businesses, a new cycle of hope.
 
That’s why when we see folks — when you see shovels in the ground, people going to work, I hope you feel the pride in what you’ve done — pride in your hometowns making a comeback, pride in America, pride in knowing we can get big things done when we work together.
 
That’s America — (applause) — working together.  That’s what you do.  And that’s why I’ve never been more optimistic about our nation’s future. 
 
We just have to remember who in God’s name we are.  We’re the United States of America.  There is nothing, nothing, nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.  (Applause.)
 
So, God bless you all.  And may God protect our — but let’s keep going.  We got more to do.

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

One more thing I forgot.  I forgot to mention New Castle County, Delaware.  Where are all my five —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Wooo —

THE PRESIDENT:  Come on.  Stand up.  Where are — over there.  God love you.  (Laughter.)

Hey, I said they know where you live.  All right.  Thank you.  (Laughter.)  Appreciate it.  (Applause.)
 
11:58 A.M. EST    

The post Remarks by President Biden at the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference appeared first on The White House.

A majority of Americans support programs to lower energy bills and expand clean energy into homes

Through President Biden’s historic Investing in America agenda, the Biden-Harris Administration is cutting costs for hardworking American families in every corner of the country. One of the largest costs for many Americans is heating, cooling, and powering their homes—with the lowest-income families spending upwards of 30% of their income on energy bills.

The Inflation Reduction Act has already spurred a clean energy boom, contributing to more than $360 billion in private sector clean energy announcements since President Biden took office. Clean energy deployment from both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is projected to cut electricity rates by as much as 9 percent by 2030. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act establishes several consumer-focused programs through tax credits and rebates to help families lower their home energy bills even further.

A majority of Americans support these programs—according to an August 2023 poll, 65 percent of Americans support tax credits to install solar panels and 54 percent support tax credits to buy heat pumps. Yet Republicans in Congress continually fight to repeal these popular provisions, which would increase costs for hardworking Americans, offshore jobs, and worsen the climate crisis.

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is convening federal partners, nonprofits, and philanthropies at the White House to expand consumer education and outreach efforts as these programs become available across the country. The Biden-Harris Administration is making new federal resources about Inflation Reduction Act home energy programs available for consumers, local officials, and advocates. In addition, nonprofit organizations are announcing commitments to expand their outreach efforts.

Lowering Home Energy Costs Through the Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act’s consumer tax credits for certain home energy technologies are already available. Americans who installed the following technologies in 2023 can claim credits on their tax returns due on April 15, 2024:

• Families who install an efficient electric heat pump for heating and cooling can receive a tax credit of up to $2,000 and save an average of $500 per year on energy bills.
• Families who make other energy efficiency improvements can receive tax credits worth up to $500 for doors, $600 for windows, $150 for a home energy audit, and up to 30 percent off the cost of new insulation—a total of up to $1,200 per year in tax credits.
• Families who install rooftop solar, geothermal or battery storage at home can save up to 30 percent of the cost of the installation via a tax credit and save nearly $400 per year on their energy bills.

In addition, DOE has opened applications for states to implement $8.8 billion in home energy rebate programs, which will provide rebates for low- and middle-income families to buy and install cost-saving electric appliances and heat pumps and to make energy efficiency improvements such as insulation and air sealing to their homes, in alignment with President Biden’s ambitious environmental justice goals. States are expected to begin launching their rebate programs later this year, and you can track your state’s progress toward setting up its rebate program here.

Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has already made several online federal resources available to educate consumers about the Inflation Reduction Act’s home energy savings programs:

• This Friday, February 16, the Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR program will launch a new Incentive Finder to help consumers determine which home energy products qualify for federal benefits, including Inflation Reduction Act programs.

• The Department of Energy’s Energy Savings Hub at energy.gov/save details opportunities for both homeowners and renters to lower their energy costs and benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act and other programs.

• Last week, the Treasury Department launched a new Inflation Reduction Act Tax Resource Hub at Treasury.gov/IRA that provides tools to assist consumers and other taxpayers in accessing key tax credits, while highlighting the impact of the law for America’s economy and communities.

Expanding Consumer Education and Outreach Efforts Around the Country

Today, several nonprofits are announcing new and expanded efforts to reach consumers across the country on the Inflation Reduction Act’s consumer home energy programs:

• Two state affiliates of League of Conservation Voters are expanding a successful door-to-door communications campaign to educate consumers on how to access the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act with the goal of reaching 300,000 homes in those states. 

• Climate Power is committing to educate 1 million American consumers about accessing the benefits of President Biden’s clean energy plan by the end of 2024. They will reach American consumers on the communications channels where they’re spending most of their time consuming news and content—across paid, earned, and organic media channels—showcasing how consumers can take advantage of the clean energy plan to lower energy costs, benefit from good-paying jobs in their communities, and help to protect communities across the country from dangerous pollution.

• Civic Nation and its We The Action initiative are working to develop a national help center to increase consumer access to the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy incentives. This new effort would connect consumers with volunteer experts to help them navigate information on available incentives, product eligibility, taxpayer qualifications, and more. 

• National nonprofits SaverLife and Inclusiv are announcing the launch of Community Finance for Climate Action, a new philanthropically-supported collaborative to ensure that households living on low incomes are economically protected and fully included in the transition to a green economy by tracking the financial impacts of climate change on low-income families and advancing consumer lending solutions for clean energy equipment.

• Rewiring America—a national nonprofit working to make residential electrification possible for everyone—recently launched a Personal Electrification Planner that they project more than 200,000 households will use this year to plan their home upgrades, including 50,000 low- and moderate-income households. In addition, Rewiring America will leverage partnerships with industry, utilities, local governments, and community-based organizations to install heat pumps and other electric appliances in more than 1,000 low-income and disadvantaged community households in over 150 locations by summer 2025.

The post FACT SHEET: Lowering Home Energy Costs Through President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke this morning with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The President reaffirmed our shared goal to see Hamas defeated and to ensure the long-term security of Israel and its people.  The President and the Prime Minister discussed ongoing efforts to secure the release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas.  The President emphasized the need to capitalize on progress made in the negotiations to secure the release of all hostages as soon as possible. He also called for urgent and specific steps to increase the throughput and consistency of humanitarian assistance to innocent Palestinian civilians.  And he reaffirmed his view that a military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for the more than one million people sheltering there.  The two leaders agreed to remain in close contact.  
 

###

The post Readout of President Biden’s Call with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel appeared first on The White House.

Today, the Vice President and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) hosted Community Violence Intervention leaders from across the country to recognize their efforts in reducing and preventing violence, and ultimately, saving lives. Community Violence Intervention programs are a key piece of the President’s Safer America Plan, with some behavioral science-informed CVI programs proven to reduce violence by close to 50%.

The event at the White House included a recognition of including a recognition of the inaugural graduating cohort of the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Community Violence Intervention Leadership Academy (CVILA), which provides Community Violence Intervention (CVI) leaders with the skills and resources they need to improve their organizations and support their mission to prevent and reduce gun violence and save lives in communities disproportionately harmed by the direct and indirect consequences of gun violence. 

In recognizing the CVILA cohort, Vice President Harris remarked, “The brilliance of this inaugural class and its leaders is the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been, and then to make it real in a way that will be replicated around our country. I congratulate everyone here and the graduates for all you have put into this and all you do for your communities.

The Vice President’s full remarks can be viewed here: Community Violence Awareness Week Culminating Ceremony (youtube.com)

The Community Violence Awareness Week culminating ceremony followed a week of activity by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which kicked off its Community Violence Awareness Week with a message from the President to gun violence prevention stakeholders nationwide. 

Other events for the week included. 

• Tuesday: a virtual convening of Black leaders from across the nation to discuss the unique impacts of gun violence on the Black community and the significance of evidence-informed and community-centered initiatives to disrupt violence
• Wednesday: a virtual briefing with state legislators, local leaders, and gun violence advocates on the various community safety programs that are available through the Departments of Labor, Education, and Justice to support community violence intervention, ensuring all interested stakeholders have an opportunity to learn about the plethora of resources available to them thanks to President Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), as well as other federal programs.
•  Thursday: Youth Violence Prevention AmeriCorps Site visit with OGVP Deputy Directors in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. 
• Friday: a national call with Black leaders to discuss the actions taken by OGVP and the President to reduce gun violence in Black communities. 

Biden-Harris Administration continues to make major investments in community violence intervention and other proven solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence. The American Rescue Plan (ARP) has provided over $15 billion to prevent crime and promote public safety, including community violence intervention programs and crisis responders, while Bipartisan Safer Community Act —the most significant gun safety legislation in the last 30 years—provides $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives, in addition to key investments for schools to expand mental health services and violence intervention programs. 

We are already seeing the positive impacts of the President’s strategy to prevent and reduce crime and gun violence nationwide. According to 2023 FBI data, there has been a significant drop in crime – including one of the largest yearly declines in homicides ever. By comparison, during the final year of the prior administration in 2020, the United States saw the largest increase in murders ever recorded. We have also seen key provisions created by the BCSA begin to deliver results in making communities safer against gun violence, including recent announcements by the Department of Justice on stopping more than 500 illegal gun purchases by people under 21 years old who presented a danger to our communities, and hundreds of charges brought by the Justice Department for illegal gun purchases and firearms trafficking.

The President knows that more can and must be done, which is why OGVP, overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris, continues to implement BSCA and identify executive orders to save lives, while announcing new initiatives to encourage action at the state and local level. This past December, the Vice President convened 100 state legislators at the White House to launch the Biden-Harris Administration’s Safer States Initiative, providing states with additional tools and the support they need to reduce gun violence—and we have already seen states begin to answer the call and implement these critical measures. Last month, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice, also announced new executive actions to help promote safe storage of firearms that implement President Biden’s Executive Order on promoting safe gun storage, which has been shown to dramatically reduce children’s risk of self-inflicted harm and unintentional shootings. These are just a few examples of the progress that is being made under the leadership of President Biden and Vice President Harris to protect our communities, schools and children, and end the epidemic of gun violence that is leaving empty seats at dinner tables across the country. 

The President continues to call on Congress to listen to the majority of Americans—and the majority of gunowners—who want to see more commonsense gun safety measures, such as universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, an end to the gun industry’s immunity from liability, and the passing of a national red flag law. As the President has said, this senseless violence is not normal and it is fully within our power to stop it.

The post Readout of White House Community Violence Awareness Week and Culminating Ceremony appeared first on The White House.

Sunday, February 11, 2024 marks the second anniversary of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy. Over the past two years, we have made historic progress in advancing an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient. Thanks to President Biden’s leadership, the United States has never been in a stronger position in the Indo-Pacific.

In the two years since we have launched the Indo-Pacific Strategy, we have reinvested and revitalized our alliances and partnerships and taken them to new heights. We have deepened and elevated alliances with Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand. We upgraded our bilateral relationships with Vietnam and Indonesia, and our partnership with ASEAN. We have expanded our partnership with India in unprecedented ways. We have surged our efforts in the Pacific, including with two historic summits for Pacific Island leaders at the White House and the establishment of the Partners of the Blue Pacific.

In addition, President Biden hosted the historic U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral summit at Camp David to open a new chapter in this important partnership. Under President Biden’s leadership, we have elevated the Quad with Australia, India, and Japan to a leader-level summit and have delivered concrete results for the Indo-Pacific region, from vaccines to maritime domain awareness to scholarships for students.  And three of the four Official State Visits President Biden has hosted were with leaders of Indo-Pacific countries: the Republic of Korea, India, and Australia. This year, the President will welcome Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan. We have also undertaken historic cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines. 

We have also built closer ties between Europe and the Indo-Pacific, including through the launch of AUKUS, a historic partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Today, we see a recognition both in Europe and the Indo-Pacific that the opportunities and challenges in one region directly affect the other. We’ve seen that with historic support from some of our Indo-Pacific partners for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s brutal invasion. And we see that recognition from our European partners as we work to address the direct military support from the DPRK to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

After just two years, our execution of the Indo-Pacific Strategy has made our country and the Indo-Pacific region more secure and more prosperous. All of this strengthens the United States’ position in the Indo-Pacific, and advances our interests in and vision for the region amidst strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China. And even as we confront challenges elsewhere, the United States will proudly continue to prioritize our work in this critical region for our future. 

###

Fact Sheets from Interagency Partners:

• Department of State: The United States’ Enduring Commitment to the Indo-Pacific: Marking Two Years Since the Release of the Administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
• Department of Defense: FACT SHEET: Department of Defense Marks Two-Year Anniversary of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy
• Department of Commerce: Two Years of Indo-Pacific Strategic Results: Strengthening Indo-Pacific Commerce for a Prosperous Future
• U.S. Trade and Development Agency: FACT SHEET: USTDA Support for the Indo-Pacific Strategy

The post Statement from NSC Spokesperson Adrienne Watson Marking the Two-Year Anniversary of the Indo-Pacific Strategy appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. welcomed Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany to the White House today to continue their close coordination on shared priorities.  President Biden and Chancellor Scholz reaffirmed their resolute support for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia’s war of aggression.  The President commended Germany’s exemplary contributions to Ukraine’s self-defense, and Chancellor Scholz emphasized the significance of sustained U.S. support.  The leaders discussed efforts to prevent regional escalation in the Middle East, and reaffirmed their commitment to Israel’s right to self-defense consistent with international law.  They also underscored the imperative to protect civilians in Gaza and increase deliveries of life-saving humanitarian assistance.  The two exchanged views on setting the conditions for a durable peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike, which includes the establishment of a Palestinian state with Israel’s security guaranteed.  President Biden and Chancellor Scholz discussed the upcoming NATO Summit in Washington and pointed to the strength of the transatlantic relationship in facing current geopolitical challenges.

The post Readout of President Joe Biden’s Meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have a couple things at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to our guest today.

Today, the Vice President and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention are hosting community violence intervention leaders from across the country to recognize their efforts in reducing and preventing violence — (a reporter sneezes) — and ultimately saving lives. God bless you.

The event is a culmination of a week of activities host [hosted] by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention for Community Violence Awareness Week.

Community violence intervention programs are a key piece of the President’s Safer America Plan and have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 50 percent. That’s why the Biden-Harris administration continues to make major investments in community violence intervention, and other proven solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence.

The President’s American Rescue Plan provided over $15 billion to prevent crime and promote public safety, while the Bipartisan Safer Community Act provides $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives.

These actions are reducing crime and saving lives nationwide, with homicides and gun violence rates on the decline in 2023.

We will continue to work to protect American communities from this senseless violence while calling on Congress to do its job and take further action to implement commonsense gun safety measures.

And finally, I also want to share a brief readout from a recent visit by — by senior U.S. officials to Guyana, Colombia, and also Mexico.

Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Fi- — Finer traveled to Guyana and Colombia February 4th and 5th, which followed a series of other high-level U.S. visits.

In Guyana, he met with President Ali and Caribbean Community — CARICOM — Secretary-General Dr. Carla Barnett to reaffirm U.S. support to Guyana’s sovereignty, to advance economic and security cooperation, and to discuss CARICOM’s priorities for their February 25th meeting. Haiti and Venezuela figured prominently in these discussions, as did Guyana’s priorities on the United Nations Security Council.

In Colombia, we issued a joint statement following Mr. Finer’s meeting with President Gustavo Petro that — that covered financing for sustainable infrastructure under President Biden’s Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity initiative, as well as ongoing cooperation on security and migration. The statement reaffirmed support for competitive and inclusive elections in Venezuela and implementation of the Barbados Agreement between representatives of Nicolás Maduro and the Uni- — Unitaria Platform.

Mr. Finer expressed appreciation for Colombia’s continued effort to promote dialogue but also underscored the need for the international community to support an electoral process free of harassment and intimidation, where all candidates are eligible to run for office.

Turning to Mexico for a second. White House Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Sherwood-Randol- — -Randall led an interagency delegation to Mexico February 6th and the — and 7th. She engaged in a wide-rang- — -ranging discussion with President — President AMLO. And then, separately, our delegation met with Mes- — Mexico’s security cabinet — both focused on bilateral and regional issues, including sustained cooperation on migration and joint efforts to promote economic opportunity and development in the Americas.

During the fourth meeting of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee — established by President Biden, President AMLO, and the Prime Minis- — Prime Minister Trudeau — the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to a 10 joint actions to counter the trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl, and firearms in North America. These are contin- — these are outlined in our joint statement that was issued yesterday.

On February 7th, Treasury des- — designated one of the — one of Ecuador’s most violent gangs and its leader for fueling the recent surge of violence in Ecuador. The sanctions are just one part of the significant assistance we are providing to our Ecuadorian partners as they confront transnational organized crime and illicit narcotics.

Finally, allow me to once again pay respect for the people of Chile as they mourn the loss of former President Sebastián Piñera. Our prayers also go out to the — to all in Chile who lost loved ones to the wildfires and forced thousands to leave their homes.

The United States is supporting firefighters by deploying technical staff, by providing satellite imagery, and offering funds to the purchasing fi- — to purchasing firefighting equipment. And we stand ready to do more.

With that, thank you for your patience. I will turn things over to my colleague, Ian Sams, from the White House Counsel’s Office.

Ian.

MR. SAMS: Thank you, Karine. Good to see everybody.

Q Thank you for coming.

MR. SAMS: Sure. Thanks.

I want to start by talking about a few things that I think are important for you all to hear and for the American people to hear.

The President spoke powerfully about this last night. After a long investigation that turned over every stone and explored every theory, the special counsel decided that there was no case there.

Notably, he said this would be true whether President Biden was president or a private citizen.

The special counsel’s assignment when he was appointed was to determine whether any criminal conduct occurred. He found it didn’t. That was the finding.

The case is closed.

I want to read you something from none other than Ken Starr — who most people in this room will remember is the independent counsel who investigated former President Clinton. After that investigation, here is what he said to Congress: Quote, “What I see the conclusion as being is just a determination that no criminal charges would be brought. Period. Full stop. That is it. It is all over at that stage,” end quote.

That rings true here.

The Special Counsel report goes on at length about the President’s unprecedented cooperation in this case. I want to share a few things about that because I think it’s very important.

One, when the classified documents were found, it was self-reported. The President directed his team to ensure that any classified documents were returned immediately.

Why did he do that? Because the President takes classified information seriously. He always has. He did not intentionally take classified documents. He understands documents like that belong with the government. He never, never made any attempt to obstruct.

Two, he took unprecedented action to get the special counsel what he needed.

He opened up every room in his family home and his beach house for comprehensive FBI searches — a first time in history. He sat for two days of interviews — an interview that, I’ll add — and the President talked about this last night — took place the day after the brutal attack on Israel. The President was managing an intensive international crisis. You just heard the Vice President talk about this.

He answered dozens of follow-up questions to the special counsel in writing.

Three, he didn’t exert executive privilege over any contents of the report. He was transparent. He had nothing to hide. There was a long, intensive, and, in many ways, yes, excessive investigation.

But for context, you should all remind — remember, in the case of former Vice President Mike Pence — who had a very, very similar incident occur right after President Biden — the case was closed within a few months. It was a brief, one-page letter to Mike Pence.

But in this case, there was a 15-month investigation. The Special Counsel interviewed 150 witnesses. He sought and obtained 7 million pages of documents, down to emails about moving trucks during the transition in 2016 and 2017. He spent more than three and a half million taxpayer dollars exploring every possible theory that he could.

And what was the result? He reached the inevitable conclusion based on the facts and the evidence that there was no case here.

And this is important to think about in context of how this report is being viewed and, by many of you, being covered. This is the first special counsel investigation ever that hasn’t indicted anyone. Every theory was explored. But the facts and the evidence disputed them. The decision was that there was no case to be made.

In that reality, we also need to talk about the environment that we are in. For the past few years, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have been attacking prosecutors who aren’t doing what Republicans want politically. They have made up claims of a two-tiered system of justice between Republicans and Democrats. They have denigrated the rule of law for political purposes.

That reality creates a ton of pressure. And in that pressurized political environment, when the inevitable conclusion is that the facts and the evidence don’t support any charges, you’re left to wonder why this report spends time making gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the President.

Over the past 24 hours, we’ve actually seen legal experts and former prosecutors come out and give their analysis. Former Attorney General Eric Holder said the report, quote, “contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with longstanding DOJ traditions.”

The former Acting FBI Director said he had overseen many cases like this, and, quote, “You have — you have to have explicit evidence of willful retention of those documents, and that is just not present in this case.”

The former FBI General Counsel, who I’ll add is als- — was also lead prosecutor in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation, said, it was, quote, “exactly what you’re not supposed to do, which is putting your thumb on the scale that could have political repercussions.”

That’s the assessment of seasoned professional law enforcement officials and prosecutors with deep experience at the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, the gratuitous remarks that the former Attorney General talked about have naturally caught headlines and all of your attention. They’re wrong, and they’re inaccurate. And they obscure a very simple truth that I want to repeat one last time, since I know it’s is hard to wade through 400 full pages.

One, the report lays out example after example of how the President did not willfully take classified documents. The report lays out how the President did not share classified documents with anyone. The report lays out how the President did not knowingly share classified information with anyone.

On page 2, which I know you all read, the report argues the President willfully retained materials. But buried way later, on page 215, the report says, and I quote, “there is in fact a shortage of evidence on these points.” Two hundred pages later.

Put simply, this case is closed because the facts and the evidence don’t support the theories here. The gratuitous comments that respected experts saying is out of line are inappropriate. And they shouldn’t distract from the fact that the case is closed, and the facts and evidence show that they reached the right conclusion.

With that, I’m happy to take questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Aamer.

Q Just a couple of housekeeping. When and whom was the President briefed about on the contents of the report?

MR. SAMS: The President was briefed by his lawyers.

Q And, second, the President — and as you mentioned, again, you thought some of the characterizations were gratuitous. Does the President still have confidence in Merrick Garland after selecting Hur to be put in this position?

MR. SAMS: The President spoke this last night. I think — I can’t remember which of you asked him what his thoughts were on the appointment of the special counsel. And he answered that, I think, thoughtfully and powerfully. And I don’t really have anything to add beyond what the President said.

Q And just finally, does the President support the release of the entire transcript of his interview to put to rest some of these things that you think are being overlooked?

MR. SAMS: And it’s a reasonable question. I think that it’s important to know that we’re dealing with classified materials in this conversation. There are classification issues there. I don’t have any announcement on, you know, releasing anything today.

But it’s a reasonable question, and there were classified stuff, and we’ll have to work through all that.

Q So, but once you can work through, like, say, a redacted version, would the President support the release, as long as you can obviously keep what needs to be kept secret secret?

MR. SAMS: Well, we’ll take a look at that and — and make a determination.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Justin.

Q Thanks, Ian. Two questions. First, you said in the topper that the President takes classified information seriously, and the President said last night that he never discussed classified material with anyone. But the special counsel’s report said that on three different occasions, he did discuss it with his ghostwriter.

I understand it didn’t meet the bar for prosecution. But how do you reconcile the President’s statement with what’s in the report?

MR. SAMS: Sure. Well, if you read the full report, it actually gets into each of those three instances. I think Justin rightly points out that we’re talking about three instances out of two hundred and, you know, fifty pages of evidence that they’re talking about criticizing. I think it’s important to look at those three examples.

Two of them are his own notes to himself in his personal diary that he was reading about to his ghostwriter for his memoir — for a memoir about his life after his son Beau died. And he was reading these passages that he had written to himself to share information with him, and he took pains — and the report lays this out — to express how sensitive some of the information was and that we should be careful with it. And of those two passages from his diaries that he talked about with his ghostwriter — weren’t in the book. There’s no classified information in the book. And so — and so, I want to just make that point.

And the second is there’s a — kind of an allegation of, you know, willfully taking a classified document that he talked about with his ghostwriter. That’s false. As the President talked about last night, he was, again, talking about a handwritten letter that he had sent to President Obama and faxed to him about the Afghanistan troop surge.

These are — these are the President’s own personal writings — you know, the President’s own diary notes to himself.

And I think there’s an important thing to think about here. There’s plenty of history- — historical analogues, the most notable of which is Ronald Reagan — President Reagan — whose diaries very famously became a subject of a lot of attention in the country. The Justice Department knew that President Reagan’s diaries had classified information in them — knew it at the time.

He took those diaries home. He read those diaries to people. He shared the actual physical copy of the — of the — of the diaries — which this special counsel report talks about Joe Biden never even gave custody of his notebooks to anybody. And — and they never even asked for those diaries back, and they never launched an investigation.

And why is that? It’s because historically, going back to the beginning of the country, presidents keep diaries. They — we should want our presidents to be thoughtful and deliberative about the decisions that they make on the most consequential issues of our time. And we have — we have entrusted presidents to be safekeepers of this information and to —

And we have expressed, you know, great gratitude, including many of you in the press, when — when presidents share, through books and other things, insights into their thinking and decision-making and historical context.

And so, I think it’s lost in the shuffle of all this that the President did what all of his predecessors had done, which was take notes for himself, keep a diary of his own daily life so that he could think back on these big moments of — of the time. And so, you know, those are — that’s important to know about this allegation —

Q Is the —

MR. SAMS: — that there was —

Q Is —

MR. SAMS: — that there was sharing of classified information.

Q Right. Is your contention that just because the President rewrote classified material in his own words and then shared it with somebody who didn’t have the security clearance for it that it was okay?

MR. SAMS: Well, let’s look at the report. I mean, we talked a little — a lot about this report. I understand it’s long — 400 pages. I — you know, I’m not sure how many people in this room have read the entire thing.

Page 3, which I think is what everybody is asking about — and understandably — says, quote, “Mr. Biden shared information, including some classified information, with his ghostwriter.” Right? But if you go to page 248, the report says, quote, “We conclude that the evidence does not establish that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to his writing assistant.” That’s in the report. That’s the conclusion that was made based on the evidence.

And I — there’s something else I want to add about this, because it’s gone — we’ve gone back and forth. On page 1 of the report, it says, “The President willfully retained classified-marked documents relating to Afghanistan.” But on page 215 of the report, it says, quote, “There is, in fact, a shortage of evidence on these points.”

On page 5 of the report — everybody read that — first few pages — it says, quote, “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited.” But here’s something that everybody should make sure that they see: Elsewhere in the report, he says, quote, “We expect the evidence of Mr. Biden’s state of mind to be compelling,” pointing to him providing, quote, “clear and forceful testimony.” That’s his comments on his state of mind later in the report.

And so, I think it’s important to kind of take the report in its totality and understand that, in that report, the facts and evidence refute the theories that are floated that they explored.

Q I think maybe we disagree on if he should have used the word “willfully” last night. But there’s one other thing I wanted to ask you about, which was that his attorneys said that they were going to work on the process to make sure that none of this happens again.

MR. SAMS: Yeah.

Q Obviously, there’s the potential that this administration has less than a year left. So, I’m wondering if you could detail what —

MR. SAMS: Don’t say that.

Q — (laughs) — what the timeline is on that, what you guys are considering for — for that type of process.

MR. SAMS: That’s a great question. I think that something that this issue a year ago brought to light is that this is a, unfortunately, very common occurrence in our country. The National Archives has talked about how 80 different libraries and collections just in the last decade or so have called and said, “Oh, we found classified documents in these papers.” And they have a process that you’re supposed to turn those back in.

But then, you know, we had the issue with President Biden. Immediately after that, we had the issue with Vice President Pence. And I think it’s important to understand that this is a common occurrence, and the President thinks that we should fix it.

Like, he gave all these documents back. He knew he did not — that these governments should be in possession — that the government should be in possession of these documents.

And so, what we’re going to do is the President is going to appoint a task force to review how transitions look at classified material to ensure that there are better processes in place so that when, you know, staffs around the building are rushedly packing up boxes to try to get out during a transition as quickly as possible at the same time and up until the very moment that, you know, they’re still governing and doing matters of state, you know, they’re going to try to make recommendations that that can be fixed.

And he’s going to appoint a senior government leader to do that. We’ll have more on that soon.

Q He posted in 2017 that he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kelly — Kelly O.

Q — had classified material down —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kelly O. Go ahead, Kelly.

Q He boasted about it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kelly.

Q In your advocacy here and in the President’s counsel writing back to Mr. Hur, you’re saying that there were gratuitous comments, that there are false pieces of information. How is the American public supposed to process this when we also live in a world where former President Trump asserts that there was a politicized process that resulted in his prosecution related to classified documents and other things?

So, for the public, if Democrats and this administration say, “Trust the Department of Justice; trust the institutions,” but you’re also arguing here gratuitous political cheap shots and false assertions, how are they to process that?

MR. SAMS: Well, I talked about this actually a minute ago. And I think, you know, when you have the former Attorney General, when you have the former acting FBI director, when you have the former general counsel of the FBI, you know, these are experienced people at the Justice Department who spent decades working at the Justice Department. And they’re saying it’s gratuitous. They’re saying that this is inappropriate, that this is inconsistent with DOJ policy and practice. That’s them saying it.

We agree. You know, you heard the President speak forcefully about this last night. You heard the Vice President speak forcefully about this today. We certainly agree that it’s gratuitous.

But I explained this a little bit in the opening. We’re in a very pressurized political environment. And when you are the first special counsel in history not to indict anybody, there is pressure to criticize and to make, you know, statements that maybe and otherwise you wouldn’t make. And, you know, I think that it leaves you wondering why some of these critiques are in there.

But I think it’s also important to just fundamentally distinguish between the — the prior case that you mentioned. I want to be careful in terms of commenting on that. But the special counsel report goes into great detail about the differences and distinctions there. And I think it’s important to understand that the criticisms that you’re hearing of the gratuitous comments in the report — which are wrong, frankly — you know, this is being shared by people who have deep experience at the Justice Department.

Q On the many issues related to memory, they certainly seemed to prompt an angry response from the President and from his advocates. Is there anything being done to address that issue in an ongoing way? Obviously, counsel wrote, asking for some of those things to be removed. It is potential that Robert Hur could be called before Congress to testify in public. Are there any steps that the administration would take addressing that specific issue? Is it in relation to overall medical physician’s report of the President or other things to demonstrate what is the issue with memory and is it a factor that deals with his capacity to serve?

MR. SAMS: Well, I have a lot of issues with the contents of that question. And Karine has answered a lot about the President’s transparency in his medical records and his physical and things of that nature. And I, you know, leave that to — to Karine to handle.

But I’ll say, I just read you this. Page 248 — or — sorry, excuse me. Later in the report, he says, quote, “We expect the evidence of Mr. Biden’s state of mind to be compelling,” pointing to him providing, quote, “clear” and, quote, “forceful testimony.”

I can’t explain why the report veers all over the place on this issue. I can just say — and as you’ve heard from the Vice President; you heard from members of Congress yesterday talking about their recent interactions with the President — one, Congressman Goldman from New York, talking about his interaction with the President the day before this interview, when Congressman Goldman was on the ground in Israel, and the long and intensive and detailed conversation they had about what was going on on the ground.

We just reject that this is true. And — and I think that — I think that it — it does raise questions about the gratuitousness. And it raises — you know, makes you wonder why that’s in there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. And thank you, Ian. So, you are discrediting some of the findings in this report. You are discrediting some of the observations of President Biden. So, why should the American public accept the conclusion that charges weren’t warranted?

MR. SAMS: I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re asking.

Q I’m saying you’re claiming that much of the report is inaccurate. So, why are you so confident that the conclusion is correct? It seems like you’re cherry picking —

MR. SAMS: The conclusion has been obvious from the very beginning. It was a long, intensive, sort of meandering investigation that came to the conclusion that, in February of last year, everybody knew: that this wasn’t intentional; that this was an accident; that they were found, and as soon as they were found, the President said, “Give them back. Get them back as soon as we can and fully cooperate with everything.” So, he reached the inevitable conclusion because it’s the truth.

The conduct of the investigation throughout and the gratuitous comments in the report are troubling and they’re inappropriate. But I think that the — the finding was the obvious one because it’s the truth.

Q President Biden blamed his staff largely for the mishandling of documents and where they ultimately ended up. Does the President believe he did everything right when it comes to handling classified material?

MR. SAMS: Well, just look at the re- — again, look at the report. I know it’s long. But the report talks about how the evidence is that these were most likely things that were packed up by staff during movements and transitions and things of that nature. So, that’s reflected by the report.

It’s not some accusation by the President. It’s just true. I mean, you guys know. You guys work with White House staff all the time. We support the principal; that’s our job. And the principal relies on their staff to help them with things.

And the President said this last night. You know, he talked about how, you know, looking back, if he had been more eng- — he wishes he had been more engaged in that process of the packing and the moving things to make sure that things were being done the right way.

And I think the most important thing to remember is once it was realized that something wrong had happened, he did everything right to give it back and to fix the problem.

Q What about all the stuff that he talked about that was in his home in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked in his house? What stuff was he talking about? Classified materials?

MR. SAMS: Well, we talked ab- — I mean, the report goes on at length about this. I’d encourage you to — to read it. It talks about —

Q No, I’m talking about what he said last night. He said: The stuff in my house was all in filing cabinets that “were either locked or able to be locked.”

Didn’t he put them in his home?

MR. SAMS: I’m — I’m not really following the question. I think that what’s clear is that — and I told this to Justin a minute ago: You know, he has personal diaries that he had. Of course he has his personal diaries.

The documents that were taken were jumbled up in boxes and found inadvertently in places. And — and that’s — that’s what happened, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We — we’ve got to move on. Go ahead, Tam.

Q Thank you. How concerned is the President and — and the team here that the, quote, “gratuitous comments” are going to damage him, damage public perception of him?

MR. SAMS: I think the public is smart. And I think that they can see what’s going on. I think that they see a president who fully cooperated. I think they see a president who did the right thing and made sure everything got back. And I think that they see that this was a long investigation that ended without a case to be made. And, you know, I think that they can see and understand, you know, when people are gratuitous and — and make comments that they shouldn’t make and that are beyond the — the remit of a prosecutor to do. I think that they understand that. And I think that they — I think that they’ll — they’ll understand that the President did the right thing here.

Q If the 7th and 8th were obviously — or 8th and 9th were obviously, like, very busy days where the President was overstretched, taking calls in the middle of the night, all of this, why continue with the interview with Hur? Why not do it on another day? Why give him the opportunity to have these lines in the report about lapses about timelines?

MR. SAMS: Is that — he should have thrown up roadblocks, is that you’re saying? I mean, no —

Q No, I — I’m saying —

MR. SAMS: — he — he committed to it. And as —

Q — he could have told the Special Counsel —

MR. SAMS: And —

Q — like, “Hey, the world is on fire. Could we do it another day?”

MR. SAMS: I’ll tell you what’s interesting about this — and this is oddly not in the report — is at the beginning of his interview, the special counsel told the President, “I understand that, you know, you’re dealing with a lot of things right now. And I’m going to be asking you questions about stuff from a long time ago. I want you to try to recall to the best of your abilities,” you know, things of that nature. That’s often what prosecutors would tell witnesses.

So, you know, he understood that. But the President was going to commit to being cooperative. He talked about this last night. He wanted to make sure he had everything he needed, and he didn’t want to throw up roadblocks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve got to move on. Go ahead, Tyler.

Q Thanks, Karine. Just a first question: Has the President read the entire report? And when was he given the — the report? Did — did he review it when his lawyers did the privilege review? And do you have any, just, context on when he himself found the — the findings of it?

MR. SAMS: We received the report yesterday from the Justice Department formally, like, present — you know, sending it over. Obviously, the President’s lawyers were — were doing the privilege review that we disclosed to everybody was happening and disclosed when we had concluded it.

And so, I think, you know, they were — you know, they had — they had briefed him on — on — on the material, as the client, you know, as is typical in a — in a legal case. And then we received the full report yesterday.

You know, the President has been pretty busy. I’m not sure if he’s read 400 pages. I’m not sure how many, you know, folks in this room have read all 400 pages of it. But he certainly is familiar with the contents of the report.

Q And then just one quick follow-up. The President was animated last night, rejecting the idea that he did not remember when his son died. Can you provide a little bit more context about was he directly asked in the interview by the special counsel for the dates? Was it part of a broader conversation? I just think some additional context to understand what is in that report might be helpful.

MR. SAMS: Yeah, I think — I mean, the President was pretty clear last night, and I think that the American people have heard from him for years about the pain and the suffering that they went through when Beau passed away and the gravity of that.

And I think to suggest that he couldn’t remember when his son died is really out of bounds. You know, the conversations in the — in the interview back and forth — you know, he’s being asked about, you know, file folders from a basement and “how did they get there” and “what is that” and “what were you doing around that time” and things of that nature.

I don’t want to — just to be very careful, I don’t want to get into specific, you know, things while it’s still in a classification process. But, you know, it is safe to say that, of course, the President knows when his son died.

Q So do you have any sense of why the special counsel would write explicitly in the report that the President did not — was unable to recall when his son died?

MR. SAMS: You’d have to ask the special counsel why he chose to include that.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Ian. So, you said that you told the special counsel that the criticisms of President Biden were inaccurate, gratuitous, and wrong. So, how did the special counsel respond when you told them that?

MR. SAMS: (Inaudible.)

Q So, they ignored it?

MR. SAMS: I’m unaware of any changes that were made in response to our very strong, forceful, and rooted-in-evidence arguments that we provided.

Q And you had just mentioned how these interviews happened shortly after the October 7th attacks. The President mentioned it last night. In mentioning that, does that mean that possible memory lapses happened because he was so distracted by what was happening overseas or do you dispute that he had any memory issues during those hours of interviews?

Q I — I dispute that the characterizations about his memory that were in the report are accurate, because they’re not. And I think the President spoke very clearly about how he — his mind was on other things. I mean, he was dealing with a huge international crisis of great global consequence.

And, you know, he was trying his best to — to answer questions in this interview, because he wanted to be fully cooperative.

Q So, there were no memory lapses during?

MR. SAMS: I think you — I think there’s something important that people should remember about the way that sort of interviews like this happen. If God forbid, you know, one of you guys ever have to get interviewed by a prosecutor — and, you know, I hope you don’t — you know, witnesses are told, as I mentioned, by Special Counsel to do the best they can to recall or remember things. And they’re — they’re not supposed to speculate. You know, they want facts. They want facts and evidence.

And so, you know, I think probably in almost every prosecutorial interview you can imagine that people have said that they don’t recall things, because that’s what they’re instructed to do. So, I think that’s just important context to keep in mind.

Q And just lastly, in September, the President was asked about Trump’s classified documents being found in Mar-a-Lago, and he said, quote, “How could that possibly happen? How could anyone be that irresponsible?” But there were classified documents found in the President’s garage in a damaged cardboard box. So, would that be considered irresponsible?

MR. SAMS: Look, I think the President made clear that he gave everything back as soon as he found out that he had it. And so, you know, I think that it’s fundamentally incorrect to try to analogize the situation or to and — and frankly, the report says that too.

And the idea that — that he did anything except be totally cooperative and to take great strides to ensure that the classified documents were returned speaks for itself.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Ian, the Vice President referred today to the report as being “politically motivated.” Is that the position of the White House, that this report was politically motivated?

MR. SAMS: I — I saw the Vice President’s remarks, and I thought they were very powerful.

And I talked about this a little bit at the top of our conversation here today. You know, there’s an environment that we are in that generates a ton of pressure, because you have congressional Republicans, other Republicans attacking prosecutors that they don’t like, and it creates, you know, a need — if you’re going to determine that charges weren’t filed, people are human and they’re thinking through, you know, what do we need to do? And, you know, it leaves one to wonder exactly why he included a lot of the criticisms that were in there.

Q Also, on — with regard to the staff, President Biden has had some staff members who’ve worked for him for decades. He referenced their mistake last night. Has he had a visit with any of these staff members? Do the staff members who are responsible for taking those documents to his house — do they still work for the President? Have there been any consequences?

MR. SAMS: Well, I think I talked about this also before. I mean, this is an issue that has plagued administrations of both parties for 50 years, where accidentally things get shuffled up and taken and removed.

And the Archives has, you know — literally, they put a Frequently Asked Questions page on their website about what you do if you find them accidentally. That’s how often it happens.

And, you know, he gave them all back as soon as he found out about it. We understand that mistakes happen sometimes. I’m not going to get into sort of individual witness or parsing like that from the report.

Q It didn’t happen for President Obama, President Clinton, President Bush, Sr., or President Bush, Jr. I don’t know if three people makes it a common —

MR. SAMS: That’s actually not true. Officials from all administrations from the past, you know, half century or so have had this accidentally happen.

Q But not the principals.

MR. SAMS: But you’re — you’re parsing two things. You asked me about the fact that — and the report states this clearly: This is likely the result of inadvertent packing by staff. And you asked exactly about the staff issue. And so, I’m responding about staff issue.

Q And — okay. And you can’t say whether the staff still work for President Biden?

MR. SAMS: Well, I’m saying that — that the — the question you’re asking about the frequency and normalcy, unfortunately, of mistakes like these being made, they happen. And what — what matters is how you respond to it. And when you find out that there was a mistake that was made, you give everything back, and that’s exactly what was done.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’re trying to get as much people as possible. Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thanks, Ian. What does it — what does it say about Merrick Garland’s judgment that he appointed someone who ultimately put out a report that was so egregious, so inappropriate, and flouted department regulations and norms?

MR. SAMS: I think the President actually answered this question last night. I’m not sure which of you asked him it. But he talked about, you know, his views on the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, and I really don’t have anything beyond what he said.

Q Two things I was hoping you could quickly clarify. The report says that in 2017, the President told his ghostwriter that he just found all the classified stuff downstairs. Why did he not report that at the time?

MR. SAMS: Well, and this is included in the report, as well, if you read through it. The President was talking about a handwritten letter that he had sent to President Obama — that he faxed to him — about the Afghanistan policy in 2009.

And, you know, he says — you know, and this is in the report — that he’s — and he said last night, you know, “I should have said ‘sensitive’; I should have said, you know, really care- — you know, more careful language about that,” because he was talking about something that was a personal — like, a letter he sent to the President.

Q So, in his mind, it was “sensitive,” but what he said was “classified”?

MR. SAMS: Yeah, this is in the report. They talk a lot about how, you know, the President actually took great care when talking with his book writer to note things like, “Hey, I — you need to be really careful with some of this stuff. I’m not entirely sure about it.”

And so, I think that — I think that that’s important to realize, that the report itself actually talks about what care he took with this sort of information as they explore all the theories and go through all the evidence that sort of refutes most of those theories — almost all of — actually, all of those theories, when you think about the judgment that there will be no case in this — in this matter.

So, you know, that’s — that’s addressed in the report.

Q And the second thing. The President also said last night, “All the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.” But the report says that some of the classified documents were in cabinet drawers, while others — about Afghanistan, for example — were in unsealed and “badly damaged box” sitting in his garage. So, did the President misspeak last night?

MR. SAMS: Look, I think the President was responding to a number of inaccurate allegations in this — in this report. We’ve talked a lot about — Justin asked about the diaries. I mean, this is his personal diaries. Of course, he has them in his house.

So, you know, I don’t have anything kind of to add on what he said last night.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Zolan.

Q I want to follow up on the Vice President’s comments. You’ve been saying “gratuitous.” She said “politically motivated.” Is it this — is it this administration’s stance that this report was issued in part or there was a motive in this issue — a goal — a goal with this report to inflict political harm on the President?

MR. SAMS: I think that you have to look at what — I mean, we talked about this at the beginning of our conversation today. You have a situation where former DOJ officials are talking about the political repercussions of these actions and that it’s incumbent upon the prosecutor to take great care to follow departmental policy to not criticize unindicted conduct and behavior or characteristics, which we’ve seen in — in this case. And —

Q I understand that’s former DOJ officials. But this White House right now — is it the stance by this White House that this report was issued, in part, with a motive and a goal to inflict political harm on the President?

MR. SAMS: I — I heard the question the first time, and I’m just — I, you know, have nothing to object to in what the Vice President said. I thought she was powerful and forceful.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Frances- —

Q But also, just to follow up. I’m sorry. This administration, as you said — you said that Republicans have often attacked prosecutors’ —

MR. SAMS: Yeah.

Q — independent systems.

MR. SAMS: That is well known.

Q And you said that’s created an environment where, if I’ve interpreted this right, there is an incentive by the special counsel to include some of this language. But often I’ve heard from Democrats and this White House say that those attacks against independent systems can also sow distrust with the public and those independent institutions.

By saying that this is politically motivated — not just gratuitous but politically motivated — does this not also sow distrust with the public and independent institutions?

MR. SAMS: I reject — I reject that question. You see this — and it’s in the report — the letter that the — the President’s lawyer and the White House Counsel’s Office sent to the special counsel to talk about the Department of Justice norms and policies that they see as being violated by some of the comments and remarks made in the report.

And so, you know, I think that that’s a false equivalence kind of question, because what we have argued and what we continue to say and believe is that you’re not supposed to make these sorts of things, according to Justice Department policy. We — the President, when he ran — and you guys all know this because you heard this — talked about how important it was to restore the rule of law. And he understands that. And he talked about this last night, to M.J.’s point, about the appointment of the special counsel and, sort of, how he felt about that.

You know, this is a president who is committed to the — to restoring those norms. And I think when we object to some of the gratuitousness in the comments that you’re asking about, you know, we’re — and you heard me talk about the former Attorney General and other people who have made those comments — you know, they are criticizing that this does not follow those norms.

(Cross-talk.)

MR. SAMS: Yeah, I know. We’ve got to keep going, guys.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ve got to move on. Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q With respect to the portion of the video and the transcript where he was asked about his time as Vice President and about Beau Biden’s death, why not release those parts of the video? Those aren’t classified.

MR. SAMS: It’s a transcript we’re talking about, and I already addressed this with Justin.

Q Okay. So —

MR. SAMS: (Inaudible.)

Q So, what you’re saying is this was a video; there’s was — there’s not tapes that you can release of that?

MR. SAMS: I’ve just responded. I think that the question —

Q Okay.

MR. SAMS: — is about the transcript.

Q Okay. And for — and as far as Attorney — former Attorney General Holder is concerned, you referenced him and the normal DOJ review process. He brought that up in his Tweet as well — or his X posting. What part of the normal DOJ review process is the White House saying was violated or bypassed in some way?

MR. SAMS: Well, there’s actually — it’s an interesting question. It’s a little in the weeds. Pardon me. But this — the special counsel regulations that exist at the Justice Department govern the process that is supposed to happen here. And the Justice Department has its own, sort of, manual of procedures. And, you know, as you’ve heard from those experts, you’re not supposed to, sort of, criticize unindicted conduct when you’re making these determinations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Phil, in the back.

Q Thank you. A follow-up and then a separate question. You said a moment ago that the President was responding to inaccurate information when he claimed last night that “all the stuff in my home was behind locked filing cabinets.” Is he entirely clear now, at this point, where all the documents were discovered? And does he now know that his statement about locked filing cabinets is false?

MR. SAMS: The — the report lays out in 400 pages of detail all of the evidence and all of the review that they conducted in looking into this matter. The President made sure that all of the classified documents that were found were returned promptly to the government, which is what you’re supposed to do, which is why this is the inevitable conclusion that there is no case here.

Q And that’s not what I asked, though. Does he know that his statement yesterday that all the documents were behind locked cabinets was inaccurate? Is he clear, in his mind? I know that last night was perhaps con- — you know, a stressful, confusing environment, but does he now know —

MR. SAMS: I understand what you’re trying to ask, Phil, and I think that I’ve answered the question.

Q I — I have a separate follow-up question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q And that is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Go ahead, in the back.

Q My follow-up question after that lack of a response was: There was an eye-popping moment in the report, specifically about the President’s ghostwriter. And that was that after he learned that the special counsel had began an investigation, he deleted some of his recordings. Now, those recordings were able to be recovered. What I’m curious about is: Can you say definitively whether or not the President or anyone else at the White House was in contact with his ghostwriter?

MR. SAMS: This is in the report. I mean, read the report. In the report, it says that — that they sought this, they looked into this, and that they didn’t. So —

Q So, they were not in contact?

MR. SAMS: — that’s in the report.

Q They were not in contact?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jon. And then we’re going to wrap this up. Go ahead, Jon.

Q Thank you, Karine. Ian, thank you so much.

MR. SAMS: Sure. Yeah.

Q Two questions. Just for clarity, you’re from the White House Counsel’s Office, correct?

MR. SAMS: Correct.

Q But you’re not a lawyer, correct?

MR. SAMS: That’s correct.

Q Okay.

MR. SAMS: I’m the spokesperson.

Q Okay. Any chance that we’ll get the White House Counsel to come out here and answer questions directly?

MR. SAMS: I — should I be offended by that? (Laughter.) I mean, I — I was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Don’t worry, I get offended all the time.

MR. SAMS: I know. I mean, what? I mean, come on.

Q You did say something that was factually incorrect —

MR. SAMS: I was — I was asked —

Q — Ian. There has been a previous special counsel probe.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jon, finish — finish your question, please.

MR. SAMS: I was asked to come today by your colleagues in the press corps, and we happily obliged.

Q Thank you. As you know, former President Trump, he was charged with a slew of criminal charges related to classified documents in his possession, including counts of willful retention of national defense information.

In this report, it’s made clear by the special counsel that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material. He kept it in unsecured locations after his vice presidency, which presented, according to the special counsel, “serious risks to national security.”

So, my question to you, Ian, is: Can you explain to every voter out there — every American why it is that President Biden essentially is let off the hook and former President Trump is now facing these slew of criminal charges, which seem, to most people, very similar?

MR. SAMS: Great wind-up, Jon. I mean — I mean, really good wind-up. I talked about this already: page 1, willful retention; page 215, there is, in fact, a shortage of evidence on these points.

The report itself goes through in great detail the facts and evidence that led to the obvious conclusion that there was no case here. The report itself answers the question you’re asking about the distinction between two cases. As you guys have heard us from the White House say for a long time, we’re very careful about commenting on certain cases like that.

Just I would encourage you — perhaps all of you: Read the report.

Q I’ve read the report, and that’s the reason why I asked that question. And the reason why so many people seem confused, because you hear “willful retention of national defense information” related to Trump, “willful retention of classimi- — classified material” relating to President Biden, and yet one individual is facing a criminal trial being brought by the Department of Justice in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the other one —

MR. SAMS: Sure. And I think this is —

Q — is not facing any charges whatsoever.

MR. SAMS: Sure. And I think I’ve talked to many of — of you guys in the room over the last 24 hours about this. The allegation that there was willful retention of documents is refuted by the evidence in the report.

And the conclusion was made directly that the evidence does not support that claim. He explored the theory. It’s in there on page 2. Everybody focused on it. I’m exploring the theory of willful retention, but that the evidence as a whole was insufficient because that’s not what the facts show.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you so much, Ian.

MR. SAMS: Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Appreciate it.

MR. SAMS: Really appreciate you guys.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Ian.

Q Thanks, Ian. There was a previous special counsel probe that did not result in indictments, by the way: the Ham Jordan case.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thank you. I would say refer to the White House Special Couns- — no, not special counsel, but legal counsel, and they’re here. They came.

Okay. Go ahead, Aamer.

Q Excuse me. Two questions. Just following up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — comments that the President made last night.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q President Biden called the military operations in Gaza “over the top.” And this comes after the White House has pretty consistently defended Israel’s conduct. What’s changed and what exactly did the President mean by “over the top”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. So, first of all, I — you know, I would say nothing has changed. His position hasn’t changed. His — I don’t think his messaging hasn’t — has changed. We don’t think his messaging has changed. He doesn’t believe his messaging has changed.

This isn’t something — the first time he’s done so — what you heard from him yesterday. Look, the President made it very clear in his comment that he was obviously talking about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. And he’s been clear — he’s been clear that the United States wants to see Hamas, a terrorist organization, defeated. He’s been very clear on that. That is a shared goal that we have, obviously, with Israel.

But at the same time — at the same time, while we have said that, we have been also very clear — the President has been very clear that they must do so by ensuring that their operations are targeted and conducted in a way that we are protecting innocent civilians, and that is something that we have been incredibly consistent about here in this administration. We want to make sure that we are also protecting innocent civilians.

So, that is what the President was — was speaking to yesterday. He was asked, like, obviously, a direct question, and he answered that.

Q Okay. Can I just ask — secondly, the President, last night, bristled against the fact that many Americans have concerns about his age. I think to question of one of my colleagues, he said, “That’s your judgment,” suggesting it’s the media’s judgment.

There’s no shortage of published polls that suggests Americans have concern about his age and stamina, and it’s been put in all sort of different ways. So, is the President out of touch with what Americans feel about this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, look, obviously, when it comes to the report, more broadly, you just heard from my colleague, Ian Sams — that part of the report, we don’t think be- — lives in reality, and that’s what he was speaking to, where — where, you know, comments were made in that report about that — about — obviously, about his memory that we don’t believe lives in reality.

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And — no, no, no. I’m going to answer your question. Just give me — just give me — just give me a beat. I’m going to answer your question.

When you have a president that has been one of the most productive, if not the most productive and effective presidents in modern time, that, you would assume, is a president that is indeed in touch with where the American people are. Right? That would assume that the President understands what’s going on around the kitchen table when Americans are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how are they going to deal with the economy, how are we going to deal with the healthcare.

So, in our opinion, in my opinion, he is very much in touch with what Americans are feeling out there as it relates to lowering costs, as it relates to making sure that we Big — beat Big Pharma. This is a President who understands what the American people are feeling.

Look, as it relates to his age, as it relates to what has been said by — you know, by — in this report, it is something that we don’t believe lives in reality, in the sense of this is — this is a president I have spent — I have known this president since 2009. I’ve known this president. He has been not just my boss but a mentor to me.

And no one in this building would say that — what we saw in this report about his memory. Everybody sees somebody who works very, very hard — has spent hours with him — understanding exactly where the American people are and what they’re feeling, and also how to deliver on those and critical, important issues to them.

Q Your argument on hi- — on the report and the assertion that it’s gratuitous is well taken, as well as —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — what you believe is his performance. I get that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q But he seemed to be playing with a different set of facts. The facts are that this is an issue that Americans are concerned about. And he’s saying that it’s just the media’s judgment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right, but he has also joked around with all of you and talked about — and said some — some things about his age in a way that he understands where people — where people are. He actually said that when — in his answer. He has also mentioned his old pal, Jimmy Madison, right?

He — he gets it. He gets how he’s viewed. He gets what people see and what’s written about him and what the American people also see.

But there are other things to note, right? McCarthy, when he was Speaker, said that he has found the President “mentally sharp in meetings.” You know, there are stories like that from — as — they’re saying it quietly, privately — House Republicans and other Republicans in Con- — in Congress.

But there’s reports from all of you, who have said that they have — they have interviewed some of these folks and have said the President is sharp. The President — when they have a conversation with the President, he understands the issue.

I mean, we saw it at the la- — last State of the Union. He — you know, he was able to negotiate while giving a very important speech — about 90 minutes — to the world. Like, I mean, you know, millions of Americans watch as he was able to negotiate with House Republicans in the room.

Q So, is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, people see that al- — also for themselves. They also see that for themselves as well.

Q So, is the President’s feel that this is — the result of Americans being concerned about his age is just based on a media narrative and it’s — it’s not based in reality?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I’m saying is that he hear — he understands what people may think. He has actually joked about it. He actually has joked about it, saying “Jimmy Madison” and have said many other things.

He says, “I know I’m not — I know people think I’m 40 years old.” Like, he has made jokes about it. So, he gets it.

What we are saying — what I am saying in front of you today is that he has results. There are a results, his record. The data shows that this is a president that gets where the American people are and has delivered in that way — whether it’s the economy, whether it’s healthcare.

Even on the global stage, what other leaders have said about him — right? — what other — what — he has been able to bring leaders together, more than 50 countries, to deal with an issue — not an issue, a war — be very clear — in Ukraine, where the brave people of Ukraine are fighting against Mr. Putin’s aggression.

So, world leaders see it. Leaders on the other side of Pennsylvania — whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat — see it. And so, that matters as well.

And that’s what we’re trying to say to you as well. It is that we have seen and we have heard from others that this is a president that has delivered and this is a president that’s going to continue to do so for the American people.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Karine. You’ve downplayed concerns about the President’s memories in situations where he has mixed up certain things. You’ve said it happens and it’s common. But yesterday, we saw the President again have a mix-up with the President of Egypt with the President of Mexico. So, how do you explain that? Is it not valid that voters would have these concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I would say is this: This is a president that has rela- — this has had relationship with world leaders for more than 40 years. He has. And at times — and I even said this yesterday — does he has — has he, you know, misspoken, as many of us do? I’ve laid out some examples of even Speaker Johnson just on — on TV, on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, who — who said he — he supports Iran when he meant to say he supports Israel. It happens. It truly, truly happens.

In that same answer that he gave, he actually gave an incredibly detailed answer on the overlapping dynamics in the Middle East as he was — as he was responding to the question that he received from one of your colleagues.

And look, I — I want to quote one more — one more person, as I’ve been quoting folks this — today.

Yair Rosenberg at The Atlantic said, “Biden has gaffe- — gaffed names his entire career.” His entire career. It is not uncommon that he has done that, like many of us do. And he said, “He was — he was clearly — and he was clearly talking — clearly talking about Egypt, and named Sisi, and laid out his policy and the broader issues in detail. Twitter just isn’t interested” in that. Right?

And so, look, this is a president who has the experience. He has been — and you’ve heard me say this: He has been senator for 36 years; he’s been, obviously, pres- — vice president for 8; and now president. He has these long, long relationships with leaders.

I think what’s important here is to remember is that when it comes to the essence of the issue, the issue at hand, he understands that and has dealt with that — probably, you know, better than, you know, any modern-day president because of the record that we have seen, because of what has presented in front of him as we look at what’s going on in the world, what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s going on in the Middle East.

Q How did the President react when he first saw the report?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into, you know, private discussions, private conversations with the President- — with the President.

Q And just to follow up quickly. I think Justin had asked this before, but Ian Sams was making this argument that these are notes that he was reading from his own personal notes, from his own personal diary. But that can still be classified information, even if it was stuff he had written to himself. So, is the White House disputing that there was classified information there that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to get into — Ian spent a good couple of minutes going back and forth and answering that question. I’m just not — I don’t have anything else beyond what Ian — Ian, my colleague, shared here.

I think the bigger picture here is that the close is — the case is closed. And I think that’s what the American people also should know as well. And so, I’m just not going to get into details from here.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. With concerns about the President’s age, are there any plans within the White House to have him engage more with the press? Engage more, you know, there — he decided not to do the interview before the Super Bowl that many presidents have done. Has there been any considerations about revisiting that or other sorts of engagements to — as you said, many people in the White House do not see the image of him that the report depicts. Are there conversations about trying to change that perception among the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look — look, you — you saw — you — your colleagues were I think — were you in the room, Tyler, yesterday?

Your colleagues were — and yourself — were able to see the President and ask questions yesterday. He was — he did that, I believe — if not the day before yesterday, he did that a couple of times this week — I think about three times — engaging with the press. It’s just something that he does pretty often.

You know, and we’re going to try and obviously pick moments. He’s going to, on his own, have moments where he’s going to want to walk over and talk to all of us, as he has done many times before.

And he — we’re going to continue to, obviously — to your question, yes, we’re going to find many different ways to engage with the press. That’s something that we think — it’s very important. It’s important to take your questions. It’s important to hear from all of you and hear directly to, you know, what — you know, what’s — what’s on the mind of the American people, as well as what we believe is on the mind of the American people and take your questions.

So, that’s not going to change. I don’t have — I don’t have anything —

Q Well, not would that change, but I’m just wondering if there has been more conversation in the White House in the last 24 hours about, you know, a sense of urgency to try and get the President out there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I hear the question, but he literally took questions from all of you three times this week — three times — once when we were on the —

Q But not just about questions from the press, but just more broadly about getting the President out — out more to try to combat the idea that he has memory issues as — or — and isn’t, you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, Ty- — I hear your question, but he — we literally did — I was on the road with the President from Thursday last week until Monday evening. We went to Detroit — or Mich- — we went to Michigan, we went to California, we went to — you know, we went to Vegas. The President has been out there. You know? And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do.

And so, he wants to be out there to talk directly to the American people. You hear us say that all the time. And you’ve seen him do that throughout the month of January. And now, obviously, we’re in February. We’re going to continue doing that as we have been for the last two to three years. It’s not going to stop.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. A question about Israel. Has he communicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he believes his response has been “over the top”? Is that language he has used in their discussions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, we have read out — well, every — you know, we’ve read out conversations that the President has had with the Prime Minister. The President has always been clear with — with the Prime Minister. I just don’t have anything beyond that.

You know, what he — you know, what he — he has — he said yesterday — what the President said yesterday, he’s done before in saying very clearly obviously — obviously, we believe that Israel has a right to defend itself. Obviously, we believe we are in agreement that, you know, a terrorist organization — we have to — they have to make sure that they are — deal with this terrorist organization that Octo- — October 7th, you know, terrorized — terrorized and killed more than, you know, 1,200 people. That is a reality.

But at the same time, the President has also been clear that their military operations need to be done in a precise way, in a more targeted way. We need to protect civilians’ lives. And so, you know, that has been the case.

Now, in the broader scope, the President has been working with his team to make sure that we have another humanitarian pause. We understand how important that is to make sure we bring those hostages home to their friends, to their family, to their loved ones and also get that really critical, important humanitarian aid that’s needed in Gaza — get that in there.

And so, that’s what — that’s been the President’s position. Nothing has changed there.

Q Can you clarify whether there’s been any change in White House policy with regard to tying aid for Israel to its actions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any change of policy to announce to you — to all of you.

Go ahead.

Q Just since my colleague referenced a question that we asked last night. The question was about voters having concerns about the President’s age, and his response was that that was my judgment. I was obviously making a reference to public polls that are out there that indicate that voters do have this concern. So, does the President not believe that many voters have this concern about his age?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, the President has talked about it. He has joked about his age, right? He has. He has joked about his age, understanding what — what voters might think. He has. He has done — he done — he has done that pretty often.

I think what he — I think the other thing that you — that we want to make sure that you all understand is that this is a president that also has delivered for the American people. That is a fact. That is something that we see in the data. That is something that we see in the policy, whether it’s bipartisan legislation that we’ve been able to get through that people didn’t think we would be able to get through, whether it’s as — as it relates to, like, infrastructure or the — the CHIPS and Science Act — real, real, real things that American people feel.

And for him, that’s what he believes is important to focus on, is what the American people need in the sense of issues that matter to them. And that’s what he wants his focus to be. That’s what we want our focus to be as well. That’s what we’re always trying to communicate with all of you.

But he jokes arou- — about it all the time. He makes jokes about his age all the time.

Q I’m just asking for clarification on why the fact that we brought up that concern prompted him to say this is “your judgment,” as though there isn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because — because what I —

Q — public polling that shows that voters do have that concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just state- — I just stated moments ago, it is — it is your judgment — right? — in the sense of, like, that is not what we see. Right? When we see what —

Q It wasn’t my judgment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But meaning more broadly. I’m not talking about you specifically.

Q Yes, more broadly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: More broadly.

Q — voters have that concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right.

Q I’m just asking: Does the President believe and understand that that is a concern that voters have?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I already he said he understands. That’s why he makes jokes about it. I get — he understands that. But what we are trying to say is: Our judgment from here — what we see from this president is a president that is zeroed in and focused on the American people. When we see him working, he is focused.

And we don’t see what — for example, all of this was brought up by the report. We — we do not believe that part of the report lives in reality. And that is what we’re speaking to. That is what we’re talking about.

Q Do you think there’s any risk to the President sounding like he’s dis- — dismissing that concern when he has that kind of reaction to a question like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the President is going to obviously speak for himself and lay out what he thinks is important for the — to talk about as it relates to the Amer- — American people. When it tal- — when — he wants to talk about the economy. He wants to talk about healthcare.

We’re — we are talking this week about gun violence — right? — how do we prevent gun violence, which is an issue that is incredibly important to communities across the country, when you talk — when you think about gun violence being an epidemic in this country.

Those are the things that he wants to focus on. Those are the things that he wants to — that he wants to make sure that the American people understand what we’re doing to deal with those critical issues.

As it relates to his age, he makes jokes about it. He does. You hear him make jokes about it all the time. He gets it. He gets it.

But he also wants to make sure that we are talking about the issues that — and I talked about this starting almost –starting this — the briefing here, is what people really care about when they are sitting around their kitchen table. And that matters. We believe that matters as well.

Go ahead, Francesca.

Q Thanks, Karine. Picking up on Tyler’s line of questioning. Why wasn’t there a two-and-two today with the German Chancellor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we always find different ways to — to engage with the press when we do these — when we do these types of bilats. There are many things that come into consideration. And with this trip, there was no two-plus-two. You’re going to see — obviously, you’re — there’s going to be — some of your colleagues are going to be part of the — of the pool spray in a couple of minutes — not too long from now. And so, you’ll — you know, you’ll have an opportunity to see the two of them.

Look, every visit is different. And they’re different for different reasons. It’s not just us. We have conversations with — with other countries that the leader — obviously, the leader of the team of the other country. I just — this just happens to not have a two-plus-two, but that’s not always the case.

Q And, yesterday, when you made light of the President’s verbal flubs, had you been briefed on the special counsel report or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — or seen it at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And what do you mean when I “made light of the President’s verbal flubs”?

Q Well, you made some jokes in response to questions about the President confusing world leaders with deceased world leaders. And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — what I did was I — I tried to state very clearly that — and yes, I did it in a light way, because it does happen to many people. And I actually talked about one of your colleagues that I do it to all the time.

And so, look, I — you know, I just want to be very clear: You know, this is a — this is a president that is very much focused on the American people. He is very much focused on making sure what he was elected to do gets done. What he has — the promises that he’s made to communities across the country gets kept. So, I just want to make sure that is made also very clear.

Q And finally, in response to the special counsel report, one of the President’s Republican presidential rivals, Nikki Haley, has called for a mental competency test for the President. Is that something that the White House is actively considering as a way to try and put to rest some of these allegations about his memory lapses?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I’m not a medical doctor. So, certainly, I’m not going to stand here and make — opine on — on tests or anything of that nature.

What I can say is that — and I remember talking to — I remember talking to the President’s doctor last year, when I was asked about a cogniti- — cognitive test when the President’s — when the President’s physical came out. And he said to me — and I’m — I’m paraphrasing, because this was over a year ago at this point — that because of the President’s actions every day, what he deals with with world leaders, the domestic issues that — that he has to — he has to deal with, he believes that that shows — right? — that shows that the President is very much active and understands what’s going on — right? — and didn’t believe that — didn’t believe that a test like that was warranted because of just who he is as President of the United States and everything that he has to deal with.

But, again, I’m not a medical doctor. We — the President is going to continue to be, obviously, transparent when it comes to his physical. We were over the last two years. We’ll have — he’ll have one this year, and when we’re — when we — the time permits, obviously — or when the time comes, we’ll certainly share that.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q Thank you, Karine. Last night, soon after the President’s remarks about Israel, the administration announced a national security memo that calls for the State Department to obtain written assurances that countries that receive weapons from the U.S. will use those weapons in accordance with the law of war.

Jake Sullivan, Kirby, others have previously said that the U.S. already requires those assurances, so why did the administration feel the need to formalize that and ask for it in writing now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — so, this memor- — memorandum that you’re speaking of — and it merged, in part, with our discussions with members of Congress. And so, this, obviously, memo came out yesterday. And so, it’s called a national security memorandum. It outlines the standards and coun- — that countries must adhere, as you just laid it — as you just laid out.

But I also want to be clear: There are new — there are no new standards in this memo. We are not imposing new standards for military aid. That’s not what is in this memo. Instead, we are spelling out publicly the existing standards by the international law, including the law of armed conflict.

So, we are also — one thing that we are doing is creating a new annual report to Congress that members have requested. This is in request, because of interest of transparency. So, this is in line with conversations that we have with — with the congressional members, as we try to really, you know, work together in a way that — that makes sense and moves the ball forward.

But this is not new standards. This is — this is something — these are — these are — these are things that already exist — to your point — that is now in writing. And then, there — and we did create a new annual report for more transparency.

Q So, if Israel doesn’t sign off within the deadline of 45 days, because it is involved with active conflict, will the U.S. aid be cut off immediately?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can tell you is that we did brief the Israelis on this. They reiterated their willingness to provide these types of assurances. So, those conversations are happening, and they — obviously, they reiterated their willingness to — for these assurances.

Q Thank you.

AIDE: Karine — Karine, you’ve got time for one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: One more.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. If the special counsel says President Biden has got “significant limitations” on his memory, then who is helping him run the country?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The President of the United States runs the country. The Commander-in-Chief runs the country.

Q How can he be trusted with the nuclear codes if — I get that you’re saying that nobody in the building would say that he’s got an issue with his memory. But just the little part of what we get to see, he has made mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake on camera this week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m going to be very clear here. The reality is that report — that part of the report does not live in reality. It just doesn’t.

Q So, the special counsel is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is — it — it is —

Q — lying about the President’s memory?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is — it is — it was gratuitous. You heard from my — you heard from Ian Sams, my colleague. It is unacceptable. And it does not live in reality. That is just the facts.

And — and, look, it is a closed case. That is what the special counsel said. And what matters is — here is that the President, in the last three years, has delivered on the economy, has delivered on healthcare, has turned this country around after the last president left us with an economy that was in a tailspin. That’s what we were dealing with. That’s what we were dealing with.

If you think about the world leaders — world leads — and issues that have been going on in this country for the past two, three years — not even in this country, in the world. Right? When you think about Ukraine, the President was able to bring together NATO — NATO Allies — they have been the strongest that they’ve ever been — and make sure that we are providing what Ukraine — the brave people of Ukraine need as they’re fighting aggression — Putin’s aggression.

And that is what this President has — has been able to do. His — his experience as former senator, as former vice president, and now a president has gotten us to a place where we’ve been able to turn things around in a way that we meet the needs of the American people, whether it’s domestic issues or national security issues, and that is what matters.

Q And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That re- — part of the report does not live in reality.

Bye, everybody. Have a great weekend.

2:51 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office Ian Sams, February 9, 2024 appeared first on The White House.