Press Briefings

Via Teleconference

2:03 P.M. EST

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Hi.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you for joining today’s embargoed press call.  This press call will begin with on-the-record remarks from White House National Climate Adviser Ali Zaidi and Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta. 

After the remarks, there will be a question-and-answer period, which will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.” 

The contents of this call and the related materials you all should have already received over email are embargoed until tomorrow, Thursday, December 19th, at 5:00 a.m. Eastern. 

With that, I will turn it over to Ali.

MR. ZAIDI:  Thanks so much.  And thanks, everybody, for joining us.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are called on to develop nationally determined contributions — NDCs — that collectively advance global progress on climate change.

In April 2021, the United States communicate — communicated its most recent nationally determined contribution.

When we did, we were cognizant of the baseline, a business-as-usual trajectory that projected 15 to 20 percent emissions reductions 2030 relative to 2005 levels.

Under President Biden’s leadership, against that backdrop, we set an ambitious path — a new target for the United States that sought to reduce emissions by 50 to 52 percent in 2030.

In the time since, the United States has deployed a paradigm-shifting strategy that has both accelerated decarbonization and also expanded economic opportunity and economic growth.

We found a way to take on a global problem that was decades in the making, with an approach that makes a visible difference in communities right now — a chance to deliver cleaner air, lower costs, better jobs, and a real sense of pride and purpose.

The U.S. strategy is manifest in the investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act and in a complementary architecture of federal standards that spur demand and generate the regulatory certainty needed to accelerate capital formation and encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking.

It is an important combination that has changed the equation: Climate action is no longer about gloom and doom but about hope and possibilities.

Catalyzed by these incentives, fiscal and regulatory, our partners have come together to swing for the fences in every sector of the economy.  Looking for wins everywhere — power and transportation, buildings and industry, lands and agriculture — gives us a better shot at sticking the landing and at delivering for everyone.

The coming together is key.  The robustness of the U.S. strategy comes from an approach that has mobilized public and private, at every level of government and every layer of the capital stack, in a tech-agnostic race to net zero as our North Star.

You can see this, as I have, not just in communities across America but as business leaders, mayors, governors, Tribal leaders, have joined every single United Nations Conference of the Parties since the president took office.  In Glasgow, in Sharm, in Dubai, and in Baku, these leaders showcased the efforts of the United States of America, of all our capacities and capabilities working together. 

Today, together, we set a new ambitious target for America — the United States communicating a new nationally determined contribution under the leadership of President Joe Biden.

The United States — all of us working together — will reduce our emissions by 61 to 66 percent by 2035, relative to 2005 levels — all greenhouse gases covered, every sector of the economy reached.

This entire range is on a linear or steeper-than-linear trajectory to net zero by 2050, meaning that America will do its part to keep 1.5 degrees alive.

Today, the U.S. is adding more capacity to its grid than it has in decades.  Ninety-six percent of that electricity will be clean.  Helped by clearer rules and faster permitting, pioneering offshore wind farms are delivering clean power, retired nuclear plants are coming back online, America is racing forward on solar and batteries — not just the deployment but also the means to stamp those products “made in America.”

Today, the U.S. is mining everything from nickel to the lithium, upgrading it, making the anodes and cathodes and the separators for batteries manufactured by union workers in factories that had once shut down. 

From laggard to leader, the U.S. is in the race again on electric transportation — a way to get from point A to point B without putting pollution in the sky or putting our kids and their health at risk.

Today, the U.S. has over 80,000 farmers and ranchers, over 75 million acres, advancing climate-smart agriculture practices; millions of families benefitting from energy efficiency upgrades; and countless new factories on the fore of clean materials, like clean steel and cement, in areas once seen as too hard to decarbonize.

In fact, across the country, we see decarbonization efforts to reduce our emissions in many ways achieving escape l- — velocity — an inexorable path, a place from which we will not turn back.

These proof points show what is possible when we set an ambitious target — informed through rigorous engagement with the techno-economic data — with federal agencies and scientific experts from across civil society, when we take stock of all that is possible when all of us work together. 

These proof points also show the massive prize — more good jobs, better public health, increased energy security, bolstered economic competitiveness — if and when we meet this new 2035 climate target.

We are excited about the ambition laid down by the president in this new NDC, and we are confident that, working together, the United States can achieve this goal.  And this progress that we continue to see here across the country is positioning America to lead and continue to push the ambition all around the world.

And with that, appropriately, let me hand it over to my partner and to the senior adviser for international climate policy here at the White House, John Podesta.

MR. PODESTA:  Thanks, Ali, and thanks to everyone for joining today’s call.

President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished, as you’ve heard from my colleague, and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.

Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re on a path to achieve the goal President Biden set in 2021: to cut our emissions in half by 2030.

We’re working to slash pollution from every sector — power, buildings, transportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry — and we’ve ignited a clean energy boom across the country: north, south, east, and west.

Since President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, the private sector has announced over $450 billion in new clean energy investments.  Those projects are getting built as we speak.  They’ll keep creating good-paying jobs, and they’ll continue to reduce emissions.

Because we’ve implemented a government-enabled but private sector-led strategy, our investments under this administration are durable and will continue to pay dividends for our economy and our climate for years to come, allowing us to set an ambitious and achievable 2035 target.

And in this NDC, we’re being explicit about a methane reduction of at least 35 percent in 2035, showing that the U.S. is maximizing our ability to tackle the climate crisis by targeting all greenhouse gases, including the super pollutants.

The Biden-Harris administration may be about to leave office, but we’re confident in America’s ability to rally around this new climate goal, because while the United States federal government under President Trump may put climate action on the back burner, the work to contain climate change is going to continue in the United States with commitment and passion and belief.  That’s not wishful thinking; it’s happened before.

In the wake of COP22 in Marrakesh and President Trump’s decision in 2017 to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the “We Are Still In” movement was born in the United States.  It’s now grown into the most expansive coalition ever assembled in support of U.S. climate action, with more than 5,000 businesses, local governments, Tribal nations, universities, and more, covering all 50 states.

That coalition, now called “America Is All In,” represents nearly two thirds of Americans, three quarters of U.S. GDP, and half of U.S. emissions.  Governor Inslee of Washington and other subnational leaders came to COP29 in Baku last month to share the same message with the world.

We’re looking to governors, mayors, business leaders, and more to carry this important work forward, because the rest of the world will now be looking to them to show how many Americans still care about the future of our planet and our communities.

The truth is, U.S. climate leadership has motivated the world to move faster.

After President Biden set an ambitious 2030 climate target in 2021, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and others delivered stronger, more ambitious targets.

Once we passed the IRA, other countries — like Japan, Australia, the EU, and the UK — adopted our government-enabled, private sector-led strategy to investment in clean energy. 

I’ve spent a significant amount of time this year engaging in productive dialogue with my Chinese counterpart, Liu Zhenmin, and other leaders of the PRC government to encourage the — and I would note, the Pe- — the People’s Republic of China is now by far the world’s largest emitter — but I’ve encouraged them to submit a 2035 NDC target that is aligned with a 1.5-degree world that is economy wide and covering all greenhouse gans- — gasses in the range of a 30 percent cut off their peak emissions.

And at COP29 last month, we saw the UK, the UAE, and Brazil announce new, ambitious climate targets early and a coalition of leading — of leaders — including the European Union, Mexico, Chile, and others — committed to setting NDC targets that reflect a linear, steeper pathway to net zero, which is critical for 1.5 degrees.

Our new commitment meet — meets that standard. 

Some national leaders in the United States can continue to show the world that American climate leadership is determined by so much more than whoever sits in the Oval Office.

It happens on the ground, in our cities and states, from Phoenix to Pittsburgh, from Boise to Baltimore.  And I believe that with this new 2035 target as their North Star, leaders across Amer- — America can show the world that we are still in this fight for a better future.

Thank you, and let me turn it back to Angelo for your questions.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you, John.  And thank you, Ali.

As a reminder, we will be moving to the question-and-answer portion of the call.  Please use the “raise hand” function, as so many of you are already doing.  We love to see some excitement. 

As a reminder, this will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”

With that, I will start with Jennifer.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks for doing this and taking my question. 

Just a quick clarification, because we haven’t seen the actual NDC submission yet.  I’m curious what kind of language it will include on fossil fuel transition.

And then, you know, there was some discussion, obviously, of the incoming president and his plans.  How much downward revision did you all do from the final target based on your assessments and expectations just prior to the election, which I understand were around 65 percent?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.

On the first, our nationally determined contribution will reflect the U.S.’s unwavering commitment to the Dubai consensus and to carrying that forward, and you’ll see that reflected in our submission to the United Nations.

On the second, this is a dynamic exercise.  And what we’ve really focused on is what are the multiple pathways to accelerate decarbonization across the economy while continuing to grow jobs and attract private capital.  The fundamentals of that exercise, where that economic opportunity lies, largely remain the same: are formed by the techno-economic trends that we see prevailing, notwithstanding outcomes in elections. 

The next four years will neither pause the impacts of climate change, nor will the next four years pause the continued acceleration in technology improvement and availability across every sector of our economy to decarbonize.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, [senior administration official].

We will go to Lisa next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  I appreciate it.

To what extent does this target consider that, you know, a future Democratic administration could reimpose regulations o- — you know, on power plants or automobiles and the like?  And, you know, similarly, I mean, if a Republican is elected again in 2028 — which would give us eight years without federal regulations, at minimum, and other things — can states meet this on their own?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great question.  We have, you know, in the United States, a track record of continuing to reduce our emissions when administrations that don’t prioritize climate or clean energy at the federal level are in charge.

In fact, the AIM Act, which helped drive down over a hundred million metric tons of emissions from hydrofluorocarbons, was passed in 2020, signed into law by the previous administration.

We have seen the tax code help accelerate private investment into clean energy deployment during Republican administrations and Democratic ones.

And it’s worth noting that — setting aside some of the more recent rhetoric around climate — that historically this has been an area of bipartisan focus.  And even in this last few years, after a party-line vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats and Republicans came together to ratify Kigali.  Democrats and Republicans came together to help accelerate the deployment of nuclear technologies in the United States. 

Those are bipartisan bills from the last two years, and I think they give us proof points that there is possibility even at the federal level.

To go to your analytical question of “what happens if,” this NDC is based on an analytical underpinning that actually allows us to carry forward this level of emissions reduction, largely propelled by state, local, Tribal action, as well as what we are seeing from the private sector and in terms of technology cost reductions.

America is going to claim the biggest share of the economic prize that comes from the clean-energy economy if we have a federal government that leans in and does what’s best for our economy, our people, and the environment we will hand to future generations. 

But the lower end of what we have laid out can largely be carried out without significant additional effort at the federal level.  That’s not where we should aim as a country, but analytically, we’ve grounded in multiple pathways, many of which do not rely on significant additional federal action.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Inaudible) let me — let me add a word on this. 

I think what we’re both saying is the direction of travel is firm.  Of course it matters who’s elected president of the United States and the level of ambition.  I think that’s particularly true in the international sphere where — the president’s leadership by rejoining Paris; by convening the MEF; by putting forward an ambitious NDC in 2021, by both pledging to come forward and raise the level of bilateral assistance in the international sphere to $11 billion, which we met this year — those things matter. 

The direction of travel is firm.  We’re moving in a direction that is going to invest in clean power, in clean transportation, and reduced emissions from the industrial sector. 

The pace is, of course, at issue.  And I think what [senior administration official] was just noting is that, given the weight in those states that, as I noted, have such a strong history of innovation and strong contribution to the overall GDP of this country, we’re going to see emissions reductions.  We can achieve the goal that the president is putting forward with that action.  But, of course, with strong leadership in the Oval Office, we can — we can do that and more. 

And it goes a little bit to Jen’s earlier question.  We did take account and consulted closely with those economists and modelers who work extensively with our subnational partners in trying to put forward an ambitious NDC, but one that’s also realistic.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  We have time for a few more questions. 

We will go to Sara next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks.  Thanks for doing this. 

So, I guess just a question on the Trump administration.  The president-elect has been quite clear that he intends to roll back and make great efforts to not continue forward momentum on all the — a lot of these climate policies.  So, why release this NDC?

And just to clarify, I believe there’s been quite a bit of modeling that shows the U.S. is still short of reaching the 50 to 52 percent target.  So, how does it pencil out to increase it by this much?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that, Sara. 

So, a lot to unpack there.  First, on the emissions trajectory for 2030, the U.S. will also be submitting a report to the U.N. — the BTR.  This is our sort of biennial review of our progress relative to our goals. 

There is progress that we anticipate will continue to sort of make as a result of technology improvements, states continuing to promulgate new policies.  So, there’s, I think, both the means and the need to fill the gap. 

But what we have found in our latest analysis is that we are very much positioned to close that gap.  The trajectory right now reaches up to 45 percent — 45, 46 percent, which leaves, as you know, some additional work to do over the next, essentially, five years to close the gap.  And that work — I think, part of what you heard from both me and from [senior administration official] is that work is not just propelled by the climate imperative but by a strong set of economic interest to race to close the gap. 

The second is, you know, underlying the first part of your question is this notion that one administration can somehow pause the progress we’re making or reverse the direction in which we’re traveling or close off the ability of the collective of state, local, Tribal actors and the United States private sector from moving to where it really wants to head over the next decade. 

And I think that just doesn’t — we haven’t seen that play out as federal policy has zigged and zagged in the past.  Instead, what we’ve seen is laying out a clear, analytical, and informed target has been animating of all of these actors running in the direction of further decarbonization and economic growth.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think — look, Sara, I think it — it’s important we’re — we are members of the Paris Accord and of — and it’s important to signal to subnational actors, as [senior administration official] just noted, what we think ambition looks like and what people need to work and strive for and to set off that virtuous cycle of investment and enhanced ambition.  And it’s important to do that across the globe to show that the United States has the means and the will, at least at the subnational level, to continue to be constructive players in the system and to move the world forward, because I think in every conversation, you know, I’ve had, people understand the stakes that we currently face: the effects of extreme weather, the burden on human security, the ability to deal with the consequences of — that we’re already seeing and that are only going to get worse on climate change. 

So, laying out this marker, I think, is, as has been noted, important to the private sector, to subnational actors to give people a guide star.  That — that occurred, as I — as I said, during the last Trump administration, and I think it will occur now.  But it’s also an important signal to the world about what the United States can do, even in these circumstances, and will do because of the drive, commitment, and resources available at the subnational level. 

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 

We will go to CNN next.  Ella, you should be unmuted now. 

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing this call and for taking my question. 

I wanted to ask about the differences between this NDC and some of the independent analysis that’s been done.  I know that there’s a lot of different analysis out there, but I’m looking at the University of Maryland. 

You know, basically, their high-ambition pathway kind of lines up with what you all have here, but when federal action is taken out of the equation, you know, it falls — it falls lower to 54 to 62 percent emissions reductions by 2035.  And so, I just wanted to ask about, you know, the difference between some of this independent analysis and the NDC here. 

And secondly, just wanted to ask about how important the IRA — I know that we don’t know exactly the future of it, how much it will get clawed back — but just how — how important that is in all of this.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, two — two things I want to maybe point out, Ella, in the first part of your question. 

The first is the expectations around what state and local actors can help drive in the economy.  The University of Maryland analysis is really, I think, unique in helping compute that, bring together those capacities and capabilities and put them into the model. 

As you noted, in their own analysis, when you take out additional federal action and you really make state and local governments be the load-bearing beams, in that — in that set of scenarios, they themselves forecast an ability of the United States, working together, to reach in the — up to 62 percent. 

So, I think that, in some ways, is reinforcing of the theory we’ve laid out here, which is that the state and local governments can actually carry a great deal of ambition.

One of the, I think, big factors that distinguishes, I think, our analytical work from — from some of what is out there is a real engagement with the technology — the sort of techno-economic cost curves and projections empowered by what our national labs know and have been able to collect — in some cases on a proprietary basis — with technology providers and firms in the field. 

That, to — to us and to our process, has actually provided an even more robust sense of what is achievable if the federal government is largely stagnant or even putting some downward pressure. 

This all sort of avoids the possibility and, I think, the — frankly, the real demand over the next several years for the federal government to actually do things that will be climate enhancing. 

There is a Farm Bill debate that must get engaged over the next year or maybe two that will pose the question: Will the United States government continue to stand with those 80,000 farmers and ranchers, or will we pull a critical revenue line out of those family businesses; where lawmakers will have to answer the question, as the Europeans and others race towards a trade system that prioritizes cleaner products, will the United States invest in our economic competitiveness to make sure our firms are well positioned for that global race — a hard-to-decarbonize sector that’s actually moving ahead around the world?

So, I — you know, I think the combination of what I think UMD very uniquely and smartly has done to understand and catalog the capacities at the state and local level paired with our sense of what is happening and potentially could happen from a techno-economic perspective actually gives us a sense of real robustness in the range that we have put forward. 

Of course, the higher ends of this range require the federal government to do what a responsible federal government would do in the face of an existential risk and the biggest economic opportunity the world has ever seen to invest in America.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], anything you want to add?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  I think [senior administration official] did a great job of laying all that out. 

I will say that even in that UMD analysis, there is another scenario, which was kind of along the lines [senior administration official] was just talking about, showing a 65 to 67 outcome as well.  So, there is some documentation there, if people are interested. 

Thanks.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Great.  Thank you.  And thank you, everyone, for joining us.  That’s all the time that we have today.

As a reminder, the contents of this call and the materials you received over email are embargoed until 5:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. 

Thanks again for joining us. 

2:35 P.M. EST

The post Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

MODERATOR: (In progress) — discuss the ongoing interagency response to the reported drone sightings.

Today, we have representatives from the FBI, from DHS, from FAA, who will open remarks and talk through their respective roles and authorities when it comes to these reported sightings.

Today’s call will be on background, and it will be — and speakers from each agency can be attributed as representatives from their respective agencies. For example, speakers from DHS can be attributed as a DHS official. Speaker from FBI can be attributed as an FBI official, and so on, but not quoted by name.

Each representative will provide opening remarks at the top of the call, and then we will go ahead and take some questions.

So with that, I will turn it over to the FBI to kick us off.

FBI OFFICIAL: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone.

On Monday, 18 November 2024, multiple suspicious activity reports were generated through the New Jersey Suspicious Activity Report System regarding unidentified and unknown subjects operating multiple unmanned aircraft, otherwise known as UAS, in the vicinity of critical infrastructure locations in the state of New Jersey.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2024, FBI Newark opened an investigation into the sightings.

On Tuesday, 3 December 2024, FBI Newark established the 800 and online tip lines at the request of our local law enforcement partners to help free up 911 call centers that were being inundated with calls about drones.

Since the UAS activities were first reported, FBI Newark has done extensive investigative work to determine if any threats or threat actors are behind them, or if they pose a threat to the public or national security. We have been engaged with over 50 local, state, and federal partners consistently, and have so far completed a number of investigative activities, including serving legal process to relevant companies surrounding key UAS events.

We have visual observation teams deployed at various locations throughout the state of New Jersey, to include our military installations, conducting video radar analysis, alongside with our partners, which have determined all large fixed-wing reported sightings have been manned aircraft.

We established a tip line, and in that tip line process, the process approximately 5,000 tips — have received 5,000 tips through that national tip line. And of those 5,000, less than 100 leads have been generated and deemed worthy of further investigative activity.

We have conducted dozens of interviews, and collected and reviewed multiple videos, and that analysis of those videos is ongoing.

We have also conducted intelligence analysis in comparison to other activities. We are working actively with our law enforcement partners all over the country to bring equipment into our AOR to assist with tracking and identifying drone activity.

We have consulted with our counterparts in other regions that have experienced similar sightings. We established a tip line to collect additional information about these and other drone sightings. We have and continue to actively investigate leads, searching out the most relevant information, doing interviews, and responding to reports of downed UAS.

The reported down UAS so far have been relevant — have not been relevant to our investigation. We are consulting with experts in the field of unmanned aircraft. Most of the reports of UAS have originated from the ground, with very, very few reports of UAS activity from pilots of manned aircraft. And that was the origination of our investigation, opening of our investigation with New Jersey State Police (inaudible).

In overlaying the visual sightings reported to the FBI with approach patterns for Newark-Liberty, JFK, and LaGuardia airports, the density of reported sightings matches the approach patterns of these very busy airports, with flights coming in throughout the night. This modeling is indicative of manned aviation being quite often mistaken for unmanned aviation or UAS.

The combination of efforts so far as noted above, to include technical equipment, tip line information, and noted consults has found — has not found any evidence to support large-scale UAS activities.

It is important to note, though, that they’re without a doubt — without a doubt have been UAS’s flying over the state of New Jersey. With nearly a million registered UAS in the United States, there’s no doubt many of them are owned and operated here within the state.

The national airspace is designed to be as minimally restrictive as possible. And all indications are these UAS operators are operating within the parameters established for their use in that airspace. This is not to say the FBI does not believe UAS’s are used for criminal or other nefarious activity, and it is well known to us that criminals breaking the law do, in fact, use UAS to support their actions.

The FBI will continue to investigate all allegations of criminal activity involving UAS, and we’ll continue to work with our partners to defend and disrupt criminal and national security threats. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We will now go to [DHS official] with DHS.

DHS OFFICIAL: Yeah, thank you, Michael. On the DHS side of the house, we certainly understand why people are concerned. That’s one of the reasons we’re devoting significant resources to support New Jersey and our federal and state law enforcement partners who are actively investigating these reported sightings.

At the same time, it’s important to understand that we don’t have any current evidence that there’s a threat to public safety.

The FBI, DHS, and our federal partners, in very close coordination with New Jersey State Police, continue to deploy personnel and technology to investigate the situation, to confirm whether the reported drone flights are actually drones or otherwise inaccurate sightings.

You’ve probably heard there hasn’t been any electronic detections to confirm the visual reports, but one thing we do have, and I’ll reiterate as our partners at FBI said, is the geospatial modeling, where we’re overlaying the drone sightings and the manned aircraft tracks, and we’re confident that many of the reported drone sightings are, in fact, manned aircraft being misidentified as drones.

Historically, we’ve experienced many cases of mistaken identity where reported drones are, in fact, manned aircraft or facilities.

Now, as the FBI said, that does not mean that we’re dismissing all reports as noncredible, but it does help us understand that the amount of actual drone activity is likely less than what’s being reported. In fact, we absolutely share New Jersey’s concerns with the amount and type of activity being reported, which is why our HQ and component field offices continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reportings.

Some examples of our support include the U.S. Coast Guard and other partners determined that there is no evidence to date of any foreign-based involvement in sending drones ashore from marine vessels in the area. DHS also sent New Jersey State Police advanced camera and radar equipment directly out of our R&D pipeline.

This kit is drone-specific radar that also cues a highly capable EO/IR, or electro-optical infrared camera system. If the radar detects a drone, the camera will be able to identify and track it. This is extremely helpful for drones without a standard radio frequency signal. The imagery can also help determine the type of drone and whether there is a payload, for example.

So far, the equipment has not detected anything unusual. We are aware that additional equipment is being provided by our partners as well.

Lastly, CISA and the U.S. Coast Guard also continue to monitor and evaluate security for critical infrastructure like power plants, and may adjust our positions as necessary. At this time, however, no threat has been identified.

And while there is no known malicious activity in New Jersey — occurring in New Jersey right now, the reported sightings there do highlight a gap in our current authorities, and so we would also urge Congress to pass our important counter-UAS legislation that will extend and expand our existing counter-drone authorities so we’re better equipped to identify and mitigate any potential threats at airports or other critical infrastructure, but also so state and local authorities are provided the tools that they need to respond to such threats as well.

We’ll be happy to answer questions as we move forward. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We will now go to [FAA official] with FAA.

FAA OFFICIAL: Yes, thank you. And good afternoon, everyone. As you’ve heard, there is a considerable interagency effort underway here. So, worth mentioning also that the FAA is a safety organization, and I wanted to mention that as this interagency effort is multifaceted, with different responsibilities of different agencies.

Also worth mentioning: It is not illegal to fly drones in U.S. airspace. Generally speaking, it is legal to fly a drone in most locations, both during the day and at night, as long as you remain below 400 feet and you keep those drones in sight at all times, avoiding other aircraft and not causing hazard to any people or property, and avoiding restricted airspace. Some local municipalities may also have additional requirements that are levied, that will change from municipality to municipality.

Flying for any other purposes, like videography or news gathering, require additional authorities. Safely integrating drones into the National Airspace System is a key priority for the agency and something we take very seriously.

The FAA received the first reports of drone activity near Morris County, New Jersey, on November 18. At the request of federal security partners, the FAA published two temporary flight restrictions — I may refer to them as TFR, (inaudible) — prohibiting drone flights over Picatinny Arsenal as well as Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster.

The Picatinny Arsenal temporary flight restriction was published on November 20, and that is a 2-nautical-mile, 2,000-foot restriction that currently expires on December the 26th but can be extended. We’re also working on a permanent restriction over that location.

November 22nd, Bedminster Golf Course, temporary flight restriction went into effect with a 1-nautical-mile, 1,000-foot restriction that expires on December 20th. Also may be extended.

We continue to support our interagency partners regarding reported drone sightings, and we also continue to highlight our website as a resource for drone information, and continue to engage with industry and the user community to educate operators on the requirements of operating drones within the National Airspace System.

And we are also able to take any questions.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you so much. We will now go into the Q&A portion. We also, for this, have representatives from the Department of Defense on the line to answer questions related to their equities.

And then, just as a reminder to everyone, the attribution for this call is on background and can be attributed as representatives of their agencies, but not by name. Thank you very much. We will now go to Q&A.

Our first question is going to go to Andrea Shalal. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hi. Hey, thanks so much for doing this. I guess my question is: You know, Kirby answered these questions pretty, you know, comprehensively on Thursday. You know, first of all, why did you decide to have another press conference today, or another briefing or call?

And two, you know, I’m seeing reports that these sightings have now sort of spread. I mean, can one of you sort of say what you think is happening here, which is sort of like, you know, a sense of panic is setting in, that people are worried despite your assurances that these reports have been, you know, manned aircraft, general aviation aircraft?

And what — sorry — just, like, help us contextualize it, if you will. And then, you know, is it — how long will this go on? How long will this investigation go on? Is there some sort of end time that you have envisioned? Thanks.

MODERATOR: FBI, would you want to come in on the question about the investigation?

FBI OFFICIAL: Yeah, I’ll talk briefly about the nature of the investigation. I’ll talk maybe, perhaps, about our authorities. We investigate the criminal misuse of drones, and so I think that’s an important piece to highlight, particularly if they’re smuggling — if the drones are used to smuggle contraband into prisons or conducting some type of illegal surveillance, stalking, or some type of terrorist threat.

But there are — you know, it’s important to note that any investigation that we’re conducting as a result of the use of UAS is limited in scope. There is legislation — I echo the concerns of the partners at DHS — there’s legislation that’s introduced in both houses, and that will expand our legal authorities as it relates to the counter use — the counter-UAS tools and technology that we have in those efforts that will help us quickly identify or quickly mitigate some of the threats that would exist as a result of that utility of UAS.

Now, as it relates to how long this investigation will occur, I can’t speak to how long. What I can say is that we are doing everything we can alongside our partners to understand what is happening and whether or not there is more nefarious activity that we need to explore.

I can’t speak to any other press releases or press conferences.

Q Michael, can you just sort of say anything about whether the investigation has expanded to include sightings in Maryland? The former governor of Maryland posted a note yesterday on X, saying that he’d seen activity going on for something like 45 minutes, shared a video. Has your investigation expanded to include Maryland and other states, or is it still focused mostly on New Jersey?

FBI OFFICIAL: Yeah, you know — this is FBI again here. You know, there’s evidence to support that, you know, again, as relayed, a lot of sightings are manned aviation.

I think there’s two parts to this. Is there are the initial sightings that took place here in New Jersey and perhaps in other locations throughout the country, and then now there is this expanded level of drone activity that may not have been coordinated as part of what occurred in the initial stages that we observed. So, in other words, the initial reports that we were getting, (inaudible) there’s no confirmation that any of those relate to anything that’s being observed throughout the country or at other locations.

MODERATOR: And I’ll just add, Andrea, on your first point: You know, I think our goal in doing this is just to continue to provide the most accurate picture of how we see this and the ongoing work that’s happening. You know, I think that given how much focus there has been here, we just wanted to provide another opportunity to hear from the experts who are working every day on this to get the latest — to let you know the latest information. I

Q I mean, do you think people are panicking?

FBI OFFICIAL: Yeah, I think there is — you know, look, if we are talking about the 5,000 leads that we received, again, less than 100 of those have been actionable to us.

I think there is — I don’t want to cause alarm and panic, but you can’t ignore the sightings that have been there, and we are concerned about those just as much as anybody else is. I’m a resident here of New Jersey. I live here. My kids have those same types of questions. And we’re doing our best to find the origin of that specific — of those drone activities. But I think there has been a slight overreaction.

Q I’m sorry, it’s hard to hear you. There has been a slight —

MODERATOR: Our next question is going to go to — sorry, next question is going to go Pierre Thomas. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Can you guys hear me okay?

MODERATOR: Yes.

Q So, my question is this: Have there been confirmed drone sightings near sensitive or military installations? Have you confirmed any? And give us a sense of whether they were nefarious or — I mean, I think based on what you said, no, but I just wanted to be specific in that question. Have there been any confirmed drone sightings near sensitive or military installations?

DOD OFFICIAL: Yeah, this is Joint Staff here. I can talk to the military bases. We have had confirmed sightings at Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle. They are — you know, I refer to them as sightings. They’re all visual, but they are by highly trained security personnel.

This is not a new issue for us. We’ve, you know, had to deal with drone incursions over our bases for quite a time now. It’s something that we routinely respond to in each and every case when a reporting is cited. We have electronic means to detect and respond, and we train our security personnel to identify, categorize, and then employ their equipment to deny the drone use over our bases.

In some cases, it is at the low end a violation of the local, state force protection measures, which, you know, they are essentially all no-drone zones, so there’s no unauthorized drone use over our facilities. In other cases, it is federally controlled airspace, and it is, in fact, a federal airspace violation.

So, there are different things that we can do, different authorities based on what type of violation it is.

But, yes, in December we have had sightings over Picatinny and Naval Weapons Station Earle.

Q As far as you can determine, did they have cameras or anything, or were they just people inadvertently in the wrong space?

DOD OFFICIAL: Yeah, to date, we have no intelligence or observations that would indicate that they were aligned with a foreign actor or that they had malicious intent. But I just got to simply tell you we don’t know. We have not been able to locate or identify the operators or the points of origin. We have very limited authorities when it comes to moving off base. We have to coordinate with local and as well as federal law enforcement to try and locate these persons and where they’re launching from, to either cite them or execute law enforcement activities that we’re restricted from doing off base.

So, we simply don’t know. And I know there’s been a lot of press reporting on this. We don’t know. We’re also significantly restricted, and rightfully so — in fact, prohibited — from intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance here in the homeland.

So we don’t have the same capabilities and the same methods that we would employ in other locations outside of the homeland to determine points of origin and identify very quickly where these operators are located and then respond to that location. We just can’t do that here in the homeland. We have to coordinate with law enforcement to try to do that, which we are doing, and we do that on a routine basis at nearly all of our locations. We have good relationships and excellent coordination, and we respond quickly to try to identify them.

But the main point is to deter the activity using some of our electronic means that can respond to most of these small commercial systems and deny them access to the airspace over our bases.

But we don’t know what the activity is. We don’t know if it malicious, if it is criminal, but I will tell you that it is irresponsible. And, you know, here on the military side, we are just as frustrated with the irresponsible nature of this activity.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We got to move to the next question. Sorry.

The next question is going to go to Eric Martin. You should be able to unmute yourself. Eric, you’re still on mute if you’re trying to speak.

Q Yes, can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Yeah.

Q Sorry about that. Thank you so much for doing this. Just to follow up on Andrea’s question, you know, what has changed today, December 14th, from what you knew earlier in the week? I mean, can you just — because it seems like a lot of what’s being provided is review of things that have already been briefed upon.

I’m just wondering if you can — you know, in terms of the nuance of what you know now that you didn’t know two or three days ago, if you can just explain, kind of chronologically, what it is that you’ve learned from the investigation in the last day or two, or what events there is. Or has this just reconfirmed the initial findings that we were told about earlier this week?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll just jump in. I mean, I think, one, it’s our responsibility to update the public on what we’re learning, and that’s part of what we’re doing. I think it’s notable that — I mean, I think the toplines are the same, which is: At this point, we have not identified — obviously, we are taking this incredibly seriously. At this point, we have not identified any basis for believing that there is — that these drones — that there’s any criminal activity involved, that there’s any national security threat, that there’s any particular public safety threat, or that there’s a malicious foreign actor involved in these drones.

That said, as you’ve heard from all of the experts on this call, all of the departments and agencies are taking this incredibly seriously and investigating every possible lead and working to try to understand what these sightings are.

I think you’ve also heard, consistent with what I believe was briefed to you earlier this week, that at least some portion of what has been reported to be drones have on further inquiry turned out to be manned aircraft that were lawfully in the airspace. And that is not uncommon for people to see things that appear to be drones that turn out not to be drones.

So I think, largely, the toplines are the same, but I also think that it is our responsibility to make sure that the public has the latest information available.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. I think we have time for maybe one more question, and we’ll go to Celia Mendoza.

Q Yes. Thank you so much. I have a question in terms of what local authorities can do versus the federal authorities. We understand that the governor of New Jersey had sent a letter to the President asking for not only more resources, but capabilities to do more. Can you, kind of, give us an understanding of what are the limitations of local authorities when it comes to bringing down this type of objects, or what could be the expanded options that they might get if the President decides to?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll take a stab real quick, and then others should fill in.

The administration has been seeking, for several years now, additional authorities to expand the counter-UAS authorities, both of the federal government, which are themselves very limited, and also to give state and local authorities the authority to use certain C-UAS technologies with federal oversight.

That legislation has been pending. I think, again, emphasizing that while at this point we have no evidence to believe that these drones pose a national security or a public safety threat, or that they are the work of a malicious foreign actor, nonetheless, this incident and the concern about the drone sightings highlights the importance of expanding authorities so that state and locals can have some of the authorities that you’re referencing and that the federal government can also — would also be able to take additional actions beyond what is currently authorized by the limited statutory grants.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And, unfortunately, that’s all the time we have today. Thank you all for joining. Thank you to our speakers.

I know it’s a Saturday afternoon, but we wanted to bring everyone together to share the latest information we had and an update. So, appreciate everyone joining, and thank you to all of our speakers here.

Any follow-up questions, feel free to reach out to myself at the NSC or our press distro on this. And thank you again, and have a great rest of your day.

The post Background Press Call on the Ongoing Response to Reported Drone Sightings appeared first on The White House.

1:44 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello.  Hi, everybody. 

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Thursday.  (Ms. Jean-Pierre adjusts the lectern.)  Just mess- — be messing with this lectern.

Okay.  So, today, President Biden announced that he is granting clemency to approximately 1,500 Americans — the largest act in a single day — who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation as well as a strong commitment to making their communities safer. 

The president is commuting the sentences of 1,500 individuals who were placed on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities.

He is also pardoning 39 individuals who were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 

The Americans receiving relief today include a decorated military veteran, a nurse who has led response for a number of natural disasters, and an addiction counselor who volunteers his time to help young people.  That’s just to name a few.

Today’s actions build on the president’s record of criminal justice reform to help reunite families, strengthen communities, and reintegrate individuals back into society.

The president has issued more sentence commutations at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at the same point in their first terms.  He is also the first president ever to issue categorical — categorical pardons to individuals convicted of simple use and possession of marijuana and to former LGBTQI+ service members convicted because of their sexual orientation.

As the president has said before, America was founded on the premise of second chances.  For far too long, our criminal justice system has closed doors of opportunity for too many people who should have the chance to once again participate in daily life and contribute to their communities. 

And as the president said in his statement, he will take more steps in the weeks ahead.  He and his team will continue reviewing clemency petitions to advance equal justice under the law, promote public safety, support rehab and reentry, and provide meaningful second chances.

And with that, I have my colleague here from the National Security Council, Admiral Kirby, to talk about foreign policy news of day.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you so much, Karine.

Afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Hello, sir.

Q    Hello.

MR. KIRBY:  Sorry?

Q    We’re just saying hi.

Q    Hello, sir.

Q    We’re just saying hi.

MR. KIRBY:  All right.  (Laughs.)  Look, as you all know, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is in Israel today.  He just wrapped up a full day of meetings, including one with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Jake’s meeting with the prime minister focused on the progress we’ve made in the region.  That means ensuring the Lebanon ceasefire continues to hold, that we continue to engage with all Syrian groups to establish a transition toward an independent and sovereign Syria, and, most importantly, that we continue to make progress toward closing a hostage release and ceasefire deal in Gaza so that the hostages — including Americans — can be reunited with their families, so that civilians in Gaza can receive the humanitarian assistance that they desperately still need, and so that this war can come to an end.

Jake will now travel to Doha and to Cairo to continue these efforts.

His travel, of course, coincides with that of Secretary Blinken, who is traveling to Jordan and Turkey, making clear our commitment to a Syrian-led transition process so that the Syrian people and their aspirations can be realized.

The president is being regularly briefed on all these meetings and remains in close touch with his national security team as the situation in Syria continues to develop — and it does continue to develop.

Tomorrow, he’s going to speak virtually with his fellow G7 leaders.  They will discuss a range of issues: our shared support to Ukraine, which comes, of course, after the United States disbursed $20 billion to a new World Bank fund that will provide economic support for Ukraine as part of the $50 billion G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan effort. 

And that, of course — I think, as you all know — leverages income earned from frozen Russian sovereign assets and increasingly puts the cost of war on Russia with no burden to the taxpayer here in the United States.  We’re going to continue to explore ways to make maximum use of those assets, by the way.

And I’d note that also today the president approved a new security assistance package for Ukraine that will provide them with additional air defense, artillery, drones, and armored vehicles.  It’s the 72nd such drawdown package announced by the United States.  And as the president made clear, we’re going to continue to provide additional packages right up until the end of this administration.

I think G7 leaders can also be expected to discuss ongoing developments in the Middle East, of course — how we’re helping Israel defend itself against active threats and how we’re all working towards that Syrian-led process we talked about.

Now, I’d also be remiss if I didn’t just take a moment to highlight an important milestone in our efforts to keep faith with Afghan allies.

As of today, the State Department has issued 76,000 Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan partners and their families, surpassing the number of SIVs issued by all previous administrations combined since the program began back in 2009.  They did this by surging staff, by leveraging new technology, by consolidating some cumbersome processing steps, and working hard to verify, in better ways, applicants’ employment status.

And, of course, we’ve requested from Congress more visa numbers so that we can continue to do that.

Now, finally, I just want to add a few comments on the reports of drone activity here on the East Coast, particularly in and around New Jersey.

We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are investigating these sightings, and they’re working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources, using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin.

Using very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities, we have not been able to — and neither have state or local law enforcement authorities — corroborate any of the reported visual sightings.

To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully.

The United States Coast Guard is providing support to the State of New Jersey and has confirmed that there is no evidence of any foreign-based involvement from coastal vessels.

And, importantly, there are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace.

Now, that said, we certainly take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems, which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reports, even though they have uncovered no malicious activity or intent at this particular stage. 

While there is no known malicious activity occurring, the reported sightings there do, however, highlight a gap in authorities.  And so, we urge Congress to pass important legislation that will extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities so that we are better prepared to identify and mitigate any potential threats to airports or other critical infrastructure and so that state and local authorities are provided all the tools that they need to respond to such threats as well. 

Now, tomorrow, there’s a little thing called the Army-Navy game.  We wish both sides a good game.  (Laughter.)  We thank them for their service now, of course, at these service academies and for their service in the future.  We don’t officially take sides here at the National Security Council, but “Go Navy, Beat Army.”  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Admiral.  Good luck. 

What is the White House reaction to President Xi being invited to President-elect Trump’s inauguration next month?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, that’s going to be up to President-elect Trump to decide who’s going to sit with him there at the inauguration and who’s going to be there. 

We’ve worked really hard on this most consequential of bilateral relationships.  The president met with Xi Jinping a number of times, including recently and, as you know, at the — at APEC. 

And we — we believe that as we get ready to turn over things to the Trump team that we’re turning ov- — turning over a U.S.-China relationship that is in better shape than the one we found it in.  That doesn’t mean that we don’t have disagreements.  We do and we will, and I’m sure they will too.  But we’re working hard on this relationship, and we’ll do that right to the end. 

Q    Did President Biden invite any foreign leaders to his inauguration in 2021?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, geez, I don’t — I don’t know.  I’d have to take that question.  I don’t know.

Q    I think one — one other question about Travis Timmerman.  Was the U.S. aware that he was missing and being detained in Syria before this week?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware of any indication that we had that this gentleman was in Syria.  I would — I want to remind that we are just getting word of this, and we’re trying to confirm his identity at this point, so the State Department is working hard on that right now.  I — I am not aware that we had any prior indication that — that he was — was in Syria. 

It’s also a good reminder for everybody, if you’re traveling overseas, to enroll in the State Department’s STEP program so that, you know, they have an idea of who you are and where you are.  It’s voluntary, of course, but we recommend that to everybody.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  So, regarding Travis Timmerman, have there been any other — I don’t know, have there been any other Americans — or people who have been saying that they’re American uncovered in detention following what — the events in Syria?  And then, regarding Americans, do you have any updates on Austin Tice?

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question: Not that I’m aware of.

On your second question: We don’t have any additional context or information about Austin since the events of the weekend in Syria, but we are working very, very hard.  And as we’ve said in the past, we — we hope that developments in Syria could lead to some opportunities and some — and some more information, but right now we don’t have anything. 

Q    Are you concerned that there isn’t more information around Tice — there isn’t more of an update, considering the fact that we’re seeing these prisons — sort of, people released?  We’re sort of — would you have expected to have more news about Austin Tice at this point?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re concerned about Mr. Tice.  We’re concerned about finding out more about him — where he is, his condition.  We certainly, as the president said on Sunday, want to do everything we can to get him back with his family where he belongs.

Would we like to have had more information in the last 40, 48, 72 hours?  You betcha. 

And we’re working hard.  We’re in touch with interlocutors and counterparts in and outside Syria to try to get as much information as we can, but I just don’t — I don’t have anything additional to report to you today. 

Q    And just following up on the news that President-elect Trump’s press secretary confirmed that she was invited — you yourself have talked about wanting a competitive relationship that doesn’t have conflict — like you said, “a better relationship now than four years ago with China.”  So, what’s your take?  Was it a wise move?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to — it’s — it’s not my place from the podium here to — to pass judgment on the invitations to the inauguration.  That’s really for the Trump transition team to — to speak to. 

Look, I would just again say this.  It is, without doubt, the single most consequential bilateral relation that the United States has in the world, and it is a relationship that is both fraught with peril and with opportunity. 

And when we get ready to turn over to the Trump team, we will — we will make sure they are fully informed about everything President Biden has done — and he has done a lot — to get this relationship on a more stable footing. 

And it’ll be up to them to determine how and to what degree they want to carry that forward.  And if — if that means having a conversation with President Xi around the inauguration that President Trump wants to do, well, again, that’s his prerogative. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

Q    President-elect Trump —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sorry.

Q    Karine?

Q    Thanks.  Sorry.  President-elect Trump this morning also kind of dismissed a question about protecting Taiwan.  Could you talk at all about conversations that the current Biden administration might be having with Taiwan in this moment, if there’s more security concern with those friends and partners than with an incoming Trump administration?

MR. KIRBY:  I think Taiwanese leaders know very well where President Biden stands on our continued support to Taiwan’s self-defense.  I think that they also clearly understand that we don’t want to see any cross-strait tensions resolved through violence or force and that — that we’re committed to our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act. 

So, I’m not aware of any additional specific conversations that have happened in recent days, but I think it’s pretty apparent to everybody, including the PRC and President Xi, where we stand on the issue of Taiwan’s self-defense. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  What’s your response to President-elect Trump saying in his TIME Magazine interview that it was a “foolish decision” by the Biden administration to let Ukraine fire long-range missiles into Ukraine? 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, look, I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth with the president-elect and what he’s saying in the media space. 

All I can do is — is reiterate what President Biden’s policy and guidance has been, and that is to do everything we can, including today with this package that we’re announcing, to make sure Ukraine can continue to defend itself so that if and when this comes to some sort of negotiation, that President Zelenskyy is in the best possible position that has the most leverage possible, that he has the most success on the battlefield that he can — that he can take into that negotiation. 

That has included additional policy guidance that President Biden issued not long ago to allow for some long-range missile systems to be used to help Ukraine defend itself across that border, and that policy still stands. 

Q    Very briefly, will you be extending any congratulations to President-elect Trump on his second Time of the — Time Person of the Year award?  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  I actually didn’t know that — that that had happened.  I — I don’t have any — I don’t have anything more to say on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I want to go back to Austin Tice.  Can you give us some information about the U.S. presence on the ground?  Who is there to secure his release?  Because it seems to me like it’s battle between journalists who are trying to reach to any American prisoners there and this — what happened this morning. 

MR. KIRBY:  Now let’s not get ahead of where we are right now.  Two things.  One, U.S. military presence in Syria is predominantly in the east and it’s designed solely to help us with the counter-ISIS missions.  And we’re working with the Syrian Democratic Forces to that end.  That’s why they’re there, and that’s the only reason that they’re there. 

We don’t have enough information right now about Mr. Tice and his whereabouts and his condition to develop any kind of policy options in terms of getting him home.  So, we — let’s just not get ahead of where we are right now. 

Right now, we’re really trying — and we hope that developments in Syria will give us the opportunity to glean more information.

Q    So, you — sorry, I just to follow on this.  So, you’re saying that there’s no FBI agents, there is nobody from the hostage departments that the U.S. was dealing who on the ground now in Syria?  Because I’m aware of the Hostage Aid — that’s an organization that trying to find all hostages all over, American hostages.  They are on the ground.  And there are journalists, including my station, who’s — who actually the first station to reach Mr. Timmerman this morning. 

MR. KIRBY:  The work that we’re doing, the presence that we have in Syria is — is largely around counterterrorism missions. 

Again, I don’t have policy options to speak to right now about finding and retrieving Mr. Tice.  We just don’t have enough information at this point.

Q    Okay.  One more on Gaza, please.  You have called on the Israelis many times from this podium to make sure they avoid civilian casualties and aid workers who have been working in Gaza.  In the last week, every single day there’s at least 50 civilians are being killed, including entire families and 34 aid workers.  So, has your message gone on deaf ears, or are you following up with what’s happening there?  How civilians are being killed every single day, and we don’t hear much about them?

MR. KIRBY:  We talk to the Israelis almost every day about — about their operations and about how we want to see them be more careful and minimize civilian casualties. 

And, my goodness, Jake Sullivan, our national security advisor, is in Israel today, and this very much was a part of the discussions he had with — not — with the Israeli national security team as well as the prime minister.  He brought it up today.  Secretary Blinken is in the region.  I have no doubt that he’ll be bringing it up as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Patsy.

Q    Thanks you, Karine.  John, two questions.  One on Afghanistan — if you have any thoughts on the death of the Taliban minister Khalil Rahman Haqqani in a suicide bombing claimed by a regional Islamic State affiliate.

MR. KIRBY:  I think that — look, we’re just getting information about this.  I think it’s a little too soon for me to — to make a comment.  The only thing I would say is that we recognize — and we said so at the time — that there was still an ISIS threat inside Afghanistan.  And clearly, they have set their sights on the Taliban.  But I don’t really have anything more say on that. 

Q    Is there anything in terms of U.S. over-horizon capability?  Can you comment on that, in terms of, you know, how — how this kind of suicide bomb- — bombing —

MR. KIRBY:  We maintain and have improved, since our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ability to conduct over-the-horizon counterterrorism operations anywhere in the world — anywhere in the world — and we’ve proven our ability to do that, including in places like Afghanistan since we left. 

Q    And one quick one on Venezuela, if you don’t mind, John.  So, Argentina is accusing Venezuela of continually harassing members of the opposition that’s sheltering in their diplomatic compound in Caracas.  Do you have any comments on that?

MR. KIRBY:  Let me get back to you on that one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  John, thanks so much.  On Syria again.  What is the United States doing to ensure that there are no clashes between that Turkey-backed SNA and the U.S.-allied Kurdish militia there?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    And then I’ve got one more.

MR. KIRBY:  One of the things we want to make sure is that the Syrian Democratic Forces stay partnered with us on counter-ISIS missions.  And we have seen in the past where — where certain parts of the SDF, if they pursue — perceived other — other threats and challenges, they’ve — in the past, they’ve kind of moved off that mission, and we don’t want to see that happen. 

So, we’re in very close touch with our SDF partners to — to try to maintain that focus on counter-ISIS missions, and we are just as importantly in touch with our Turkish counterparts, including Secretary Blinken, to — to make sure that we understand what they’re trying to do and that we both take steps that — that help preserve the effectiveness of the counter-ISIS mission and that it’s not diminished in any way. 

Q    Okay.  I mean, the relationship with the Turks hasn’t been the best.  So, how do you hope to ensure that this, you know, message gets through and is respected?

MR. KIRBY:  By being there and talking to them, which is what we’re doing today. 

Q    Okay.  And then just one more on — on Syria — or, rather, on Austin Tice.  There have been reports — scattered reports that he could be in Iran.  Can you say anything to that?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t.  As I said — and it’s an honest answer — we just don’t have enough context right now to make a judgment about his whereabouts or his condition, and that’s why we’re working so hard.  And we are, as we speak — you and me today — we are asking those questions.  And we hope that what happened in Syria over the weekend may give us an opportunity to learn more. 

Q    Are you directly in touch with the Iranians about this at all?

MR. KIRBY:  We have been in touch — I’ll just say this.  As you would expect — or at least I hope you would expect us to be — we have been in touch with interlocutors and groups and leaders all over the region.  And we have various ways of being in touch, some is indirect — some is indirect. 

But I — I think it’s safe for you to assume that, given the events over the weekend, we’re — we’re — it’s a full-court press to see what we can do to find out more about Austin Tice, and that includes having a whole heck of a lot of conversations with a lot of different folks. 

Q    Okay.  And then just one more, quickly, on Gaza.  So, Jake said he thinks the ceasefire deal may be near.  We’ve obviously heard that before.

MR. KIRBY:  And Jake said we’ve heard that before — (laughter) — and we — and we haven’t al- — always been able to get it across the finish line.  We’re being pragmatic about this. 

Q    I know.  But, I mean, what — what — you know, how are the circumstances different now?  What dynamics could be different that would actually make a deal happen?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s a great question.  I think if — if you’re Hamas right now, which is still fairly a — a rudderless organization, and you look at the world today, you know, the options aren’t good.  Your — your military capabilities have been all but decimated.  Your main leader is gone.  The leader of your — your buddy, Hezbollah, he’s gone — Nasrallah is gone.  He- — Hezbollah is now in a ceasefire arrangement, which is still holding, with Israel.  And Iran is not coming to the rescue.  There is no cavalry for the Hamas right now — for Hamas right now. 

So, this is the time, and I think that’s what Jake was alluding to.  The — there has been an awful lot of pressure put on anybody who is supporting Hamas.  And now, given where they are and how weakened they are, this is the moment to make this deal. 

And that’s why, I think, Jake believes that we’re — that we’re getting close.  I mean, this is a great opportunity right now to do it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow on Gaza.  In those comments in Jerusalem earlier today, Jake Sullivan said that the posture of both Prime Minister Netanyahu to do a deal and the posture of Hamas at the negotiating table in the wake of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon had changed favorably toward a deal.  I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on that dynamic and what he’s referencing there.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, it’s kind of my — my answer to Andrea.  I mean, i- — the — the situation for Hamas has radically changed, particularly because of what’s happened. 

And I would add — one thing I didn’t add was events in Syria, because now Assad is gone.  And who was Assad’s main backer?  Iran. 

Iran was not only unwilling but unable to come to Assad’s rescue.  It’s just more proof — or should be more proof — to Hamas leaders that there is, as I said, no cavalry coming to the rescue. 

So, th- — they’re — they’re at a moment of weakness and desperation.  This is the time to make this deal and move forward on it.

Now, whether they’ll do it or not, as Jake said, you know, we can’t be certain, but we believe there’s an opportunity here — a moment — and that’s why Jake’s in the region.

Q    On Syria, the U.S. has stated that one of its primary goals is to make sure that ISIS does not reconstitute there.  In the days since the Assad regime has fallen, have you seen any information or any intelligence about cells or larger groups that are trying to exploit this opening?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into too much on the intel side. 

I’ll just tell you that we’re watching this real closely, and that is a risk.  That is a worry — that ISIS — I mean, this is a group that — that loves ungoverned space.  And you can expect — we have to expect that they’re going to look at what’s happening here with the fall of Assad and now Russia — or Iran not coming to the rescue; Russia now also not coming to rescue.  Russia is worried about their own presence in Syria and how that’s going to look.  You can expect — you would expect that a group like ISIS would try to exploit that. 

So, we’re watching it closely. 

I don’t have any, again, additional intelligence indicators to speak to — to today, but it is something we’re laser-focused on. 

Q    And then just broadly, on foreign policy.  There’s only one president at a time, but we’ve seen the president-elect wade into his preference for what the U.S. does or doesn’t do in Syria, the U.S. approach to Ukraine, to the Middle East.  And now the transition is also, as you guys have said, working hand in glove as you push for a ceasefire in the region there.  He’s also inviting world leaders to inauguration. 

Is this having an impact on your foreign policy?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No. 

But I want to go back to your first question, though.  The oth- — the other thing I want to stress on this ISIS thing is that that is why — and the president said this Sunday — the — the concerns about ISIS is exactly why that mission in Syria, the mil- — the U.S. military mission and the partnership with the SDF is so important and why we want to see it continue.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Lalit.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  One on Bangladesh, then on India.

On Bangladesh.  Over the past few weeks, several Hindu American groups across the country have been holding protest march — one outside the White House over the weekend.  They’re protesting against the continued killings of Hindus and the temples in Bangladesh after the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government.  Is the president aware about it?  Did he raise this issue when he met his friend and the interim government chief Muhammad Yunus on the sidelines of the U.N.?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re watching this very, very, very closely, and the president is following events closely as well.

The security situation in Bangladesh has been difficult following the ouster of the former prime minister, and we’ve been working closely with the interim government to enhance the capability of their law enforcement and security services to deal with the challenge. 

We’ve been very clear in our engagement with all Bangladeshi leaders that protection of religious and ethnic minorities is absolutely critical, and the leaders of the interim government have repeatedly committed to providing security to all Bangladeshis, regardless of religion or ethnicity. 

We hol- — we want to hold them to that.

Q    And on India.  As the president concludes his four-year term, what do you think of the key achievements of India-U.S.’s (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  The president is very proud of the way in which our bilateral relationship with India has transformed during his administration.  I mean, we’ve elevated the Quad now — the Indo-Pacific Quad.  I don’t know how many meetings he’s had now inside the Quad and bilaterally with the — the prime minister. 

There’s an awful lot in our relationship that has improved: military-to-military communication and — and defense security partnerships there in India and in the Indo-Pacific writ large, people-to-people ties, economic ties.  I mean, there’s been an awful lot.

Q    Quick follow-up on — on India.  You mentioned about Quad.  What are the president’s expectations on the coming administration on Quad and other American —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s going to be up to the incoming administration. 

Q    — U2I2 —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s — it’s going to be up to them to determine how they leverage the Indo-Pacific Quad.  We can only speak to the ways President Biden has.

Q    Do you expect there to be the bilateral — sorry, bipartisan support to India’s relationship? 

MR. KIRBY:  Do I expect —

Q    India’s relationship has — has been a bipartisan support — right? — for the — both the sides have supported it.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t see anything in the future which would indicate a change in that.  There has been strong bipartisan support for growing this bilateral relationship, and I’m — I’m — I would expect that that will continue.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Hey, John. 

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, sorry.

Q    Yeah.  President-elect Trump last night named a new director for the Voice of America: Kari Lake.  Do you think that the president has the authority to name a new director of that news group?

MR. KIRBY:  I understand that there’s — I — I actually don’t — you know what, I — I’m going to — look, I’m — I think I should take the question, because I don’t understand enough about the process there to really weigh in on that.  So, why don’t we take that question?

Q    Could you just react generally to the fact that, you know, this is a nonpartisan agency, and Kari Lake is someone who just ran a Senate campaign?  Just any reaction to the fact that she —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m just not going to get into casting judgments on the names that the president-elect is putting forward for various jobs.  That is for him and his team to speak to.

The — but what I can tell you: President Biden and this entire administration — and that includes me, personally — have great respect for Voice of America and the work that they do here and around the world.  We value and we respect that they have an editorial independence, which I think is absolutely vital for them to be able to do their job credibly. 

If you’re going to have the name “Voice of America” on your bumper sticker, then, you know, you can expect that certain people around the world may look askance at that.  But the fact that they are editorially independent and do good, solid reporting on their own, I think, says — speaks volumes about how valuable they are to making sure that the proper news and context and information gets to audiences around the world. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m very proud of them. 

Q    Hi.  Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, John.  At the top of your remarks, you talked about the administration’s commitment to an independent and sovereign Syria.  And, of course, Israel has sent its forces into the buffer zone adjacent to the Golan Heights and apparently beyond it.  The presence of foreign troops would seem inconsistent with an independent and sovereign Syria.  So, will the administration pressure its ally to withdraw those troops?

MR. KIRBY:  We are in discussions with the Israelis, as you might expect us to be, about their operations there inside that buffer zone and staying in close touch, as Jake did today, with better understanding what their goals and objectives are.

I would tell you — or I would point you to what they have said, which is this is a temporary measure to deal with exigent circumstances and what — what we — and we recognize what they recognize, that there are some legitimate threats that they’re trying to —

Q    Have they given any indication what they mean by “temporary,” given that they’ve been, you know, in occupation of the Golan Heights —

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’d point you to —

Q    — since 1967?

MR. KIRBY:  — the Israelis to speak to their military operations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, on the drones, does the U.S. government have any of its own imagery or video of these systems? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware that we have U.S.-government-produced imagery ourselves.  But as I said in my opening statement, we have certainly done federal analysis of the existing imagery.

Q    Like from people’s cell phones that we’re seeing? Basically, with what you’re looking at, how can you credibly tell people that there is no public safety threat, there’s no national security threat, that there’s no reason to believe that a foreign government is involved?

MR. KIRBY:  Because the analysis thus far, in an investigation that is ongoing, has not revealed any national security or malicious intent or criminal activity. 

But, Jacqui, I would remind you, we’re at the beginning here, not the end.  There’s a lot more work to be done, and we’re working closely with the state and local authorities to gain more information.

Q    It’s taking them a while.

MR. KIRBY:  I — I would argue that it’s — we’re — we’re moving pretty well here with a sense of energy to try to figure out what we can do to learn more about this.  We’re at — we’re still in the middle of an ongoing investigation, and I’m up here explaining to you and to let you know what we know so far, what we believe so far. 

If information comes to light that changes that characterization, then, my goodness, you know, we’ll be the first ones to let you know.  But right now, there’s just no indication that this is some sort of foreign malign activity or, in fact, even criminal. 

Q    Well, what I don’t understand is — you know, this has been happening since late November.  I don’t know that the law enforcement officials or residents in New York and New Jersey, or even the Democratic senators who wrote to Director Wray, Mayorkas, and the FAA administrator today would think that this has been handled with a sense of urgency. 

But, you know, that being said, has —

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    — has the president or the secretary of Defense issued any guidance to NORTHCOM or military installations to act on these systems if they are deemed to be a threat in any way?  And what’s the benchmark for that determination? 

MR. KIRBY:  So, two thoughts.  First of all, you — you’re right, late November.  It is now — what? — the 12th of December.  So, I think it shows that we’re moving on with this and we’re going to stay on it.  So, this — don’t — I want to disabuse you of any notion that we’re not taking this seriously, because we are. 

I can also tell you that if the president, as commander-in-chief, believed — based on the information that he’d been given — that there was a national security threat at play here or even a public safety threat at play here, he would issue the appropriate directives to — to not only law enforcement but perhaps even the military if that was needed. 

I want to go back to something I said at the top: There has been no evidence of any of this activity in or near restricted spaces. 

Q    That’s not what the senators said in the letter.  They said, in fact, that they’ve been observed maneuvering near critical infrastructure, sensitive locations, including reservoirs and military installations, and cited a concern from law enforcement about public safety threats because a medevac helicopter was prevented from transporting a seriously injured patient for care because of the presence of these drones.

MR. KIRBY:  I stand by my opening statement. 

Q    Can you make that make more sense?  Because I think people in New York and New Jersey see drones the size of an SUV over their house every night and think that that doesn’t make any sense. 

MR. KIRBY:  Certainly I understand why people would be looking at this and being concerned about it.  I — we’re concerned about it too, which is why we have the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, my goodness, looking at this, and we’re taking it seriously. 

And we — we understand that people are concerned.  We understand that they got questions.  We got questions too, and we’re working hard to get the answers to that. 

What I can tell you, as we sit here today, you know, at 2:16 in the afternoon on the 12th is we haven’t seen any indication thus far that there’s a public safety risk, and we haven’t seen —

Q    But does anyone in the government know what they are?

MR. KIRBY:  We are still investigating this.  I can’t tell —

Q    So, no.

MR. KIRBY:  — you definitively — I cannot characterize for you definitively what these sightings are.  I can just go back to what I said at the opening: We’ve looked at the imagery.  We can’t corroborate some of the reported sightings through our own expert analysis using sophisticated detection techniques.  But that doesn’t mean that, you know, we’re putting our pen down here this afternoon and calling it a day.  We’re going to keep at this. 

Q    What are you doing though?

MR. KIRBY:  We — we are continuing to investigate it, as I said in my opening statement.  Two federal agencies, as well as United States Coast Guard, and state and local law enforcement officials, which we are staying in close touch with.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Picking up on drones.  Has it reached a level or is there a level determined by which the president or the administration, more directly, would prohibit any use of the airspace — since it is regulated — for drones for a period of time to try to figure out who they are and to remove this anxiety that people in the northeast are feeling?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that we’re at a stage right now where we — where we’re considering that sort of a policy option, but I can tell you that we’re going to keep an open mind here.  And I think we’re going to — whatever policy options we determine are appropriate will be informed by the investigation. 

And thus far in this early stage of the investigation, there’s just no national security threat that we see and no public safety risk. 

So, again, you — you want to be careful that you don’t —

that you — you don’t jump to conclusions and you don’t jump to policy options that may not be appropriate at this particular stage.  But we’ll — we’ll obviously see where it goes and we’ll be informed by investigators. 

Q    One other topic.  With Jake in Israel and issues related to Ukraine and Russia, the Middle East, and so forth, with 40 days to go, do you feel that the Biden foreign policy team is in a — cooperate with a very vocal president-elect who is talking about these issues to — to achieve the aims that you have?  Or do you view it as this is really your negotiation to have, whether it’s in Israel, whether it’s with Ukraine?  Is it coordination, competition?  How would you describe —

MR. KIRBY:  I would say consultation.  We are keeping the incoming Trump team fully aware and read in of not only what we’re doing but what we’re thinking about doing so that — that they — there’s nothing they should see in the public domain — nothing I’m saying here, nothing Jake said in Israel — that would surprise them, that we’re keeping them fully informed. 

Q    And has the president or members of this administration asked the president-elect to pull back from public statements or phone calls or anything that might impinge on what you’re trying to do? 

MR. KIRBY:  Not that I’m aware of.

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

Q    What do you make of reports that were out today that Austin Tice was seen alive at a prison in Damascus in 2022?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ve answered this before.  I just don’t have — I — I’ve seen that press reporting.  I — I don’t have any information to verify that reporting, and I certainly don’t have anything today that gives us a sense of his whereabouts right now.

Q    I’m asking, though, because the Israelis bombed that facility over the weekend.  And so, I’m wondering if there are any conversations with the Israelis about, you know, maybe avoiding targets where Austin Tice or other prisoners might be held? 

MR. KIRBY:  We’re — we’re — as I said earlier, it’s a full-court press to get more information about Austin, and we are actively in touch with interlocutors and counterparts throughout the region, and that includes Israel. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.

Q    Thank you, John.

Q    Thanks, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Before we continue, I was asked by one of my colleagues to — to flag Rodney’s sweater.  (Laughter.)  The amazing Christmas gear you got going on, sir, and the tie and all of it.  It looks good. 

Q    Thank you.  Thank you so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I hear that you — this is a normal thing during the season. 

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  (Laughter.)

That’s why he’s — this is why he’s behind the camera.  (Laughs.)  He’s like — he’s like —

Q    Aw —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I meant that nicely!

Q    No, no.  She’s right.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I meant that really nicely.  He’s like, “Please don’t talk to me.”  (Laughs.)  That’s what I meant.  I meant “Don’t talk to me.”

Q    (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I appreciate you, Rodney.  Thank you for what you do.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  With that — jeez.  Tough crowd. 

Colleen.

Q    Thank you.  So, let’s see.  On the pardons. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    I wondered if — you know, there’s been a couple categorical pardons — or categorical, I guess, grants of clemency by the president.  So, I wondered if we could expect more of those sort of categorical pardons, in particular related to the death penalty, which, you know, the president had said during the campaign trail in 2020 he wanted to get rid of.  And, you know, I know it’s paused, but it isn’t gone.  And there’s, I think, 40 people on federal death row.  The president-elect, you know, has made no secret of his — his desire to continue the death penalty. 

So, you know, wondering about that and any other possible categorical ones. 

Sorry to interrupt you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, I will say that during the president’s remaining weeks — and he said this in his statement overnight, and I said it at the top as well — that we’re going to continue to — he’s going to continue to talk to his team to review any steps that he’s going to be taking. 

He wants to take additional steps, obvi- — obviously, to — to provide meaningful second chances.  This is what this is all about when you look at the — what — the actions that the president not just took today but over, certainly, the last four years. 

And so, they’re going to continue to review clemency petitions, he and his team, in normal course.  And certainly, further — they want to further the criminal justice reforms in a manner that advances equity and justice; promotes public safety; supports rehab and re-entry, which is all the things that I said at the top; and provides, again, meaningful second chances. 

So, when we have more to share, we certainly will update all of you.  But I think if you look at what the president has done over the past four years, as I just — just laid out, granting — in addition to what he talked — what we announced today — granting 21 pardons, 122 commutations, he has certainly done more in — than his last four predecessors at this point in their first term. 

And so, the president takes this very, very seriously and is going to review all options and, especially, as you stated, clemency petitions as we, you know, close out these final — final few weeks.

Q    On pardons still.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    We had a poll yesterday that just about 2 in 10 Americans approved of President Biden’s decision to pardon his son.  In particular, they were troubled by the fact that he’d gone back on his word.  So, I wondered what the president’s message is to those Americans. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’d just go back to his statement that he put out 12 days ago, I think, now — that Sunday.  And I think that last paragraph where he talks really, truly directly to the American people about this decision that he’s made, obviously, as president, as a father. 

But I would say more broadly, you know, legal experts — you’ve heard me say this — you’ve heard from legal experts, specifically an analyst, former U.S. a- — U.S. attorneys from across the country, who have said — and they have all agreed no one would be criminally prosecuted with felony offenses with these facts — the underlying facts that we have — certainly, have gone back and forth on. 

And I have quoted many times, and I’ll do this again, the former attorney general, Eric Holder, who said, “No U.S. attorney would have charged this case given the underlying facts.  Had his name been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been fundamentally and, more fairly, a declination.  Pardon warranted.” 

And so, I think the actions that the president took today, the actions that he’s taken over the last four years when it comes to clemency, I think, shows the president’s commitment when it comes to reforming — trying to reform the criminal justice system and his — obviously, his commitment to that but, also, giving people a second chance. 

And so, you know, I think that — as it relates to the American people, I think that — I understand that you had this poll, and I get that, but I hope that they will understand the decision that he made and — and, you know — and what he’s going to continue to do in these closing weeks as president. 

Q    Do you think he should apologize based on what the polling found?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I think is — I think the president hopes that the American people hear him out.  Again, going to that last part of his statement — and I feel that I should continue to reiterate that the American f- — American people out there should take a look at the president’s own words, his statement, how much he wrestled with that decision, and how circumstances did indeed change for him and his view. 

And I quoted many times what Congressman Clyburn said when he spoke to the president two weeks prior — how the president was indeed reticent in making this decision.

And when he saw that Republicans weren’t going to let up, when he s- — you know, we talked about the recently announced Trump appointees for law enforcement who have said themselves that they were going to seek retribution, and there was no reason to not take them by their word.  The sentencing was coming up.  

All of these pieces certainly led to circumstancing — circumstances changing, and so he made a very difficult decision.  And I just hope that in time — in due time, the American people will — will see why he made this decision to move forward.  

In the meantime, I think this announcement — the statement from the president, this announcement today that we’re making: 15- — nearly 1,500 people getting this — their commutation —   I think it’s important.  I think it’s important about second chances, giving people second chances.

And — and so, that’s what the president certainly is going to continue to focus on.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Different than commuting a sentence, though, or pardoning someone who has been convicted of a crime, there was conversation at one point about the idea of preemptive pardons for somebody who hasn’t been convicted yet but who might be a target of the incoming Trump administration.  Is that still on the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get ahead of the president.  As I said, we’ll have more — the president will have more to announce over the upcoming — upcoming weeks as we are — close out our time here.  

I’m not going to get into the president’s thinking.  He’s going to have conversations with his team.  He’s going to review clemency petitions.  He’s going to review options on the table.

And so, I’m — that’s where I’m going to leave it.  

And I think, you know, 1,500 individuals, as you all know, who are — who were placed on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities — and also pardoning 39 individuals –is — is a big deal.  

I think it’s important to those individuals and their families and their communities.  As I’ve said, they’ve rein- — -integrated into — into those really important pieces of their lives, and I think that’s really important — and just building on what the president has done over the past four years.

And I think that’s — I think those — today, I think it’s a good day for many of those folks who deserve that second chance and who have proven — proven to — to be able to take that on.  

Q    Absolutely.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Some of the names that have been floated around preemptive pardons, though — since it would just be such an unusual, extraordinary step — we’ve talked about — in the news, we’ve seen Liz Cheney, Dr. Fauci, Mark Milley —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re talking about the preemptive pardoning?

Q    Right.  I understand you don’t want to get ahead of the president’s thinking, but are any of those names wrong?  Still — can you tell —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just —

Q    I mean, do you want to tell us anything about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — it would be a bad move on my — on my — on my behalf if I preempted the president or previewed anything that the president was thinking about, considering.  And so, this is a — this is something that he’s going to talk with his team about.  And — and I just don’t have anything beyond that for you.  

Again, I think today is a very important day, as we talk about the criminal justice system, as we talk about giving people who have shown that they can reintegrate into their community, back into their families, a second chance.  I think that’s a big deal, and I think that shows the president’s commitment to this.  

And, you know, the president talks a lot about what this country has to offer and possibilities, and you see that in every — every action that the president certainly has taken when it comes to this issue and so many other policies that he’s put forward.

Go ahead.

Q    So, Karine — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I keep asking you this question.  I’m going to ask it one more time.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You have been working on an Islamophobia — or an — a strategy to counter Islamophobia that would partner with the strategy that you’ve already released to countering antisemitism.  We’ve been waiting for it for a long time.  

Do you have any further updates on when that could be released?  Do you anticipate it coming before the end of the year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would say: Stay tuned.  This is obviously something that we’re very committed to when it comes to protecting communities across this country.  

You saw that in our antisemitism strategy, and obviously we’ve been talking about this Islamophobia strategy as well — or talking about coming up with a way forward in protecting communities.  Certainly, that’s the President’s commitment.

I don’t have anything to share right now at this moment, at the — at this podium, behind this lectern.  But I would say: Stay tuned.

Q    Given — given the former president’s ban on entry from — for people from Muslim-majority countries — also known as the Muslim ban — at the beginning of his term —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which — which we — you know, which we repealed and dealt with that very early on.

Q    No, I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But there were — you know, there were many, many people on no-fly lists.  And there still are some people on no-fly lists. 

You know, do you — is there any preemptive action that the administration can take to guard against that kind of, you know, mass move again this time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you know where the president stands on this in this administration.  

I don’t have any policy announcement to share with you at this time.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    All right.  And then, just on the pardons and clemency acts.  You know, numerous groups have sort of asked the administration to go even further, to be even more bold in terms of saying that there’s something like 9,000 addition- — additional petitioners, some of whom are chronically ill, some who are aging, some have very young children.

Can you — I know that you are still reviewing these things, but can you say something about the scale?  I mean, is this the sort of the — you know, is this the big move that we’re going to see and then we’ll see sort of individual pardons coming forward?  Or will there — you know, do you anticipate that there could be another larger-scale move?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into the strategy.  I’m not going to get into numbers.  I’m not going to get into what the president is currently thinking through.  Not something that I’m going to do from here.

But I don’t want people to forget — and I said this at the top, and I just want to reiterate — we’re talking about Americans who — receiving relief who are decorated military veterans, a nurse who has led response for a number of natural disasters, and an addiction counselor who volunteers his time to help young people.  And that’s just naming a few.

And so, that is important to note, because these are the folks that we’re talking about, who are, again, reintegrating back into their communities in a way that’s effective, in a way that’s incredibly important, giving them second chances.  

And let’s not forget all of the other ways that the president has been able to give second chances to Americans over the past almost four years when he has made these types of important decisions.   So, I’m not going to preview.  I’m not going to get ahead of this president.   It would not be wise for me to do so, because he has to make those final — that final decisions, and he has to review what’s in front of him with his team.  

Q    And I just want to — one more real quick.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Sure.

Q    There’s anniversary coming up on Saturday for the Sandy Hook shooting, and I know that this is something that’s very near and dear to the president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, obviously.  Yeah. 

Q    Is he planning any kind of action or — or statement? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have anything for you.  As you know, we think — during his presidency and, I think, over the past couple of years, even before his presidency, he’s spoken to this day — this tragic, tragic day.  

And you’re right, this is — when it comes to Sandy Hook and any devastating, horrific events like we saw on that day and — you know, the president has always speak — spoken out to it.   This is a president that understands loss, understands what that means to a family, understands what that means to a community.  And Sandy Hook was one of those moments that tore us apart.  

If — I think if you think about that moment and, I think, if you are just a human and you remember that day, it is a heartbreaking, heartbreaking moment.  And obviously our hearts go out to the families and certainly their loved ones who are still dealing with — every year, dealing — dealing with a difficult moment, a difficult anniversary.  And so, I know the president thinks about them almost every day.

And I don’t have anything to — to read out to you on how we’re going to be acknowledging that day, but I’m sure you’ll be continuing to hear from this president.  

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  You talk about the clemency actions as historic — the “big deal,” as you called them earlier — and a real relief that is being brought to human individuals by the actions the president has taken.   So, in terms of sequencing, how did he come to the decision to pardon his son before these individuals?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think we’ve gone back and forth on — on how he made that decision.  The president obviously — as I — as I said, the president put a statement out 12 days ago, made that decision over that weekend. 

It was a decision that he wrestled with.  I think we’ve talked about the — the politics around this, the decision that he made.  He put out a pretty comprehensive statement.  I’ve mentioned Congressman Clyburn’s — his own words, saying that the president, even two weeks before he had made that decision, was reticent in doing so.  And he wrestled this, and I — as I have said many times: For him, there were consequences that changed his decision.  I just laid that out moments ago. 

Q    But this action pending —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yeah.

Q    — for thousands of individuals —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — why not bring the relief to them before —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I mean —

Q    — announcing the pardon on his son?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and I was about to get to your question.  This is — what you see today, that was far from this being his first — right? — I think we can’t forget that — his first pardon or act of clemency. 

He has issued more — more — we cannot forget this — more sentence commutations at this point in his presidency than any other recent predecessors at this — at the same point of their first term.  And so — and I talked about what he was able to do in April when he issued historic categorical pardons as well to address marijuana possession convictions and military convictions in the LGBTQ+ community.   These are actions that this president has taken.

And, again, today is historic, but he has been taking these types of actions for some time now.  This is far from the first pardon that the president has taken.  

We’ve gone back and forth.  I’ve laid out what the president is thinking.  He has talked about it directly in a statement in his own voice to all of you about 12 days ago. 

And so, I don’t have anything beyond that, but we can’t look at today as being only the first action that he’s taken.  He’s taken many actions to try and deal with giving an opportunity to people who have shown that they deserve a second chance, giving them an opportunity to have that second chance.  

Q    Anita Dunn, who was for a very long time the senior-most communications aide here at the White House, has been very critical of the president’s decision to pardon his son.  She called it extraordinarily bad timing.   She said it was clear that the White House was “not part of this process.”   And she called the president’s rationale “an attack on the judicial system.” 

She goes, “The argument is one that I think many observers are concerned about.  A president who ran to restore the rule of law, who has upheld the rule of law, who has really defended the rule of law kind of saying, ‘Well, maybe not right now.’”

How would you respond to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will respond in this way.  She also agreed that Hunter Biden, and I quote, “absolutely” deserved a pardon.   Those — “deserved a pardon” is her own words.  So, she supported that action and —

Look, I don’t want to take away the record that the president has made on providing the most individual commutations in a single — in a single day, and I think that matters.  And he’ll certainly have more news to share in this — in this area — in the clemency space, obviously, in the near future.  And we’ll have more to share and certainly more to speak to.

Q    Was she right that the White House was boxed out of the process —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — in reaching that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that I would obviously continue to refer you to the president’s statement 12 days ago.  He laid out his thought process, I think, in a very comprehensive way.  We’ve go- — we’ve gone back and forth here about how the circums- — circumstances had changed, but I — let’s not forget that she also said that Hunter Biden “absolutely” deserved a pardon, and I think that matters as well. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What was President Biden’s reaction to FBI director Christopher Wray’s decision to step down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is that the president ap- — certainly appreciates the service of Christopher Wray, the FBI director, and — and all that he has done to — in his role.  I don’t have anything more to say beyond that.  Certainly, he wishes the FBI director well. 

Q    Was the president disappointed that Wray is not going to be serving his full —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any —

Q    — 10-year term?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share besides the service that the FBI director has been able to provide, and he respects his service.  And I don’t — don’t have anything beyond that.  

Q    Has President Biden spoken to FBI Director Wray since the director made that announcement, or was the White House given a heads-up about the decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would say that I don’t have anything to share of a conversation between the FBI director and the president since this decision was — was made, but the president is grateful — is grateful for the director’s service to our country.  And I just don’t have anything else beyond that to share. 

Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    Can you — given the breadth of the pardons, can you describe a little bit about the president’s process?  Did he read into the individual cases?  Did he accept a list from those who were working on this on his behalf?  How much did he personally dive into particular stories?  And did he decline on any of the ones brought to him for this time?  Or was it sort of a big package presented to the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to go into step by step of this process.

What I can say is this is a president who certainly takes this very seriously, understands the importance of when an individual is able to show that they can reconnect with their community, reconnect with their family, be — be part of a community in a way that I just laid out — when you think about military veteran, when you think about a nurse that’s been very helpful in disaster response — he takes that all into account.  He wants to make sure that — that there are specific criterias that are made, if you will. 

In this case, y- — the Bureau of Prisons, obviously, was very involved in the — in wh- — in looking at — when I say “very involved,” when they made the decision on — on the home confinement of these folks.  And so, obviously, that is a big part of it too. 

And, look, they’ve all des- — demonstrated good behavior, have shown that incarceration and at-home confinement has been successful in their rehabilitation.  And those are all important criterias to look at. 

But this is something, obviously, his team reviews.  It’s presented to the president.  He makes this decision on how to move forward. 

I’m not going to get into the nitty-gritty, but these are important facts that I just laid out to, certainly, look at when you think about getting — again, getting back into the community and showing — showing that, you know, it is — it is meaningful to get that second chance because what these individuals have been able to do.

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the pardons today, can you say whether the president has signed all the paperwork and it’s completely finalized with his signature on it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Well, my assumption is that we — this is ready to go, since we made the announcement and that we’ve announced it, obviously, overnight.  And so, this is ready to go, and we’re moving forward.  We wouldn’t have made this announcement if we weren’t.  And so, that’s what I could speak to. 

This is something that the president has decided on, and we’re taking, certainly, the steps to make this happen.

Q    (Inaudible) be able to say sort of precisely when he signed it?  Or maybe (inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have specifics on signature — when — when it was signed, how the process even works. 

I know that we just made announcement, obviously, overnight on — on this, really — you know, this granted clemency of nearly 1,500 people.  I think that’s a big deal.  Thirty-nine individuals are — were, certainly, pardoned, were — who were convicted of nonviolent crimes.  And I think this is important to — to just not forget. 

But I don’t have the specifics of the process or how it works.  But, obviously, it’s out there, and we’re moving forward with it.

Q    And then one other thing.  You had been asked several times about whether Hunter Biden would receive a pardon and responded to that question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    In that vein, can you tell me whether the president is considering a pardon for his son [brother] James Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can speak to is the p- — the president made that decision — right? — about Hunter Biden.  He put it in — in his own words.  I don’t have anything to share beyond that.  What I can say is: Not that I’m aware of, but I just don’t have anything else beyond that. 

And the president, certainly, is going to — as it — more broadly speaking, as we move forward to the next couple of weeks, he obviously is going to review with his team about other clemency decisions, and they’re taking additional steps.  And so, that’s what I can speak to at this time.

Go ahead, Zolan.

Q    Thank you.  During the past clemency actions you were talking about, it seemed like most of the time the recipients were nonviolent, you know, drug offenders — low-level drug crimes.  There were a couple recipients here, though — I mean, a judge who participated in a scheme that sent juveniles to for-profit jails; Medicare fraud; you know, real estate fraud.

I guess what I’m wondering is, was the crime that was committed also part of the criteria here?  Or was it the mere fact where, if you were somebody on home confinement — despite the crime you committed, but just the fact that you were on home confinement — you received a commutation? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, they’re two different things, right?  There is the 1,500 folks who — who were placed on home confinement during COVID —

Q    The examples I listed are part of the 1,500.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, th- — okay. 

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I didn’t know, because I — because those are commutation, right?  So, I didn’t know.  So —

Q    S- — those are commutations, right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, you were saying “pardoned,” so I just wanted to make sure of that. 

Q    Yeah.  To clarify —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Yes.

Q    — those examples I listed are —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are the fif- —

Q    — part of the 1,500 that received commutations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Okay.  Because, as you know, there were 39 people who were — who were pardoned.  So, two different things, so I just want to make sure we were on the same page. 

So, this is definitely related to the home confinement from COVID.  Let’s not forget, there was the CARE[S] Act of 2020, right?  This is all connected, certainly, to that.  And that’s — those are the individuals who were — again, who had home confinement and they successfully reintegrated into their families, into their communities.  And that’s the group of people — that category, if you will — that we were looking at.

Q    But — but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Like, if they — just the fact that they were on home confinement, they received a commutation here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  Because —

Q    Was there — did you factor —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There was —

Q    — in any — like, in the process, do you also factor in the individual cases and the individual crimes that were committed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I think what’s important is that they were successfully able to reintegrate into their communities and back into their families, right?  They showed that having a second chance is something that they should be given, right?  And so, that is what’s important. 

That — let’s not forget that — the successfully reintegrating.  And I think that’s a huge factor.  That matters as well.  The home confinement, obviously, those — that’s the category that they — that they were in during that CARE[S] Act of 2020.  They were — they — as you know, there was a decision because of COVID-19 pandemic to move forward, back in 2020, before the president was, obviously, in office.

And these folks, this 1,500 that we’re talking about — the nearly 1,500, were able to successfully reintegrate.  And I think that’s a criteria that we can’t forget.  And that’s a criteria that’s incredibly important here as the president made his decision. 

Q    And to follow up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I think, Kelly’s question.  Just, I know you don’t want to go step by step in the process —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — but c- — can we say accurately that the president reviewed, looked at any of these applications?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is this president made this decision.  This is the president that made the decision to move forward on this. 

Q    What was his involvement, though?  Did they present him the applications and he said yes, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, obviously the president was presented from his team the — th- — granting the clemency — right? — of these approximately 1,500 Americans and also the 39 that he pardoned.  He was presented that by his team, and he made the decision.

This is a — this would not have happened — we cannot forget: This would not have happened if the president didn’t sign off on it, if the president didn’t decide to move forward. 

And we can’t forget what the president has done.  We’re talking about the — let’s not forget the past.  Yes, we’re talking about today, but we can’t forget the president has also done 122 commutations, 21 pardons before this.  We can’t forget that the president issued — issued categorical pardons for LGBTQ+ service members convicted because of their sexual orientation or identity — gender identity and individuals charged with simply possession of marijuana.  This is — and he just did that back in April. 

So, the president has certainly taken action to show the importance of giving Americans second chances, and this is a continuation.  This is not just a one-day thing.  This is a continuation of the person — of the president taking clemency and giving people second chances very, very seriously and understanding how much that means to families and, certainly, communities.

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Has the president called any of the people he granted pardons to?  Do you have anything to read out on that front?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  It’s a good question.  I don’t have

anything to read out on the president calling any — any of the 15- nearly 1,500 people or 39 folks that he was able to — to pardon today.  I just don’t have anything to share.

Q    And is he planning a farewell address at some point?  Is there something in the works?  Do you know where it might be, when it might be? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t — we’ll certainly have more to share what the next — the last couple of weeks, last couple of days of the president’s administration will look like, if he’s going to be giving any big speeches or giving any important remarks as he — as he ends his presidency. 

I don’t have anything right now in this moment, but I would say stay tuned.  We’ll have a lot more to share as to what January post-holiday will look like. 

Go ahead.  I know — go ahead.  I know I was supposed to call on you and I didn’t.

Q    Thank you.  Back to Austin Tice —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — with apologies.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No apologies.  (Laughter.)  That’s an important — no, no.  It’s important.  No apologies.

Q    So, I believe it was last Friday when the family of Austin Tice said that they had spoken to officials here at the White House. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  They met with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the end of last week, yes.

Q    And then they had a statement at the National Press Club, where they said that they had been told from a reliable source — we assume Sullivan — that — that Austin was alive and that he was being treated well. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, now we don’t know any of that.  So, what — how did that — where did they get that information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to let the family speak for themselves.  I can’t e- — can’t even imagine what they’re going through.  I don’t want to imagine what they’re going through.  I know this has been a difficult time for them.

But what I can say is, when it comes to Austin Tice, this is a top priority for this president.  He said that himself.  And there is no indication that he is not alive, but there’s also no indication about his location or condition. 

And so, what our goal is is to bring him home.  And so, we hope, certainly, that he is alive. 

And — and as we have stated many times before, we are talking through the — through — through this with the Turks, and we want to do everything that we can to bring him home.  It is a top priority for this president and this administration, and that’s how we’re going to continue to move forward on this. 

All right, everybody. 

Q    Will there be further —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, go ahead.

Q    Will there be further meetings between now and the end of this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, this administration, including the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, has met with many family members of — of Americans who are wrongfully detained, held hostage.  That is something — and also the president has done this as well.  The national security advisor, as I just mentioned, just met with Austin Tice’s family just this past week — this past week. 

And so, we’re c- — we’re going to continue to certainly stay engaged and in touch. 

I don’t have any meetings to preview for you at this time, but we’ve been pretty con- — pretty consistent in staying in touch with these families.

Again, I — our hearts go out to them.  Our hearts go out to them as they are dealing with an incredibly, incredibly difficult time.

All right.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you.

P.M. EST

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:31 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

Jared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I’ll turn to your questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Okay.  So, first of all —

Q    Like, what — what’s your prediction —

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

Q    — for the lag?  Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — the lag structure. 

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

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

How quickly does that happen?  Quite quickly. 

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Chair.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hi, M.J.

Q    Hi.  Nice to see you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sense you want to say something else.

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — have been at for a while. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Hey, Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hey.

Q    Good to see you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  He was — he was kidding.

Q    Oh.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny. 

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

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

And then, advice?

Q    Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, it — that —

Q    I mean, you could of put projects anywhere. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — no — so, go to —

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

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

Q    Well, yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So, here you have to —

Q    — replicated in the future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Peter.

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

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

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

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Right.

Q    Yeah, that’s fair. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will be nurturing —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I’ll bet you will.

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

All good?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah, it’s good.   

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And stay tuned for more.

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

Q    Good to see you. 

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

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

Q    Is that — is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry.

Q    — premise, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    But —

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

Q    Let me follow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

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

Are Americans treated fairly by their insurance companies?

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

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

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

Go ahead, Karen.

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

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

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

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

Q    Right.  A couple still, though, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

Q    When was the president briefed on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    (Laughs.)

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    “Obviously, this is a horrific response.” 

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — at some sort of corporate greed by UnitedHealthcare?

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Post.  Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, M.J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Sorry, just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Peter.

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

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

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

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

Q    Got it.  Got it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Q    That seems easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep. 

Go ahead.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a possibility he’ll let —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — his successor make that decision?

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

Q    Next one.  Same question: TikTok.

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

Q    Is the president — is the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — I was —

Q    — committed to making a determination —

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

Q    — on TikTok —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Q    This is a presidential determination under the law that —

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

Go ahead.  I —

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

Haiti —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — their status in legislation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

3:42 P.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

10:45 A.M. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I can take some questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    If you would take that one, please. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KIRBY:  No.

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

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

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

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

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you, James.

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

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

11:29 A.M. EST

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

Via Teleconference

2:30 P.M. EST

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

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

With that, over to you. 

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

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

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

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

Let me walk through just some of what has transpired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diplomacy, obviously we’ll have to see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:00 P.M. EST          

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:24 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    And then a different pardon question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes. 

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — it became a yes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And I —

Q    — turned out not to be true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    I — exactly.

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just —

Q    Do you owe an apology to the American people?

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

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

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

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

Q    Why should they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I think —

Q    — have any confidence —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And then —

Q    — in anything else —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    — that you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.  Go ahead. 

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

Q    That was well known.

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

Q    Now that you’ve had time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — how he would do that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know —

Q    — on future pardon decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — as the president of the United States —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It —

Q    — that’s where it carries weight.

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

Q    Okay.  So, we are where we are. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    Just real quick, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — of preemptive pardons.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

Q    But just —

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

Q    Are you ruling out the idea —

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

Q    — of preemptive pardons?

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    — a preemptive pardon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — because they’re worried about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — a potential prosecution from the —

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

Q    — Trump administration?

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

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

Go ahead, Tam.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

Okay.  Go ahead.

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

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

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

Q    But the president was invited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.  Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    And one last thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

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

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

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

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

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

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

Q    What — what is your answer?

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

Q    Can you — can you explain in a way —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I answered the question.

Q    — that’s understandable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, for sure.

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

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

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

And he wrestled with it.  He did. 

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yep.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — avoiding reporters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Karen.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Jeff.

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

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Would the president sign or veto it?

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

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

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

Q    All right.  And one more on pardons.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q    But my question is, like, does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I don’t —

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

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

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

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — and I — I —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know —

Q    — and now having to go back on it?

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

Q    But does —

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

Q    But did he apologize to you?

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

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

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

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

So, no apology needed from him to me.

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Should they still?

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

Q    I mean, this was a pretty big —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

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

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

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

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

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

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

What he —

Q    But they see two leaders who —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wha- — o- — okay.

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

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

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

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

Q    But they’re making similar arguments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, y- — but —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — because of who they are.

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

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

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

Okay.  Wa- —

Q    (Inaudible.)

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

Q    (Inaudible.) 

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

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

What I can say, though, is that —

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

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, exactly. 

Q    — with the family.

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Karine.  Karine.

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

AIDE:  (Inaudible.) 

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

Go ahead.  Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

Okay.  All right.  Thanks, everybody. 

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everyone.

3:13 P.M. EST

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

Luanda, Angola

MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining for this gaggle. Everything will be attributed to a senior administration official, embargoed until 10:00 p.m. local time.

For your awareness, but not for your reporting, our SAO is [senior administration official]. [Senior administration official], we’ll turn it over to you for a few words at the top, after which we’ll take some questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All right, thank you.

So, as you know, the President is going to travel to Lobito, Angola, tomorrow. I’ll go through kind of a little bit of the schedule and then go into more of the details.

He’ll arrive in Lobito. He’ll be joined by — at the Port of Lobito and be joined by President Lourenço of Angola, as well as the presidents of Zambia and DRC, as well as the vice president of Tanzania.

They will tour the port. From there, they will travel by car to a grain facility — production facility of a company called Carrinho — I’ll explain a little bit later who they are and what they are — where he will tour the facility. It’s an agribusiness company. He’ll tour the facility by the founder and CEO, Nelson Carrinho.

He will then, at that facility, will also meet and get briefed by a number of other company leaders of companies that the United States has financed here in Angola and along the Lobito Corridor, such as Africell, who, if you’ve been traveling around Angola, you’ve seen a lot of their signs. They’re a mobile telecommunications company, a U.S. company that just a couple of — a few years ago, there was only a monopoly here of the state-owned company. They entered with U.S. financing support. Today, they have a significant market share already. They are also expanding beyond Rwanda to make sure that people in rural Angola can go from 2G to 3G. 2G is no data; 3G is with data.

And actually, we’re going to — we will be announcing shortly some financing for them — package financing for them to support their growth into both neighboring countries along the Lobito Corridor and to expanding to 5G here in Angola.

There, he’ll also be greeted by the CEO of Sun Africa, which is a company that has received financing from the Export-Import Bank of the United States. They are building something along approximately 700 megawatts of solar power, in addition to some storage and mini grids. This is the largest U.S. investment in solar power in Africa, here in Angola. It will mean that Angola will have not only a significant portion of its energy from clean sources, but also give the ability to export clean energy to its neighboring countries.

He’ll also be meeting with a leader from a company called KoBold — it’s with a K; K-O-B-O-L-D, as in David — which is a mining company in Zambia. Initially, it’s an American company backed by a number of U.S. well-known financial institutions, including Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Ventures. And they made a discovery, a copper discovery in Zambia. It was one of the largest copper discoveries. As you all know, copper is extremely important for both the chips development, as well as for electric vehicles and expanding the grid, which we will need because of the expansion of data centers.

He will also meet a leader from a company called Acrow Bridge. That’s A-C-R-O-W. They are based in Milton, Pennsylvania. They make pre-fabricated steel bridges, so it’s American steel, American jobs. It’s a unionized company. And they then deliver those bridges here in Angola. I believe the contract is for 186 steel bridges to be delivered here in Angola, and hopefully will expand their operations elsewhere. It’s a great story of creating jobs in America to deliver good commercial benefits here in Angola and in Africa writ large, again, receiving some commercial financing from U.S. government institutions.

After he visits with all these companies, he will then join a roundtable hosted by President Lourenço and President Biden, together with the presidents of Zambia, the DRC, and the vice president of Tanzania, and with, in addition, the CEO of the AFC, which is the Africa Finance Corporation, who is a partner in both leading the project, the Lobito Corridor project, a rail project, and is a — well, my understanding is will likely make a financial announcement — financial commitment announcement to the phase two of the project.

So why are we going to Lobito? Why is the President going to Lobito? So, the Lobito Corridor really is anchored in the Lobito port itself, which is the gateway in and out of Africa for the critical minerals industry and now for agriculture.

The premise behind the corridor is to be able to take American support and financial capabilities that are admittedly limited and to focus them more deeply in one area versus spreading that financial support and effort across many countries. So, instead of a little bit of human and financial resource across the whole continent, choosing corridors where we can have the largest impact.

The Lobito Corridor was the test case for this approach, not just for Africa but globally, and has been a very successful proof point in that theory.

The rail is a refurbishment of a rail that goes from the Lobito port all the way to the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo and nearby the border of Zambia, and extends all the way to eastern Congo. This means that a cargo of cobalt or copper that takes about 45 days to get from eastern Congo or Zambia to the market by going through Durban, South Africa — by truck, it takes about 45 days. This will take somewhere in the 40 to 50 hours to go the same distance. That is a remarkable not only cut in time, but cut in cost and the ability to get to market, which will then serve to cut the cost, eventually, of batteries and EVS or chips, et cetera.

So that is the first piece of what the Lobito Corridor does.

The reason the mining industry is so important in this is because by booking capacity in this rail, it makes it more financeable, more commercial. Nothing in what is happening in the Lobito Corridor is aid. It is all about making things commercial, financeable, and for-profit so that they’re actually sustainable for a long period of time and has the ability to have maintenance on it and so on.

So, getting the critical minerals out is not only an objective to help the United States diversify the supply chain, but it also means that now higher-standard companies from around the world are coming back into the industry in Africa for the first time. So, for many years, the higher-value companies were leaving, and instead, the mining was being done by companies who perhaps have lower standards across — whether it’s labor, environment, transparency, corruption — and now you’re starting to see higher-end companies with a better set of standards. KoBold is a good example of that. There are others now that are in final negotiations to come back into countries that they left only recently.

But once we wanted to work on the corridor, the President wanted to make sure we weren’t doing this on one issue alone of critical minerals, but rather how do we use this to raise GDP and support for countries along the corridor. What you’ll see is, beyond the investment that I just discussed, like Africell and the others, laying fiber-optic cable in Angola and along the rail to expand Internet connectivity, faster connectivity across a larger swath of land.

Countries that are land-locked, like Zambia and DRC, to a large degree, have a hard time raising their ability to feed themselves and to bring products to not only international markets, but even to their neighbors.

So, the rail suddenly opens up the ability to deliver commodities and food stuffs and equipment into — all the way to eastern Congo and Zambia. Both countries, Zambia and DRC, have fresh water, have arable land, and yet are importers of food.

What you’ll see in this facility that the President is going to go to, where the roundtable is going to be Carrinho, is the company that has built silos for storage so that you can get food crops into cold storage so they can last longer, which means that he is able to go to farmers across Angola and say, “Anything that you can farm, I will purchase,” and then be able to deliver. That has reduced the dependency of Angola already on certain products from a 100 percent dependency on imports to near zero and expanding.

So we’re working with — the U.S. government with Carrinho. How do you expand that into the broader region, into Zambia, into DRC, so that along the rail, now, if you’re in Zambia and you have the Zambezi River that has an enormous amount of fresh water, and yet they are importing food — if the agriculture there can be developed from small farms to large farms, and be able to sell into this corridor, we’re not only expanding it for critical minerals, but suddenly this corridor is now solving food security concerns across the corridor.

So this is the overview of why the President has gone not only all the way to Angola, but all the way to Lobito. And it’s a major investment for the U.S. The PGI initiative that we’ve talked to you about before is an initiative that is the leader in this.

Under this presidency, we’ve already spent, in this corridor alone, nearly $4 billion, but that’s just U.S. There’s a lot of other participants in this. The EU is coming in. The Italian government has provided, I think, $320 million of investment. The Africa Finance Corporation, as well as the Africa Development Bank, are all part of this and growing.

So, this is going to be a multibillion-dollar investment in lasting infrastructure that will not only not only build up these businesses, but bring about a change in attitude that the President mentioned in his public remarks today of increasing the transparency, increasing the standards of labor, increasing the environmental protection standards, all that have been — really, this continent has suffered enormously from investments that have not cared about any of those things and has taken the resources out and left behind no better economies, no advanced communities.

And so, the idea behind this corridor is that it will ensure that it doesn’t only come to take resources, but rather build up GDP, build up communities, build up towns, and increase the level of economic development for the towns and the communities around these businesses, as well as the country as a whole, while not adding crushing debt terms the way they have with other investors.

I will stop there.

MODERATOR: Great. With that, we’ll take a few questions, and we’re hoping to keep it focused on the visit tomorrow.

Q So, as far as just the rail project in particular, the big kind of new financial commitment is the AFC announcement, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So, DFC, we haven’t formally announced it; we’ve talked about the (inaudible). But DFC, the Development Finance Corporation in the United States, has approved a $553 million package. And I won’t speak to what the AFC will announce tomorrow. That’s up to them.

Q Gotcha. And is that specifically for phase two?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That’s for phase two.

So what we did was the United States came in with phase one at $553 million, and that was good enough for the two European companies that are building the rail and operating it, in addition to us helping them get secured usage commitments of the rail. That’s at phase one. Once the world saw that we were serious about this, it sort of paved the way for everyone to be like, “Oh, this thing is actually for real.” And then they came in and supported, specifically after the President made a big push at the G7 last year that unlocked a lot of financing from others.

Q Can I just look forward to AGOA? What is the future of this rail corridor and AGOA? I know that’s up to Congress. But do you see that some of these countries that are eligible for AGOA — Zambia, Congo, and Angola — could expand their AGOA exports? And do you have a roadmap for that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think there’s no doubt that should Congress expand AGOA, that this would be a benefit. I think the point here is that it would support these countries’ ability to increase their exports, and will allow them to be not only connected to global markets for exports, but actually to other African markets. So, there is a critical need for Africa to be connected not only to the world and to itself. And so, the President spoke about it today. We talk a lot about it in aviation, where sometimes you have to fly very far away to go to your neighboring country, but having the critical infrastructure.

So, hopefully AGOA can strengthen it. But this is not reliant on AGOA. AGOA will just be a increase in support for it.

Q Right. But AGOA is, like, value-added products, and this rail line is going to bring in, like, raw materials. Is this is going to give an opportunity for these countries to export value-added products?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So I disagree with the premise that it’s for raw products. There is — right now, only raw product is coming out. But I think what this rail does — an increased — in order to get to higher-value products, you need a few things. One of them is affordable and reliable and abundant energy. So, the build-out of the energy system allows you to then build the value added.

And I fully expect — we are already discussing with companies that are looking — I can’t announce it for them, but I would assume in the next weeks and months you’ll see some of the companies, the mining companies and other service companies, building out infrastructure to create value added. So instead of just the raw material, you’ll be ultimately exporting something. Now, I can’t tell you how far up the chain it will be refined, but I think there’s a lot of refinement to be done here in Africa.

Q And on just the fi- — so the investment from the DFC, it’s $553 million?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

Q That’s what’s coming tomorrow?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That is part of the — when we talk about the over $3 billion of support in Angola, and then I think nearly or over $4 billion in total for the Lobito Corridor, the President is going to announce tomorrow an additional $600 million in financing for projects for the broader Lobito Corridor, and that takes you above the
number that we had talked about today.

Q Got it. So, additional $600 million is what (inaudible).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. But that’s not
just for rail. That’s for the broader — and not just in Angola; that’s for the broader corridor.

Q So that’s separate from the 553 (inaudible).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct.

Q Yeah, I just want to make sure that they’re separate.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The $553 million is for the rail itself, a phase one rail in Angola. And then there are all kinds of things that we’re doing to support the broader corridor. Some of that’s what I talked about — Africell, Sun Africa, the feasibility study that we have to do for the phase two. Phase two is essentially building the entire rail system inside Zambia, which we are pretty far along on the planning of that. We expect shovels on the ground by the end of 2025 or early 2026. And there’s a lot of work that goes into identifying routes. Do a brand-new greenfield rail.

So the part from Angola all the way to east Congo is already being used. And then phase two is much more expansive, more ambitious. I should say there’s a phase three, which is then connecting it onwards all the way to Tanzania. That’s why the vice president of Tanzania is going to be here.

Q Okay, got it. And then, just wanted to — can you just talk about what this financing looks like going forward, with President-elect Trump coming in? And the dollars that have already been allocated to the project, can you kind of detail how it’s being spent, how much has been spent already? Like, I don’t know if you can kind of break that down.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So, I think the most important way to tie the two ends of your question is to say that the money that I’m referring to, most of it has gone through the process already. It’s been approved. The ones that require congressional notification have already been congressionally notified. They have finished their notification periods. They have not had any holds. There is broad bipartisan support for these projects.

And, look, at the end of the day, if you want to talk about living in an era of global competition, specifically with China, this Lobito Corridor is the heart of that. You can’t stand up and say I want to compete with China — not adversary, but compete with China — and not support what’s happening here, which is why I have every confi- — which is why it’s had bipartisan support already across Congress, and why I have every expectation that when the new administration comes in, they will — I don’t know how many things they will continue around the world, but I believe they will continue this project because it is good for American national security, it’s good for American economic security, and it builds on what a Republican-controlled Congress during the Trump administration, which is to build that, that created the DFC for this kind of purpose.

And we’ve had Republican staff, Republican members of Congress, senators who’ve been to Angola, DRC recently. These are members who’ve never traveled to Angola before, but this is why they’re coming here. So, I think there is quite a bit of support for this.

Q Sorry, just a clarifying question. The $553 million, that’s for phase one, not two?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct.

Q How long will this take? You said that the Tanzania point — I mean, shovels in the ground for part of it, starting in 2025.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Zambia. Zambia.

Q Right. And then, the Tanzania is like the long goal. And right now, there’s a portion that’s already being used to east Congo.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. This is all going to be in pieces. So, nothing is going to — this is not a “we wait until a big reveal and something all works.”

So we had a test cargo a couple months ago that went from east DRC all the way to Lobito. It doesn’t mean the rail is fully operational yet, but we wanted to see how it works. So that’s how I can tell you how many hours it takes, because we had that test cargo. That will, probably in the next year or so, will be — the work inside Angola will be complete, next year-ish. Right around that time is when the shovel is going to go in the ground in Zambia. Again, the feasibility study is now done, and now we have to do all the other project preparation, which, again, is expensive and takes time.

There’s already pieces of rail that exist if you go further east. So now it’s about, Patrick, how do you make sure that all the rails connect to each other. So you don’t have to build the whole way to Tanzania; you just have to build the spurs that interlink the rail that already exists all the way to the port in Tanzania. So, that will give you that — what the President said in his comments at the Slavery Museum — of connecting for the very first time a truly transcontinental (inaudible).

Q What’s the prediction for that, for it being (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t know. I think it’s hard for me to make that prediction. I think if all goes well, which construction projects sometimes do and sometimes don’t, I would say Zambia would then take probably two, three years to complete, and then — but some of the rest of the work could happen simultaneous, concurrently with the Zambia work. The Chinese are involved in a TAZARA section, which is they’re partnered with Zambia and Tanzania on part of that. And so that will connect into this. So we’ll have a lot of different pieces to this rail.

So my guess is, by the end of the decade, you can have a really fully functioning rail that goes coast to coast.

Q And do you hear frequently from these countries that you’ve been working with on the Lobito Corridor that they don’t have secure investments from their other investment partners? That’s been a big theme of what we’ve been hearing about. Without explicitly saying the names of the other partners, (inaudible) more reliable?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m sorry, who are the other partners?

Q China and Russia. That the U.S. would be a more reliable investor. That’s what the U.S. is offering. Do you hear from these leaders that some of these other investments are falling short; that they need somebody to come in and be reliable?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think that the investment from the United States versus from others, it’s not about more or less, it’s about different. We hear a lot about others coming in with very large checks, build a lot of stuff, but that is with high interest rates on the debt, the terms are really difficult, and it doesn’t come with any of the commitments to their society.

And so, what you see happen — and again, the President mentioned in the speech today — 10 years, 5 years later, 10 years later, you go to a country, whether it’s here in Sub-Saharan Africa or in Southeast Asia or South Asia, or even Latin America — I mean, look what’s happened. The resource is gone, right? They’ve taken it out. But there’s — the debt in the early years is low interest rates, and then it expands with time. In some cases, it’s over 11 percent, which is crushing. And there’s no support for the local communities where these investments are.

Now, politicians today are wise enough to know that “my predecessor left me this debt and a community that is anti-investment,” because they’ve seen that their kids are working in these facilities, or they’re getting paid a dollar a day. They know their drinking water is worse because nobody is providing security into making sure that they’re not polluting all the waterways or moving rivers.

So what they’re looking for is a different kind of investment that guarantees the opposite of all those things. And what I hear from heads of state, you know, consistently, is, “I don’t want the other investments, but if I have to choose between a Chinese investment and no investment, I will choose a Chinese investment every day of the week, or the Russian.”

So if you give us a choice, we’ll be there. And what the President committed at the African Leaders Summit was to create a different offer, and that’s what he charged me with trying to implement, and that’s what he’s done. And that’s why President Lourenço said today in his opening comments to the President, “You lived up to your word. You gave us your word at the leaders conference, and you’ve actually lived up to it with what you’ve done.”

Q Can I follow up on something you just said, that the hope is that this will attract, like, higher-quality investments. But how — is there a mechanism in place to verify that the companies that will take part in this project, like actually have higher standards regarding, like, labor rights, environment, transparency, et cetera?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, there is. I mean, the whole point of the U.S. participating in this is that part of the DFC or Ex-Im Bank or MCC or USAID, any of these organizations in the U.S. government, they vet the companies for that kind of action, and not just before they give the loan facilities or debt facilities, but rather during the project itself.

Second, with the fact that the U.S. government is saying we are effectively putting the American flag on these projects, we have a responsibility. And so, there’s a continued U.S. — you know, shining a light on these projects to make sure that it is done in the proper manner.

MODERATOR: We have time for just a couple more.

Q You know, I know this was supposed to come earlier, and the hurricane sort of derailed everything, but is there a fear that this is coming so late in the administration that even though this is, you know, good work that’s going to certainly have a lasting impact, that it’s going to be overshadowed by the President leaving office?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t think so at all. Look, the President was supposed to be here earlier, but I don’t think it makes any difference.

What’s being highlighted here, guys, is the — you know, we’re so used to the cynical of “government comes and we tout.” This is, like, literally, a transformative initiative for the United States that I think it’s not about whether the Trump administration is going to continue it, which I have very little doubt, but rather, I think this is the playbook for administrations to come.

There are a lot of things that we’ve done around the world. I mean, PEPFAR is, I think, George W. Bush, and we’re still talking about what a great initiative that was. Everybody thinks the DFC was a very good thing globally.

So, yes, from administration to administration, some things get carried on. So, I truly believe that this is something transformative.

But look at the politics of this. And I don’t want people to miss this: Nobody — when I came this morning to the palace, before the arrival ceremony, the ministers that I was talking to, the one thing that every single one of them separately said to me, “What we’ve been talking about is that no one in this country, at our age, would have believed that the United States would be here, the president of the United States would be here,” based on the relationship that we once had. We weren’t just on the other side of the Cold War. We were very much on the other side of the Cold War. During a civil war here then, we were sort of a player.

Q It was like a hot war with Cuba, a proxy war.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. This was basically a proxy hot war with the Soviet Union.

So to go from that — and, by the way, that — yes, we recognize, you know, reestablished relations in 1993. But when I came here, you know, and started talking to the Angolan government just three, four years ago, the relationship was not this. Today, this is one of our strongest relationships in all of Sub-Saharan Africa. It’s one of our best friends. President Lourenço has been one of our truest allies. That is unimaginable (inaudible). It didn’t happen because we decided to go the usual route of aid. It happened — or political promises. It happened because they could see that we were making promises and we were keeping them at every step of the way.

The fact that we made over $3 billion of investments here that are meaningful investments to people in this country is what drove it.

And so, the blueprint here is: If you get more — with aid, you get a certain amount; you’ve done the right thing. You should continue to do it. But the investment strategy that many presidents have talked about trying to — how do you go from aid to trade, we’ve heard that from many presidents. But the ability to actually do it is so different. And that’s why I don’t take the cynical view of, “Oh, it’s the end of the administration, didn’t have to come, it’s not going to matter.” On the contrary. The one thing that I hear from Republicans consistently since the election is, “Can you talk to us more about this? How do we continue this?” People asking for what kind of jobs they need to create for this and so on.

So it’s not just my hard-to-hide enthusiasm for this project, but it is that I truly believe that this is a blueprint for the future.

And, by the way, we’ve copied this in other parts of the world. When was the last time we took something we did in Africa and then copied it elsewhere? We created a corridor in the Philippines that is entirely — together with Japan — just with — you know, the Luzon Corridor — just based on this.

And I think if we had more time — I think we’re trying to do the same thing in East Africa, in Liberia and in Ghana, building out data centers. I mean, that’s the competition with China. It’s not getting China — by the way, it’s not about getting China out of Africa. On the contrary. I would love China to invest more. But hopefully, when countries say, “Wait a minute, I can go to the United States and there’ll be no child labor, they’ll get higher wages, more investment in my country, and I won’t have crushing debt,” and tell the Chinese, “If you want to compete, give me a better offer.”

And so China, then, is investing in Africa at higher standards. Great. We’re not going to close the infrastructure gap in Africa with the United States and the G7 alone. I can promise you that. So having China here would be great, but not the way they’ve been doing business (inaudible).

Q Just one quick one. Has there been any progress in finding a buyer for that Congolese mine that was being sold to a Chinese buyer?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Chemaf?

Q Yes.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So, one, they announced that — there was some announcement that it was sold, and then there was an announcement, “No, we didn’t sell it.” I think that the Congolese — you’d have to ask them, but they would like to make sure that their industry and their economy is diversified. They are having discussions with other companies. So it’s really not my place to speak for them.

MODERATOR: Thank you all. Thank you very much.

The post Background Press Gaggle by a Senior Administration Official on the Lobito Trans-Africa Corridor appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Luanda, Angola

2:45 P.M. CVT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just one note at the top before I hand it over. I know you’ve all seen the president’s statement on the pardon he signed for his son, Hunter. The president’s statement was quite comprehensive, but I’ll take your questions on this after my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, previews the president’s trip to Angola and takes your question on foreign policy news of the day. And after — after that, we’ll — we’ll continue.

Go ahead, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

MR. KIRBY: Just two things.

One, I think you may have seen the statement issued by the first lady and the president following reports of the death of Omer Neutra. This is a young, 21-year-old Israeli soldier who was apparently killed on — or during the 7th of October attacks, and only now have the Israelis been able to confirm his death. So, it’s a terrible, devastating loss for the family. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them. Our condolences go out to them.

As you may remember, the — they were two of the parents that the president had a chance to — to see personally in the Oval Office just about a month ago.

So, terrible news and wanted to pass that along. You’ll see that condolence letter.

Now, if I could just jump real quick to what we’re doing here on the trip. We’re obviously en — en route to Luanda right now, where President Biden will have a couple of days of several important meetings and discussions.

It’s a historic visit, not just because he’s — it’s the first time a U.S. president has visited Angola, but because it’s really emblematic of President Biden’s priority to strengthen global alliances and partnerships and, really, of our strategic approach to — when it comes to U.S.-Africa policy.

We have absolutely transformed this relationship, working on a range of critical issues together. Angola has been a strategic partner in working to improve security in Eastern DRC, and it’s also helped to advance the Lobito trans-Africa corridor, which, when complete, will connect Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, making global supply chains more resilient, creating more economic opportunities for communities across the continent and the United States and, quite frankly, around the world too.

The Lobito Corridor epitomizes the model of U.S. international investment and engagement that the president has championed through his signature initiative: the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment — or “PGI,” as you know it.

Since President Biden and G7 leaders launched PGI back in ‘22, the United States has mobilized more than $80 billion in investments through federal financing, grants, and leveraged private-sector investments.

In the Lobito Corridor alone, the United States has committed some $3 billion, and we’re just one member. The EU, the Africa Finance Corporation have all chipped in to many, many mil- — many millions mo- — of dollars more.

You can expect that the president will discuss all of these and other important issues when he meets with President Lourenço in Luanda later tomorrow.

And then, also tomorrow, he’s going to get a chance to deliver some remarks that both acknowledges the horrific history of slavery that has connected our two nations but also looks forward to a future predicated on a shared vision that benefits both our peoples.

He’ll also have the chance to meet separately with members of congress, members of the Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, and members of the Advisory Council on Africa Diaspora Engagement, which he established during the Africa Leaders’ Summit December of ‘22.

And then, as we’re looking forward, we see this trans-Africa — Lobito trans-Africa corridor — that project as a real game changer for U.S. engagement in Africa. And that’s why, on Wednesday, he’s going to have a chance to go see for himself, talk to leaders of the countries situated along that corridor — Angola, the DRC, Zambia, Tanzania. And during those conversations, he’ll underscore his vision for stronger U.S.-Africa relationships and greater opportunities.

And I think, with that, I can stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Will.

Q Okay. I’ve got two on the pardon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no. Can you stick to foreign policy? If not, we’ll —

Q All right. I’ll do one — one there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If not, we’ll go to somebody else.

Q But I don’t want to run out of time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q On Syria, Jake suggested on Sunday that this suggests that — that the — the rebel offensive meant that maybe Syrian allies were distracted, which, you know, might not be such a terrible thing for U.S. foreign policy. But it also seems like there might be a chance that things are really destabilized, and there might be a big- — a bigger chance for, like, a global conflict.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. We’re watching this really closely. And it’s too soon to know how this is all going to shake out.

As Jake said, it clearly is — it demonstrates to us that — that Assad’s biggest backers — Hezbollah, Iran, Russia — they’re all distracted and, quite frankly, we believe they’re weakened.

Now, whether that is the connective tissue here that means there’s going to be a big change in Syria, we just don’t know.

As — as Jake also pointed out, the group that’s moving in on Aleppo is a designated terrorist group by the United States. So, these are not — these are not good folks.

So, we’re — we’re going to watch this closely, but it’s — it’s really too soon to know what kind of impact it’s going to have across the country —

Q John, do you have any reaction —

MR. KIRBY: — or in the region.

Q John, do you have any reaction to some of the comments by Ukraine’s Zelenskyy over the past couple of days, kind of hinting at a phase post this hot stage of the war, talking about the idea of NATO membership in exchange for giving up the territory that they’ve already lost to — to Russia, diplomatic solutions inst- — to retaking some territory? Does any of that make sense? And — and are we getting closer to the end of this conflict?

MR. KIRBY: You know, Trevor, since the very beginning, we’ve made — we’ve made very, very clear that how — if and however this war ends, it’s got to end in a way that is commensurate with the — the aspirations of the Ukrainian people and, quite frankly, with President Zelenskyy and the policies that — and — and pursuits that he is — that he’s after. He gets to decide if and when he’s ready to negotiate, and he gets to decide what, if anything, he’s willing to negotiate.

Our job has been and will continue to be throughout the rest of this administration making sure that we’re putting him and his army in the best position of strength we possibly can so that when negotiations begin, he — he has leverage, he has some — some power at the table. And that’s what we’re focused on.

Q And one more. Over the Thanksgiving holiday, the president was seen exiting a bookshop with a copy of a book by a Columbia historian, Rashid Khalidi, who has referred to the Palestinian conflict essentially as being an ethnic cleansing operation. Why did the president choose to read that book at this point in his presidency?

MR. KIRBY: Look, when you say something like that, it reminds me of what Mark Twain said, that the — the — a man who refuses to read good books has no advantage over a man who cannot or won’t read those books.

I can’t speak to why the president made that particular purchase. Wasn’t with him. Haven’t had a chance to ask him. But he reads broadly, and he’s fascinated by history and the lessons of history and where that can take us going forward.

So, it doesn’t surprise me that he would go into a bookstore and get a book of history, particularly about the Middle East, to try to imbibe and to try to keep learning.

I mean, he really does believe in speaking, learning, thinking broadly, and that’s what that tells me.

Q And he was — he was actually reading it? He’s actually reading it?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Anita.

Q Can we talk about Angola and the security cooperation aspect of this trip? What are some of the priorities for this administration? What are the areas that Angola has identified?

MR. KIRBY: I mean, I me- — I mentioned a big one, which is getting this Lobito Corridor and this — this rail corridor, economic corridor completed. nd it’s going to take years, but there’s already been a lot of work went into it.

And it’s going to l- — reduce, literally by days, the amount of time that it takes to move crops and goods from one side of the continent to the — to the other. It’s going to create incredible economic opportunities here on the continent, and it will help also continue to drive towards this clean energy transition that — that he knows President Lourenço is very interested in.

Q So, the average Angolan is, like, 19 years old. They don’t relate to, like, this cold war sort of, balance of power struggle on the continent that we’re seeing with China and the U.S. And, likewise, this colonial narrative of exporting raw materials from the continent doesn’t resonate with them. What are you offering to them — young Angolans?

MR. KIRBY: I’d say there is no cold war on the continent. We’re not asking countries to choose between us and Russia and China. We’re simply looking for reliable, sustainable, verifiable investment opportunities that the people of Angola and the people of the continent can rely on, because too many countries have relied on spotty investment opportunities and are now racked by debt.

And what the president is trying to put forward with the — with the other leaders of the G7 is a series of programs and opportunities that allow them to build out their infrastructure, improve their economic livelihoods — and the livelihoods of those young people, by the way; give them opportunities to rise and grow and develop without having to be racked by debt.

Q The trip is coming towards the end of President Biden’s administration. You touched on China and Russia. But do you think this trip is enough to, I guess, establish that
level of, you know, interest that the U.S. has in the African continent? Like, the trip is coming so late towards the end, so is this essentially, you know, showing African nations that the U.S., really, you know, is serious about committing to —

MR. KIRBY: I mean, since — since we launched the summit — the African Leaders Summit in ‘22, there have been
more than 20 Cabinet-level officials that have visited the continent. The president will be, obviously, the last of the administration to do that, but he has been preceded by a whole heck of a lot of travel — travel which, by the way — visits, which, by the way, delivered some 40-million-plus dollars of investment and — and assistance into Africa.

So, I — I just kind of push back on the premise that this is sort of a Johnny-come-lately trip at the — at the very end. This is something he’s been focused on since he became president of the United States, and he’s grateful for the opportunity to round out his time as president with a — with a trip to Angola.

Q Can you — are you able to touch on what some of the deliverables might be for President Biden this trip? Are you able to kind of highlight what we can expect in terms of, I don’t know, investment numbers? Is there anything you can share on that?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of him and his announcement. You’ll hear more from him on this tomorrow. But I think you’ll hear from him — you’ll hear him talk about additional U.S. commitments to the Lobito Corridor, additional U.S. commitments to global health, additional U.S. commitments to clean energy transition and climate programs here, as well as people-to-people exchanges.

I mean, I — he’ll have a whole raft of things — range of things that he will be speaking to about in terms of current and future U.S. commitment to the continent.

Q John, with the limited amount of time that you have left in office at this point, can you give an assessment of the likelihood of a ceasefire deal in Gaza and Israel?

MR. KIRBY: We’re working on it every single day. And I wish I could give you odds. I can’t do that. But I can tell you, without a doubt, 100 percent of our energy and effort is being put to try to getting this. And it’s really — the — the main stumbling block continues to be Hamas.

And we believe that as they look at the world right now, they ought to see just how isolated and weakened they are. Iran is no longer there for them. Hezbollah is no longer there for them. You know, the — the Houthis aren’t doing anything materially to support what they’re trying to do. They’ve lost their leader, Mr. Sinwar. It’s time for Hamas to come to the table. And we’re going to keep — we’re going to keep doing that.

We’re working with ta- — Qatar, Egypt, Turkey. Even as we speak, there are active conversations that our team is having with them to see if we can get this on the table. There’s no reason why we — we can’t do it. We just have to — we just have to bring it home.

Q John, on Lebanon. Is it concerning to you that Israel has continued to strike Lebanon even after the ceasefire deal was agreed to? Does that raise any concerns about the deal coming to fruition?

MR. KIRBY: So, we are seeing some sporadic strikes in the last few days. This was expected. This is why — I mean, you’re talking about a war that’s been raging now for, actually, many years, if you think about it — certainly, since October 7th. We went from hundreds of rocket attacks to basically zero by Hezbollah and dozens of air strikes by Israel to one or two per day. So, there’s been a dramatic reduction in the violence.

We did put in place a mechanism to actually work out and deconflict and to try to stop these attacks. That mechanism is in — in full force and is working.

There’s a U.S. Army general who is basing himself out of the embassy in Beirut as part of this mechanism process, as we announced that we would do. And that’s — that’s ongoing.

Q What is that mechanism? Can you expand on what that is?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, we have a — in Amos, we have a civilian and, in the military, we have a one-star general who are sort of operating as our connective tissue to the parties to try to monitor and keep the ceasefire implemented. And that deconfliction process, that system is in place.

So, again, largely speaking — sorry —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. It’s okay.

MR. KIRBY: Largely speaking, though, the ceasefire is — is holding.

Q I’ll continue on — on the cease- — or, on Lebanon. So, as far — other than the fact that Hezbollah is severely weakened now, what makes this ceasefire different in terms of its chances of succeeding compared to all the other previous Lebanon ceasefires?

MR. KIRBY: Well, again, we believe we have a mechanism in place, a system in place to monitor it and to implement that. And, again, so far, it largely is doing that.

Q Has it stopped any Israeli strikes?

MR. KIRBY: There have been sporadic strikes. No question about it. As the president said when he announced it, Israel has the right — inherent right of self-defense, so I’ll let them speak to what they’re targeting.

But we’ve gone from, you know, dozens of strikes, you know, down to one a day, maybe two a day. That’s a tremen- — tremendous reduction, and we’re going to keep trying to see what we can do to — to get it down to zero so that both sides are fully implementing it.

But this is a — this is the — only a — what? — a week or so old. So, there’s a lot more work to do.

Q Is that — is that due to the mechanism working? As in, is the U.S., through this mechanism, restraining Israel?

MR. KIRBY: I think it’s part — it’s part — it’s part and parcel of the mechanism working, but also the leaders on both sides are committed to this. They are in a — both — both sides in a different place after months and months of going after one another, and we think they both are, you know, still committed to this.

Q Can I ask one about Lobito? On the Lobito Corridor project. Obviously, Trump has a very different foreign policy view from this administration, so how — how Trump-proof is this project, this investment? And, you know, could — could he come in and, you know, if this doesn’t work with his “America First” vision — he obviously thinks that there is a cold war ongoing on the continent, so if this doesn’t jive with that, could — could he — could we see this whole thing fall apart?

MR. KIRBY: I’ll let President Trump and his team speak for what they will or won’t do once they get into office.

We are still in office. We still have 50 days. This is a — a key, major development not just for the United States and our foreign policy goals in Africa but for Africans, for, you know, the countries across the continent, particularly those involved in the — in the corridor itself, those four countries. And it will bring real opportunity to them.

So, our sense is — and you’ll see this for yourself when you all go there the day after tomorrow — that the leaders of those four countries are absolutely dedicated to seeing this through, because they see the value to their young people, to their population, to their economies. And that’s what we’re really trying to do, is drive a lasting investment opportunity that truly has a generational effect on — on prosperity on the continent.

Q So, this can and will go forward — sorry — witho- — without U.S. investment if U.S. investment is pulled?

MR. KIRBY: I can’t speak for those leaders and what they will do or won’t do, and I certainly don’t want to hy- — hypothesize about what President Trump might or might not do.

It’s our fervent hope that as the new team comes in and takes a look at this that they see the value too, that they see how it will help drive a more secure, more prosperous, more economically stable continent.

Q Speaking of there being only one president at a time, we saw that Canada’s premier met with Donald Trump. Did he speak to President Biden? Has Mexico’s president engaged with President Biden over this debate over tariffs? And do you feel that’s appropriate?

MR. KIRBY: I’m — I’m not aware of any follow-on conversations that President Biden had with Prime Minister Trudeau since his meeting with — with President-elect Tr- — Trump on this. And is it appropriate for foreign leaders to speak to an incoming president-elect? Yeah, of course it is.

Okay.

Q Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY: All right. Over to you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Okay. Go ahead, Will. I know you had two.

Q Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. No, no. It’s okay. I just wanted to —

Q So, two questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — to give the Admiral and NSC their time.

Q Fair enough. Fair enough.

Topic of the day: You — you have said repeatedly yourself since the election, the president has said for months no pardon was coming. I just — you know, I wanted to ask you: Could those statements now be seen as lies from the American people? Is there really a credibility issue here, given now this announcement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all, one of the things that the president always believes is to be truthful to the American people. That is something that he always truly believes.

And if you see the end of his — I’m — I assume that you’ve read his — his statement — and you look at the end of that statement, and he actually says that in the first line in the last paragraph and — and respects the thinking and how the American people will actually see this in his decision-making.

And I would encourage everyone to read in full the president’s statement. I think he lays out his thought process. He lays out how he came to this decision. He came to this decision this weekend. So, let’s be very clear about that.

He says it himself. It’s in his voice. He said he came to this decision this weekend, and he said he wrestled with this and — because he believes in the justice system, but he also believes that the (inaudible) politics infected the process and led to a — a miscarriage of justice. This is his words. I’m just repeating what the president said.

He also said that no reasonable person, if you are looking at this in a good-faith way, if you are looking at the facts of Hunter’s cases and can reach — you can’t reach any other conclusion, right? And what we have seen — and not just us; there’s other people who have commented on the president’s actions in the last 24 hours — I’ve lost track of time — and could see that Hunter was si- — singled out and — because he — his last name was Biden, because he was the president’s son. That’s what we saw.

And so, the president believed enough is enough, and the president took action. And he also believes that they tried to break his son in order to break him. That’s what we saw.

And this — again, I am just repeating what the president said. I think the statement in full really lays out his thought process. He said that he came to this decision this weekend, and — and he wrestled with it. It was not — it wasn’t an easy decision to make.

Q But, Karine —

(Cross-talk.)

Q So, when — when he says —

Q One — one other —

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

Q Sorry. Just a re- — just real quick on that. The — the two of them were together this weekend. Did the president and Hunter discuss this possibility? Did they talk about this happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is he made this decision hi- — this weekend. He made it himself. I don’t have anything else to discuss beyond that.

Q Karine —

Q Do you know if he talked about it with Hunter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I just don’t have anything to discuss. I — I’ve been pretty consistent in — in not talking about private conversations that the — he’s had with his family. I just don’t have anything to say besides the president made this decision this weekend, as he said in his statement, and he made this deci- — this decision himself. Once he made s- — this desic- — this decision, he shared it with his senior
staff.

Go ahead.

Q What changed, though? What ch- — the — the reasons y- — he laid out in his statement, if we assume those to be correct, that’s been correct. The — those are not changes that occurred this weekend. So, what changed his mind this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again, it’s in — it’s in his statement. He wrestled with it. He thought about it. And he tr- — he believed and what he saw was that his son was singled out. And so, he made the decision. And once he made the decision, which was this weekend, he decided to move forward with it and not to — not to wait.

And, you know, I think he truly believed enough is enough. This is — this is — we have seen, in last five years or so, the president’s political opponents say this. Not even — I mean, this is not the president saying it; they said it themselves. They were going after Hunter Biden.

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, he made this decision.

Q So, Karine, when the — when the president says that — that the justice system is “infected” with politics, how deep is the rot? And how much of the blame does the president take on himself for the fact that his — his own Justice Department, his appointees, have allowed to — have — have allowed it to get this bad?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me just — le- — and I’m going to get to your answers, but I do want to just share a couple of things from — for example, former Attorney General Eric Holder said, “No U.S. attorney would have charged this case given the underlying facts. After a five-year investigation, the facts as discovered only made that clear. Had his name been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been fundamentally and more fairly a decl- — a declination. Pardon warranted.”

Former U.S. attorney to the Eastern District of Michigan, Barbara McQuade, said, “Pardon of Hunter Biden is the best interest of justice. Based on the facts, most federal prosecutors would have declined to charge him. The botched mis- — misdemeanor guilty plea and sentence of the diversion were a tell that the special counsel had the same assessment.”

One more. Former deputy chief of — of the Criminal Division Southern District of New York said, “As SDNY Criminal Division deputy chief, I was responsible for approving charges and non-prosecution requests. I wouldn’t have approved Hunter Biden’s tax or gun cases. If Hunter’s last name wasn’t Biden, I don’t believe he would have ch- — he would have been charged. His pardon is justified.”

And the president says it — I’m going to pull out his statement — to your — to your question. And this — this plays into what I just read with the SDNY deputy chief, which is, look, there was a deal on the table — “a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the courtroom, with a number” — this is the president’s voice — “with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” This is the president saying this.

Q Yeah, he’s saying his own Justice Department is broken, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He believe- — he believes — he’s — he believes in the Justice Department. He believes that there was —

Q After saying all of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He believes —

Q He believes in the Justice Department?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is his words. He said this. This is the president saying this.

Q He just said it’s “infected” with politics.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — he believes — “I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively and unfair[ly] prosecuted.”

Q So, how deep is the rot?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not —

Q How many selective —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I —

Q — prosecutions are there at the DOJ?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I — what I can speak to — what I can speak to is this particular case, which is Hunter Biden, who has the last name of the president, who, I just said, there were political opponents who were very clear and very vocal about going after his son. And I just laid out — and there’s more — multiple people who are part of that — who are part of that system — right? — who have either worked in the justice system or currently do so, and they have been very clear on how they feel about this particular case — the cases against Hunter Biden.

Q So, can other — can other —

Q But, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t —

Q — the judge was also clear in this case. The judge said it wasn’t political pressure when it came to the plea deal. They said this was a process issue, that you basically had two agreements in one and that you can’t have side deal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q There were basic questioning —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — in this case that both lawyers could not really answer the questions of.

So, the president, in his statement, is he not undermining the judge and a judicial system that he promised would be independent? The judge in this case did not say —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on.

Q — it was political pressure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I — and I just talked about the SDNI [SDNY] Criminal Division deputy chief who said he was responsible for th- — for approving the charges and not prosecuting requests. I just also quoted him and what he said, right?

And there are others who have said — former White House counsel said, “If — if I were his White House counsel, I would encourage him to pardon his son. The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden — Hunter Biden pardon.”

Former Watergate Assistant Special Prosecutor Jill Weinberg: “This was one of those cases that called out for clemency. Hunter Biden, first of all, would not ever be prosecuted for the gun crime but for his last name. Hunter has now been sober for many years, and this — and this is a time when it is really appropriate to grant a clemency.”

Look —

Q Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the president — wait. Wait. Two things could be true. The president does believe in the justice s- — system and — and the Department of Justice, and he also believes that his son was singled out politically. And this is what we saw over and over and over again over the last couple of years.

And when his deal — that deal that — that fell apart, which the president said in his statement he thought would have been fair — the president said this — that the Desh- — the Department of Justice agreed with — he said if that had gone through, he believed it would have been fair. When that fell apart, his own political opponents just continued to revel in it.

And one of the reasons the president did the pardon is because they didn’t seem like — his political po- — opponents would let go of it. It didn’t seem like they would move on.

Q Is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, this is why this president took this action.

Q But is it the same argument —

Q Is the president seeking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, guys. Okay.

Q Karine —

Q Is the president seeking the resignation of the attorney general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

(Inaudible.)

Q Is — do you think this would have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into — into the election. It is a no. I can answer that. It is a no.

And what I can say —

Q It’s a no, this would not have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, would — what would have not happened?

Q The pardon would not have happened —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m not —

Q — if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it’s hap- — what I can speak to — where we are today. And so, I can’t speak to hypotheticals here.

Where we are today: The president made this decision over the weekend. He thought about it. He wrestled with it. And for him, he made this decision because he believed his son was being politically singled out.

Q But we’re wondering what changed his mind. And obviously, the election — in the statement he refers to “enough is enough.” He thinks that there could be further — it sounds like he thinks there could be further prosecution of Hunter under a Trump administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He didn’t — he didn’t believe that they would let up. Right? He didn’t think that they would — they would continue to go after his son. That’s what he believed.

And, look, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, to the original part of your question. The president wrestled with this decision. He made this decision this weekend. And he decided to move forward with pardoning his son.

Q But these systematic —

Q So, does the president believe now — does the president believe now and agree with President-elect Trump that the justice system has been weaponized for political purposes and that it needs r- — root — root and branch reform?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Read the president’s statement. Seriously, read the pr- — the president’s statement. He said he believes in the Department of Justice. He does. He says it in his statement.

He believes — he also believes that raw politics infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. He believes his son was unfairly targeted. He said that what his political opponents have done to my son — that’s his words — is cruel, and enough is enough.

He says he believes in the justice sy- — system. And I said both things —

Q But those are the same arguments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but — no, no, no, but —

Q — the Trump camp was making.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, both things — well, I — I’m not going to — I can only speak for — for this president. I’m not going to speak for anybody else. Bo- — both things could be true. Right? And that’s what he says.

He says that the Department of Justice — he believes in the Department of Justice. He also believes that, you know, politics infected the process here. It infected the process. And you saw that when the deal fell apart.

And let’s not forget, the Depart- — the Department of Justice agreed on that deal. The president said if that deal had moved forward, he thought it would be a fair — a fair process. And when that deal fell apart, his political opponents took credit for it. They took credit for it and didn’t seem like they were going to stop.

Q President-elect Trump has likened this to the case of the so-called January Sixers, the people who are in prison because of their role in January 6th. What do you think of that argument? And do you think that that’s a — a fair parallel that he believes he should —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we —

Q — pardon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Today, I’m going to talk about the pardon. We’ve been very clear about January 6th. The president has been clear about that. He has spoken to that many times before.

What we believe in this particular case is what is unprecedented is the way that his son was singled — singled out.

And this is not the first time a president has granted a pardon before sentended — sentencing. It’s not the first time a president has pardoned a family member. And it’s not the first time a president has pardoned conduct that occurred during a certain time of — time period.

We’ve been very clear where we stand on January 6th. I don’t have anything else to add, but —

Q But, Karine, what —

Q Do you —

Q Karine, what kind of precedent is this setting going forward for American families who, you know, don’t have the president as their dad? You know, is the president taking advantage of his position by doing this? Because not everyone, like I just said, has President Biden as their dad, who can, you know, do this — do this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me — let me go back to the last thing that the president said. He said, “For my entire career, I followed a simple principle: just to tell the American people the truth. They’ll be f- — fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe the justice system — I believe in the justice system, but I — as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. And once I made this decision this weekend, there was a no sen- — they were no — there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.”

And as I’ve stated, and I read a couple of — a couple of — a couple of quotes from folks who said, incor- — including Eric Holder, who said, “If his last name was Joe Smith, this would not have happened.” “This would not have happened.”

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: They targeted him — hold on. I’m answering this question. They targeted him because his last name was Biden.

And, again, I think the way the president ended his statement, I think, clearly states where his head — where he was at, how he feels about this process, how he feels about being truthful to the American people. And so, that’s why he put out the statement. And we encourage everybody to — to really take a look about this.

And the last line is, “I think the American people will understand a father and a president” — “why father and a president would come to this decision.”

Q Karine, the United States has more people in prison than any country on Earth. Some are facing a death penalty that the president himself said he would get rid of, has not gotten rid of.

Can we expect that other people who are in prison whose clemency petitions are sitting at the White House are going to have their cases see the same care and attention that the president gave his own son?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you know, when it comes to the criminal justice system and really making sure we get to a place where it’s equal and fair, this is a president has taken this very seriously, and you know that by executive actions that he took very early on in his administration.

And he understands what certain communities go through. He has been very clear about that. He has talked about that.

As it relates to pardon- — pardoning or any clemency, the president, as you know, at the end of the year, makes announcements. He’s thinking through that process very thoroughly.

There’s a process in place, obviously. And so, once — I’m not going to get ahead of — of the president on this. But you could expect more announcement, more par- — pardons and clemency at the end of — at the end of — at the end of this term.

Okay.

Q But, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — why was it the case that both you and the president said well after the plea deal fell apart that there wouldn’t be a pardon and now there is a pardon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’d refer you to his statement. He thought about this this weekend. This is a decision that he made this weekend. He agonized over it.

Q Were there any new details that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, what I can tell you is what the president said himself. He made this decision this weekend. And I think — again, encourage you to read the statement and — really, just the first paragraph and what he’s watched his son go through — an unfair process, being singled out.

And let’s not forget, even in the last two th- — parts of his first paragraph here says “people are almost never brought to trial on fenoly — felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.”

And so, he wrestled with it this weekend, and he made a decision this weekend on how to move forward with this. And so, I’ll leave it there.

Q So, was he not wrestling with it before this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can le- — tell you is that the president himself said he wrestled with it, and he made this decision this weekend.

(Cross-talk.)

Q If he was st- — if he was still — if he was still wrestling with this decision — I guess, two things. Is there anything in that statement that is a new detail in the case that would be a factor in him changing his mind here?

And then, two, if he was still wrestling with this — which, I mean, clearly he was — he wa- — like, we talked to the president’s allies; he was still wrestling with this decision — then why would he declare it off the table? Why would he say, “I’m not going to do this,” if, clearly, there was an intention to do this, unless you can point me to a new detail in the case for which he changed his mind?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He made this decision this weekend. That’s what I can tell you. He wrestled with it, and he made this decision this weekend.

It is a decision that he came to terms with and made it and shared it with all of you, obviously, by — by offering the — his son a pardon.

Q I guess what we’re struggling with is that — his statement basically is a contradiction. It says, “I believe in this system. Enough is enough.” I — I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I don’t think it’s a contradiction. I don’t. Two things could be true. You can believe in the Department of Justice system, and you could also believe that the process was infected politically. And that’s what the president says.

Remember, there was a deal on the table that the Department of Justice agreed on, and it fell apart. And his political opponents praised that deal falling apart.

And so, in that regard, yes, he believes in the Department of Justice and he believes in the system. But there was a — there was a political singl- — singling out of his son. And other people have said this. I just read through a bunch of folks who are — who are — who’ve been part of the justice system — if not currently, in the past — who have said — you know, I keep going back to what Eric Holder said, because he said if his last name was Joe Smith, he wouldn’t be going through this. His last name is Biden.

Q So, how do you fix that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, he went through this.

Q How do you fix that? How do you fix that problem?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is one case, because this is the son of the president. Right?

Q How do we make sure this never happens again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I’m not going to go into — into the future and — and how — and un- — and go- —

Q The president doesn’t have any systemic solutions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.) (Laughs.) Let me finish — let me finish my — my answer.

I just don’t have anything more beyond that. What I can speak to is this particular action that he’s took. What I can speak to is this — the decision that he made. And that’s where I’m going — that’s — that’s where I’m going to stay.

And — and I think — you know, I think that it will be very clear to the American people why he made this decision as a father, as a president. And we all saw — we all saw what was going on for the past couple of years when it came to Hunter Biden, when it came to the cases.

And so, the president took an action because of the pol- — how politically infected these cases were and what the political opponents — what his political opponents were trying to do. And if you look at the cases, there wouldn’t have — it wouldn’t have gone as far as it did. It wouldn’t have.

Go ahead.

Q You’re telling us that — you — you’ve been telling us that he has complete faith in the justice system, except for in the cases where his son was concerned, and in those cases, politics corrupted the system. But you can’t tell us any other instance in which the president believes that politics corrupted the justice system. Is this literally the only time that this has happened, or — or the — the limit of this problem, to get to Trevor’s question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, “If his name had been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been, fundamentally and more fairly, a dec- — a dec- — a declination. Pardon warranted.” That’s Eric Holder. It is because, from — from what I’ve just read to you, and from what other people, other experts, people who are smarter than I have said, because he wa- — he is Hunter Biden — his last name is Biden, that there were —

Q So, this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — actions — there were actions that were taken that were far and — and beyond. And so, they said pardon warranted, right? And I read a bunch of y- — I think I read almost all of them that I had for you to share about how people felt about this.

Again, “As a prosecutor, I doubt that these charges would ever have been brought against a guy named Hunter Smith. It was because he is the son of the president.” That’s state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aronberg. That’s what he said.

Q So, the system works for people — the system doesn’t get corrupted by politics for people whose name is not Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re twisting and misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m talking about a particular issue right now. I’m talking about the president’s action on his son, pardoning his son, Hunter Biden. And that’s what I’m going to stick to, and that’s what I’m talking about right now.

Q The statement is almost asking American families to understand why President Biden did what he did with the pardon. But for families who have a child who — or don’t have the same resources as President Biden, is that fair to ask them to understand, if they’re not sitting in this position?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.) I mean, let’s take a step back. For the past five minutes, I’ve been talking about why there was a polit- — political infection on this particular case. It’s because it was Hunter Biden. That’s why we’re — we are where we are and why the president provided a pardon. And he believes that his son was singled out, and because — Hunter Biden was singled out because his dad is the president.

That’s what we’re talking about here, and that’s what we have been seeing for the past several years. And that’s what the president was speaking to, and that’s why the president took the action that he did.

Q How soon could the next round of, you know, pardons of — could come? For those who are waiting and have been waiting for some time and aren’t Hunter Biden, how soon could we expect to see those?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a timeline for you. As you know, this usually happens towards the end. And so, the president is going through that process, thinking through that process. I’m not going to get ahead of him. But you can expect more announcements to come.

All right. I think we’re supposed —

Q What was the —

Q Is the president con- —

Q What was the White House counsel and clemency officer’s advice on how to handle this particular case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have anything beyond the president making this decision. As this — when the president —

Q What advice did he get from the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m — I’m not going to get into private conversation that the president has. The president made the decision to pardon his son. The White House informed they have to be — pardons, as you know, have to be filed with the DOJ. The White House informed the DOJ. They filed it with the DOJ, and that’s how the process went.

I’m not getting into a private conversation. This is a decision that the president made himself. Again, he wrestled with it. He made the decision this weekend, and we’ve laid out pretty clearly of what he was thinking. His statement lays out pretty clearly.

He believes in the Department of Justice, but he also believes that his son was singled out politically. And so, he made — he made this decision.

Guys, all right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Do you have time for another topic?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What’s the other topic? (Laughs.)

Q So, there is — there is a — there’s a DNC race going on right now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — to be the new chair of the — the party. What direction does Biden want to see the party go after he steps off the stage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to weigh in on — on the — on the DNC chair election. Not something that I’m going to do from here.

What I will say is the president certainly — what he has seen the 52 years of his career — what you have seen from him is a — is someone who has always put the American people first when it comes to issues that matter to them — right? — when it comes to the economy, when it comes to health care, when it comes to where we stand on the global stage, as we’re doing on our way — as we’re — as you’re all going to see in the next 24, 40 hou- — 48 hours in Angola and as you have seen many times before when he’s traveled.

And the president is very proud of what he’s been able to do on behalf of the American people, whether it’s beating Big Pharma, whether it’s getting ou- — us out of a pandemic and making sure that schools were open, businesses were back open, and that we were able to — to get out of this in a way that was comprehensive, in a way that didn’t leave any communities behind.

And so, the president is going to continue to focus on that: What else can we do to lower costs? What else can we do to make Americans’ lives better? He wants us to run through the tape. So, every day — we have 50 days left. Every day is going to be an important day, just like the next, certainly, 48 hours are going to be.

You saw what the president did on the South Lawn with the first lady, talking about World AIDS Day, making — making announcements there. This is what the president cares about: How do we make lives better? And he hopes that — he hopes, you know, that’s continue — we continue to do that as a party.

As it relates to, certainly, the chairs, I — I can’t weigh in on that or step in — into that — into — into that. But I think what you have seen from the last four years, what you have seen — the president’s leadership in the last 52 years, I think, is a clear indicator at how he sees his role as a — as a leader of this party and how he sees the future of this country.

And he always talks about possibilities, and certainly that’s something that he continues to believe, is that — how important that is.

Q What is your experience of the transition? Have you met with the next team that’s coming in? What tangible changes do you think we’ll see at the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, that’s up to them. You know? What we —

Q Have they come in already and had meetings with you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — what I can say is that we want an efficient, effective transition of power. We want it certainly to be peaceful, ri- — right? — as the president, I think, showed himself when he — when he invited President-elect Trump to — to the White House. You saw them sit together in — in the Oval Office, and that is something that President Biden wanted to —

Q But have there been more lower-level meetings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — what I can say is we’ve been in touch with the Trump transition team. Those conversations continue. We are going to make this as smooth as possible. That’s what we want. And certainly, that’s what we will continue to do.

And teams — to your question, the teams have been talking. And I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q Is the president planning on having a press conference during this trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have a press conference to announce for this trip, but I’m pretty sure and — you know, the president likes to engage with you all, and I’m — I’m sure he’ll — he’ll continue to do that.

Thanks, everybody.

Q Thanks, Karine.

3:30 P.M. CVT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby En Route Luanda, Angola appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

10:39 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  All right, hello, everyone.  This is Jessica Kosmider with the NSC press team.  Thank you so much for joining us today, the day after Thanksgiving, for a background call to preview the President’s trip to Angola.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the line today you will have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].  You can refer to them as senior administration officials in your reporting.

Before I turn it over to them, as a reminder, this call is embargoed until 5:00 a.m. Eastern on Sunday, December 1st.  By joining, you agree to these ground rules today.

With that, I’ll turn it over to [senior administration officials] for some opening remarks, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can in the time that we have. 

All right, over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Terrific.  Thanks so much, Jess.  And can everyone hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep, loud and clear. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Terrific.  Okay.

Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining on the day after Thanksgiving.  And really pleased to be with you today. 

So, as we all know, this upcoming week, from December 2 to 4, President Biden is traveling to Angola, where he will highlight the transformation and deepening of the U.S.-Angola relationship and will also reaffirm our commitment to strengthening our partnerships across Africa. 

This is a historic trip.  We are excited about it.  It marks the first visit of a U.S. president to Africa in nearly a decade, since 2015.  And also importantly, this is the first-ever visit by a sitting U.S. president to Angola. 

You may remember that when President Biden first assumed office, he pledged to restore and deepen our relationships around the world, and Angola is a prime example of that vision. 

So that’s why, to start the visit in Angola, President Biden will meet bilaterally with his counterpart, President João Lourenço, in Luanda.  That meeting builds upon strong bilateral engagement we’ve had throughout the Biden-Harris administration with Angola.  President Lourenço attended the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in 2022, and then the two presidents met here in D.C. almost exactly a year ago, when President Biden hosted President Lourenço in the Oval Office. 

Together, the U.S. and Angola are working closely to expand impactful, high-standard economic opportunities and improve regional peace and security.  We’re grateful for Angola’s partnership, and we’re really looking forward to the meetings where we will further our shared vision for greater prosperity for both Angolans and Americans. 

I’ll note that this trip also has a regional focus that’s far beyond Angola’s borders.  I’ll let [senior administration official] speak more to this, but just to note that earlier in this administration, you may recall that we released a U.S.-Africa strategy.  That strategy talks about how it’s impossible to meet this era’s defining challenges without African contributions and African leadership.  For that reason, the U.S. has championed African leadership across multilateral fora, including for advocating for new seats to be added to the G20, to the U.N. Security Council, and international financial institution boards. 

On the visit, President Biden will also deliver remarks in Luanda that really lay out both our shared history and highlight the growth and enduring strength of our relationships in Angola and across the continent.  He’ll discuss how, together with our African partners, the U.S. is working to narrow the infrastructure gap in Africa, expand economic opportunities on the continent, expand technological and scientific cooperation, and bolster peace and security. 

This visit will also highlight the work and resources that the U.S. has invested in this vision.  You might recall that at the 2022 Africa Leaders Summit, the U.S. pledged to invest $55 billion in Africa over the subsequent three years.  Two years on from that, I’m proud to say that we’ve already met 80 percent of that commitment, and we really view these as investments, not donations. 

Together with African partners, the administration has expanded trade and investment opportunities; advanced transcontinental infrastructure; and supported African-led efforts on conservation, climate adaptation, and energy that pay dividends for all of us. 

We’re not stopping there.  While in Angola, the President will focus on one of its signature investment projects, the Lobito Trans Africa Corridor.  I will let my colleague speak much more to that. 

Finally, I’ll just note that the President will be announcing some important new deliverables along the way.  I do not want to get ahead of our President on sharing too much at this stage, but I will say that these will be new deliverables related to global health security, to agribusiness, to security cooperation, and to preserving Angola’s cultural heritage. 

A couple more notes on those.  One is on the Prosper Africa Initiative.  The President will be highlighting how since January 2021, U.S. departments and agencies in the Prosper Africa Initiative have closed 12 deals in Angola with a combined value of $6.9 billion.  He’ll share how the U.S. government is making important investments to increase access to nutritious food, strengthen agribusiness, and increase food storage capacity in the country. 

He’ll discuss how the U.S. and Angola will announce a new global health security partnership to strengthen capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease.  And the U.S. will also support Angola’s nomination of the Kwanza Corridor to the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 

So, much more to come on this, and you can expect the announcements and the overall trip to reflect the deepening of our relationship and to reflect President Biden’s vision for more equitable partnerships in addressing global challenges together.

So, I look forward to your questions, and I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] to provide more from his standpoint.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  And thanks, everybody, on a Thanksgiving Friday.  Look, I don’t have much to add, and I’m happy to answer questions, but as [senior administration official] said, one of the examples of the change in our strategy in Africa was to move it a lot more towards investment, rather — and partnership, rather than traditional development assistance, grants, and charity. 

And that’s why this visit, and that’s why choosing Angola, if you think about what’s happened over the last couple of years, is looking at the corridor approach globally, but specifically where we anchored it in Africa, and building the — refurbishing and rebuilding a rail connection from the Port of Lobito all the way through the Democratic Republic of Congo with a phase two approach into Zambia and eventually all the way — we’re preparing the ground for eventually reaching all the way to Tanzania, connecting the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. 

This is not — this serves a number of purposes. 

One, it’s about critical minerals that are required for the energy transition globally for electric vehicles.  It is important for AI data centers and high-end chips.  But it is also about connecting all the — what this kind of infrastructure does is it may be able to bring critical minerals and shipments out in 45 hours instead of 45 days.  But it also allows for the growth of true food security in Africa.  And we are already seeing that food can be now delivered from the Port of Lobito all the way to eastern Congo in a matter of days instead of weeks and months.  It is enabling farmers to grow more local produce that can be used and traded so that landlocked countries are no longer landlocked and connected to each other. 

Over the last couple of years in Angola, through U.S. government investment, there has been added more telecommunications.  More people are getting connected to 3G and now building out 5G networks, as well as building out renewable energy.  In fact, the U.S. has approved financing through Ex-Im Bank of nearly two and a half billion dollars of renewable energy projects that will be able to take countries from energy deficit to energy exporters to their neighbors. 

And that’s really — the entire point of the Biden administration’s strategy that [senior administration official] just articulated is focusing on the investment side.  This has not only transformed the economies by building out GDP, but it does so by focusing on attracting investment, by high standards — companies committed to high standards of labor, of gender equality, of health, and of environmental stewardship. 

And that is really — that is the choice that is now available to countries throughout the region.  Not looking at, “Do I have to accept Chinese investment with low standards and child labor and corruption,” but “Do I have another offering to compare it to.”  And again, this is what President Biden has wanted to transform our relationship in the region, is to offer a different — more investment, but with higher standards.

And so, this Angola trip is really going to be highlighting that option that exists now in Africa, a direct line from the Africa Leaders Summit that President Biden had earlier in the administration to where we are today, and what I believe will be a policy that is continued by future administrations in years to come, focusing on this investment and partnership between the United States and Africa across the continent.

We chose to focus on a handful of countries over the last couple of years in order to be able to spend the scarce resources that we have in the U.S. government in a deeper and more meaningful way, rather than spreading it thin across a wider swath. 

That has also brought remarkable increase in American company investors into — and Western investors — into Africa.  And we’ve done this both bilaterally but also through the PGI, the President’s signature initiative with the G7 of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, driving this kind of investment across the continent under those same guidelines and rules of increased investment with increased opportunity at higher standards. 

So I’ll leave it there, Jess.  And if there any questions, I’m happy to answer.

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  First up, we will go to Aurelia from AFP.  Aurelia, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking my question and thanks for doing this call.  Just maybe following up on what you said about offering an alternative to Chinese investment: Just in September, Xi offered Africa a sweeping $50 billion in fresh funding, promised like a million jobs, et cetera.  Isn’t it a risk that by this visit that comes late in the presidency, it gives the impression that, you know, it’s too little or too late?  Or do you really think that focusing on just a handful of countries and very precise investment, like, really offers a credible alternative to the billions that the Chinese have offered?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Aurelia, it is no doubt that China is offering billions and have been offering billions.  And let me be clear off the top: I don’t think it’s a — we don’t think it’s a bad thing to have Chinese investment in Africa.  But if it means that at the end of a few years of investment, the communities that live in the area of the investment have not seen any increase in GDP, that they’ve not seen benefits of their lives in it, that it has not lifted the lives of the communities; if it means that the government is going to be living under crushing debt for generations to come, then that’s not — the government is going to have to make the decision whether that’s the alternative they want. 

What we have heard repeatedly over years is that people want to have more — people in Africa want to have more alternatives for investment, not less.  But if they don’t have the alternative, they are forced to go with the one investment they have. 

So I think if the United States coming in here with investments that are meaningful — and this is not too little too late — I think that after years of being off the field, President Biden has put us back on the field and competing and offering this alternative. 

If, as a result, other countries, whether China or anyone else, also comes to Africa and increases the standards of labor, standards of healthcare provided to the workers, standards of defending the environment — protecting the environment where the projects are, and transparency versus corruption, if that forces everyone now to increase the standards, that will be a huge achievement. 

So I think that we’re not coming — this visit is at the end of the administration, but for the last two years, some of the numbers of U.S. investment in Africa are staggering in comparison to previous years, and specifically here in Angola where I think we’ve spent over $3 billion just in the last couple of years in areas as diverse as telecommunications, renewable energy, critical minerals, rail, bridges — so, from infrastructure to technology.  That’s something that we’d like to see grow, and I think that the President sees it as laying the foundation for a new approach to Africa that will be followed by administrations to come.

MODERATOR:  All right, thank you.  Next up, we’ll go to Fatima Hussein from the Associated Press.  Fatima, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thank you for taking my question.  My question is: Can the President still have an effect on the continent when he’s coming right now when all the eyes of African leaders are on President-elect Trump?  And is there a fear that President Trump, whose policies are so different from President Biden, could undo a lot of the things that you’re talking about today?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m happy to take that.

Thanks, Fatima, for the question.  I’d say, obviously we can’t speculate about the choices the next administration will make, but from my standpoint, I am grateful that U.S.-Africa policy has actually benefitted from really strong bipartisan support over the course of multiple administrations.  And I think that’s a pretty remarkable tradition.

If you think back to some of the really impactful initiatives that U.S. administrations have put forward, impactful initiatives like the DFC, the Development Finance Corporation, that was a Trump administration institution that the Biden administration has taken forward.  Think back to the Millennium Challenge Corporation that was launched in the Bush administration.  PEPFAR.  And more recently, Prosper Africa was also launched in the Trump administration.

So while I, of course, I can’t speak for the next administration, I think there’s a lot of reason to assume that some of these initiatives will continue on. 

And as [senior administration official] has laid out, when we think about an endeavor like the Lobito Corridor, that is a win-win for Americans and for Africans.  And so, I would imagine that would be seen in that light of something that’s paying dividends for all of us. 

So, while of course we can’t speculate on the next administration, I think there’s a lot of reason to assume the bipartisan tradition will continue when it comes to Africa policy in a lot of ways.

MODERATOR:  All right, thank you.  Next up, we will go to Zolan from the New York Times.  Zolan, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey.  Thank you so much.  I know the focus is going to be on Angola, but you said there’s sort of a continent-wide approach you’re taking too.  Do you expect — will the President in any way be speaking about the violence in the eastern DRC?  Will he be engaging with Rwanda at all during this trip?  And will there be any focus, as well, on the conflict in Sudan, as well, during this trip?

And then, also, kind of just a clarification, but can we officially say that this is the last trip overseas for President Biden at this point of his presidency?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  I can start, and then I invite [senior administration officials] to weigh in.

So, on the eastern DRC, something President Biden has talked about is his gratitude for Angola’s leadership on this front.  Angola is playing a very important regional mediation role on the conflict in the eastern DRC.  And so, while I won’t get into specifics of their conversation, I do think thanking Angola for its really important leadership on this front will be part of the visit.  There may be other regionally focused aspects of the visit that I don’t think we can share more on at this point, but just to say that I think President Biden really does view Angola in the context of its region.

[Senior administration official], I invite you to add anything.  And then, Jess, on the last international trip, or not, I defer to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, Zolan, I think that this will be — we’re stopping in — the President is going to Angola, but this is a regional approach.  Angola has been a tremendous friend, both to the United States over the last few years, which is a dramatic sort of shift in geopolitical alliances as a result of the policy we described before, but also has played a key role — leadership role in the eastern DRC, as has the United States.  So we’ll address those as the days go by, as we continue.

But there’s — again, I think the fact that this trip is coming at the end of the administration, I want to underscore what [senior administration official] said.  This is a policy that we have every expectation that future administrations will continue to follow, especially some of the investment-oriented approach.  And I can tell you that Republican members of Congress have been traveling more frequently to DRC, to Zambia, to Angola, and to the region over the last few months, including senior Republican senators, out of support for this approach.  I think that that will continue.

MODERATOR:  And then, as far as your question goes on future travel, we don’t have any other travel to announce today, but of course, we’ll keep you guys posted if anything changes.

Next up we have Aaron Gilchrist from NBC.  You should be able to unmute yourself, Aaron.

Q    Hey, guys.  Thanks for doing this call.  Just two things quickly, if I can.  There’s been criticism of the political protests that have been happening, the arrests of political protesters in Angola.  Do you expect the President will address in any way arrests of protesters or human rights issues in Angola while he’s there? 

And then the second question: Domestically, there’s been sort of head-scratching about why this trip to the African continent by this president, who was supported so vociferously by African Americans here, why this trip is coming so late in his administration.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the first part, Aaron.  Thanks for the question. 

Yeah, I think, as you know, President Biden has never shied away from talking about challenges to democracy, his commitment to democracy, and I think you can expect him to always raise those issues with counterparts, without getting into specifics. 

We, of course, are tracking protests in Luanda, and would note that we were heartened that the protests over the last week remained peaceful and had — we think that’s tremendously important. 

I’ll also say that we and the President and his delegation traveling will meet with civil society while in Angola.  So I think having that discussion is always a key part of it.

In terms of when this falls on the administration, I would say the President made a promise he would visit Africa, and he’s visiting Africa.  He’s excited about it.  He raises how excited about it he is every time I speak with him.  So I’m thrilled he’s going. 

[Senior administration official], would you add anything on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I would say — look, this has been a — this is a trip that he’s wanted to take for a long time.  He’s held the Africa Leaders Summit early in the administration, and has done — this administration has done a tremendous amount of work in Africa during a period of a lot of foreign policy activity.  And so, again, as you know, he was supposed to go a little bit earlier; it got postponed for a variety of reasons. 

But the important thing is that he is going.  And the even more important thing is what he has led and what he has done on the African continent in the policy, which is a total transformation of our policy in a manner that was not expected. 

I can tell you that traveling throughout Africa over the last several years of this administration, all I get from leaders in Africa is being grateful for a final change of policy that is focused so much on investment and partnership than focusing on what the timeline of the visit was.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’d also just add, Aaron, to your question: Obviously, there’s a lot of focus on the President’s travel, and we’re really excited about it.  But over the course of this administration, just the past two years since the Africa Leaders Summit, the administration has had over 20 cabinet-level and senior officials travel to the continent.  And as you know, each of these visits brings with them deliverables.  They bring with them new partnerships that are launched.  So I think this administration is about the totality of those visits and those initiatives, and we’re proud of our record on that front.

MODERATOR:  All right, we have time for just a couple more.  So, next up, we’ll go to Skylar Woodhouse from Bloomberg.  Skylar, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving.  I just wanted to ask: Given that the trip is, you know, very — it’s practically towards the end of President Biden’s presidency, is it the understanding that African nations are taking the U.S. seriously, especially as China is heavily influenced across the continent right now?  Is that the understanding that you all feel that, you know, the U.S. is being taken seriously?  Or because this trip is towards the end, that, you know, it’s just kind of a check mark that Biden has to do at this point?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Skylar, look, I get more questions about this from American reporters than I get from African leaders or African-based businesses.  So — honestly.

The President of the United States has led a new policy in Africa.  Yes, China is influential in Africa, as they are in other places, and continuing to do so. 

It also is true that leader after leader on the continent have asked us to make sure that we have alternatives for those investments.  And on this trip as well, it is true that it’s coming at the end of the administration, but it’s capping on — one perspective, it’s capping three years, four years of a tremendous amount of investment by the United States in areas that represent the growth for Africa, whether it’s in the role that they can play in the transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles, as well as to chips.  They are at the center of what could be the future.  And this trip is also coming as the era of global competition continues, and Africa can play that big role. 

The one thing leaders in Africa do not want is for folks to say they’re under — they have the Chinese investment; they have Chinese influence, and therefore, nobody else in the world should go to Africa.  That is the opposite of what everybody in Africa wants. 

So, all I hear from the leaders I speak to — and I speak to leaders across Africa regularly, both political leaders, heads of state, as well as business leaders — is excited for the fact that President Biden is coming, that he’s bringing a delegation that has brought to the table (inaudible) from the Africa Finance Corporation, the Africa Development Bank, record investments from the DFC, the Development Finance Corporation in the United States, Ex-Im Bank, TDA, MCC, USAID.  The kind of investments that we’re doing here are transformative.  And what they want is to bring in the rest of the world.  I don’t know a single leader in Africa who says, “I just got a promise for some money from China, and therefore I don’t want anybody else there.”  On the contrary. 

So it is — the timing is what it is, but it is at a turning point that, again, I don’t think this ends here.  I brief Congress regularly, and there are Republican senators who were just in Angola recently because of this, and intend to take this forward. 

So I see certain parts of our domestic policy is more binary and political.  American investment in developing and middle-income countries is not a partisan issue.  The way we’re doing it is different.  But then again, we built on the Trump administration, the Obama administration built on Bush administration, which built on the Clinton administration.  That has been a seamless, increasing our participation. 

The one thing we haven’t done is figured out how to invest more conservatively in Africa.  This administration has done that.  I have every expectation that both Congress and this administration and the one after that will continue this policy.  And I think that leaders in Africa understand that, and that’s why they are eager for this visit to take place.

MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you.  I think we have time for maybe one or two more, so we’ll go with Rishi from Foreign Policy.  Rishi, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Yeah, thanks for doing this, and thanks for taking my question.  So, you spoke about — you mentioned that this is investment and not aid in Africa, and we’ve seen that President-elect Trump, his big thing is kind of making deals, examining the, quote, unquote, “deals” that the U.S. has made.  So how protected are these investments that you’ve made from what the Trump administration might do, from being unwound by a potential Trump administration? 

And just as an addendum to that, how would changes to policies on the domestic front, like the CHIPS Act and the IRA, impact Africa?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, let me start.  I see very little reason why any of it would be under threat.  These are — one of the things that we focus on when I say investment versus aid — and I want to say it’s not “versus,” it’s “in addition to.”  We still have a robust assistance program that is necessary.  So it’s an additive in here.

But these projects are all done — the point of them was to be financeable and bankable projects that turn a profit, and therefore, I don’t see any reason why any of these would be undone.  And from my conversations, both with officials that are expected to be entering the Trump administration, as well as with bipartisan leaders in Congress, is that these projects are seen as the exact right thing to do.  So I don’t see them being unwound.  In fact, I would see some of them growing.

Building the rail in Africa in order to connect its countries to each other and to global markets; to be able to bring critical minerals out; making sure that the United States, for the first time in years, is getting cobalt and copper and lithium coming from this region to the United States and not going 100 percent to China — these are things that the next administration is likely to keep.  So I don’t really see the issue. 

I think what happens in the IRA and the CHIPS Act, we’ll have to see.  I’ve learned over the years of working in Washington that what is said in campaigns is not always what is done in practice.  So let’s see what happens. 

But those programs were investments in America and to make America competitive, and so I find it hard to believe that any — perhaps some of the regulations will change, but I don’t see the core of it changing.  Building more chips in America is a good thing.  Driving a trillion-dollar investment into the United States on both infrastructure, specifically under CHIPS Act and the infrastructure bill, both are going to be a good thing.  And building batteries and components in the United States, I think that, if anything, those will expand, not contract.

MODERATOR:  All right, thank you.  Last question, we’ll go to Kemi Osukoya.  Kemi, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hello?

MODERATOR:  Yep, we can hear you, Kemi.

Q    Oh, okay.  Thank you very much.  Thank you for taking my question.  I wanted to ask, regarding — I know during the G7 — the Lobito Corridor is in partnership with the G7 alliance, and there was an announcement that was made, I believe by BlackRock and Microsoft, in June, while President Biden was in Italy.  So could you — this trip also, a major part of it, will focus on business.  So can you talk about some of the American companies that perhaps might accomplish the — accompany the presidents on this trip? 

And the other side of my question is: About two years or a year ago, the President launched the Presidential Advisory Council.  And as you mentioned on this call, there have been several trips to the African continent.  So, if you can talk about the engagements and what you’re hearing from the Advisory Council that engaging the diaspora, not just the African diaspora, but as well as the African American diaspora engagement with Africa, what is the feedback that you are getting that the presidents will use during this trip?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], do you want to take the G7 companies question?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  I think we have had companies such as Sun Africa that’s invested in different parts of Africa and in Angola in particular, and expanding its operations. 

Africell is a telecommunications company that’s received investment and financing with the U.S. government, as well as its private sector banking that have been working in about five or so countries in Africa and are expanding in this region, even further beyond Angola, into DRC. 

After years of American companies leaving the continent, in the mining business we now have exciting young, new companies from the United States, such as KoBold that made a huge copper discovery in Zambia that will be there as well. 

So there’s a lot of exciting companies.  Acrow Bridge, from Pennsylvania, that is fabricating bridges in Angola and elsewhere. 

So what we’re seeing is this exciting surge.  But as you said, this corridor is part of the G7.  We have companies from Europe — from Portugal, from Switzerland, from France — and others that are joining this, and all of it being done in collaboration with African governments and African financial institutions, as well as some Americans.  

We had announced earlier this year, during the Kenya state visit to the United States, the fact that there’s going to be a data center built in Kenya. 

We had already announced during the G20 the data center that the U.S. government is helping finance in Ghana.  And I’m hoping that there’ll be another data center announced shortly. 

We also announced the connection from Google, a data line, fiber-optic cable that was going to reach Kenya.  But not just that it’s reaching Kenya from Asia, but that will be connected from Kenya all the way to South Africa through many of the countries of this corridor.  And that is being used with local African companies that are building out the fiber-optic network. 

So what we’re trying to suggest here is that this is about technology, about food security, about infrastructure build-out, and companies from both — from Europe, from Asia, from — representing the whole G7-plus countries are represented in these investments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And I can just jump in quickly on the question about the PAC-ADE.  So that’s the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement.  This is one of the initiatives that we’re very proud of in the Biden-Harris administration.  This was announced by VP Harris at the Africa Leaders Summit back in 2022, and then President Biden signed an executive order directing the Secretary of State to establish it. 

As you may know, the council’s members are a really remarkable array of individuals who distinguish themselves in sports industries, in creative industries, in governments, in business, in academia, in faith-based activities.  So President Biden has continued to rely on their advice and their counsel as he’s moved forward our Africa policy.

They did have their first official trip to the African continent as the PAC-ADE.  This July, they traveled to Nigeria, and that was a tremendously constructive engagement. 

So while I can’t get into specifics, I think you can expect that the PAC-ADE will be involved in this upcoming trip, and we continue to be really grateful for their service and their insights.

MODERATOR:  All right, thank you, everybody.  That is all the time that we have today.  If we weren’t able to get to your question, you can feel free to send it to us over email, and we’ll do our best to get back to you all as quickly as possible over this holiday weekend.

And just as a reminder, this conversation is embargoed until 5:00 am Eastern on Sunday.  Let us know if there’s anything else we can do for you.  Thanks.

11:16 A.M. EST   

The post Background Press Call on the President’s Travel to Angola appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:18 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  All right, so good morning, everyone.  Thank you again for joining us on somewhat of a short notice here.  We will be speaking about Venezuela this morning. 

And on the line, not for reporting purposes, we will have [senior administration official].  We will also have [senior administration official].  And we will also have [senior administration official]. 

We will be on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and the call will be embargoed until 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. 

At the end of the call, I can also email, also under embargo, some of our press releases for you to use in your reporting, but the embargo will lift on all documents and the backgrounder at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time.  

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.  Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thank you very much.  And good morning, everyone.  Really appreciate your time.  We know that most of you are headed into the Thanksgiving holiday. 

The purpose of the call today is to discuss some actions we’re taking related to Venezuela.  Tomorrow, November 28th, will mark four months to the day from Venezuela’s presidential election, which took place on July 28th, and it was an election in which the Venezuelans voted resoundingly to make Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia the president-elect.

As we in the U.S. administration have said many times before, we believe it’s extremely important that the voices of the Venezuelan people are heard and that their votes are fairly counted and respected. 

In the months since July 28th, we have given Nicolas Maduro and his representatives every opportunity to do the right thing, and we have incentivized the possibility of democratic steps.  Instead, Maduro and his representatives decided to use violent repression and to seize power at all costs.  This is not something the United States will stand for, and nor will other countries in the region stand for this. 

Therefore, the United States has taken steps to increase pressure against Maduro and his representatives, who are responsible for the electoral fraud that took place on July 28th and afterwards, and the brutal repression that we’ve seen in the last few months. 

For this reason, today I’m joined by colleagues from the Department of State and Treasury to inform you of actions the U.S. government will be taking to continue to hold Maduro and its representatives accountable. 

First, the Department of the Treasury will sanction 21 security and cabinet-level officials aligned with Nicolas Maduro.  This includes 15 leaders of the Bolivarian National Guard, Bolivarian National Police, the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, Bolivarian militia, and the General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence. 

All of these entities are part of Maduro’s security apparatus and are responsible for violently repressing peaceful protesters and carrying out arbitrary detentions. 

We have also included Maduro-aligned officials who have been responsible for anti-democratic acts. 

Concurrently, the Department of State imposed new restrictions on — new visa restrictions on a significant number of Maduro alliance officials who have undermined the electoral process in Venezuela and are responsible for acts of repression. 

The steps that we are taking today build on multiple actions that we have taken already to hold the current and former Venezuelan officials accountable for undermining democracy in Venezuela and to hold them accountable for violating human rights.  These actions will follow on similar sanctions and visa restrictions that we announced last September.

To date, we have sanctioned 180 Venezuelan officials and 100 Venezuelan entities.  Additionally, we regularly take actions to enforce our sanctions policy to demonstrate to Maduro and his cronies that their undemocratic governance has consequences.  This included, last September, the seizure of Maduro’s illegally acquired aircraft. 

It’s important to point out that the United States does not stand alone in expressing our concerns with Maduro’s anti-democratic actions and in our call for the restoration of democratic norms.

I am now going to pass the floor to my colleagues from Department of State and from Treasury, who can discuss the further efforts that we are taking to rally support of the international community for Venezuela’s return to democratic norms, as well as additional information on these sanctions actions.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning.  As [senior administration official] mentioned, tomorrow marks four months since Venezuela’s presidential election.  It also marks four months of Nicolas Maduro’s refusal to recognize the will of the Venezuelan people and his brutal repression of those defending the true results of the election.

We have witnessed the Venezuelan people’s courage and commitment to democracy in the face of repression, threats, unjust detentions, and censorship.  They overcome daily adversity as they clamor for a democratic transition and their rights to freedom of expression.

Maduro and his representatives continue to ignore calls from their own people and the international community for transparency, and instead use brute force to silence dissenters.  And they fail to present evidence that supports any shred of Maduro’s false claim to victory.

Democratic governments in the region and around the world press Maduro as a united front for transparency and a restoration of democracy in Venezuela.  The Organization of American States, for example, adopted a U.S.-led resolution on this topic by consensus.  More than 50 countries supported Panama’s statement of concern in New York, outside the U.N. Security Council.  And at the U.N. General Assembly in September, more than 50 countries and the EU called on Venezuela to end political repression and respect the results of the election. 

Just this week, at the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Italy, G7 countries called on Venezuela to release political prisoners and respect the voters’ decision for democratic change. 

As [senior administration official] already noted, today we are using our sanctions authorities to impose costs on 21 Maduro-aligned individuals for their myriad abuses against the Venezuelan people and attempts to steal the election. 

Our sanctions policy seeks to incentivize democratic actions in Venezuela, the only path to resolve Venezuela’s political, economic, and humanitarian crisis.

We will continue to promote accountability for Maduro and his representatives so long as they continue repressing the Venezuelan people.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you all for joining today.  As my colleagues mentioned, today the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, is sanctioning 21 security and cabinet-level officials aligned with Nicolas Maduro. 

These individuals are sanctioned pursuant to Executive Order 13692, as amended, for being current or former officials of the government of Venezuela.  They have supported and carried out Maduro’s orders to repress civil society in his efforts to fraudulently declare himself the winner of Venezuela’s July 28th presidential election, thus ignoring the will of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelan voters who elected Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia as their next president. 

Following this election, Venezuelan security forces have arbitrarily arrested democratic opposition supporters en masse, violently suppressed protests, and denied individuals the right to assemble peacefully without backlash.  These tactics also involved issuing an unjustified arrest warrant against President-elect Urrutia, prompting his departure from Venezuela. 

The United States joins other democracies in the region and across the world in condemning this subversion of democratic norms.  We stand with the Venezuelan people and support those seeking to restore democracy in Venezuela. 

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to use our tools to hold Maduro and his cronies accountable, and support the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people. 

The individuals sanctioned today are senior Venezuelan officials, including from the Maduro-aligned Bolivarian National Guard, Bolivarian National Police, militia, National Intelligence Service, and General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence. 

Again, these individuals are being designated pursuant to Executive Order 13692.

To date, OFAC has sanctioned over 150 Venezuelan individuals and 100 Venezuelan entities to target current or former officials for taking anti-democratic actions and violating human rights. 

Since the July 28th election, Maduro and his representatives have indiscriminately arrested Venezuelans for exercising their political and civil rights, and deployed a range of intimidation tactics to silence the opposition. 

As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above, and of any entities that are owned directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more of them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be reported to OFAC.

Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (transiting) the United States that involve any property or interest in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons.

We take these actions very seriously by Maduro and his cronies, and will continue to hold those responsible who are not abiding by the will of the people.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for those opening remarks.  For those who joined just a couple of minutes late, just a reminder that this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  It is embargoed until 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time today. 

With that, I’ll turn it over to questions.  Please raise your hand and we will unmute you.  Please state your name and your outlet.

With that, we’ll go to Gabe. 

Q    Hi there.  Good morning.  Gabe Gutierrez with NBC.  Appreciate you doing this.

Question: Have you spoken to the incoming Trump transition team about Venezuela specifically?  And how aligned are you with them on, you know, these sanctions and the policy?

And also, while I have you, can anybody from NSC offer up any more information on the three Americans that have just been released from China?  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  We’ll take the China question and we’ll get back to you, and our colleagues at the press team can send you a statement. 

We’ll take your first question.  Over to [senior administration officials].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  I’ll jump in here.  So we’re undertaking these actions with respect to Venezuela as part of the Biden administration’s engagement in advancing democracy in Venezuela and also holding the Venezuelan regime and regime actors accountable for practices that include political repression, subverting the democratic will of the people, and things that run — and issues that run counter to good governance in Venezuela. 

So these actions, you know, are part of our overall policy framework.  We obviously are aware that there will be a change in administration on January 20th.  And at that juncture, a new administration can take up this issue of Venezuela.

MODERATOR:  All right, we’ll go to the next question.  We’ll go to Juan Merlano.

Q    Thank you, Vanessa.  Thank you, everybody.  This

is Juan Merlano, Caracol TV, Colombia.  And Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.

[Senior administration official], maybe you can help us with this.  Is there any plan to have a meeting between President Biden and President-elect Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia before he tries to go back to Venezuela?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So I can’t speak further to President Biden’s schedule at this time.  However, the Biden administration in both word and deed has been very supportive of Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia in terms of respecting the electoral victory that he achieved on July 28th.  And recently, we’ve also proclaimed that we view Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia to be the president-elect in Venezuela. 

And so, these policies of continuing to support the will of the Venezuelan people are going to remain central to how the Biden administration engages with the issue of Venezuela.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just add that Secretary Blinken and other U.S. senior officials have spoken with Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia on multiple occasions, and we continue to be in close touch with him and with Maria Corina Machado and other opposition figures in Venezuela.  And we prioritize their views and insights as we look to find a positive way forward.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  We’ll go to Celia Mendoza.  Please state your outlet. 

Q    Hi.  Thank you so much.  Celia Mendoza, Voice of America. 

So my question goes a little bit more into — we understand that Nicolas Maduro has not responded to pressure.  What these new sanctions could do for him to change his course?  As we see it right now, he keeps jailing people; he keeps moving forward with his government; is expected for him to be taking power for the next six years in January.  How does the administration see the last few months of the Biden-Harris strategy to actually impact or make a dent on what so far has not been any advancement?

And then, the other part of that question is: Where is the conversations that were initially talked with Mexico, Colombia, Brazil?  So far, we have not seen any advancement on that front.  Would it be possible to reengage those countries, before the administration leaves, to be able to see any changes? 

Just yesterday, the government in Diosdado Cabello said that they were going to do a trial against Maria Corina Machado, who’s still in the country, and they said they will do it even if she’s not present, which, of course, is a signal that they will go after her.  And the prospective of that happening within the next few months looks like imminent if we follow what he has done.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I think it’s important to recognize that Nicolas Maduro, with those around him, have never been more politically isolated.  Scores of countries have come out and recognized that all indications are that Edmundo Gonzalez won the election.  They’ve called on Maduro to substantiate his position.  He’s never been able to provide any evidence to refute Edmundo Gonzalez’s overwhelming more than 2-to-1 victory in the election on July 28th.

The countries around Venezuela have said that they are not going to recognize Nicolas Maduro as president of Venezuela absent the provision of some evidence to demonstrate that.

The international coalition of countries that seeks democracy in Venezuela is strong, it is large, and it will continue to press Maduro and those around them to come to the table and talk about a democratic transition. 

The frontline states have a special role to play in that process.  Countries like Colombia and Brazil, in particular, with borders with Venezuela, are influential, and they’ve continued to raise concerns in ways that we have not seen previously.  This is very important for the future of Venezuela, the welfare of the Venezuelan people.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And if I could, I’ll just add to that that these actions that are being taken today are directed towards the Maduro regime but also towards specific individuals and entities in the Maduro regime that have been found credibly accused of perpetrating in acts of repression and contravening the will of the Venezuelan people. 

And so, I really do encourage you and everyone on this call to read the OFAC press release, which details the fact that you’ve got people who are, you know, in some cases, operating regional command zones that have been under the jurisdiction of Maduro, that have targeted innocent civilians for repression and reprisals.  It also includes senior officials in the Venezuelan government who have strong ties to Diosdado Cabello, a senior regime figure. 

And so, I think that the signal that these sanctions will send is not merely about holding Nicolas Maduro accountable, but that, in fact, regime officials who are acting unlawfully to uphold this regime based on repressive tactics will also find themselves in the crosshairs of these sanctions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go to David Alandete.  Please state your outlet.

Q    Thank you so much.  This is David Alandete from Diario ABC in Spain. 

I just have a question regarding European recognition of Edmundo Gonzalez, (inaudible) Spain, but there is still delay in the Spanish government recognizing him as president-elect.  And I wanted to know if you expect this to happen before the end of President Biden’s term, and if it would be helpful for these efforts, given the fact that the European Parliament and the Spanish Senate, separately, have recognized him.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, thanks so much.  Those decisions are sovereign decisions for each country to make.  But as you rightly point out, key institutions in Europe have already called Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia the president-elect.  And the pressure that that puts on the Maduro authorities is significant. 

We believe that it reflects the reality of the will of Venezuelan voters, and we believe that it’s urgent that all the countries that are committed to seeing democratic change in Venezuela publicly continue to press for that and to express their concern publicly and privately with Maduro authorities.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And I’d also like to take this opportunity to highlight that, yesterday, the G7 foreign ministers put out a statement — which was released by the foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the high representative of the European Union — which treats, among other subjects, the topic of Venezuela. 

Regarding Venezuela, the G7 foreign ministers said that:

“On July 28th, the Venezuelan people made a clear choice in the polls, voting for democratic change and supporting Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia by a significant majority, according to publicly available electoral records.  We will continue to support efforts by regional partners to facilitate a Venezuelan-led democratic and peaceful transition that will ensure respect for the will of the voters. 

We are deeply troubled by the continued violations and abuses of human rights, including arbitrary detentions and severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms, targeting in particular political opponents, civil society, and independent media.  All unjustly detained political prisoners must be released.” 

And so, that is a statement — that includes all the G7 foreign ministers, including the high representative of the European Union.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go to Karen DeYoung.

Q    Hi, it’s Karen DeYoung at the Washington Post.  I have a couple of questions.  First, has any consideration been given to lifting licenses, such as General License 41, or any individual licenses that have been given to the energy production and export, or any other part of the Venezuelan economy?

Secondly, on the recognition of Edmundo Gonzalez as the president, [senior administration official] said that this imposes significant pressure.  But I wonder if you could talk about exactly what it means.  If one goes back to the period of Juan Guaidó, what that actually accomplished and what you expect the recognition to accomplish. 

And finally, after the election, the United States tried to hold some meetings with representatives of Maduro.  I wonder if you could tell me when you last met with any representatives of the Maduro government.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  I’ll take question one and three and then let [senior administration official] comment. 

So in terms of the licenses and overall U.S. sanctions and licensing policy, this is something that is under continual review by us as we seek to achieve our foreign policy objectives in Venezuela. 

And so, we are obviously always evaluating events on the ground in Venezuela, how that corresponds to our sanctions policy, what steps that we can take that may provoke greater divisions in the regime as well. 

And so, this is something we’re going to continue to review moving forward and certainly all the way to the end of this administration.

And then, with respect to direct talks with Maduro authorities, we really can’t comment on diplomatic — discreet diplomatic discussions.  But what we can say is that we remain in constant contact with a wide range of allies in the region and beyond, with respect to developments in Venezuela.

MODERATOR:  [Senior administration official], are you trying to speak?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I was thinking, I think [senior administration official] covered it all, so I don’t think I have anything to add.

MODERATOR:  Great.  More chance for questions. 

We’ll go next to Carla Angola.  Please state your outlet.

Q    Good morning.  Thank you for doing this.  My first question is — Carla Angola from EVTV.

The president of Venezuela has reported that he’s willing to return to the country on January 10 to take office.  Would the United States be willing to accompany him, from a logistical point of view, on that return and protect his physical integrity?  Or would you participate in some way in the operation to return home the president-elect, Edmundo Gonzalez? This is my first one.

And regarding the license to Chevron, at first, this administration assured that Maduro would not have any profit from the sale of that oil.  But on the contrary, some suspect that the license granted to Chevron is allowing Maduro to finance the repression of innocent people.  Does this administration plan to suspend that license before leaving the White House?  Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, let me just note, in terms of the logistics question that was asked: The United States government has not received a request from Edmundo Gonzalez for assistance in his transportation, and we did not participate in his departure from Venezuela, and we were not asked to do so.  If we were to receive a request from him, we would consider that.  But, you know, we don’t recognize the Maduro authorities, so it’s something that, you know, we’re not in touch with them on these types of issues. 

And I’ll leave the rest for [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  I’ll just share that as we review our overall sanctions policy and licensing policy towards Venezuela, this is under constant monitoring and review, and we are willing to calibrate and adjust as needed in order to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives.

MODERATOR:  Great.  We have time for one, maybe two questions if we go through them quickly.

We’ll go to Eric Bazail-Eimil.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  Eric Bazail-Eimil from Politico.

Look, can I just get more clarity on why, at this point, the administration is still reviewing those licenses and isn’t more actively pursuing energy sanctions?  There’s only a month left until — about a month, with a rounding error, for, you know, the handover to occur.  And energy sanctions seem to be the only thing that have gotten Maduro to go to the negotiating table in the past.  So I’m curious if you could just explain that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  Well, I think that there’s — you know, first of all, there’s a number of things that have moved Maduro to the negotiating table at different junctures, which includes international pressure, their desire to seek some sort of legitimacy, obviously a desire that is not being met, given the malfeasance that followed the July 28th election. 

And so, we review this policy on a comprehensive basis, both the sanctions, of which there are still quite extensive sanctions towards Venezuela at a sectoral level, and also, as we’re discussing today, at an individual level, targeted at regime officials who have committed human rights abuses. 

But we also have a number of other aspects of our policy towards Venezuela which are critical to our overall shaping of this policy. 

And so, this is something that we’re going to continue to look at very carefully, both with respect to U.S. foreign policy interests and in consultation with a wider set of partners and allies.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would just add that just because we have not taken an action so far, does not mean that we will not take an action in the future — though, obviously, as we said many times, we do not preview our sanctions decisions.

MODERATOR:  Great.  And with that, we’ll go with one last question.  We’ll go to Regina Garcia Cano.  Please state your outlet. 

Q    Hi there.  Thank you for doing this.  I have a follow-up on that, on licenses. 

The opposition advisors to Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzalez have openly said that they would like to see particularly the Chevron license canceled, and I’m sure they’ve expressed that to you directly. 

The explanation for that license, at least in writing, when it was issued was all about democracy and getting to have a more free and fair election.  We already saw what happened on July 28th. 

So with those 45 days left between now and January 10th, when the next presidential term starts in Venezuela, you say you’re still reviewing and that you haven’t taken it doesn’t mean that you won’t take it in the future.  But why — you know, if it was based in the idea of democracy, why is that still in place?  That was, at least in writing, the argument for this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As we said previously, we are continually reviewing our sanctions policy to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  That’s all the time we have for today.  Thanks again for joining us.

Again, the call was embargoed until — it is embargoed until 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and it is attributable to senior administration officials.  We will have a transcript also on our WhiteHouse.gov website later this afternoon.

Thanks again, and happy holidays.

9:53 A.M. EST          

The post Background Press Call on Venezuela appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

4:07 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone, for joining this call.  I know you just heard from the President, but we wanted to provide you a little bit more detail and background.

As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official.

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

With that, I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Eduardo.  And

good afternoon, everyone.

As you just heard from the President, he received the calls from Prime Minister Netanyahu and spoke earlier with — just before that, with Prime Minister Mikati of Lebanon.

Both have informed him that their governments had accepted

the U.S. proposal, and with French support.  And so that ceasefire is now going to go into effect at 4:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, so Wednesday morning local time in Israel and Beirut.  4:00 a.m. it will go into effect.  At that point, all fire will stop from all parties.

Israeli troops who are in occupying territory in Lebanon will hold their positions.  They will not withdraw.  But a 60-day period will start in which the Lebanese military and security forces will begin their deployment towards the south.  This is a process that cannot happen overnight or in several days, and therefore there is this period to prevent any vacuums from being formed, where as the Lebanese military deploys and reaches the south, the Israeli military will withdraw. 

So this is — when we say 60 days, we don’t mean that at the end of the 60 days the Israeli troops will withdraw, but rather, by the time we reach somewhere in the 50 to 60 days, all Israeli troops will be gone.  So it will be a phased withdrawal

in different sectors where the Israelis are over time. 

So in the first couple of weeks, you’ll already start seeing some of those troops withdraw until we reach the end, again, no later than or no longer than 60 days for this process to happen.

That is the tenets of what’s happening over the next several days.

And different from previous agreements, specifically the 2006 where Hezbollah was supposed to withdraw to north of the Litani, and UNIFIL was supposed to verify it later, in reality, Hezbollah never withdrew, and UNIFIL was never able to perform that task.  Therefore, there is an agreed-upon map that is roughly north of the Litani line, although it deviates some and goes further north than the Litani in certain areas.

The Lebanese military will receive authorization and instruction from the Lebanese government to where they are, again, both authorized and instructed to fulfill their mission and to ensure that both they take position in the south and that Hezbollah is moving north of the line that was agreed on in the LAF deployment plan, and all their heavy weaponry is removed. 

They will also be patrolling the area and ensuring that if there’s any remaining infrastructure or remaining weaponry, that it is removed and that no such infrastructure can be rebuilt, again, in that area.

The United States, together with France, are going to be joining an existing mechanism referred to as the tripartite mechanism.  This is something that was created shortly after the 2006 war to include UNIFIL, the U.N. force in Lebanon, and Israel and Lebanon.  It will now — the agreement states that it will be reformulated and enhanced to include France and to be chaired by the United States. 

What this means is that the United States, both through diplomats and military personnel, are going to be receiving any complaints by either side of any potential violations, if they are there.  They will work with the Lebanese army to make sure that its capacity is building, its training is — the necessary training is provided, and that information can flow on a real-time basis to make sure that any potential violations are deterred.  And this will be done throughout the territory.

As the President said, there will be no U.S. combat troops in the area, but there will be military support for the LAF, as we’ve done in the past.  But in this case, it will be specifically done with the Lebanese army and in conjunction with the French military as well. 

There is another element here, which is something called the MTC, the Military Technical Committee, which has been revived by us a few months ago, and that includes several other countries’ militaries who will be providing additional support, equipment, training, and financial support — and financial resources to the Lebanese army and security services. 

The idea here is that, unlike in 2006 where the international community reached the agreement and then abandoned the scene, here we remain committed to be on the ground day to day, watch what’s happening, and to let everybody know, whether it’s Hezbollah or other organiza- — other terrorist organizations, that the world is watching.

Next, the international community is going to be working on as quickly as possible establishing raising resources to support both the Lebanese army and supporting a reconstruction and economic build-out of Lebanon. 

Again, learning from the mistakes of the past, where Hezbollah was the only organization that was doing any work — did very little, but it was the only one that did some reconstruction in South Lebanon — I think it is in our interest collectively as the international community to support economic growth and to bring to Lebanon back to health. 

Hezbollah is extremely weak at this moment, both militarily and politically, and this is the opportunity for Lebanon to reestablish its sovereignty over its territory, to appoint a president, and to attract investment so it can return to economic normalcy and independence.

Again, the ultimate goal that Israel set out at the beginning of this conflict, when Hezbollah attacked Israel in support of Hamas a few hours after the October 7 attacks, was to return people to their homes in the north as safely and securely as possible and that that security would not be a temporary security guarantee, but a durable ceasefire that they can trust. 

That is where we are today.  And I’ll end with where the President started. 

Israel has had tremendous gains on the battlefield against Hezbollah, taking out most of its senior leadership and taking out a significant portion of its military capabilities. 

But you cannot win long-term security on the battlefield alone.  It requires a political settlement that is leveraged by the military gains.  And that’s where we are now. 

I think, for the people of Lebanon, I’ll repeat what the President said.  Hezbollah didn’t ask the permission of the Lebanese people, nor did it represent them when they decided to join the Hamas attacks, or a few hours after the Hamas attacks.  This is a war that no one in Lebanon — most Lebanese did not want.  So it is important that now they can return to their homes too, with security — both security from foreign invasion, as well as from internal.

So, with that, I can tell you that this has been a long process of negotiation over the last couple mo- — few months and with significant intensity over the last several weeks in order to bring it to a close.  And I’m glad that we were able to achieve what the President — what President Biden had charged us with, which is to try to bring this conflict to an end and to now — not stop, and use this as a stepping stone towards getting a ceasefire deal in Gaza and bringing the hostages home. 

I’ll stop there and take questions. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question is going to go to the line of Felicia Schwartz.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thanks so much.  Just wondering if you guys have briefed the Trump team on this effort and if they’ve expressed that they’re committed to it.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  Good question.

Obviously, they were not involved in these negotiations, which reached their most intense point before the election.  And just several days before the election, Israel had asked for me to come out to Jerusalem to meet with the Prime Minister, where he told me that he thought there was a window, and I told him that if Israel and Lebanon were serious about it, we can get into an intense period.  And over the next few weeks, that’s what we did.

After the election, when I thought the negotiations had reached a point that I could see the light at the end of the tunnel for the first time, I briefed President-elect Trump’s senior national security team on the tenets of the deal and my expectations that it would likely — that there was a higher likelihood of it coming to fruition. 

I felt that they needed to know what we were negotiating and what the commitments were.  I did another round of that just in the last 24 and 48 hours.  They seem to be supportive and for the obvious reason that I think they agreed that this is good for Israel, as Prime Minister Netanyahu just said, it is good for Lebanon, as their government has said, and it is good for the national security of the United States.  And most importantly, doing it now versus later will save countless lives on both sides.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Humeyra.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi, Eduardo.  Thanks.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yes, we can hear you. 

Q    Okay.  Thanks.  Just a couple of things.

I want to ask about this idea that Israel can go in whenever it wants, whenever there’s a violation, or whenever it sees a threat.  Can you just describe the parameters of that?  Who’s going to decide?  Will LAF or UNIFIL get an opportunity to deal with that violation directly, or is Israel going to be the sole party that determines what that violation is?

And you also talked about how you went back and at some point you said that you saw the light at the end of the tunnel.  These negotiations have been going on for such a long time.  Can you tell us what exactly made you feel hopeful about this one?

And super quickly: When is this new push for a Gaza ceasefire will start?  And why is Turkey — is it now a broker in this?  The President mentioned it, and it hasn’t been a broker before.  Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, there’s a lot there.                                       

Look, the mechanism that has been created, or that has been enhanced, I should say, to include the United States and France, the whole point of it is, as violations come, is to make sure that that is the mechanism that works with the LAF and other security forces to address and to prevent it. 

But the President was very clear this is — we’re not making any — there’s no secrets here.  The President said if there is a direct threat to Israel due to not just any violation, but a violation that poses a direct threat to Israel,

then Israel, just like any other country in a similar situation, would have to address it.

But we have built a — we have discussed this issue with the parties for a very long time, and felt that we could put the necessary — if we use the tools that we have in Lebanon to not take — and not take our eye off the ball, that will not be necessary.

So we have to — we are — I’m confident that if there’s any need for Israeli action, it will be — come hopefully no time soon and — or perhaps never, and very rare if it has to happen. 

But if everything — if the parties on all sides implement this agreement as they have committed to do, there should not be a need by either side. 

And I just want to note: What the President said is tied to what it says in the agreement itself, which is that both Lebanon and Israel retain the right of self-defense in accordance with international law.  And I’ll leave it there. 

I think the second part of the question was about what gave me the — was the light at the end of the tunnel.

Look, when you do these kind of negotiations for a long time in different parts of the world, as I have, you sometimes get a sense when is — when things get into the final lane where the parties are not only close, but that the will is there and the desire is there, and the stars are aligned.

And I felt that way in mid-October — mid- to late October, I felt that this was — there was something about a change in attitude in both countries, and that’s why we made the push.  We had to make some changes to what we were discussing at that point.

As you know, there have been a lot of leaks of different things that are not what we’ve agreed to in the end.  But I just — I can’t put a specific point on it, but we got to a point where there’s an alignment in both Lebanon and Israel.  And my motivation was just seeing the level of destruction and I think the realization — and loss of life — and the realization, I think on both sides, that the battlefield is not going to be the final answer, and at some point you have to know when to say this is the moment to leverage or to end the battlefield and to move to the next step, which was the deal. 

As far as Turkey, look, I think what the President meant is that, in fact, we have certain individuals and parties are now spending time in Turkey, and so they were added.  But it was not to suggest that they are a broker or a negotiator, but it’s to say that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to do this.

Look, I think this is a — what happened today has the potential for a game changer.  And here, you know me, I don’t speak in hyperboles on this, but if you can think of one thing that was going to put pressure on Hamas, on people that don’t really care about the lives of their people or, quite frankly, their own lives, it’s very hard to therefore get to a leverage point or a pressure point.

But I think the realization, when they now watch the news and realize that Hezbollah has decided to abandon them and delink the two conflicts, there’s no one coming for their support anymore, I think that’s a powerful change of reality on the ground, and we have to see if they are — if that’s enough to be able to make a change in the posture on the negotiations.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Peter Baker.

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?  Sorry.  Thanks very much for this.  Appreciate it. 

Can you give us any more sense of where the President thinks he can make progress in the next 55 days on the larger

Saudi normalization deal that he talked about again today?  How realistic is that?  Does it have to be done with cooperation of the Trump team, given that anything that would be approved and require Senate ratification would almost certainly happen after January 20th?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks, Peter.  Look, as you know, we have — the President has felt strongly that normalization is something that would be the ultimate

change in the Middle East, that could change the entire picture. 

Just a few weeks before the October 7th attacks, we were all in India, where the main part of the G20 was a signing ceremony with the President, led by the President of the United States together with the Crown Prince and the leaders of UAE

and other countries.  That was with the vision of normalization. 

So we’ve done — a lot of the work has been done, but clearly where we are in Gaza is holding us back.

I think that the — from what we have — in the conversations we’ve had over the last several hours, maybe 24 hours, we have come to the conclusion that there is an opportunity — a window of opportunity here, if we can get some changes in Gaza, to be able to reach this normalization now.

I think the political and geopolitical stars of both are aligned, and we’re going to see what we can do over the next 50 whatever days it is.  And to that end, we are clear-eyed that there is a new administration coming in, and anything that we will do on this, they — we won’t do this unless they know what we’re doing. 

And I think, again, this is in the best interest of the Middle East and inherently in the best interest of the United States.  And I have gotten every indication that the new team coming in are supportive of this approach.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Jared Szuba.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi, sir.  Thanks for doing this.  Just to clarify, you mentioned that Israel will retain the right to respond to a direct threat.  Is that part of the deal that the Lebanese government is to sign, or is that a part of the separate letter of guarantees that’s been reported? 

So, I mean, before Israel were to take action, would a violation have to be confirmed by the new tripartite mechanism?

And then secondly, I’m wondering if you could clarify how many U.S. military personnel will be involved in this and where will they be based out of.  Is this going to be based out of the embassy and attached to the (inaudible) mechanism?  Or —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So the agreement that both parties — the ceasefire that both parties agreed to specifically says that both countries retain the right to self-defense in accordance with international law.  The President elaborated on that.

And in a day, nobody should be breaking the agreement on either side, and both should fulfill it.  And this will become an academic conversation for experts to discuss but not to be executed.

And so, on the other issue of the military: Look, this is more — as you know, in multiple places around the world, we provide technical assistance, capacity building.  If we need folks on the ground, they will be based.  That would be done in, I assume, the embassy.  The President was clear that no troops would be deployed to the south, and we are not going to be engaging in — I don’t expect anybody to engage in any kind of combat operations of any kind.  This is all in security assistance and other kinds of related activities.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Karen DeYoung.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  I just want to go back once again to this same question, because with all due respect, I don’t feel like you’ve answered it yet. 

Does Israel have the right, when it determines that there’s been a violation, to use military force?  Or does it need to wait for approval from the LAF?

And secondly, on the Saudi deal, you said that you really see the opportunity for progress there.  Members of the Israeli cabinet have said as recently as yesterday and today that there will never be a Palestinian state.  Do you see any give on either the Israeli side or the Saudi side on whether that is likely to happen or that there can be a credible path that Israel agrees to that will allow the Saudis to move ahead?   Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Karen, I’ll start with your second question, and I’ll say: Over the last many years, I’ve been involved in negotiations in a number of places, and they usually start — or at some point during that period, there are senior leaders who come out with two words: “never” and “always.”  “We will never do this, and we will always insist on that.”  And that doesn’t necessarily hold, because when you have that kind of a position, you don’t reach an agreement.  So I don’t get too excited when I hear those kinds of statements.  I tend to ignore them and only listen to what is being said in the room. 

And as I said before on Lebanon, ceasefire negotiations (inaudible), if we feel that both parties — or, in this case, maybe a number of parties — are serious about it and that there is some deal space here where there’s some compromise that everybody has to make, then I think that we will try to take advantage of that opportunity and reach a historic agreement that is in everybody’s interest.

I’m sorry you feel that I did not answer the question.  I have.  I think you’re trying to take complex, you know, decisions and put them into a single sentence.  But there are going to be a potential for violations on one side or the other.  Before, it would require the Israeli government and the Lebanese, whomever in their system, to contact the U.N.; the U.N. would then have to figure out a way to contact the Israelis or the Lebanese, the other side, maybe file a violation at the U.N. in New York at the end of a quarter or something. 

But here, what we’re committing to is that, one, that’s not a mailbox anymore, but rather we will serve as a live messaging, making sure that whenever there is a view of a violation, specifically a serious violation, it is addressed immediately.  And as I said, if it is not addressed by the responsible parties, then — and it develops into a direct threat, then Israel would have the right to defend itself.

It’s not a simple question to answer, but that is the principal rule that everybody has agreed to or, rather, everybody understands.  And I’ll leave it there.

Next.

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

Q    Thank you.  Can you describe how the negotiation proceeded?  How do we know that Hezbollah has signed on to this?  The President said that he spoke to the prime ministers of Israel and Lebanon.  I know, for practical purposes, it does, but can we say this is an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah?

And what options does Hezbollah have — to follow up on Karen — if they feel that Israel is violating it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That’s a fair question.

The commitments made by the Lebanese government apply to Hezbollah.  As you know, Andrea, we don’t negotiate with Hezbollah directly.  We negotiate with the state of Lebanon.  And the government of Lebanon has to take responsibility for what happens in Lebanon.

Now, as I negotiate with the leadership of the government,

we are aware that they are also in communication with both Hezbollah and with Iran.  And the expectations are clear. 

So when this is reached, this ceasefire is reached, it represents all the entities that need to join this understanding

in announcing the ceasefire and holding to it.  And that is not just my understanding, but that is — we have verified that adherence by all parties in Lebanon.

And at the end of the day, the opportunity that presents itself today in Lebanon with this ceasefire is for the government to assert its control across a territory and functions that, frankly, they haven’t done in 50 years.  And so, that is what we are supporting them, and I think what a lot of — most people in Lebanon are most excited about is that this is now an opportunity for the country to reassert its independence after decades of different countries, organizations, and entities occupying it in one form or another.

But fully expect adherence.  I don’t expect any — I would hope that — just as I hope that Hezbollah will not violate this agreement, I also hope Israel doesn’t violate this agreement.  And if they do, I expect the Lebanese army and the Lebanese security forces to work with this mechanism to address it directly with the Israelis on an immediate basis, whether it’s incursions into their territory or anything else that they do that they had agreed not to do.

So, I think we will — we are seeking to have a violation-free implementation.  And if violations do occur, we are expecting that they are addressed effectively, efficiently, and on a timely manner. 

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

Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Hi, [senior administration official].  Are you aware of any negotiation, whether it’s directly or indirectly, with Iran to approve this deal or at least to give Hezbollah the green light to go ahead?

Also, the French Special Envoy, Mr. Le Drien, will be visiting Beirut tomorrow.  Do we expect you to be back in the region, or do you think that your mission is over by now?

And finally, there were some reports that Israel might get more lethal weapons in return for agreeing to this deal.  Can you confirm that these reports are true?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So as you know, I do not negotiate with Iran.  And I would say this to the Lebanese people: I don’t think Iran should be making decisions over what happens in the territory of Lebanon.  It should be — it is none of their business.  It is only — it should only be decided by those who represent the people of Lebanon, whether it’s the speaker and the prime minister in the cabinet, in the acting capacity, of course, and inshallah, if a president is selected.

To that end, Mr. Le Drien and I have been in close contact over the last many months, as he has had a mission from President Macron to try to work to see if the political impasse in Lebanon can be resolved and to get a president.  Multiple parties in Lebanon have said that after a ceasefire, they would immediately turn to selecting a president.  I call on them to do that now. 

The United States believes that two years without a president is long enough.  We now have achieved a ceasefire that will go into effect in just a few hours.  And there’s no time like the present to take action and select a president and make that part of a signal to the people that this is the moment of renewal in Lebanon. 

As far as the weapons, there is — there was no — no part of this negotiation involved weapons on either side.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Aurelia.

Q    Hi, and thank you so much for taking my question and for doing this call. 

I was just wondering, can you elaborate on this being a stepping stone for a deal in Gaza?  Because one could also argue that now that hostilities are supposed to cease in Lebanon, the Israeli army could, like, regroup in a way and concentrate on its offensive in Gaza.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s always possible to look at any event as a potential stepping stone for negative.  I see here — I choose to see the opportunity here, and I think it’s the more accurate read.

I can tell you that we have been disappointed in Hamas’s lack of seriousness and approach to negotiations over the last several months.  The President, I thought, was as clear as one can be that they have not been seriously negotiating about a hostage deal. 

This is the moment — if anyone in Hamas thought that

there was a broad support for their cause, I think today

they have learned that that is not the case. 

So, again, I said before, I have a feeling sometimes when I negotiate when we’re there.  I can’t tell you that that’s how I feel at the moment.  I can just say that I think this is an opportunity to test the proposition that we can reach an agreement at this time.  And I think it’s incumbent upon us to do that. 

President Biden has felt, as he has ended the speech, that no matter — that if there is — as long as there’s an opportunity to get to a deal in Gaza that both addresses the terrible state that the Gazan people have had to endure and that brings the hostages, including the Americans, home, that it is incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to achieve that.

MODERATOR:  We’ve got time for one last question.  We’ll go to the line of Amichai Stein.

Q    Hello.  Thank you very much.  Two questions.  The first one that Israeli officials claim that the U.S. threatened with arms embargo in the U.N. Security Council not to veto with regarding Lebanon, so to call for an immediate ceasefire.  That’s my first question.  Was there something like this?

And my second question is: Is the Russian going to have a role in Syria to help prevent Iran from supplying weapons to Hezbollah?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  So, on the first question, short answer: No.  This topic never came up, not once.  It’s not only that we didn’t threaten it; we — literally, the topic never came up.  So I don’t even know how to answer the question any other way.  It is completely news to me, and none of us have heard of this before your question.

Second, look, there is no doubt that what we all must focus on is to make sure that Iran does not continue to use Syria as a highway of weapons into Lebanon.  There are a number of elements that are related.  This is a ceasefire that has to do with the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, but there’s no doubt that part of that is to make sure that Hezbollah is not rearming and rebuilding their infrastructure. 

Part of the answer to that question is inside Lebanon, and that’s what this deal addresses.  And part of the answer to that question is going to have to be in Syria, and that is a matter for another call and another conversation on another day.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  That’s all the time we have for today.  If there are any follow-up questions, please feel free to reach out to us.

As a reminder, this call was on background to a senior administration official, and the embargo is now lifted.  Thanks again for joining.

4:44 P.M. EST          

The post Background Press Call on the Ceasefire Deal Between Israel and Lebanon appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Queens, New York

4:26 P.M. EST

MR. BATES:  How are y’all?

Q    Hi.

MR. BATES:  Happy Thanksgiving.

Q    Happy Thanksgiving.

MR. BATES:  I have a few things at the top.

We are on our way to Staten Island, where the president and the first lady will attend a Friendsgiving event at U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York. 

This event is part of the first lady’s Joining Force[s] initiative to support military families and is hosted by the Robert Irvin [Irvine] Foundation. 

While there, the president and first lady will thank service members and their families and help serve a Thanksgiving meal.  This annual tradition is very special to the president and the first lady, and they are grateful for yet another Friendsgiving dinner with some of the men and women who serve and have sacrificed so much for our country. 

Earlier today, the president took part in another time-honored White House tradition, pardoning the national Thanksgiving turkeys in a ceremony on the South Lawn. 

During the 77th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation, the president reflected on the traditions of Thanksgiving and wished American families a safe and healthy holiday. 

And while we’re on that subject, we’re happy to share good news about turkey prices.  According to NBC News, quote, “Thanksgiving dinner is historically affordable this year.”  CNN tells us that, quote, “Cheaper turkeys are helping bring down Thanksgiving dinner costs this year.”  In fact, the price of turkey is down 6 percent, and the average price of the typical Thanksgiving dinner fell 5 percent. 

And as more Americans are getting ready to travel and see family members and loved ones, the price of gas has fallen to its lowest point in more than three years. 

There is more to do.  We will continue fighting to further reduce costs, to grow the middle class, and ensure American families can put food on the table and keep more money in pockets. 

Lastly, since we’ll be touching down in Queens, home of the New York Mets, I’ll note that my wife, Megan Apper, is thrilled that Juan Soto may soon come to New York. 

Aamer, do you want to start us off?

Q    That sounded — I don’t know about the lobbying that was going on there.  (Laughter.)  Little — maybe a little wishful thinking, but it’s interesting. 

MR. BATES:  I don’t have any private conversations to read out.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  Any reaction to Jack Smith moving to dismiss two cases against President-elect Trump?

MR. BATES:  I’d refer you to the Department of Justice, and I would just underline that the president is proud to have restored the independence of the Department of Justice when it comes to critical matters — criminal matters.

Q    If I can just ask you one more on a separate matter.  Since celebrating the annual tradition of the pardons tod- — the turkey pardons today, on a more serious note, where — where is the president on — in just considering, sort of, as many presidents do at the end of the term, pardons and commutations?

MR. BATES:  President Biden has been committed to reforming our criminal justice system, and he has done so through his clemency authority in a manner that provides second chances, that ensures equal justice under the law, and that strengthens public safety.  He will continue to evaluate clemency petitions in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. 

And I want to emphasize that the president has granted 20 individual pardons and 122 commutations, which means he has issued more sentence commutations at this point in his presidency than any of his recent predecessors at the same moment in their terms. 

Q    So, Andrew, I have a follow-up on the commutations.  The president obviously put a moratorium on federal executions, and there’s a concern President-elect Trump will return that.  Is he thinking about commuting some of these (inaudible) sentence?  Like, we’ve talked to one man on death row, Billie Allen, who may be the first prisoner executed if the moratorium returns.  So, is this something he’s considering doing?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more to share on future plans now, except I will restate that he’s been committed to reforming our justice system.  Using his clemency authority has been an important component of that, and he is proud that he has issued more commutations at this point in his administration than any of his recent predecessors.

Q    And since it is pardon day, is he hearing from people — we’ve heard people worried that President Trump might do retribution.  Is he hearing from people who want some sort of blanket pardon who are concerned about what the president-elect might do?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more to share about our process. 

Q    Is he still committed to no clemency for his son Hunter?

MR. BATES:  The president has spoken to this.

Q    And his position hasn’t changed?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have anything idea to add to what he’s said already.

Q    Any updates on the president’s plan to attend President-elect Trump’s inauguration?

MR. BATES:  The president promised that he would attend the inauguration of whomever won the election.  He and the first lady are going to honor that promise and attend the inauguration. 

He views that as an important demonstration of commitment to our democratic values and to honoring the will of the people as we continue to provide an orderly and effective transition. 

Q    You’ve mentioned turkey prices and gas prices.  Why don’t you think that translated into better results for Democrats on November 5th?

MR. BATES:  The president, of course, spoke in the Rose Garden about the election, so I’m not going to relitigate that.

But I will — I will mention that there are outlets represented here who have written that the United States economy under President Biden’s leadership is, quote, “the envy of the world.” 

The president and the vice president fought the global shock waves that COVID-19 sent all over the globe better than any nation.  People still felt that disruption, which he’s clear-eyed about and he mentioned in his address to the nation. 

The Associated Press recently wrote about this, that it was a — a, quote, “super year” of elections that has been bad for incumbents.  But like we talked about today, we just saw that we have surpassed $1 trillion in private-sector investment generated by the major economic laws that this president put in place to change the game for the middle class. 

And we should keep in mind that with the smallest Senate majority mathematically possible, he was able to pass laws that are now bringing American manufacturing home at the strongest pace in generations. 

We have created 16 million new jobs.  We’ve kept the unemployment rate under 4 percent for its longest stretch in history.  New manufacturing facilities are being built at a record pace.  We’ve had record small-business creation.  Medicare is now negotiating down the price of drugs for the first time in history.  We passed the biggest climate investments in human history.  And we have more to do.  We’re going to make every single day count.

Q    What — what happens if the Israeli cabinet doesn’t approve the ceasefire deal tomorrow?

MR. BATES:  I am not going to go into detail about our diplomatic conversations, and I’m not going to speculate.  But we do continue to work toward a diplomatic resolution along the blue line that will allow civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes. 

We have made progress toward that goal.  Like Admiral Kirby said earlier today, we will not be going into specifics about the conversations because of how high a priority that objective is.  But as you all have reported, Amos Hochstein and a wide range of administration officials are closely engaged in this, as is the president. 

And Brett McGurk, who regularly travels to the Middle East, will be in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, where he will discuss using the potential of a ceasefire deal in Lebanon as a catalyst for a potential Gaza ceasefire and for a return of hostages and for increased stability in the region. 

Q    Have there been conversations with the Trump transition team on the Lebanon ceasefire?

MR. BATES:  I won’t go into our private conversations with the Trump transition team.  But as we’ve been clear about, we are committed to facilitating an orderly transition, to being a good resource for them.  The president met with the president-elect for roughly two hours.  Chief of Staff Jeff Zients has met with incoming White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles multiple times.  And like Admiral Kirby mentioned earlier today, Jake Sullivan has also met with Representative Waltz. 

Q    How do — how is there any durability to this if there isn’t — if w- — if — do the — do those two sides, again, essentially know that there is buy-in by the people who are coming in the next administration if this goes through?

MR. BATES:  Again, I will not go into private conversations with the transition, but the president is committed to working toward a ceasefire deal in Lebanon.  I’m not going to get into other details about the conversations, but that is something that leaders in this administration take very seriously and are working toward.

Q    How much can be done in terms of the transition if the president-elect hasn’t yet signed the MOUs?

MR. BATES:  As you mentioned, as of now, they have not entered into agreements with the White House or the GSA.  Jeff Zients reached out to the Trump-Vance transition cochairs, Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, the day after the election to make clear our intention to lead an orderly transition and to reiterate the role that these agreements play in initiating a range of transition activities. 

We continue to speak with them.  And in our conversations, we are stressing that the White House and administration are ready to provide access to services and information outlined in the White House and GSA memoranda once those have been signed.

Q    How much can be done if they’re not signed?

MR. BATES:  I’m not going to speculate about the process, but we are reiterating to them the importance of these agreements and that they go a long way towards allowing us to provide important resources and information.

Q    Does anybody on the Trump team have security clearance yet to discuss any intelligence matters?

MR. BATES:  DOJ is in conversations with the Trump transition team regarding their MOU.  I would refer you to DOJ for more.

Q    Talking about McGurk in Saudi Arabia.  He’s there now?  And is he meeting with MBS? 

MR. BATES:  He will be traveling there tomorrow.

Q    Tomorrow?

MR. BATES:  I don’t have more details to provide.

Q    What can you tell us about the president’s Thanksgiving plans?

MR. BATES:  Like I mentioned, this is a tradition for them, to the thank those who serve and to recognize the sacrifice that many families — military families face where they’re — they have loved ones overseas who are deployed.  They, of course, are a military family themselves.  They experienced this firsthand when Beau Biden was serving.

And it is special to them to be able to thank the men and women today of the Coast Guard for everything that they do to keep us safe and to protect our freedoms.

Q    And then, on Thanksgiving Day, they’ll be in Nantucket, as usual?

MR. BATES:  Yes, that’s correct.

Q    Can you say which family members are going with them?

MR. BATES:  I don’t know which family members will be there.

Q    There’s a group of House Republicans who wrote Secretaries Raimondo and Yellen today — or excuse me, on Friday, asking them to preserve documents related to the CFIUS review of the purchase of U.S. Steel for any potential oversight matters.  They’re alleging potential political bias in the CFIUS process.  I’m wondering if the White House wants to respond to that and if — whether you can give us an update on when the president will make a decision on that or when he expects the CFIUS file to reach his desk to enable him to make a decision.

MR. BATES:  I don’t have a comment on the process, and we are careful to follow all rules and regulations when it comes to the preservation of records.

Q    Thank you.

Q    The president doesn’t always stay in Washington for Christmas.  Should we expect any special trip around there?

MR. BATES:  I do not have any schedule announcements to make.  We are not quite yet to Thanksgiving, so we’ll turn to Christmas after that.

Q    Thanks.

Q    Thank you.

MR. BATES:  Thank you all.

Q    Thank you.

4:39 P.M. EST 

The post Press Gaggle by Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

12:20 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  We do not have anything here at the top, so we’ll go straight into questions. 

Trevor with Reuters, if you want to start us off.

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  First, do you have any comment about this DHL plane that crashed on the way to Lithuania and if there was any suspicion about Russian involvement?

And then second, just any update on Lebanon ceasefire talks.  There’s some reporting that suggests that that’s towards the end of the process there.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, Trevor, what I can tell you is that the FAA and NTSB are cooperating in the investigation that the Lithuanians are just now conducting.  This is pretty fresh stuff here; it just happened.  So we’re certainly not going to get ahead of that investigation and where the facts are going to lead them, but we are contributing some expertise on these kinds of things to help them through that.  And I’m sure that the Lithuanian authorities, as appropriate, will keep people informed about what they’re learning.

On your second question, look, I’ve seen the press reporting and the comments by anonymous officials.  I think you can understand that where we’re going to be today is that this remains a top priority for the President, has for some time and certainly is today as we speak, to get this ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah so that the rockets and the missiles stop and so that people can start moving back to their homes and restarting their lives along that Blue Line.  And we are actively involved in trying to bring that about.  But nothing is negotiated until everything is negotiated. 

And as you and I are speaking here this morning, Trevor — I’m sorry, this afternoon — those conversations are ongoing.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next — sorry, some user issue here.  Our next question will go to Zeke with AP.

Q    Thanks, John, for doing this.  Just following up on your answer to Trevor there.  Can you discuss what remaining sticking points there are?  What is still being negotiated, if not everything is yet negotiated?

And then, is there anything in detail about the President’s personal involvement?  We know Amos has been in the region, but what has the President’s involvement been in these talks?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been monitoring this very, very closely.  He’s been in direct touch with Amos.  Amos is back now. 

I’m not going to get into the details.  You know, there’s still some process things that I think that they’re working through, and it just wouldn’t be wise of me to go into much detail at this particular point. 

Look, I can tell you that the discussions that Amos had were constructive, and we believe that the trajectory of this is going in a very positive direction. 

But, again, nothing is done until everything is done.  Nothing is all negotiated until everything is negotiated.  And, you know, we need to keep at the work to see it through so that we can actually get this ceasefire for which we’ve been working for so long and so hard.

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

Q    Hi, John.  A bunch of weeks ago, the U.S. had put out this Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire proposal, which was very publicly rejected by the Prime Minister.  Can you just talk to us about —

MODERATOR:  Sorry, MJ, your audio cut out.  Would you mind starting again?

Q    Yeah.  I said that a bunch of weeks ago, the U.S. had put out this ceasefire proposal, which was publicly rejected by the Prime Minister.  So I wondered if you could talk to us about the timing.  Assuming that this does come together, why now?  What’s different now versus back then, when you all, again, first put this proposal out there? 

And then secondly, Mike Waltz said that he has now met with Jake Sullivan.  Can you give us the top lines?  Who attended this meeting?  What were the issues discussed?  The Congressman also sort of leaned into this idea that the current and the incoming administrations are working hand in glove as one team.  What exactly are you all working on together at this point?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, MJ.  So, on the first question, the why now is because we are at a certain point in the discussions where, again, we believe that things are moving in a very positive way.  It’s not — I mean, your question presupposes that, you know, we sort of put an anchor on the calendar and said, “Well, you know, we got to have it by, you know, before Thanksgiving.”  And that’s not the thinking here.

You know, with all these negotiations, including the ones that we’ve been trying to get, you know, with Hamas, it’s try, try again.  Keep putting things on the table.  Keep exploring things.  Keep moving things back and forth as both sides are presenting their requirements to you.  And we are mediating this, and we are where we are today because of a lot of back and forth, a lot of discussions, a lot of work, principally by Amos, of course.  And we believe we’ve reached this point where, you know, we’re close.

But, again, I want to be careful and cautious here in how I characterize it, because until you get everything done, you don’t have a deal.  So that’s kind of where we are. 

You talked about it being rejected earlier, but there’s been back and forth with both sides now for many weeks to get us to this point.

On the Waltz meeting, I can confirm that Jake did meet with Congressman Waltz, but I’m not going to get into the private conversation, and I need to really just leave it there.

On your second question, or your third question, I guess, on transition, the President has been consistent on this that he wants to make sure across the administration, and that certainly includes us here at the National Security Council, that we are doing everything that we can to effect a professional and an orderly transition. 

And we continue to urge the incoming team to take the steps that are necessary to be able to facilitate that on their end as well.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.

Q    Hi, John.  Thank you for doing this.  Two quick questions.  First on the follow-up on Jake’s meeting with Waltz.  I was told that one of the issues they discussed is how the current administration and the incoming administration can work together to push for a Gaza hostage deal in the less than two months that are left until January 20th.  Can you confirm that?

And second thing: The U.S. is going to give Israel a letter of assurances, a letter of guarantees, whatever you want to call it, about Israel’s freedom of operation in Lebanon, if it sees any imminent threats after a ceasefire is reached.  Can you say anything about that?

MR. KIRBY:  No and no.  I’m sorry, Barak, but I really can’t be more helpful to you on either one of those ones. 

The only thing I will say is, you know —

Q    (Laughs.)  I tried.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, you did.  It was a — it was a good effort. 

(Inaudible) rumors of a letter of guarantees (inaudible) and to protect their people.  And in those efforts, they’ll continue to get support from the United States.

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

Q    Hi, Admiral.  Thanks for doing this.  A couple of things.  Firstly, just for the avoidance of any doubt, when you say, you know, we believe we’ve reached this point where we’re close, you mean close to a deal.  Is that right?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s correct. 

Q    Oh, thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  That’s correct. 

Q    And secondly, there are reports in the region that President Macron of France is involved in this deal and indeed that there are plans for him and President Biden to announce it tomorrow.  Any comment on either of those aspects?

MR. KIRBY:  No, but except to say: I think you all know that the President spoke with President Macron last week, and, of course, they talked about a lot of things, including the war in Gaza and how much they both want to see this conflict end and tensions to be taken down and a ceasefire to be reached, in this case particularly between Israel and Hezbollah.  But beyond that, I won’t comment. 

Q    Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Channel 13 Israel. 

Q    Hi, Kirby.  Thank you so much for —

Hey, Admiral.  Thank you so much for doing this. 

I wanted to ask: U.S. officials approached the Lebanese today and told them that Israel is on board.  Did you get any response from the people in that — from the government in Lebanon, from Hezbollah?

And also, Netanyahu wants to know when he will be able to go back into a war, if he’d like to, if the Israeli government would think that’s necessary.  And I understand this is one of the latest things that are not completed yet.  Can you elaborate more on that, please?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, I’m not going to be very helpful here.  This kind of gets, you know, to Barak’s question about this rumor of a letter of guarantees. 

Q    Yeah, we didn’t hear your answer there.  You muted your Zoom or something, when Barak asked the question.

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, my answer to Barak was no, and I think he acknowledged that.

But, look, I understand the great interest in this, and I really won’t go beyond what I’ve said before.  We believe we’re close.  The conversations that Amos had were very positive.  And as I said earlier, we believe the trajectory is going in the right direction here to potentially getting this ceasefire done.  But it’s not done.  And the last thing that I’m going to do publicly is speak about the details of it and what components are in there so that I don’t in any way sabotage the efforts to actually complete it. 

This remains an important priority for President Biden.  That’s why we have been working hard to mediate this deal so that people can return to their lives and their homes around the Blue Line, and the rockets and missiles can stop. 

So, again, I do understand where all the questions are coming from.  They’re all fair, they’re all right, they’re all the right questions to ask today, but I’m just not going to be able to get into too much of the details.  Actually, I’m not going to get into any of the details here unless or until we’ve got more to say.

Q    And one last question, if that’s okay, Admiral, about the new administration.  We do hear that Trump’s administration is getting messages from Israeli officials about — saying that most of the hostages are dead, maybe trying to convince them not to try to push to a deal.  Do you know anything about it?  Do you give the new administration any info about the hostages that are still alive?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know anything about those conversations.  And as I said earlier to a question about Congressman Waltz’s meeting with Jake, we continue to urge the incoming team to take the steps necessary so that we can help effect an orderly, efficient, complete, and comprehensive transition to them, which includes being able to provide them the kinds of briefings, and the context, and the material that we believe will be important to help inform their decisions as they come into office.  So that’s where we are.

Q    Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

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

Q    Thank you.  Thank you for doing this.  I want to follow up on a few of the questions about Lebanon. 

Number one, John, can you just confirm once and for all that, actually, we do not expect any announcement between the President and Macron, not tomorrow, but maybe in the next few days?  Because now everybody talks about the kind — maybe there is a kind of announcement, maybe not tomorrow or the day after, but soon.

MR. KIRBY:  All I can tell you, Nadia, is what I’ve been saying here for 15, 20 minutes.  You know, we believe we’re close, and there’s been an awful lot of work done.  And when we have something we can announce and we can speak to, well, by goodness, we’ll do that, and we’ll do that as soon as it is practical to do so. 

But I couldn’t sit here and look at the calendar over the next day or two and tell you exactly when that might be.

Q    Okay.  Fair enough.  How close does Mr. Hochstein coordinate with the Trump transitional team on Lebanon, and at what level? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the private conversations that Mr. Hochstein has been having as he’s been working to try to get this deal.  He’s been very, very focused on primarily discussing what he’s doing — or what he’s trying to do with our Israeli counterparts and, of course, his counterparts on the Lebanon side.  And I’m just going to leave it at that.

Q    Okay.  And just one last question.  I know you said you don’t want to talk about any letters of guarantees, but in general, is this any role that the U.S. playing in this mediation, beyond the facilitating both points of views, whether in execution later on or whether in some kind of guarantee to both sides, not just the Israelis?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not sure I understand your question.  I mean, as the mediator of this, we’re obviously trying to get a ceasefire over the finish line.

Q    Sure, but let me explain what I meant.  I meant there is lots of reports saying basically that the U.S. will guarantee — will give to Israel the right to monitor Lebanese airspace to make sure that Hezbollah is not going to launch rockets from there, and that will be by U.S. supervision.  While now you’re saying there is no letter, there’s nothing like this.  And vice versa — they were saying that they will make sure that during the 60 days ceasefire, that there’s no violation; the U.S. will guarantee that by monitoring what’s happening and reporting it.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was I’m not going to confirm reports that there’s some sort of letter out there.  I’m not going to confirm any of the details that have been discussed between the two sides and the United States.  We are not there yet.  And if we’re able to get there, as soon as possible we will lay it all out for everybody.  And you’ll get to see for yourself, you know, what was negotiated. 

But the last thing I’m going to do is get into speculation from press reports about what is or what isn’t in this deal at this particular point.  I’m just not going to do it. 

Q    Okay.  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Marek with Polskie Radio.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  I have a question on the Russia threats against Poland.  Moscow says that the new U.S. missile defense base that was just recently opened in Redzikowo in Poland is considered a priority target.  So may I ask you for a comment on that?

And my second question is: What’s your assessment on the effectiveness of the use of ATACMS by Ukraine?  In the past, you kind of downplayed potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin.  How do you see it now?

MR. KIRBY:  Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis.  And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast.  I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures, and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing.

But nothing has changed about the — well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.

On your — what was your first question again?  I knew I was going to forget.

Q    Just about Russia’s threats against Poland, the new missile defense (inaudible) put on the target list.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’ve seen those comments, and, obviously, you know, you have to take those kinds of threats seriously, and we do.  As reckless and irresponsible as they are, we obviously take it seriously. 

President Biden has been rock-solid.  We’re going to do everything we have to do to make sure our troops on the European continent are safe and secure.  And just as importantly, you know, we take our Article Five commitments to our NATO Allies incredibly seriously.  It’s rock-solid, and that’s not going to change.

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

Q    Thanks, John.  I want to try again, John, to understand where do things stand now.  From what we’ve learned, there was an Israeli response that was then relayed to the Lebanese.  If Israel hasn’t made any amendment to it, the agreement remains as is.  Now, did you receive anything from the Lebanese?  Where is the agreement now?  On the Lebanon side?  On Israel side? 

Second, my second question: Is it an agreed ceasefire?  And within these 60 days or whatever, the negotiations will continue for a broader deal?

And my third question, please, if I may: Will this ceasefire agreement or deal, or whatever, go to the U.N. Security Council, considering that you will soon preside over it in December?  I mean, will we have a resolution?  Will we have a statement from the U.N. Security Council after this?  Because the Lebanese were opposing that.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, Hiba, look, I’m simply not going to talk about where we are in the negotiation process.  As I said several times here on this call, we believe we’re close.  The conversations that Amos had in the region were constructive.  I’d go so far as to say we believe they were productive. 

But nothing is done until it’s all done, and it’s not done right now.  And if we can get there, as soon as possible we’ll be able to talk in more detail with all of you about the contents of this.  But I hope you understand how irresponsible it will be — irresponsible it would be for me in an on-the-record gaggle to lay out for you and confirm every single press report out there about what is in or what is not in this deal.  I’m just not going to do it. 

And I don’t have anything to talk to you today about, you know, if we get a deal, what a broader timeline (inaudible).  All that gets into the parameters of the deal itself.  So, again, I’m just not going to go there.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have for today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to your questions, please reach out to our distro, our NSC press distro.  And I think Kirby has a few words here before we fully go.

MR. KIRBY:  Yep, just two things.  One, look, I know you all had lots of very detailed questions, and you’re coming away from the gaggle, I’m sure, unsatisfied, and I understand that.

I just — as I said many times, I hope you understand why.  I’m not trying to obfuscate, certainly not trying to be an obstacle or make things difficult for you.  What I was trying to do is characterize sort of where we think we are but not do anything or say anything that might torpedo our chances. 

And obviously, the most important thing here is that we try to get this ceasefire, because it will mean, literally, that lives will be saved and, hopefully over a period of time, that livelihoods will be restored.  And again, last thing any spokesman wants to do is be in the way of that.  And so, I just want you to understand where I was coming from. 

The last thing is: I don’t know if we’re going to have a chance to talk before Thanksgiving.  If not, I just want to wish everybody a happy holiday.  And if you’re traveling, please do so safely. 

And thanks for all this engagement.  I know it’s been a while since we did a gaggle.  And hopefully after the holiday is over, we can get back on to a more normal schedule. 

But anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to all of you if I don’t get a chance to talk to you before then.  Thanks. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.

12:44 P.M. EDT

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:58 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Sorry, fixing — fixing the podium — or the lectern. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know. 

Q    It matters.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It matters.  I know it does.  I know. 

Okay.  So, on Monday afternoon, President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden will travel to the U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York for a Friendsgiving dinner with the service members and military families as part of the first lady’s Joining Forces initiative to support military families. 

This year’s dinner, hosted by the Robert Irvine For- — Foundation will be prepared by Chef Robert Irvine and his team. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York is home to over 500 active-duty members and their family members, and represents the largest military presence in New York City.

During their visit, the president and the first lady will thank service members and their families and help serve Thanksgiving meal. 

This is an annual tradition that is very special to the president and the first lady.  They look forward to yet another Friendsgiving dinner with some of the men and women who serve our country and their families who sacrifice so much for our communities. 

And on a related note, as Americans prepare for Thanksgiving, there’s one more thing to be thankful for: much-needed relief at the grocery store and the gas pump. 

For the second year in a row, the average cost of a Thanksgiving meal is falling and many grocery chains are offering deals for the holiday.  According to the American Farm Bureau, the average price of the typical Thanksgiving dinner fell 5 percent, with turkey prices down 6 percent. 

And as more Americans are getting ready to travel to see family members and loved ones, the price of gas has fallen to its lowest point in more than three years.  Prices at the pump are down about 25 cents per gallon compared to this time last year and below $3 per gallon in almost 30 states. 

There’s more to do, and we’re fighting to further lower costs and grow the middle class.  President Biden will continue to use every tool available to help American families put food on the table and keep money in their pockets. 

And as you all know, the first week of December, the President will travel to Angola, where he will meet with President Lourenço, recognize Angola’s role as a regional leader, and underscore the true transformation of U.S.-Angola relationship.

Together, the United States and Angola are working to address a full spectrum of — of pressing challenges, from narrowing the infrastructure gap in Africa and growing economic opportunities and sustainable development in the region to expanding technologies and scientific cooperation, bolstering peace and security, strengthening food security, and — among others. 

While there, he will also meet with the African — with African and private-sector leaders and reaffirm U.S. partnership across a host of high-priority issues, including security, health, and the economy. 

As you all know well, President Biden has made revitalizing our international alliances and partnerships a key priority, recognizing that today’s challenges require global perspectives and collective responses.  The visit reflects his promise to visit the continent during his term, which he made at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.  And we will have more to share in the days ahead.

With that, Colleen, it’s good to see you.  I feel like it’s been a while. 

Q    You too.  I know.

Karine, can you talk about the decision to loosen restrictions on long-range — long-range — excuse me — weapons for Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a — a couple of things there that I do want to add is —  I want to be really clear: I’m not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operation from the podium today.  That is not something that we’re going to do, and that’s not something we normally do. 

What — what I will say is something — I’ll just reflect on something that the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, said earlier this week, which was the major escalation we’re seeing is that Russia has gone to another country from another part of the world.  North Korea brought in thousands of their troops to the front lines and have added them into this war. 

This is a significant change and one that we warned the Russians about before they did it.  We continue to talk to our allies and partners about this.  And when it — as it relates to any operations on the ground, this is something for the Ukrainians to speak to directly.

Q    Just staying on Ukraine for a second.  With regard to escalation, is there concern that, you know, Putin changing Russia’s nuclear rules is sort of suggesting that the president’s initial instincts on — on, you know, allowing long-range missiles in — further into Russia could amount to a deescala- — or, sorry, a dangerous escalation of the war if he’s right —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, this is —

Q    — or wasn’t right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   And just to kind of reiterate what the national security advisor said — right? — and you’ve heard this from other members of the NSC team, which is the escalation, at every turn, at every step, is coming from Russia.  They’re the ones who are escalating this.  They’re the ones who started this war.  It is because of their aggression into a sovereign territory: Ukraine. 

And this war can end today, and you hear us say this over and over again — it can — if Russia would stop, the war would stop — what they’re doing with their aggression. 

So, this is an aggression from their side, and we’ve been very clear about that.  You just heard me lay out a couple things that the national security advisor said just earlier this week — what they’re doing: thousands of troops from another country that is now part of what Russia is doing with their aggression into Ukraine. 

So, this is their aggression — not Ukraine’s, not ours.

Go ahead.

Q    Just to follow up here.  For a long time, the White House argued that using these long-range ATACMS missiles into Russia to attack targets inside Russia would escalate the war, would be — would really invite retaliation. 

So, why now?  Why change the policy now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics.  I’m just not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operations, not something that I’m going to do today.

But I want to be really clear —

Q    But I guess I’m asking about the specifics of the — of the White House’s decision to change policy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just telling you that I’m not going to get into specifics from here from the podium.  I’m going to be very clear about that.

And what I — I’ve said is: When you’re thinking about bringing in thousands of troops to the front lines to add to the war — right? — these are North Korean troops, as you know — that is the aggression from Russia’s part.  That’s their aggression.

And we’re going to continue to be there for Ukraine.  This is a president that has led on making sure Ukraine has what it needs on — on the battlefield.  He’s the one that rallied countries — more than 50 countries to make sure that Ukraine got what it needed. 

But when we’re talking about aggression here or we’re talking about escalation — pardon me — more so escalation — this is Russia’s — Russia is the one who’s been escalating every step of the way — every step of the way here.

Q    And so, if I’m hearing you right, it was that escalation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — the North Korean troops —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I wouldn’t —

Q    — that was the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m not — I’m not — I’m not saying that.  I’m saying that I’m not going to get into specifics about Ukraine’s operations from the podium today.  You asked me about escalation, and I’m being very clear where the escalation is coming from, but I’m not going to get into specifics. 

Q    And then two more months left in this administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Are there new goals or — or definite goals that the president has in — in how to support Ukraine in these final two months?  Realistically, what difference can he make —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in these last two months of his term?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think the president has made a whole lot of difference. 

Let’s not forget, as — before Russia invaded into Ukraine, the president was the one that warned about that happening.  He was the one, and we were able to share that information with Ukraine.  He’s the one that made sure that NATO was stronger, the NATO Alliance was strengthened.  He led that effort.  He is the one that helped rally more than 50 countries to get back to Ukraine. 

Let’s not forget — and you all reported this — within days, we had — we were hearing over and over again, with the day — within days, Kyiv would fall.  We were hearing that over and over again.  And today, because, yes, of this president and what he’s been able to do but also the bravery of the Ukrainians, they continue to fight.  They continue to fight on. 

And so, the president, in September, as you all know — we’ve talked about this from the podium — talked about surging — like, surging the — the security assistance.  We made an announcement yesterday about the — kind of, the next — the next assistance that we were providing.  And we’re going to continue to do that — surge that assistance, make sure that Ukrainians have what they need on the battlefield to push back against Russia’s aggression. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks.  A couple questions about that aggression.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has the U.S. determined that Russia used a ballistic weapon last night in retaliation for the U.S. authorizing the use of ATACMS by the Ukrainian government?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, a couple of things.  So, obviously, we are aware of Russia’s launch of — of an intermediate-range ballistic missile against Ukraine.  Ukraine has withstood countless attacks from Russia.  We have seen that repeatedly over the past more than two years now.  We briefed Ukraine and our close allies, partners in recent days to help them prepare. 

And as the president announced earlier this year, the United States is providing Ukraine with hundreds of additional Patriot and AMRAAMs missiles to strengthen its air defense.  Many of these are — air defense missiles have been delivered already as a consequence of that — president’s decisions to divert air defense exports to Ukraine.  And deliveries of additional air defense missiles to Ukraine are ongoing.

And as I just stated, the president, in September — on September 29th, to be more exact — he talked about surging continued assistance — security assistant [assistance] to Ukraine.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  And that is going to — to make sure they’re strengthening their capabilities, including air defense, and put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield. 

And just yesterday, as I mentioned moments ago, we were able to announce another security assistance.  And so, that’s going to continue.  And so, we will not be deterred here.  We are going to continue to make sure that the Ukrainians have what — what they need on the ground. 

Q    Now that Russia says that it is changing its nuclear doctrine to essentially lower the bar for when it can use nuclear weapons, does the U.S. need to change its nuclear posture as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s not forget, we said earlier this month that we were not surprised by Russia’s announcement that it would update its nuclear doctrine.  And so, Russia has been signaling its attempt to update its doctrine for several weeks.  And observing no changes to Russia’s nuclear posture, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia’s statements. 

So, this is more of the same irresponsible rhetoric that we continue to hear from Russia, which we have seen for the past more than two years now — if you think about their aggression, their war against Ukraine. 

And so, look — and I talked a bit — I’ve talked about it a little bit moments ago — about the use of — of DPRK soldiers in combat operations against Ukraine.  It presents a significant escalation of its war. 

Again, they are the ones — “they” meaning Russia — are the ones that are escalating this war.  And so, we are not going to be ter- — deterred here.  We’re going to continue — we’re going to certainly continue to — to be there for U- — for the — the brave people of Ukraine.

Q    Have U.S. officials been able to determine what Russia is giving North Korea in exchange for North Korean soldiers fighting in this war?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to certainly get into specifics on that.

What I can say is what we have been very clear about is our determination to be very clear here about our — our continued support for — certainly for — for the Ukrainian people as they continue to deal with this aggression, this escalation from — from Russia. 

And so, we have said that we’re certainly concerned about Russia’s decisions.  We see it as — as it being born out of desperation, what they’re doing.  And — and it’s born out of desperation because they are — now are seeing high casualties — right? — the Russians are.  And — and so, now what they’re doing is they’re turning to DPRK to supply them soldiers to continue their brutal war against Ukraine. 

And so, look, it’s not going to deter us.  They’re the ones escalating.  We’re going to continue to provide support to the Ukrainians as they continue to push back against Russia’s aggression.  That doesn’t — that is not going to stop us from doing that.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, does the White House have any reaction to Matt Gaetz withdrawing his name for consideration to be the next attorney general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I’ll say is — and we’ve been pretty steadfast on being consistent here — not going to comment on every personnel matter or personnel matters here that the president-elect is deciding or is nominating people for — at these respective agencies.  We really, truly want to respect the transfer of power.  We want it to be efficient.  We want it to — to happen in a way that the — the American people deserve, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  And we believe that is very much part of our democratic principle, and that’s what you’re seeing this president do and lead by example.

More broadly — as we talk about the Department of Justice more broadly, look, the president has said when it comes to investigation, that department should be independent.  There should be no partisanship.  There should be no loyalty to one party or the other.  The loyalty should be to the Constitution, and the loyalty should be to the rule of law.  And that is something I believe and we believe the president has led also, on that particular issue, by example.

Q    And then on that topic, our understanding is that the Trump transition team hasn’t signed the MOUs that are outstanding still.  Is there any update that you can provide on your end?  Any progress there?  Or is there concern now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about how that may impede some of that transfer of power you’re talking to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And so — and, look, as you know, the president, President Biden, met with the president-elect to show that transition of power and obviously offering any assistance needed to make sure that happens in a way that is peaceful, obviously, and efficient.  And so, that was one part of it.

Our teams continue to stay in touch.  As of now, to your point, the Trump-Vance transition team has not yet entered into the agreements with the White House and the General Service Administration.  And, as you know, the chief of staff, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, here has reached out to the — the cochairs and have co- — consistently reiterated the — the wanting to work together in making sure that they have what they need.

So, we’re going to continue to engage with the Trump transition team to ensure that we do have that efficient, effective transition of power.  And in those conversation, we certainly are stressing that the White House and the administration stand ready to provide assistance and that access to services and information certainly outlined in the GSA and the White House Memorandum of Agreement — those MOUs. 

So, those conversations continue, and we want this to go smoothly, and that’s what we’re trying to get to.

Q    And just finally —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — what is the White House view on Speaker Johnson saying that he will bar transgender women from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — using Capitol bathrooms, as something that Congresswoman Nancy Mace has clearly raised in regards to Representative-elect Sarah McBride?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would — when I think about that question, I think about what the congresswoman-elect said and — who, as you know, the president has a close relationship with and is very proud of her.  And what she said is “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms.  I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families.” 

And we agree with her.  We think that’s incredibly important: to focus on the American people.  Obviously, for her, it’s Delawareans who she represents.

And so, again, the president is proud of her.  I’m not going to — I’m not going to add to that.

Q    Has he called her in recent days over this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have — I don’t have a conversation to speak to.  As you know, they did — they had a moment to speak on the — the night of the election.  He was able to call her and congratulate her.  I don’t have anything else to add, but I think her words speak volumes.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  U.S. prosecutors charged Indian billionaire Gautam Adani over his role in an alleged bribery scheme this week.  Is the administration concerned that this will damage U.S.-India relations, especially given the recent case with a former Indian intelligence official being charged in an assassination plot aimed at a U.S. citizen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we’re aware of these allegations, and I would have to refer you to the SEC and DOJ about the specifics of those — of those allegations against the Adani Group. 

What I will say is: On the U.S. and India relationship, we believe that it’s extremely — stands on an extremely strong foundation anchored in — in ties between our people and cooperat- — and cooperation across a full range of — of global issues.

And so, what we believe and we’re confident about is that we’ll continue to navigate this issue, as we have with other — with other issues that may have come up, as you just stated.  And so, the specifics of this — this is something that SE- — SEC and DOJ can speak to directly.

But, again, we believe that we are — this has been that — this relationship between India and the U.S. has been built on a strong foundation.

Q    I wanted to ask you also about the ICC’s issuing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — arrest warrants for several top officials, including Netanyahu, over Israel’s conduct in this war.  I know that the U.S. rejected this decision. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the administration see this ruling as a threat to Israel’s ability to defend itself? 

And also, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is calling for the Senate to sanction the ICC after this decision.  Is that a measure that the White House would support or is there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple things.  Let me just say, because this is the first time I’ve had an opportunity to speak to this at the podium, so let me just say more broadly that we fundamentally reject the court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israel officials.  We remain deeply concerned by the prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision.

The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter.  You’ve heard us say this before.  Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no evidence — none — between Israel and Hamas.  There’s just none.

In coordination with partners, including Israel, we are discussing, certainly, those next steps, what that’s going to look like. 

And to your question about sanctions, that’s basically — kind of just answered it in that last — last part of what I said.  We are in consultation with our partners and also in- — which include Israel, about our next steps.  We fundamentally, fundamentally reject that the ICC has jurisdiction over the situation.

And so, that’s something that we’ve been pretty clear about, and we’ll continue to do so.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  At this point, with two months left in the administration, does the White House see a real value in President Biden directly engaging with members of the press?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, absolutely.  Yes.  Look, I think we have worked really hard — and I — and I hope you all have seen this — to make sure that we brought back the norms that was taken away from our — our predecessor on how we engage with the press. 

The president respects the freedom of the press, and he actually enjoys g- — engaging and going back and forth with all of you.  And that is something — and he’s done that extensively, and that is certainly something that he’s going to continue to do. 

We have — what? — less than 60 days — I think you just said two months — left.  That is plenty of time for the president conti- — to continue that engagement.  He will. 

And, you know, this — this is something that we respect: you know, bringing back the norms, working with the White House Correspondents’ Association, making sure that we have that healthy back-and-forth with — you know, with — with the press corps. 

And so, we believe it is important when the president engages with the press.  He’s done, I believe, more than 50 interviews just this year alone.  He’s t- — he’s taken hundreds of questions in his back-and-forth with all of you, and that’s going to continue.

Q    If all of that is true —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — why, on a six-day foreign trip where the president obviously had a robust American press corps traveling with him, did he not have a single engagement, whether it is a press conference or maybe just speaking on the tarmac or really anywhere, where he took questions from the press? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, as you all just st- — stated and wrote about, the G20 and APEC was his last opportunity to deal with some of these world leaders that he has built a close relationship with, has some of — some — some of them he’s known, certainly, more than his almost four years in — in this office.  And so, he truly wanted to spend time engaging and — and listening, having that one-on-one engagement that the president believes in and trusts in. 

And so, he wanted to spend time doing that.  And so, that’s what you saw the president do.  And I get it.  I — I get that you all want to hear from the president.  I — I get that.  I understand that.  And I’m not saying that you won’t.  You will.  He will certainly continue to engage with all of you. 

And it is — when I say it’s something that he actually enjoys doing, it is.  He enjoys having the back-and-forth with all of you, and that’s going to continue.

Q    Just to be clear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    — you mean the explanation is that he, on this trip, was extra busy meeting with world leaders because this is one of his —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I —

Q    — you know, last big foreign —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what I’m saying is, as you know, this was one of his last opportunities to speak to many of these leaders.  There were 20 leaders at the G20; more than 21 — or about 21 leaders at APEC.  And so, he wanted to spend that time, certainly, doing what he normally does at these conferences, obviously, but — but also, you know, speaking directly to them as one of his final times as president.

And, again, putting that aside, I think your question was do we believe that he should engage — some version of that.  If — I apologize if I’m not quoting you directly.  Yeah, we think it’s important for him to engage with the press.  He thinks it’s important to engage with the press, and that’s going to continue.  It is. 

You — the p- — you will hear from the president, have an opportunity to do those back-and-forths that you normally have done with him. 

Q    This is related but separate from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    — just the trip itself.  It — it’s been t- — you know, more than two weeks since the election.  This was an election that elected a man that President Biden has repeatedly referred to as an “existential threat.”  So, why is it that the American people have not heard President Biden talk about this threat since the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there was an election and the American people spoke.  The will of the American people were very clear, right? 

And so, the president is now in a situation where we have to deal with a peaceful transfer of power.  We have to respect the will of the American people, and that’s what you have been seeing from this president: trying to lead by example to make sure that that happens. 

And that’s what the American people deserve.  That’s what the president deserves.  And that’s what I think he was very clear about in the Rose Garden when he delivered his remarks two days after the election.  And he said — he was very honest.  He said these — you know, and, again, I’m — I’m not quoting him exactly — but these were not the results that we had wanted, right?  And that’s just being honest.  They weren’t. 

But we are now in a position where we — he believes he has to lead by example and show what a peaceful transfer of power looks like.  And so, that’s what you’re seeing from this president. 

And, you know, to the points that you made — you know, I’ve been asked about “existential threat.”  I’ve been asked about “threat to our democracy.”  The president is always going to be honest with the American people.  He feels like he is obligated.  What he said still stands, but we are now in a different place.  We are.  The American people spoke.  They deserve a peaceful transfer of power.  That’s what this president wants to do. 

Q    But does he have a message for people on what they should do about this existential threat, I — assuming that he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — still believes Donald Trump —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — is an existential threat?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  His — look, his — his thoughts and what he said — his — his thinking on that has not changed.  It has not.  And I think he was very clear about what he believes should have been done or how we should move forward.  How — you know, he was very clear during those moments that he spoke about it.

Right now — right now, he wants to lead by example and talk and show the American people what it looks like to have an efficient, effective transfer of power.  And he believes that is what the American people deserve.  And I’m just going to leave it there for now. 

Go ahead, Joey.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  President-elect Trump, this week, confirmed he intends to declare a n- — national emergency and use U.S. military to pursue mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.  Does the president believe this is an appropriate use of the military?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m not going to go into what the state attorney — attorney general or state elected leaders might do in the future as a response to this next administration’s policy, how they’re going to move forward.  I’m not going to do that. 

What I can speak to is our administration is certainly — is focused on arresting dangerous criminals and threats to public safety.  We do not believe — we do not believe in separating families. 

And what I can speak to is what we have been able to do and what — how — how that has worked out.  Right?  In our remaining time, we’re going to continue to — to fight to secure our border. 

Since the administration took strong actions back in June, encounters have dropped by more than 55 percent and are lower than they were four years ago.  So, what we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to enforce our laws; remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to be here, to remain in — in the U.S.; and — and we’re going to do that while making sure we’re treating people with dignity that they deserve.  We —

Q    And with that — with that said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I mean, does the president, though, have concerns about using the military to — to carry out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — no — 

Q    — you know, Trump has talked about these mass deportations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear — I heard your question. 

Q    Yeah.  Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re just repeating the question —

Q    That’s true.  I did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that you just asked me.  (Laughter.)  I hear that.

Q    I figured I’d say it again.  You know, it’s a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I hear you.  I appreciate the effort.  I — I don’t want to get into what attorney generals or other elected officials might do in the future.  What I’m going to stick to is what we’re doing right now and what we are going to continue to do in the next less than 60 days in this administration. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Yesterday, the president met with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper to talk about the ongoing disaster recovery down there, and state and local officials were there as well. 

The administration this week — the president has asked Congress for about $100 billion for disaster relief — emergency disaster relief.  How does the White House want to see that get done?  Do you want to see that done quickly as a stand-alone bill or later as tied up with the government funding that’s likely expected later in December? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what we want is Congress to act — to   — we’re going to continue to urge Congress to act quickly to pass a supplemental funding package to assist communities obviously impacted — recent hurricanes and other disasters. 

And what we have seen and what we know when we’ve seen these types of previous — previous natural disasters in the past, we’ve seen Congress come together in a bipartisan way to get that done, to help out communities in crisis. 

And so, that’s what we want to see.  That’s what we look forward to working with congressional — with our congressional partners in delivering that for — for American people, for the folks, again, who are in crisis, who need that — who need that additional funding. 

And so, obviously, you saw the — the letter from OMB, and so, certainly, they can go into more details and specifics of the breakdown of our ask.  But that’s how we want to see it move forward. 

Q    Would you say this is the top legislative priority right now for the president in this lame-duck session?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think — I think in — right after the election, I talked about four or five legislative priorities.  Obviously, this was one of them.  Getting our judicial — our — we think our very qualified judicial nominees through was a — is a prior- — the NDAA is a priority as well.  So, we have a couple of — of key priorities that we want to work with our congressional partners on getting through, and this is certainly one of them. 

And, you know — again, you know, FEMA has — has the money to — to respond to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and that’s assuming there’s no new large, obviously, hur- — hurricanes or a natural disaster. 

But, as you know, when it comes to SBA, that funding is fully exhausted.  And w- — you have, you know, this — that type of funding is critical to businesses, homeowners, and renters.  And they really rely on that — on that funding, that SBA funding to certainly deal with recovery and rebuilding. 

So, there are — there’s a real need here, a real urgency.  And so, we’re going to work with con- — congressional members to get that done. 

Q    Did — did he hear a dire message yesterday from those North Carolina officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think they’re trying to recover and rebuild.  And I think that they were devastated by the hurricane, as we all know.  I think some of you were able to — to come with us on that trip, whether if it was us or with the vice president, and you saw what they — what they have to deal with here: devastated by — devastated by the hurricane.

So, I’m sh- — I don’t want to speak for North Carolina, but certainly there is an urgency.

I would refer you to, obviously, the North Carolina governor, Governor Cooper, on this particular question.  But we saw how devastated they — they were from this hurricane. 

And it is important — it is important — it doesn’t matter if you’re a — you hear it from this president: It doesn’t matter if you’re a red state, blue state, rural — if you’re a part of — a part of a rural America, urban America, all American people deserve to have the assistance that they need when — especially when a crisis like this hap- — occurs.

AIDE:  Karine —

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

Q    Thank you.  Can you detail how the White House is thinking about clemency in these last two months?  Is there a process for how those pardon decisions are going to be made, and is the president expecting to make any sort of statement with the pardons he does in the next two months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president has certainly been committed to reforming the criminal justice system and has done that through clemency authority in a manner that provides second chances, ensures equal justice under the law, and strengthens public safety.  And so, he’s going to continue to elevate clemency petitions in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. 

I’m — I’m not going to get into specifics here on that process, but he — again, he’s going to do this in a way that — that he believes is the right way to — to move forward.  But I just don’t have anything about the process and — and getting into the nitty-gritty of this, but I think you’ve seen how the president has treated this over the last almost four years. 

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about Venezuela, but first on Brazil.  The Federal Police have just indict — indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro for an attempt coup d’état after he lost the elections in 2022.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the U.S. has a react- — have — do you have a reaction from this? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And did the president discuss this when he met with President Lula da Silva in Brazil?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have not spoken to our teams about this, so I would have to connect with them.  I don’t have a response.  I — I want to make sure I give you the right response.  I don’t have a response. 

And also would — you know, we can talk about this after the briefing.  What’s your — what’s your next question?

Q    On Venezuela.  The U.S. recently called, for the first time, “president-elect” the opposition leader, Edmundo González.  And I was curious a little bit about the timing, if it has something to do with the inauguration in Venezuela.  It is January 10th.  What message is the U.S. trying to send with this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would say, since July, it has been clear to us — the United States, to democratic nations around the world, and to independent international organization that observe the July 28th elections — that opposition candidate Edmundo Urr- — Urrutia won the most votes, and we said this repeatedly.  You’ve heard me say it a couple times at the podium, and so we’ve been pretty — pretty consistent about that.  Winning the most votes makes him what?  The president-elect.  And so, that’s what we believe. 

It does not change our position at all.  We, the Uni- — United States, currently recognize the democratically elected 2015 National Assembly as the legitimate government of Venezuela, and so we do not intend to change that posture during this administration. 

And, again, the people spoke.

Q    But even though it doesn’t change the position of the United States, it has been four months since the July elections.  So, why now?  Why — what did you see that made you make this decision about why it’s happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it should be up to the people, and it was.  And that’s what we saw on July 28.  And we were very clear about that.  We were clear about that. 

And so — and, again, when you win the most votes, that means — in this instance, obviously, that makes him the president-elect.  But we’ve also been very — I think very consistent on saying what we saw on July 28th and that the American pe- — the — pardon me — that the people — the people in Venezuela spoke.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly following up on M.J.’s questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Have you spoke- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which one?

Q    (Laughs.)  They sort of grouped together.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There were — there were a few of them.  (Laughter.)

Q    Have you spoken to your named successor?  And if so, what advice do you have for her?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Oh, I didn’t know that was where you were going.  (Laughter.)  “Following up.”  I didn’t see — I didn’t think it was that follow-up. 

Look, you know, I’m not — again, I’m go- — not going to speak to every — every personnel pick — specific personnel pick. 

I — I’m going to reiterate a little bit of what I just shared with M.J., which is that, you know, over the past four years, we have been — we have done the best, I think, to stick to expected norms of the office.  We’ve had over 500 briefings from this podium, with gaggles also on Air Force One and abroad.  And, you know, we hope that they will continue to answer the questions of the American people.  That’s what we hope. 

And I will just add that, you know, I’ve not — I have not spoken to my successor.  What I will say is that I certainly wish her luck.  And this was a great job, and it is an honor to speak on behalf of the president of the United States.  It is a privilege, and it is something that I am very proud to have done for almost four years. 

So, I’ll leave it there. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, two questions.  One follow-up on the person who’s going to take your place.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, goodness.  (Laughter.)

Q    When Donald Trump was president the first time, there was a period of time where we had no press briefings.  In the space that you’re in, in this moment, and have been in for a while, do you believe it’s significant in this moment in time for the American public to hear from the spokesperson on a daily basis, or do you believe that the president can do it himself?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to — to speak how any admingin- — administration decides to do the business of the American people, how they decide to communicate with the American people. 

What I can speak to is what we’ve tried to do, which is bring back the norms of how this all works, how we communicate with the press, and we’ve tried to do this in a very respectful way. 

I’ve mentioned, we’ve done more than 500 briefings, proudly.  Some have been tough.  (Laughs.)  Some have been tougher than most, if you will.  But it is — it is a privilege to stand at this lectern to — it is — behind this lectern, at this podium.  It is a privilege.  It is a privilege to speak for this president.  It is a privilege to actually talk about what we’re doing, to you and to the American people.  

I can’t speak to what th- — what any administration is going to do.  I’m not going to look into the future. 

What I can say is what we have been committed to: the freedom of the press, respecting the press, having tough back-and-forths.  But this is what democracy is all about. 

Q    And lastly, on Africa. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    The last Republic- — the last Republican president to travel to Africa was George W. Bush.  And since Bill Clinton, except for Donald Trump, every president has traveled there.  Is there a concern that with all of this — these last four years, having the vice president and the secretaries and now the president go to Africa to highlight the importance of the continent on so many levels, is there a concern that you will lose ground in the next couple of years because Donald Trump didn’t go last time, and he’s said some very harsh words about sub-Saharan Africa before?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to — I have no idea what the next administration is going to do — really, I — truly.  I mean, I — I don’t know what they’re ex- — going to execute.  I don’t know how they’re — what they’re going to do. 

What I can say is the president is going to Africa because he made a commitment.  You saw his commitment to the continent when he had the leaders of the — the African leaders here about almost three years ago now, I believe, maybe f- — yeah, maybe a little bit longer.  And he did that because we believe there are shared interests between the continent, the countries, obviously, and the U.S and wanted to continue to transform those relationships — right? — and work on those relationships. 

And so, that’s what you’re going to see from this president the first week of December when he goes to Angola. 

I will add that this president believes in respecting people.  Again, it doesn’t matter where you come from.  It doesn’t matter if you voted for him or not.  He respe- — he re- — he believes every American has an opportunity to be uplifted, to have opportunities to have a better life for themselves.  That’s why he believes in this country, what this country is founded on, what this country is all about: getting opportunities; being able to — you know, to — to live that American dream, whatever that — however that is defined for you. 

And so, that is something that this president will always respect, not just as president but moving forward.  And obviously, he did that as vice president and senator.  And so, that’s what I can speak to, and that’s what he’s going to continue to do. 

And there’s a lot of things that we’re going to cover in Angola — right? — whether it’s infrastructure; growing ec- — economic opportunities; tech- — expanding technology.  There’s a lot to talk about, a lot of shared interest.  And so, we’ll have more to share, certainly, on his trip to Africa.

Go ahead, Jenny.

Q    Firstly, on M.J.’s question/comment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  M.J., you’re so popular today.  (Laughs.)

Q    I was on the South America trip, and I just wanted to note —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if your explanation was that he was engaging with leaders, there was quite a bit of downtime and, of course, opportunities on the tarmac, which he has used before the election.  So, I don’t know that re- — that really explains —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    — why he didn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I appreciate that you don’t appreciate my explanation,  but what I’m saying to you is that the president is go- — is looking forward to engaging with you all in less than 60 days.  He’s done it extensively.  It’s not going to stop.  And he will do that — he will continue to engage with all of you and take your questions. 

He’s done, I believe, more than 600 back-and-forths with you all this year alone.  Done more than 50 interviews.  That’s not going to stop.  It’s not.  He’s going to engage.  And I’ll just — I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    One —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    One actual topic, sorry.  Does he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, actual topic?  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, this one was — I just have to, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What does that mean?

Q    I just had to get out this one comment.

Does the administration have a prevailing theory on how the undersea cables in the Baltic Sea were damaged, and do you think that China may have been responsible?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into any type of theories from here.  I will let, you know, the NSC team respond to that directly.  I’m just not going to get into speculation from here. 

Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the statement you just mentioned about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu and the defense minister.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You said that you found the process troub- — has troubling errors.  What errors do you think it has?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    And second —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no.  I’m sorry.

Q    You talked about the partners — you want to discuss with partners the next step —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on the ICC decision.  Few of your closest allies — France, Italy, Netherlands, and Canada, so far — said they’re abiding by the court decision, and they can arrest Netanyahu if he steps on their soil.  So, do they have a different inter- — interpretation of international law than you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — here — so, a couple things.  You asked me a couple things.  So, the first thing that I will say is that obviously we reject and we certainly have different opinions on that, and we’re going to let other countries speak for themselves.  We’re speaking for ourselves, and so we’re not going to be executing any arrest warrants.  That is not something that we’re going to do from here. 

And I do have some examples on when you asked me about the process and why we think it’s essentially a flawed process.  And so, in contrast to how he has treated — this is the prosecutor — how he has treated others, including Nicolás Maduro and his associates, the prosecutor failed to provide Israel with a meaningful opportunity to engage constructively and to properly consider its domestic processes.  This calls into question the credibility of the prosecutor’s investigation and — and the decision today.

But we’ve been very clear, not just today, that, you know, we do not believe that the ICC has the jurisdiction here, and so — over — over this matter.  And so, we’ve been very clear about that, and that stance has not changed. 

But I just laid out an example of why we think that — what process the ICC did not follow.

Q    And second, on the 19 Democratic U.S. senators voted to block sending offensive weapons to Israel, and Senator Bernie Sanders said basically that we cannot criticize human rights violation while the U.S. itself is violating its own laws.  So, where is your role in that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we strongly oppose this resolution, and we have made our position clear in — to interested senators.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

We’ve been also very clear about this: We are very committed to Israel’s security.  That has been ironclad.  And — and we believe that these resolutions are counterproductive as we are working to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon and ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. 

And so, we have strong — strong reason to believe that terrorist groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, want to see Israel in a position of weakness, and we don’t want to see that happen. 

And so, look, we appreciate that — the concerns that the senators raised.  Obviously, we respect their position.  We just do not — we strongly oppose the resolution. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  Following up on your comments on the change of nuclear posture by Russia.  And you said it’s another example of irresponsible rhetoric.  Is it a way to kind of dismiss what Russia said, to say there was no real reason to be concerned, these are only words?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time.  There is no —

Q    That — that there would be no re- — that there’s no real reason to be concerned, that this is just like Putin, you know?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you’re talking about their —

Q    Yeah, yeah.  Their —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — nuclear doctrine that —

Q    The nuclear doctrine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — they put out. 

Look, here’s what we’re saying.  We haven’t seen any indic- — indications of Russia preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.  We just have not seen that. 

And so, this is more of the same — right? — more of the irresponsible rhetoric from Russia, which we have seen the past two years.  We’ve seen this before.

But it doesn’t stop what we have been saying, that the escalation is coming from Russia here.  They’re the ones who are escalating.  This is their war.  They’re the ones who have — you know, went into a — a sovereign territory, which is Ukraine, and started this war and pushed forward with their aggression. 

And so, this is a war that they can end.  They can end it today.  And we’ve been very clear about that. 

I know I have to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    I wanted to follow up on the Trump transition team not signing the MOUs.  Have they provided any reasoning as to why they have not signed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They can speak for themselves.  I’m not going to speak for the Trump transition. 

Q    Are you concerned about the implications of the delay of the transition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to speculate from here.  We are — we are continuing to have our dis- — discussion with the Trump transition team.  I’m just not going to speculate. 

All right.  Go ahead.

Q    Good afternoon.  Two topics: one on immigration and one of the unions. 

Immigration.  New York Post is reporting that ICE is quietly loosening some of the restrictions on how migrants would have to follow the asylum procedure.  Basically, they wouldn’t have to do the physical check-ins with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, Customs and Border Protection.  The former head of Customs and Border Protection is calling it “obstructionist transition.”  Is there any effort by the current administration to kind of curb any of the immigration overhauls that Trump is likely to go for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any policies — new policies to — to speak to at this time.  I just don’t have anything. 

Q    So, it’s just not happening, as far as we know?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I would refer you to DHS for any specifics on that particular question.  But if you’re asking us if we are doing any policy changes, I don’t have anything to announce. 

I — I laid out for one of your colleagues what we have been doing, especially since we moved forward with our executive actions, since — in June.  And what we have seen: Encounters have dropped more than 55 percent, and they’re lower than they were even four years ago. 

And so, that is what we’re going to continue to f- — do.  We’re going to continue to enforce our — our laws.  That’s going to be our — our focus. 

But I — I’m not going to speculate on, again, what the next administration is going to do or not do.  Anything specific about looseling — loose- — loosening of what’s happening at the border, I would have to refer you to Department of Homeland Security.

Q    And then, my second question was just on unions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The president has talked so much about being the most pro-union president ever.  This week, the DNC Staff Union put out a pretty scathing note saying that so many DNC staffers have gotten laid off, no severance.  They were shocked. 

I’m just curious, from an optics perspective.  The vice president left town to go to Hawaii on vacation.  Does the president think that’s appropriate when so many DNC staffers are literally wondering what they’re going to do for work next?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Let’s not twist this in so many knots here.  First of all, to your first part of your question, it’s not the president who called himself the most pro-union president.  It’s other unions that have called him that, and he is proud to be called the most pro-union president ever.  That is something that he — was given to him, and he is proud to own that.

And it’s not because he’s — it’s — it’s a frivolous statement.  It is because he has shown — he has not just spoken but taken action and has had the back of union members and union workers throughout his presidency.

As it relates to the DNC, I would have to refer you to the DNC and —

Q    But does it look bad for the vice president to go to Hawaii —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — while DNC staffers are just wondering —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The vice —

Q    — what they’re going to do for work?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The vice president has taken time off to go spend time with her family.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.  I think she deserves some time to be with her family and to have some downtime.  She has worked very hard over — for the last four years, and her taking a couple of days to be with her family, good for her.  Good for her.

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everyone.

2:48 P.M. EST

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

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

MR. FINER:  (In progress.)

We expect President Biden will also engage with leaders one on one, and are working to schedule several pull-asides on the margins of the G20.  If those are able to come together, we’ll obviously read out those conversations if they happen.

The President will close out the day by attending the G20 Leaders Reception.

Of course, tomorrow, in addition to G20 programming, the President will have the opportunity to meet bilaterally with President Lula of Brazil.  President Biden will congratulate President Lula on Brazil’s G20 host year and reaffirm U.S. support for President Lula’s efforts to address hunger and poverty and their shared commitment to ensure no one is left behind, among other key topics such as their partnership (inaudible).

Now, let me just take a step back and reflect for a bit on the significance of the President’s participation in the G20 this year.

Nearly four years ago, President Biden took office amid a devastating global pandemic that had upended the global economy and set back development progress around the world.

Over the past four years, we’ve experienced significant economic growth in the United States, outpacing much of the rest of the world.  And at the heart of this has been President Biden’s modern industrial strategy premised on investing at home to grow the middle class, investing in ourselves, investing in global infrastructure to help our partners do the same. 

This has meant reinvigorating multilateral groups like the G20 to deliver bold action to address big cross-border challenges like climate change that are important to both President Biden and President Lula as well as others in attendance here.  These require, obviously, working with our partners around the world.

Going into the sessions today and tomorrow, President Biden is focused on, really, three key challenges in making progress:

First, making sure developing countries have the resources to make critical investments for strong, sustainable development.  The reality is that too many countries have the will but not the resources or the know-how to invest in their futures.  Most low-income countries spend more servicing their debt than on health, education, and social programs combined. 

That’s why you’ve seen President Biden press the G20 to offer countries a pathway to growth that will call on the international financial institutions, bilateral creditors, and the private sector to step up support for vulnerable countries. 

It’s also why President Biden has championed the global effort to equip the multilateral development banks to tackle global challenges like climate change, fragility, and conflict, as well as pandemics. 

Over the past two years, we’ve fundamentally reshaped and scaled up these institutions, including by identifying forums that can boost lending capacity by up to $360 billion over the next decade. 

Over the next couple of days, President Biden will highlight his funding request to unlock $36 billion in lending at the World Bank and call on G20 leaders to follow through on their pledges to join us to boost lending capacity by $100 billion. 

This is why President Biden is highlighting the need for an ambitious replenishment of the International Development Association, the World Bank’s arm that supports the poorest countries.

President Biden will announce a historic U.S. pledge during the Rio Summit and rally other leaders to step up their commitments. 

Second, we’re capping off the administration’s work to better prepare, prevent, and respond to pandemics — a core focus of President Biden’s since day one for obvious reasons, given what we inherited.

Two years ago, the President led the G20 to launch the Pandemic Fund, a landmark achievement and strong demonstration of how global leadership makes us safer.

In Rio, President Biden will rally support for the second replenishment of this Pandemic Fund to reach its $2 billion resource mobilization goal.  And we’ll be leading the way with a $667 million pledge. 

Third, we’re furthering the global clean energy transition, a critical complement to the President’s domestic climate agenda and a priority you’ve heard him talk about in Lima, in the Amazon, throughout the trip and throughout his presidency.  This starts with pressing G20 countries to make commitments to reduce emissions in line with a 1.5-degree target (inaudible) Paris Agreement.

Tomorrow, when President Biden sees President Lula, he will launch a bilateral Clean Energy Transition Partnership with Brazil, which is designed to position Brazil to reap economic benefits of the energy transition, including scaling and diversifying the supply chain. 

So, it’s a big, broad agenda, as is always the case at these G20 meetings.  That’s basically the plan for next couple days.

I’m happy to take questions.

Q   Thanks.  Can you go back to this position that (inaudible)?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sure.  So, on the communiqué, I think just taking a step back, it’s important to understand the context of what a G20 meeting is.  Unlike the G7, which is a gathering, essentially, of likeminded countries and the United States, the G20 is a grouping that includes both some of our closest partners and allies, as well as countries that fundamentally are U.S. adversaries.  And so, a communiqué that emerges from this forum is going to be different from what you get in the context of a likeminded gathering. 

I don’t want to get ahead of the negotiations that are still ongoing about the content of this particular communiqué.  Obviously, the U.S. and our partners will be pushing for the strongest possible Ukraine language, but it goes without saying Russia is a part of this grouping, and so this will all have to be negotiated and we’ll see where it lands.

Q    Can you say anything about (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Yeah, look, I obviously have seen the reports.  I don’t have anything to confirm for you here.  But what I will say is that the United States has been clear throughout this conflict that we will make our policy decisions based on circumstances we identify on the battlefield, including, in recent days and weeks, a significant Russian escalation that involves the deployment of a foreign country’s forces on its own territory.  The United States has been clear that we will respond to that, and we’ve been clear to the Russians that we will respond to that. 

I’m not going to get into reports of what exactly — what form that response might take, precisely, for operational reasons that I think you can understand.  But this has been consistent with our approach to the entire conflict.  There are circumstances that evolve and change, and we will evolve and change (inaudible) and to allow the Ukrainians to be continue to defend their territory and their sovereignty.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sorry, I’m having trouble hearing you.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  So, the United States closely coordinates with all our allies, especially our closest allies — Germany, obviously, among them — on all issues related to Ukraine and, frankly, a whole range of other global issues as well. 

When it comes to your question about negotiations, fundamentally, that’s not a question for the United States or for Germany; it’s a question for the government of Ukraine about when and if it will decide the terms of the negotiations with Russia.

Our policy and our approach has been to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position, both throughout this administration and since the invasion took place in 2022, but particularly with the surge of assistance that President Biden announced in September through the end of the year and the end of his term.  We’re executing on that.  We’ve announced recently a drawdown package with another $450 million in assistance.  There will be more announcements like that forthcoming. 

But beyond that, decisions about negotiations will be left to the Ukrainians.  It’s their country and their people.

Q    The Kremlin said this morning that the decision of the (inaudible) weapons was throwing oil on fire in this conflict.  Can you say what the decision (inaudible)?

And, separately, can you say where President Biden discussed the long-range weapons (inaudible) with incoming President Trump (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Again, just to be super clear, I’m not confirming any decisions that have or have not been made about U.S. assistance when it comes to (inaudible). 

I will say, with regard to the comments that came out of Russia, the fire was lit by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  So, I think this notion of fuel on the fire is, frankly, a side issue to the main issue, which is Russia waging a war of aggression across a sovereign border, into Ukraine, and continuing to do so.  And we’ve seen, in addition to the North Korean forces deployment that I mentioned, a major escalation in terms of an aerial attack on infrastructure across Ukraine over the last 24 hours. 

So, I would put the question back to Russia about who’s actually putting fuel on the fire here, and I don’t think it’s the Ukrainians.

Sorry, your second question? 

Q    (Inaudible.)  Do you know if President Biden discussed (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Well, yeah — so, look, the two presidents discussed a wide range of issues, and we’ve been pretty careful not to read that conversation out in any detail.  Certainly the conversation included all of the major issues of geopolitical significance, but I’m not going to get into the details of it.

Q    Thanks.  There are reports that a text is being (inaudible) climate finance.  Is the U.S. on board with that text?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  When we have an approved text, we will come out and say so.  When it comes to climate finance, I think the most significant development of the last 24 hours was the President’s declaration yesterday that the United States has met its $11 billion pledge for international climate financing.  That’s been an important target throughout this administration.  We not only got there but we exceeded it, as the President said in the Amazon yesterday.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Yeah, so I’m not going to get in the sort of private conversations the President has with world leaders on this topic, other than to say there’s an obvious context here of a transition that is taking place in our politics and in our governance. 

The President has been, I think, very clear that his goals through the course of his entire term have been to strengthen the position of the United States in the world.  The investments that we’ve made at home are a foundational part of that.  The relationships that we’ve enhanced and improved around the world, including, obviously, in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, and other places, are a significant part of that. 

We think we are leaving the country on a much stronger footing than we inherited it, and it will be up to a new administration to determine what to do with that vision that we believe that we are passing on.

But we have a system that’s fundamentally predicated on one president at a time.  President Biden is that president.  He will be handing off power in January, and it’ll be up to the new administration to decide what to do with it.

Q    (Inaudible) other countries that would seek to win some sort of (inaudible) incoming administration on some of the key issues that you still have, (inaudible) hostages, conflicts in the Middle East?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Look, I mean, countries will have to make their own decisions about how they react to, respond to, posture themselves according to our transition.  Fundamentally, I think our view is countries make decisions based on interests.  We have found an alignment of interests with a large number of countries in the world, including in particular our closest partners and allies.  I don’t think those interests change even if there is a transition from one U.S. administration to the next.  So, I don’t think we are expecting some major reorientation of how other countries look at the world or look at their relationship with us, but they will make those decisions for themselves based on their interests, in January.

Q    Just quickly back on the Scholz-Putin call, can you elaborate or explain how that fits with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” which you guys have been sort of operating under?  And then, whether or not you got a heads up.  Are you supportive of a leader call taking place?  And is it still President Biden’s view that nobody on the leader level should engage with Putin at this point?

MR. FINER:  Look, fundamentally, this is a question for the German government, not the U.S. government.  Germany is a sovereign country and can do what it wants in terms of its international relations. 

What I will say is we’ve never said that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” means that nobody should be talking to Russia.  We’ve had conversations with Russia in this administration.  Other countries have had conversations with Russia even since the invasion and (inaudible) more significant phase of the war broke out.

We’re not going to read out the substance of the conversation that Chancellor Scholz had with President Putin, but, you know, there’s nothing that is fundamentally at odds with “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” just because you happen to be speaking with Russia.  There are good reasons for countries to engage Russia, even as we work collectively to try to improve Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and strengthen their hand.

Q    So it didn’t do anything — any damage to your collective alliance (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Again, I think these are better questions for the Germans to answer.  But the reality is, I’m quite confident that there was nothing that took place that undermined Ukraine’s interest in these conversations, and we are closely aligned with working with the Germans and our other allies on this.  And I think all of us continue to stand foursquare behind the decision that nothing should be done to undermine Ukraine’s position.  Ukraine will make its own decisions about any potential negotiations or its own dialogue with Russia when it chooses to do so. 

Q    Thanks, Jon.  There’s (inaudible) from President Zelenskyy, as well as others in the international community, for President Biden to make (inaudible) making moves on Ukraine (inaudible), including an invitation to join NATO, for instance.  What additional steps is the President considering on Ukraine in his final days in office?  And will the administration request more money for Ukraine from Congress (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  So, for obvious reasons, we don’t tend to (inaudible) publicly about things that we are considering doing.  When we have a step that we’re ready to announce because we’ve decided on it, we come out and say so. 

So, I won’t go into options on the table or that sort of thing, other than say that we’ve been very clear that the goal — the overriding strategic role for the rest of this term on Ukraine is to make Ukraine as strong as possible.  And that means surging as much materiel and equipment as we can get into Ukraine over the course of the near term.  The President said that quite clearly in September, and we’ve reiterated it since.  It means using all of the funds that have been appropriated for the United States to provide Ukraine during the rest of this term and this administration.  We are on track to execute that.  When we have additional policy changes or policy steps to announce, we’ll come out and say so.  What we’re not going to do is talk about what’s on the whiteboard.

Q    On the money, though, could you weigh in on whether you’ll ask for more spending for Ukraine considering that the administration is pushing for additional (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Look, I guess what I would say to Ukraine is obviously going to need additional support.  No doubt about that.   What vehicle, what timing, I will not get into from the podium here, but Ukraine is going to need additional support going forward if it’s going to stay in the fight.  I think that’s (inaudible).

Q    How much of that (inaudible)?  (Inaudible) verbal commitments to Ukraine as well as (inaudible).  What is the message to allies (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  Look, I guess what I would say is wholly consistent with our approach throughout this conflict when the President first talked about a surge that would get as much into Ukraine by the end of this year, by the end of this term, back in September before we knew the outcome of the election.

So this is a strategic goal; it is not political.  It’s about leaving Ukraine in the strongest possible position given the challenges it faces and the escalation that it’s facing now from Russia.

Q    President Trump (inaudible). 

MR. FINER:  So, I guess I think it’s not unusual for an incoming administration or incoming president to engage with people who will be his counterparts.  Beyond that, I don’t have much to say about it.

Q    I realize you’re not going to comment on the reports, but would the President (inaudible) accept it if France or the UK decided loosen their restrictions?

MR. FINER:  So, look, that will obviously be a meeting, a policy judgment from here that I’m not prepared to provide.  So I don’t think I have anything additional to say beyond what I’ve already said, which is that there has been significant escalation on the Russian side, and I think that should be the focus.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Sorry, I just can’t hear you.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  I don’t think that’s on.

Q    Can you hear me now?

MR. FINER:  Yeah, a little better.

Q    (Inaudible) German government (inaudible) long-range missiles (inaudible).

MR. FINER:  So that was the same question that just got asked.  That’s a significant policy question.  I understand why you’re interested in it, but I’m not — don’t have anything to announce on that here.

Q    Thank you.  Can you talk a little bit more about (inaudible)?  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Debt?  Is that what you said?

Q    Debt.  (Inaudible.)

MR. FINER:  Yeah.  So, look, this administration has taken a lot of action when it comes to these onerous, burdensome debts that countries face that, as I said, can amount to more than these countries are spending on (inaudible) or social issues and services by their population. 

President Biden and President Ruto, during the Kenya state visit, announced a sort of vision that these two countries would pursue together.  We are working hard to execute on that vision.  We’re going to be making the case, and President Biden will be making case during his G20 interventions, for other countries to embrace this approach.  He’s going to be talking about it bilaterally with President Lula as well.

But this is kind of a key area where I think the United States and other countries that are part of G20 are aligned.  There are some countries that unfortunately are trying to take advantage of this situation, and the United States has made the case that that’s not appropriate, that that’s holding key developing countries back from flourishing when they should.

Maybe one more, and then I think I got to go.

Q    Can you explain how restricting American weapons in the past has (inaudible)?

MR. FINER:  That’s a question that’s phrased in a particular way that I would not (inaudible) the premise of.

What I will say, though, is: I believe the United States has been extraordinarily successful in providing Ukraine what they needed in the moment that they needed it to enable them to defend their territory, their sovereignty, and their country.  And that started at the very beginning of the war when the United States provided key inputs like air defense and anti-tank, anti-armor assistance so that Ukraine could thwart what was a full-on Russian assault intended to swallow as much as Ukraine as possible.  And the Ukrainians were able to beat that back.

When the war evolved to a more static front line in the east of the country and became much more of an artillery engagement, the United States surged the provision of artillery rounds and longer-range rounds, GMLRS, and other rounds to Ukraine so that they could hold off Russia on that fight as well. 

We’ve done this at every phase of the conflict, including the provision of ATACMS for the Ukrainians to use inside their own borders, which obviously took place earlier this year. 

So we believe that we have enabled the Ukrainians to fight effectively against an army that, frankly, is much larger — at least before the war, was much better equipped — and the Ukrainians held Russia at bay despite predictions — you know, if you go back a couple years, about the trajectory of this conflict, it would have had people believing that most of Ukraine, not all of Ukraine, would have fallen a long time ago. 

Thankfully due to the bravery, first and foremost, of the Ukrainian army, with our help, with our allies’ help, that has not been the case.  And so, what we’re talking about is a frontline that moves a kilometer or two here and there in the far east of the country, which is much better situated than I think anyone predicted early in this conflict. 

That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we do not need to continue to provide support for Ukraine.  They’re in a very difficult, extremely difficult situation with Russia, in egregious ways, continuing to escalate this conflict.  I just mentioned two of them: the deployment of a foreign country’s troops on their own territory to fight against Ukraine and these horrific attacks that took place on Ukrainian critical infrastructure over the last 24 hours. 

Unfortunately, that is part and parcel of what we have seen throughout this time, which is Russia’s willingness to continue to up the ante.  And we have and will continue to up the ante when necessary (inaudible) for the Ukrainian (inaudible) succeed (inaudible) will prevail. 

Thank you, guys.

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer on the President’s Engagements at the G20 Summit appeared first on The White House.

Lima, Peru

MR. SULLIVAN:  (In progress) — which will go into some detail on various issues that they covered.

And so, I’m going to be brief in my opening comments, because you all can read that scintillating Word document. 

You know, this was an opportunity for them to take stock of their relationship after four years of President Biden stewarding it along with President Xi Jinping.  And President Biden reflected on the fact that he has worked hard to responsibly manage the competition so that it doesn’t veer into conflict and so that he maintains space also for the U.S. and China to work together on matters of mutual interest.

He reflected on the fact that keeping open lines of communication is vital to the responsible management of this relationship, and that includes the leader-to-leader communication that has really anchored the relationship over the last four years, but also communication at all levels. 

And he really emphasized the importance of sustaining military-to-military communication through this transition period and beyond, because that is how we will most effectively avert any potential mistake and miscalculation of crisis.

He spoke about areas where we actually have made progress, where our interests align, from counternarcotics to climate, AI.  The two leaders took an important step forward today with respect to AI safety and risk.  They agreed, and it will be reflected in the readout, on the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons, which is the first time the U.S. and the PRC has made this statement.  It’s an important statement about the intersection of artificial intelligence and nuclear doctrine, and it is a reflection of how, even with competition between the U.S. and the PRC, we can work on a responsible basis to manage risk in vital areas.

The two leaders, of course, also spoke about areas of difference and areas of friction in the relationship, including U.S. concerns over the PRC’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base.  And in this context, President Biden reiterated his grave concern over the fact that the DPRK has deployed a significant number of troops to western Russia to participate in the battle against Ukraine, in the war against Ukraine. 

President Biden also spoke to President Xi about cross-Strait issues and the U.S.’s commitment to sustain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  They had the chance to go back and forth on that. 

They talked about economics and national security.  They talked about the respective concerns of both sides about the policies of the other.  But President Biden really reiterated his concern about unfair non-market economic practices that are harming American workers and businesses. 

They also covered the South China Sea, and President Biden reiterated his view that international law must be respected, along with freedom of navigation and lawful, unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea.

They touched on a number of other issues as well.  I would just sum up the meeting by saying that it was — like all of these meetings are, it was candid, it was constructive, it was wide ranging.  There was a give and take, a back and forth. 

The two leaders set aside the notes, particularly in the closing section of the meeting, for them to each be able to reflect upon the fact that they’ve known each other for quite a long time now, that they have worked together closely, that they obviously haven’t always seen eye to eye but they’ve always been straight with one another, and that they both remain committed to try to responsibly manage this relationship during this last critical transition period and, of course, over the course of the past more than 10 years that the two leaders have been dealing with each other, both as vice president and now as president. 

So, with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Q    Can you talk about how the President addressed North Korea’s support for Russia and the invasion of Ukraine when it came to this meeting? 

Secondly, also, China has expressed opposition to turning the Kenyan-led mission in Haiti to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.  Does the U.S. have more confidence now that they could have China’s support for a U.N.-led peacekeeping mission?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Biden pointed out that the PRC’s publicly stated position with respect to the war in Ukraine is there should be no escalation or no broadening of the conflict, and the introduction of DPRK troops runs fourscore against that. 

And he also pointed out that the PRC does have influence and capacity and should use it to try to prevent a further escalation or further expansion of the conflict through the introduction of even more DPRK forces. 

You know, one of the points the President really registered was: Countries around the world look to the United States when the U.S. has influence, whether it’s in Asia or Europe.  And similarly, countries look to the PRC as well.  So, it’s not a sufficient answer to simply say, “Well, that’s up to these other countries.  There’s nothing we can really do about it.” 

So that is the nature of the back and forth on that.  And President Biden really underscored his view that this is a deeply dangerous development, both in the European view, the introduction of a foreign army, and on the Korean Peninsula, with deepening cooperation between Russia and the DPRK likely to enhance the possibility of provocative behavior by the DPRK, provocative behavior that we have warned about, whether it comes in the form of direct provocations against the ROK, or whether it comes in the form of something like further missile tests or even a seventh nuclear test, which is something that we remain constantly vigilant about. 

The President did touch upon Haiti in his remarks.  The PRC did not indicate a change of position on that topic in today’s meeting.  We remain convinced that for stability in Haiti, which matters to a lot of innocent people, that the U.N. needs to step up with a peacekeeping mission, the transition of this multinational security support force into a peacekeeping mission.  We’re going to keep working until we secure consensus of the Security Council (inaudible). 

Q    There was a reference that Chinese leader Xi Jinping made (inaudible) small yard, high fences, alluding to the export controls.  Can you talk a little bit more about his concerns about export controls and the degree to which that came up?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Xi himself in his opening remarks, and the PRC at all levels, has not been shy, both publicly and privately, about raising their objections for U.S. export controls, particularly when it comes to advanced semiconductors and advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment.  Equally, we have not been shy about saying that for very high semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment with national security applications, we are going to restrict that so that it is not used against us or our allies.  And we’ve made no bones about that, and President Biden made no bones about it again today.

We have equally said that this is not a broad-based decoupling of our economic or technology trade with China.  It is high-end, high-level capabilities, a very small fraction of the overall trade that we have with China, and it is squarely focused on the national security concerns we have about these particular forms of both semiconductors and manufacturing equipment. 

So, there was nothing surprising about President Xi raising his concerns about that.  Equally, there was nothing surprising about President Biden reinforcing the rationale for why we have pursued a small yard, high fence policy, a policy we believe that has protected America’s national security and enhanced our innovation edge, and we will continue to support that until the end of this term, and we will continue to advocate to the next team that they carry forward with this policy.

Q    Can you talk a little bit more about the AI nuclear agreement and how imminent of a threat does this impose?  And, kind of, can you put a little more meat on the bone on what that agreement is going to look like?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The way that I would put this is you need to start somewhere, basic principles, and build from there when it comes to trying to develop a common basis for reducing nuclear risk.  And a good place to start is with the straightforward proposition that there should be human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

But the fact that the U.S. and the PRC have done this — and, you know, it will be stated as an agreement in our readout today — indicates that we are now building a foundation for being able to work on nuclear risk reduction together, the U.S. and the PRC, and work on AI safety and risk together, which is something that President Biden and President Xi agreed to do out of the Woodside Summit last year. 

I’m not saying someone was imminently going to hand over the control of nuclear weapons to artificial intelligence, so I’m not — I think your question was about whether there’s an imminent risk.  I don’t believe there is an imminent risk of that.  But there is a long-term strategic risk of two significant nuclear powers and two countries with significant AI capability not being able to reach a meeting of the minds on basically anything in those spaces, and that is a risk we are trying to address.  Today is a step in that direction. 

Q    Jake, so just hours before their meeting, President Xi presented himself as a defender of multilateralism and (inaudible).  Obviously, China is a member RCEP.  The U.S. (inaudible) about TPP — we’re not joining TPP, and (inaudible) leaders are concerned about a future U.S. administration that’s more protectionist and isolationist, particularly the fact that President-elect Trump has threatened more power, not just from China but also the rest of the world.  Can you share your response?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I’m not going to comment on a future administration’s policies that have neither been formulated nor articulated.  So, I’m not going to speculate about that. 

What I will say is that we have laid out in clear terms our concerns about non-market economic practices that the PRC has undertaken that don’t just harm American workers, but actually undermine an open Internet and fair and level playing field in the international economic order.  And it’s not just the United States that has raised those concerns.  Countries on multiple continents have begun to take countermeasures against what they perceive to be PRC overcapacity in critical sectors. 

So, we believe that we have been able to build the case effectively over time that some of the approaches that China has taken in this area are harmful to the cause of a level playing field, not helpful to the cause of a level playing field.  And we’ve tried to protect ourselves through targeted tariffs, and we’ve worked with other countries who have taken similar measures, similar steps, and not just traditional allies of the United States, but multiple countries around the world. 

So, I think the world will be able to judge for itself both the PRC’s approach to trade and the U.S.’s approach to trade over time.  What I can say is that we have been clear about both the steps we have taken and also clear about our concerns about PRC overcapacity and what it could do to distort the global economy in ways that are unhealthy.  And that was part of the conversation that the two leaders had today. 

Q    Jake, obviously both of the leaders (inaudible) public statements made reference to this moment of transition for the United States.  I’m wondering if you can characterize how much you have said privately to leaders about this.  Is there a moment, for instance, for the President to warn the Chinese about not seeking to take advantage of this moment of transition?

And I’m also wondering when President Biden met with President-elect Trump, was there an opportunity for him to convey a message (inaudible) to President Xi privately?  Did President Xi ask President Biden to convey a message to President Trump?

MR. SULLIVAN:  To your last question, the answer is no.  President Biden was not a conduit for messages going in either direction.  President Biden noted the obvious facts that there will be a new administration on January 20th, and he did reinforce the point that these next two months are a time of transition in the United States and a time where stability in the U.S.-China relationship is essential.  And he reinforced that with respect to the geopolitical backdrop — cross-Strait relations, South China Sea, et cetera — and with respect to the economic backdrop.  So that was a feature of the conversation in terms of what President Biden laid out.

I’m not going to characterize what President Xi had to say.  I’ll leave that to the Chinese side to do.  But what I would say from President Biden’s perspective: He wasn’t projecting ahead to what was going to happen after January 20th.  He was really focused on the fact that there is a transition unfolding, that President Biden is determined for that transition to be smooth and for him to pass the relationship off, and he would like to pass it off on stable terms to the new administration, and reinforce the point that the two leaders have an obligation to direct their (inaudible) to make that happen.

Q    Jake, I’m wondering if you can — if there was any discussion about the wrongfully detained Americans in China.  I know (inaudible) progress on that front.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we’ve made important progress on that with the release of David Lin.  They discussed the issue today.  I will not go further than that. 

I don’t have any announcements to make, but they had an important discussion on the subject today, and we’ll continue working every day until our very last to try to secure the release of the unjustly detained Americans being held in China. 

Q    On the PRC’s support for Russia’s war machine, one of your colleagues told us in advance of this trip that it’s probably not going to stop and will be a task also for the new administration.  Does that mean (inaudible) sanctions that you were looking at are off the table now for the next two months?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not have any announcements with respect to further sanctions today.  No announcements of new sanctions and no categorical statements of taking things off the table.

Q    Kind of back to the AI nuclear (inaudible) in September or August, October, China refused to sign on to the deal that came out of Seoul that said no AI use in nuclear launches.  So if that (inaudible) right, has Beijing’s stance changed, and how did it get there?

And you used the specific phrase, “further work on nuclear risk reduction.”  Is that a reference to arms control (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Arms control speaks to how many weapons do you have and where they deploy.  Nuclear risk reduction is the whole family of practices around trying to avoid mistake and miscalculation.  And, by the way, I’m not projecting that there will be further steps.  What I’m suggesting is that responsible nuclear powers have an obligation to work towards further steps.  Whether the PRC chooses to do that or not will be up to them.  But this is an important step both on AI safety and on nuclear risk reduction. 

And I can’t speak to their decision-making.  You’d have to go to them on it.  What I will say is we think we’ve generated something meaningful today.  It is not the end of the line, but it’s the start of something that we hope can be carried forward.

Q    So, you obviously negotiated this ahead of time.  Has their position moved, and has the negotiation (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I guess the way that I would put it is: We did not have this agreement at Woodside.  We had this agreement today.  And I’ll leave it to you to fill in the gaps. 

Q    So, the President just met with Prime Minister Ishiba yesterday.  At the same time, Prime Minister Ishiba was trying to meet next President Trump after G20, but it’s not going to happen because Trump said no.  Do you feel like Prime Minister Ishiba —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Wait, I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand.  You say he’s —

Q    Prime Minister Ishiba was trying to meet President Trump — next President Trump after G20.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, after.  I thought you said at the G20.  After the G20.

Q    But Trump said no.  Do you feel like Prime Minister Ishiba was (inaudible) something behind the back?  Because President Biden is the president.  What do you feel came of that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not feel that the Prime Minister seeking to engage with the President-elect is doing anything behind the back of President Biden.  I don’t.  I think we have seen multiple leaders make telephone calls to the President-elect, just like in 2020 multiple leaders called President-elect Biden when he was elected.  That’s pretty typical diplomatic practice. 

So, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing untoward about that.  And President Biden and the Prime Minister had a very good discussion.  Yesterday was their first in-person meeting, and we feel very good about the state of the relationship, state of the alliance, and the state of the personal dynamic between the two leaders. 

Q    Jake, you mentioned that at the end of meeting that they put notes aside and had some exchange.  Can you describe a little bit more about that exchange?  Was that a farewell message between the two of them?  Or what did they talk about there?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I won’t share too much because, you know, it was between the two of them.  And it was a reflection on having spent a lot of time together over the course of a decade, in pretty high-pressure situations managing a relationship of very high consequence.

I would just say one point the President made was to reinforce something he said publicly quite a bit, which is that what has made the relationship between the two of them function effectively is that they’re able to be very straight with one another, even when they disagree.  And that level of candor, directness, even bluntness at times, has been critical in helping see us through some choppy waters at times, and has been critical in helping us build the foundation to effectively and responsibly manage the competition. 

So it was in the nature of that kind of reflection that President Biden offered.  And I make it a habit not to share what President Xi says in response to that, but they had a bit of a back and forth along those lines, you know, that was quite descriptive, I guess. 

Q    Jake, do you guys have any assurances on — you know, obviously, you have two months left.  I mean, even the agreement on AI, like, do you have any assurances or confidence that Trump is going to implement that or any other things that were discussed today?

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, obviously not.  I mean, we don’t — the incoming administration is not in the business of providing us assurances about anything, and they’ll make their own decisions as they go forward.  But this is a feature of every transition throughout all of time, which is: It’s our job to do all that we can to set the new administration up as effectively as possible, and then they will decide how they’ll take things forward. 

I think there’s a lot that we’re doing, both with respect to the U.S.-China relationship, but also with respect to our alliances, with respect to other partners here at APEC and the G20 that will be carried forward in the natural course of things.  Everything doesn’t get thrown out.  And so, can’t make predictions or speculate.  Certainly have gotten no assurances of any kind, but we’ll keep doing our work until January 20th. 

Q    Thanks, Jake.   Why did President Biden go to President Xi’s hotel for this meeting?  (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  Because in the quite scientific execution of U.S.-China presidential meetings, we do this thing called “my turn, your turn.”  (Laughter.)  And the last meeting the two of them had was at Woodside, in America, where Xi came not just to President Biden’s venue, but to his country.  So it was his turn; therefore, we go to his hotel.  And the time before was Bali; the President went, et cetera.  So it’s highly sophisticated statecraft — (laughter) — that I know is hard, really, to get your head around, but it’s, basically, we go back and forth in terms of who hosts.

Q    President Biden (inaudible) hotel (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  President Xi was the host of the meeting.  So, they chose the hotel.  It was his —

Q    In Bali?

MR. SULLIVAN:  In Bali.  He was the host, yeah.  And then President Biden was the host at Woodside, and now President Xi was the host.

Q    On that note, do you think President Trump should go to the 2026 APEC Summit in Beijing?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have no advice for the president-elect with respect to travel taking place nearly two years from now.

Q    Jake, from what we saw in the opening remarks, what was notable (inaudible) was a little bit of the tone from President Xi to make a wise choice — “make the wise choice.”  It was one of those messages that had been (inaudible).

I think a lot of us are making the analysis that he’s warning that we’re headed towards another valley in the U.S.-China relationship.  Is that a fair analysis to make?  And how do we avoid a valley when we’re talking about 60 percent tariffs?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I would have to go back and look at PRC public comments, including the President’s public comments, with formulas like that.  But he — the Chinese side makes those forms of public warnings to American officials regardless of political stripe and regardless of administration.  Now, it may take on a different meaning or valence because of the moment we’re in.  And I’m not obviously blind or deaf to that.  But I’m answering the question the way I am because I can’t, obviously, put myself in the head of President Xi, what he was intending, the extent to which it was meant in the spirit that you just described.

I would just say that, broadly speaking, the message of “choose wisely, not wrongly” is a pretty standard, fair PRC statement that they’ve made repeatedly over the course of these past four years, the four years before that, and so on.  And that’s especially been true where the relationship has taken on a more competitive dynamic. 

Look, I’m not going to speculate about 60 percent tariffs, because, as I said before, the administration has neither formulated nor articulated its policy.  So I’d be getting way ahead of you, me, and anyone else by speaking to that. 

Q    Could you characterize the overall atmosphere of the meeting?  Because (inaudible), and you guys always described it (inaudible) but this is the last one.  So could you give us a little more —

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it was similar to the last two, because this — you know, in the end, they had the chance for a more personal reflection, but they conducted a lot of business in areas both where we are making some progress and in areas where there are profound differences between the U.S. and the PRC.  And the two sides did not shy away from the more direct and difficult conversations where the two sides don’t agree. 

So I don’t think the atmosphere was markedly different from the atmosphere at either Woodside or Bali.

Yeah, last question.

Q    I’m just wondering if President Biden and President Xi have (inaudible) relationship after the past (inaudible), and how was it effective in the Biden diplomacy relationship with China?  And do you have any concerns that his personal relationship (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Those of you have interviewed me before and have asked me for anecdotes always find I come up wanting.  (Laughter.)  So, I’m terrible at examples and illustrations and stories.

What I will say is that leader-level engagement and direction is vital to the responsible management of the competition between the U.S. and China.  The tone gets set from the top.  The teams get their direction from the top.  And the execution of the day-to-day management of the relationship is derived from understandings reached between the leaders. 

And the fact that President Biden and President Xi have been able to establish a relationship of candor and directness on issues where they find a common way forward and on issues where they share deep disagreements, I think has been critical to us coming through a number of very difficult points in time in the relationship and, you know, achieving a measure of sustained, responsible management. 

Now, that doesn’t mean this is going to — this has been easy or everything is great.  We have difficulties.  We have challenges.  It is a highly competitive relationship.  It is a complex relationship.  But I think the personal dynamic has helped us manage it very effectively.  And I certainly feel that acutely as someone who’s trying to carry out President Biden’s direction working with my counterpart and with others on the Chinese side. 

So, now we got to keep going for the next two months, and then we’ll see what happens after that. 

Thank you, guys.

Q    (Inaudible) the two leaders?  (Inaudible.)

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it was (inaudible).  (Laughter.)  No.  I don’t.  I don’t.  They had a moment together at the end, of the two shaking hands on the way out.  I (inaudible).

Q    Jake, do you have any other detail on the most recent Chinese hack and how that came up?

MR. SULLIVAN:  And more detail on it?

Q    Yeah.  Like what the conversation was.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, the issue of the hack of American telecommunications providers did come up.  I’m not going to speak publicly about what was said privately.  And the President made very clear where the U.S. stands on it. 

And as we develop further information, we will absolutely be sharing it with you guys, as we just did most recently with the CISA-FBI statement, and you can expect more of those in the weeks ahead.

Thanks, everybody.

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by APNSA Jake Sullivan on President Biden’s Meeting with President Xi Jinping appeared first on The White House.

Lima Convention Center
Lima, Peru

MODERATOR:  I figured we’d do a quick gaggle on background, attributable to an SAO, reading out the Peru meeting and answer any questions you all have.

So, [senior administration official], do you want to say anything at the top?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So, President Biden had a very warm meeting with President Dina Boluarte of Peru.  The meeting lasted for about 50 minutes — 5-0 minutes. 

In the meeting, they discussed the historic nature of the U.S.-Peru relationship.  The two countries will celebrate 200 years of diplomatic relations in 2026.

President Biden also remarked that this year, 2024, marks the 15th anniversary of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

They discussed cooperation between the United States and Peru on counternarcotics, and President Biden highlighted the $65 million donation of nine Black Hawk helicopters to Peru that will take place in the coming period.

They also discussed space cooperation between the United States and Peru.  NASA Administrator Bill Nelson participated in the bilat as well.

There was some discussion of regional issues, specifically Venezuela, and the need for democracies in the region, including the United States and Peru, to continue to support — for the election victory of Edmundo Gonzalez to be acknowledged by the Maduro authorities, and also discussion of migration and how the United States and Peru and other countries in the region can work together to effectively manage the challenges of migration in the region.

So those were the principal issues discussed.

One other item that was mentioned was a donation that’s been made by Caltrain of over 100 locomotives and rail cars to Peru, which will help Peru to modernize its metro system.

And President Boluarte expressed great appreciation for the U.S. contribution to Peruvian infrastructure, and really was enthusiastic about deepening that relationship on infrastructure.

MODERATOR:  Any questions?

Q    Can you talk about the counterterrorism part of it?  Sorry.  The counterterrorism part.  Why are we —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s counternarcotics.

Q    Yeah, sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Counternarcotics.

Q    Why are we donating Black Hawks?  Is that like — are we going to use that to, like, eradicate coca crops or something?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, it’s to fight transnational criminal organizations that are fueling the drug trade in Peru and many other countries in Latin America.  Peru, after several years of an increase in coca production, actually saw a decrease last year for the first time in many years.  And so, the United States is working with Peruvian authorities to help them to build up the capabilities to fight the influence of transnational criminal organizations in Peru.

Q    Was there any discussion of the next administration and what to expect?  Or were they picking your guys’ brains on that aspect at all?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it really focused on the current U.S. bilateral relationship.  President Biden did underscore the importance of respect for democracy and strengthening democratic institutions, as he does in all of his meetings with democratic counterparts around the world.

But it was a meeting that was very much focused on, frankly, the accomplishments that the Biden administration has had with Peru over the past four years.

Q    So no — Trump didn’t come up at all in any sense?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not explicitly, no.

Q    Any talks of the kind of hub on — that Xi is going to inaugurate, the megaport?  Like, how are leaders feeling about that?  And do they have any sense of what they’re expecting from the U.S. in terms of development financing?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, President Boluarte did mention the port but in reference to the fact that she also saw greater U.S. support and investment in infrastructure in Peru.  Infrastructure is one of her principal priorities.

President Biden did caution that it’s important for countries to maintain very high standards of transparency in their dealings with other partners around the world, including China.

Q    One last one.  What’s the U.S.’s plan at the G20 to regain momentum about Venezuela?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have any comment on the G20 at this time.

The post Background Press Gaggle on the U.S.-Peru Bilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Lima Convention Center
Lima, Peru

MODERATOR:  We’ll do this on background, attributed to a senior administration official.  Just a couple minutes to read out the trilat meeting.

Do you want to kick us off and provide —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  Maybe just a few comments.

Just finished the trilateral leaders-level meeting between President Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, and the Japanese Prime Minister, Ishiba Shigeru.  The meeting lasted probably just over 40 minutes, simultaneous interpretation.  So they covered a lot of ground.

I was struck by the fact that every leader commented on how extraordinary this — and how extraordinarily important this trilateral cooperation has become.  They all noted that since Camp David, there’s been an incredible acceleration in our work together, and also the areas in which we’re working has really broadened significantly, from security to economics to economic security, technology, really across the board.

They did do a tour d’horizon of sorts across the region and across the world.  They talked about the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait.  They talked about how closely we’re working, all three of us, in Southeast Asia and in the Pacific Islands.

But the issue that they probably discussed most in depth was the growing threat posed by the DPRK, both the DPRK’s growing missile and nuclear capabilities and also, of course, the really escalatory and destabilizing nature of Russia-DPRK cooperation, particularly, of course, the deployment of North Korean troops into the Kursk region.

So those were the issues that were covered.  And, again, the one that was addressed most in depth was the DPRK-Russia issue.

And with that, I’m happy to take your questions.

Q    Sure.  The one person you didn’t mention was Donald Trump.  Did his name come up in any of the discussions?  Did the Asian leaders express any concern or seek any insight (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.  As a matter of fact, the President-elect’s name did not come up.  I think you saw in the pool spray the President did note we’re in a time of transition.  He noted, of course, we have a newly elected Japanese Prime Minister, Ishiba.  You know, we’ll have a transition in the United States.

But the focus of the conversation was entirely on, I’d say, two things.  It was the here and now of the challenges and the common interests that we share, and then the recognition that both our shared interests and the shared challenges are enduring.  And that was the nature of the conversation.

Q    Did they talk about consequences for the DPRK, for the Russian (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the way I would term it is all three leaders said we need to continue to follow very closely these concerning developments, and, most importantly, we need to coordinate more closely than ever before on how we’re going to respond.  And of course, our teams are talking every day about the best ways to do that.

Q    So, did any of the leaders talk about the future of burden sharing under the new administration?  I understand that South Korea and the U.S. have just signed sort of like a new agreement that will hold for a few years ahead, which is an increase of the previous agreement on burden sharing.  Did they talk about that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, the Special Measures Agreement issue, you — I think you’ve described accurately.  That was not discussed today.  Again, what we discussed today: Every leader noted how incredibly important this trilateral cooperation has been and will continue to be going forward.  And then we talked about all the different areas in which we’re currently cooperating.

Q    Was the sense on the growing DPRK-Russia relationship that there is something that can be done to sort of break this up?  Or are you all looking at this as a threat going forward that might intensify?  I guess, whatever you’re doing, is that going to —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think, one, there’s an increasing recognition that, more than ever before, security matters between Europe and Asia are indivisible and more interlinked than they’ve ever been before.

But we talked about a number of steps, both diplomatic in terms of our respective military postures and sanctions measures and the like.  All of those things, I think, are options before us, and we’ll have to consider, I think collaboratively, how best to engage going forward.

But there was tremendous convergence on just how destabilizing this growing nexus between Moscow and Pyongyang is for the region.

And, look, I think there was also a recognition that China has a role to play here as well.  And I think there’s a sense that one would think it should not be in Beijing’s interest to have this kind of destabilizing cooperation take place in the region as well. 

Q    There was no discussion of Trump in terms of his relationship with Kim and how that has sort of changed during his years and then into the Biden administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  None whatsoever.

Q    Do you think it’s hard to have these conversations in a meaningful way without acknowledging this change in administration that’s going to be coming up?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What we’re focused on is the here and now.  And I know that, of course, as I said at the top, even in front of the press, there was a recognition that we’re in a period of transition.  But as we often say, there’s one president at a time, and the focus of this meeting was what are we going to do together, especially over the next couple of months, to deter particularly these growing threats that I’ve

addressed.

Q    I know there was a pull-aside with the Japanese Prime Minister.  Did Nippon Steel come up?  Was that a discussion today?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there, so I do not know.

Q    It didn’t come up in the trilat, I assume?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it did not.

Q    What is the current understanding of how the North Korean troops are being used?  How many are actually in the fight versus, you now, sort of —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have anything new to report to that.  I think you’ve seen Admiral Kirby and others have spoken extensively from the podium.

But as we’ve talked about, the 10,000-plus North Korean troops that are in Russia, we believe are now all or predominantly in the Kursk region.  We presume they have gone there to engage in combat, but I don’t have anything beyond those top lines that you’ve seen already.

Q    Is there anything new in terms of missile warning systems, the trilateral part?  Or is that just a continuation of what has already been set up?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think you’ll see the three of us will have a statement coming out soon, and we’ll speak to — perhaps it’s already out.  You’ll see there’s an agreement to continue to share in real time missile data.  I think that’s really important.

And even though I’ve emphasized just how broad and deep our cooperation is, I think there was a recognition among the three leaders that, in particular, our security cooperation has probably increased most dramatically, and that’s probably most impactful and most needed at this time, given the growing threats that we talked about.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And the strong recognition by the three leaders that that cooperation, on real-time sharing, needs to be enhanced further in order to respond to these growing threats.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And, look, maybe just reinforcing that, as well, the trilateral military exercise, Freedom Edge, has either — has wrapped or is just wrapping up.

Again, I think this is, really, a tangible manifestation of what we’re doing together in real time.

Q    But can I ask just on the missile warning system: On the increase of that, I think Jake mentioned yesterday that, in particular, a period of transition is a time where the DPRK might try to act provocatively.  So is there urgency during this transition period to make this statement?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What we’re doing is we’re following President Biden’s direction.  We’re going to have the most orderly, peaceful, and effective transition possible, and we’re going to do so in a way that ensures that we do everything to ensure America’s security and prosperity.

And I have to say it would be very unwise for any of our adversaries to think that this is a period of time in which they could try to seek advantage.  That would be a great miscalculation.

MODERATOR:  All right, I think we got to wrap here.

Q    Do you see alignment with the two countries on potential actions you would take in response to the DPRK’s troop deployment?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think — well, look, again, we agree that we’re going to follow — continue following these developments closely, continue our intensive conversations about how to go forward. 

But the word that I would use to describe the conversation would be “convergence.”  Tremendous convergence in our views, our outlook, and our determination to respond collectively to these challenges.  And as for how we’ll do that in detail, I think you’ll see more about that in the coming days and weeks.

The post Background Press Gaggle on the U.S.-ROK-Japan Trilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One En Route Lima, Peru

3:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey, guys.  Oh, it smells like crab cake back here.

Q    Yes.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have a quick thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to Jake. 

So, earlier today, the president announced that Americans have filed more than 20 million new business applications since he and the vice president took office.

Under their leadership, we have had the first-, second-, and third-strongest years of new business applications on — on record and are on track for a fourth.

Business ownership has doubled among Black households and hit a 30-year high for Hispanic households.  New business creation rates hit a 30-year high for Asian Americans.  And the share of women businesses owners is on the rise.

As the president has said, every new small business is an act of hope, and these new business applications represent 20 million acts of hope by the American people.

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to use every tool available to support the small businesses and entrepreneurs that are powering our economic recovery and his nationwide small-business boom.

With that, as you can see, we have the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, joining us for the gaggle.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

MR. SULLIVAN:  And thanks for joining us here on Air Force One en route to Lima, Peru, for the APEC Summit. 

I’m sure you all studied very carefully my comments yesterday at the podium, so I’m not going to repeat in great detail all the various pieces of business that we intend to get done here over the next few days at both APEC and the G20, with a stop in the Amazon in between.

I’ll just make a few quick points and then open it up for your questions.

First, President Biden enters this APEC Summit with the U.S. in a very strong strategic position in the Asia-Pacific — strong alliances; a strong competitive economic and technological edge; new initiatives in terms of investment, supply chains, trade that are already bearing fruit; the Quad, AUKUS, the Camp David Trilateral, as points on the board that he has put over the course of the past four years.

And so, we’re very much looking forward to the opportunity to engage with leaders from across the region as President Biden wraps up his tenure.

Tomorrow, he’ll have the opportunity to engage with all of the APEC leaders in a larger plenary session, and then he’ll do a trilateral meeting with the president of Korea and the prime minister of Japan.  That trilateral will mark the progress that we’ve made since the Camp David summit, including in the security, technology, supply chain, and other realms.

And also, critically, we’ll focus on making sure that we’ve institutionalized the trilateral so that it will be an enduring feature of American policy in the Indo-Pacific going forward.  And given the bipartisan support for it, we fully expect that it would continue under the next administration — though, of course, they’ll make their own decisions.

Tomorrow, the president will also have the chance to have a brief meeting with Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan — a bilateral meeting — because the two of them, of course, have not had the chance to meet in person since he became prime minister.

And he will have a meeting with President Boluarte of Peru.  And at that meeting, we’ll have deliverables in terms of counternarcotics, rail, and space, as well as, you know, the opportunity to mark nearly 200 years of strong bilateral ties between our two countries.

Then we’ll roll into the next day: the meeting with President Xi, further meetings at a plenary level with the other APEC leaders.  And we’ll have more to share on that on the ground when we do further gaggles with you all and with the traveling press corps. 

Obviously, that meeting with Xi Jinping will be his final meeting with President Xi as president.  It’s an important opportunity to mark the progress that we’ve made in the relationship and also to manage it through this delicate period of transition where we want to maintain a degree of stability, even as we continue to compete vigorously with the PRC.  We need to manage that competition so it doesn’t veer into conflict.

So, with that, let me open it up for your questions.

Q    Just — thanks, Jake — zero in a little bit more on the trilateral tomorrow.  Obviously, (inaudible) as you talked about, you’re trying to institutionalize this trilateral, but it’s also a very tense time with North Korea’s ballistic missile testing and also Kursk. 

How are you guys look — going into looking at this moment?  And is this also now maybe a period, hopefully, of a little bit of quiet with North Korea going past the election?  Or — or is the administration still feeling a bit on edge of where we’re at?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not think we can count on a period of quiet with the DPRK.  Obviously, they’ve continued their ballistic missile testing just in recent days and weeks.  The possibility of a seventh nuclear test remains ever present.  It’s something we’re vigilant for. 

Transitions have historically been time periods when the DPRK has taken provocative actions, both before and after the transition from one president to a new president.  So, that’s something we are watching very carefully and will be watching every day between now and January 20th.

And obviously, it’s a real opportunity for us to consult at the leaders’ level both to be prepared for any provocation that may come, whether it be with respect to missile testing or a nuclear test or other provocations.  It also will be an opportunity for the three to get a coordinated response to the introduction of DPRK soldiers onto the — or into western Russia. 

And obviously, we’ve consulted at multiple levels of government.  I’ve spoken with my counterpart; Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin have spoken with theirs.  The ROK and Japan have both expressed grave concern about this, just as we have and our European partners have. 

But in terms of the tangible coordination and the policy steps that we can take, this will be an opportunity for the three leaders to talk, make sure we’re on the same page, and that we’re moving out in a coordinated way. 

This is a significant development, and we’re going to treat it with the seriousness with which it deserves to be treated. 

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Can I just — can I just hone in — sorry.  Can I just hone in on — on that trilat?  So, what is the deliverables in terms of actual statements or agreements that will come out of this?  Is there anything that involves nuclear deterrence in the region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We obviously have bilateral extended deterrence dialogues with both Japan and Korea, and they have both been elevated to new levels under President Biden, and I would say they’re at as robust and intense a level as we’ve seen in recent decades.  So, extended deterrence remains a strong feature of our bilateral relationship. 

There will not be any specific announcement on extended deterrence at a trilateral level, but this will be an opportunity for us to ensure that each of these two bilateral dialogues are working to reinforce one another and that there aren’t gaps and seams between them.  So, it will be part of the agenda tomorrow.

In terms of the deliverables, one of the main things that will come out of tomorrow is the establishment of the secretariat for the trilateral on a going-forward basis so that there is an institutional framework and this isn’t just a series of leaders’ meetings.  It is, in fact, something that has a home in all three governments, and the three governments can cooperate at every level on trilateral collaboration. 

So, for example, on trilateral exercises, we’ve had our first significant trilateral exercise — Freedom’s Edge — and now, at this meeting, they’ll talk about how to step up trilateral exercises. 

We’ve made progress on technology protection, on supply chain diversification, on missile warning and the sharing of data with respect to missile warning.  In all of those areas, we expect to take further steps tomorrow.

Q    Jake, can —

Q    On the introduction of DPRK troops into Russia.  How quickly should we expect to see a response, if you’re using tomorrow to coordinate once again?  And then, I assume also broaden this to other allies who also have expressed concern? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it’s important to see this not in terms of a single action or day where you would be able to point to it and say, “Aha, that is the response.”  This is a significant development.  It is going to require us to work with our allies and partners to deal with it on an ongoing basis.  There will be multiple elements to how we deal with it that will unfold over time. 

So, I wouldn’t expect to wake up one day and say, “Okay, now we’ve seen it.  We’ve seen what they’re ‘doing’ — quote, unquote — in response to that.” 

I think, rather, there will be a coordinated set of policy decisions that we take — diplomatic, in terms of the material provided to Ukraine, and otherwise — that we will work with our allies and partners on.  That includes our allies and partners in Europe, and it includes Japan and ROK.

Q    And on the — sorry — on the China meeting.  Yesterday, you talked about how the new administration, regardless of what they do, obviously, have to manage this relationship.  What do you see as the biggest China risk for the incoming administration that they face in 2025?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I’ve talked multiple times about how the most significant risk for the United States and for the world is somehow peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is disturbed and we end up in conflict there.  That would be catastrophic for everyone involved: for Taiwan, for Beijing, for us, for the world. 

I wouldn’t necessarily say, given how we have managed cross-strait relations, that that should be something that is at, you know, heightened risk in 2025.  But because of the size of the risk, even if it’s not that likely, it’s something that has to be at the top of the agenda. 

There are more immediate issues that — where the stakes are high but not quite as high as that.  For example, China’s continued aggressive activity and behavior in the South China Sea, its coercion and pressure on countries like the Philippines — the incoming administration is going to have to focus on that right out of the gate, just as we’ve had to focus on that all along. 

And then, of course, there’s the continuing economic and technology relationship, where the United States is going to have to take steps on an ongoing basis to maintain our competitive edge.  Of course, we in the Biden administration have taken a number of those steps, and we’re — you know, there are more things that we can do before we leave, but also the new administration is going to have to carry that agenda forward. 

Q    So, Jake, can I just ask — you’ve talked a little bit about institutionalizing things, making sure that — at the levels below the two leaders, that things are — are going to continue or you hope they will continue.  That’s what is normally done in administration — from one administration to the next. 

You’ve got an incoming administration where people like, you know, Elon Musk say they want to cut $2 trillion.  You have Pete Hegseth at DOD.  You have Matt Gaetz at FBI, saying he’s — just want to get rid of the FBI and the ATF. 

Like, what — forget about the, you know, presidential level.  Do you have any confidence that even, you know, deep down in the bureaucracy, that some of these things that you’re putting into place are actually going to continue?  Or do you — do you feel like even those things that you’re trying to institutionalize are at risk?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Let me try to answer that question with an example.  My example is the Quad, which was first conceived of in the Bush — the George W. Bush administration.  It was then taken forward modestly in the Obama administration, taken forward a bit more in the Trump administration, and then elevated to leaders’ level and institutionalized in the Biden administration.  So, Obama to Trump to Biden, you see continuity and then acceleration of a critical institutional initiative in the Indo-Pacific. 

I use that example because I would put the Camp David Trilateral in a similar category.  It’s the kind of thing that has strong bipartisan support, that has obvious benefits to the United States, that doesn’t involve some massive incremental resource commitment. 

So, I do have some measure of confidence that that kind of initiative, properly institutionalized, can endure and be sustained through the next administration and the one beyond that and the one beyond that.

With respect to the wider suite of policy questions that your — your question raised, I can’t speak to that.  All I can do is look at areas where we believe that we are passing off a strong hand for the United States with our allies and partners and where we want to do everything possible to set them up for success should they choose to carry it forward.

The choice to carry it forward will ultimately be theirs to make.

Q    My question was — was really a kind of tricky way to get you to comment on the president — the next president’s nominees. 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh.

Q    Don’t — you don’t want to do that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not want to do that.  No.  No, I do not want to do that.  

Q    Can I ask a — can I ask a China question, Jake?  So, Xi Jinping in Peru will also be inaugurating this $1.3 billion megaport that’s kind of like a hub for trade connectivity to South America. 

We know that, three years ago, President Biden tried to offer his counter to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.  And since then, it has been scaled down — or maybe you would call it “refocused” — to the two corridors: Luzon and Lobito. 

My question is: In these past years, what has the administration learned in terms of what it can and cannot do in terms of competing with China and offering a viable and more healthy development financing?

MR. SULLIVAN:  First of all, I think it’s just totally wrong to say that the Partnership for Global Infrastructure — PGI — has been scaled down to two corridors.  I don’t know where you got that from.  It’s just not–

Q    Well, you would say “as a refocus.”  But, I mean, in terms of actual —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, no, no.  Or — or refocused.  I mean, we’ve mobilized more than $60 billion, just the U.S.  And that’s a part of the larger G7.  And that’s not just been for two corridors.  That’s been for investments across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

So, I — I couldn’t more emphatically reject the notion that PGI is now just focused on two corridors.  I — I’m not sure why you’re proceeding from that premise.

In fact, a lot of that investment is in Latin America, and we will be making announcements when we go to Brazil connected to PGI.  And in Peru alone, you mentioned a $1.3 billion port project that China is inaugurating.  We’ve got more than $6 billion in American foreign direct investment in Peru.

So, I think there’s an interesting dynamic where every time we fly to South America or Africa, the press writes the story: “China is doing a lot; America is doing a little.” 

And then you look at the numbers behind it — the total stock of American investment in Latin America and the Caribbean — and you compare that to what China is doing.  We are, across our private sector and now backed up by tools like the Development Finance Corporation, investing in a wide range of technology, infrastructure, energy, health, and other projects and are an incredibly important player.

And the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Peru has been a significant job creator in the U.S. and a significant job creator in Peru and will — that will continue to be the case as we go forward.

Q    Jake, any progress on Ukraine or Middle East, particularly at the G20, since you’ve got so many allies and also adversaries there?  Or is basically everything on hold until January the 20th with those?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think you’ll see continued activity on both of those accounts.  Nothing is on hold between now and January 20th. 

For example, we’re continuing to work on diplomacy relative to Lebanon.  We’re continuing to seek a hostage deal, even if it’s, you know, the first step in a hostage deal.  And the president just met with the hostage families yesterday.

You know, obviously, we’re continuing to coordinate closely with Israel with respect to the threat posed by Iran and potential response by Iran to Israel’s actions from a few weeks ago.

So, on the Middle East, every single day is going to bring continued action, diplomacy, and work on our part right up until the last minute that President Biden is president. 

I don’t anticipate the G20 is going to be a particularly fruitful venue for that kind of work, at least not at the plenary level.  But obviously, in the side conversations with European counterparts, Middle Eastern counterparts, and others, we’ll continue to try to drive diplomacy forward.

Similarly, on Ukraine, he will have the chance to see his European colleagues, and he will be talking about next steps on Ukraine, including what we’re trying to do to surge military equipment, to allocate all of the resources that Congress has given us, and also to find other ways to strengthen Ukraine so that we hand that account off in the best possible shape to the next administration.

Q    Would that include Eur- —

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Would that include Europe doing more for Ukraine?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, we have watched, over the course of the past two and a half years, Europe stepping up to the plate and sharing the burden in relatively unprecedented ways in modern times, in terms of the amount of resources allocated and the types of contributions — military assistance contributions that they have made.

So, we’re going to argue that should continue and that should intensify, because the goal should be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position on the battlefield so that they have the most possible leverage going into negotiations.

Q    The hostage families were at the White House yesterday.  Is the overall message to those families that there will be a deal that gets done in the next 60 days, or is it better for them to pivot to working with the Trump administration to getting their loved ones home?

MR. SULLIVAN:  What they asked of us and then what they asked publicly is that we start work now with the incoming administration on a coordinated approach so we make maximum use of these 60-plus days so we don’t just wait it out or so that we don’t work at cross purposes.  We’ve indicated we’re prepared to do that.

Q    And then —

Q    Jake —

Q    Sorry, just real quick.  The — there’s a lot of new leaders that are going to be at APEC, at G20.  Biden is an outgoing president.  I mean, what do- — how does he plan to really speak with those leaders that he’s — he could be meeting for the first time?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, in some cases, it will be an opportunity to make sure that he’s taking stock of the health of the relationship. 

So, Prime Minister Ishiba is a good example of this.  They’ve spoken on the phone.  They haven’t met in person.  They’ll meet for the first time.  President Biden will be able to review with Prime Minister Ishiba, really, the historic heights that the U.S.-Japan alliance has reached and then basically say, “This is what I plan to hand off to my successor when he comes in.”

With others, you know, it will obviously be an opportunity for him to convey long-standing American positions that don’t change much from administration to administration, that didn’t change much from the last Trump administration to this one. 

And then, in some cases, he’ll say, “I don’t speak for the incoming administration, so I’m not sure what they’re going to do.  I can only tell you what I believe in.”  So, it’ll be different kinds of conversations with different folks. 

There are a lot of people, though, that he has worked closely with over the last four years at both of these summits, and it will be an opportunity for him to say thank you for great partnership and work together. 

And in cases like President Xi Jinping, it will be an opportunity for him to have a capstone on a relationship dating back more than a decade.

Q    Jake, response to the explosions in Brazil.  Any reaction to that, and has that changed the plans at all for — for this trip?

MR. SULLIVAN:  It hasn’t changed our plans.  Obviously, we are — have expressed our concern and condemnation for any kind of violence.  And we’ve been in touch with Brazilian authorities.  They’re dealing with the situation.  And we look forward to our visit. 

Q    Jake —

Q    Jake — one more, Jake.  Human rights — sorry.

Q    On — on the hostages and the appointment yesterday — or the nomination — announcement of the nomination of Governor Huckabee, who has said some pretty controversial things about Palestinian people.  Does that help the case for you guys to be able to work together with the Trump administration?  And does it just generally help the case for releasing hostages when someone like that is being put forward as the next ambassador to Israel?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I didn’t see the exact comments that you’re referring to, so I can’t quite comment on it.

But what I will say is we’ve expressed our willingness to try to come up with a coordinated approach.  I would hope that President Trump is committed to getting the hostages out.  President Biden certainly is.  And so, we ought to be able to work together on it. 

But I can’t speak to Senator — Governor Huckabee’s comments.

Q    If I could stay on the Middle East, Jake.  So, Human Rights Watch just released a report saying that Israeli officials who have repeatedly displaced and relocated civilians are — and I quote — “committing the war crime of forcible transfer.”  What is the administration’s position on this, considering Israel is well documented to be displacing people over and over again?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have not seen that report, so I can’t comment on it.

Q    Jake, but what —

Q    Do you have any concerns, from a national security perspective, that Elon Musk is joining President-elect Trump’s foreign leader calls and is weighing in on foreign policy on behalf of leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have any comment about that.  I’ve just seen the reports.  But they’ll make their own decisions about how they want to engage with foreign leaders.

Q    But can I just come back —

Q    Do you have any concerns about —

Q    Can I just come back on that issue, Jake, about — about forcible transfer, about displacement of Palestinians over and over?  What is just the broad administration’s view on that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The secretary of state and secretary of defense sent a letter to the Israeli government requesting a series of steps to alleviate the dramatic and terrible human suffering that is unfolding in Gaza as the war continues.  They have now received a response from the Israeli government, and they’re working back and forth together on that. 

The State Department has spoken at some length on the question you just posed, and I’d refer you to them.

Q    It was just about Tulsi Gabbard, if I may.  Do you have any concerns about intelligence sharing with the int- — incoming administration, given her history of comments about Putin and about Syria?  And also, do you think it might — that might be a problem for Five Eyes allies who may be planning to share intelligence and may have concerns about her positions on those things?

MR. SULLIVAN:  As far as I’m concerned, our transition is going to unfold on regular order — the regular process of people moving through the nomination process, people moving through the security clearance process.  Our intelligence community is doing the briefings. 

I am not going to get engaged in that or play a role in that because that is properly the work of the relevant intelligence agencies to do their work.  And so, I don’t — I don’t really have any comment about President’s Trump — President Trump’s nominees or — or public comments and how they relate to the — you know, to this — this issue of intelligence.

Q    Can I just — one more on China.  Part of why you guys manage the relationship the way you have is because you have a channel with your counterpart in China.  Would you — and that’s worked well, I guess you would say.  Would you advise your successor, Mike Waltz, to keep that channel going?  Or what’s sort of your unsolicited advice to the next guy?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I hope to have the opportunity, as we go through the handoff, to speak with my successor about the full range of issues on our plate, including how we went about managing the U.S.-China relationship.  He’ll have his own ideas.  The administration will have their own ideas.  I’ll share my advice, but I’ll share it with him privately rather than publicly. 

Q    Jake, there’s a — the Biden administration put a freeze on LNG exports.  That’s important to a lot of allies that — that the president is going to meet.  Will there be any update on that freeze or — or when — when those export licenses might go out (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I — that’s one you’re — you’ll have to go to the Department of Energy on because they are working through a process with the study.  It was a pause in order to understand fully the implications of continued granting of permits.  They’ve been working through that process, and they will make the determination about how — what the next step is with respect to that study.

Q    You mentioned — Jake, you mentioned work together with Peru on anti-trafficking — drug trafficking.  Can you confirm that the U.S. will be sending nine Black Hawk helicopters for this effort?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t confirm that in this gaggle on this plane, but I will have more to report to you tomorrow in and around the bilat. 

Okay?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, guys.

Q    Thanks, Jake.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Jake.  Thank you.  Okay. 

Q    Can I start?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I feel like — I feel like he did — he did everything.  I don’t need to do much. 

Q    Oh, there’s more.  There’s more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s more.  Okay.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thank — thank you.  On the Matt Gaetz nomination.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the White House just have any general response?  And is the president at all concerned, considering some of the things that the congressman has said in the past?  Is there a concern that he would weaponize the Justice Department in general but also to go after members of this administration or even members of his family?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things.  We’re going to certainly continue to respect the process, the transition, the handoff.  We’re going to continue to not — we’re not going to comment on every personnel choice or decision that is made by the president-elect and his transition team.

I will say this — and I think you saw by example from this administration the importance of the Department of Justice being independent and especially as it relates to investigations. 

And I will also add: The only loyalty we believe — and it should be believed — that the Department of Justice should have is to the Constitution and to the rule of law.  There should not be loyalty to any political party.  That is not how the Department of Justice should be run. 

And so, that is something we’ve been very, very clear about — very — and I think, also, you can see by this president leading by example and — and continuing to say the Department of Justice should be independent, especially as we talk about investigations.  Again, any personnel decision or choice, we’re just not going to — to comment on, but we can speak, obviously, as I just did, more broadly.

Q    Can I — can I ask you, then, more broadly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Yeah.

Q    The — the president spent so much of the last four years talking about Donald Trump being an existential threat to the — to democracy, to this country, and to everything that the — that — that he and — that he thinks the country believes in. 

Yet, since the election, we essentially haven’t heard anything from him on that subject.  And I wonder, does — is — is he — I guess, should we — should we take from that that he’s going to be comfortable leaving the White House not having expressed any thoughts about what he now fears for the country, because — because he wants to respect a — a clean transition and so, therefore —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m — I mean —

Q    — that’s it? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and he — when he spoke in the Rose Garden two days after the election —

Q    Right.  He didn’t talk at all about that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I — I know.  

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me — let me —

Q    Okay.  Sorry.  Sorry, sorry, sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Give — give me a second.  Give me a second. 

One of the things that he said, aside from, you know, your — your part about a peaceful transition of power, but which actually connects it, is that the will of the people.  The American people decided.  They made a decision on who they wanted the next president to — to be.  And we have to respect that.  The president understands that we need to respect the will of the people. 

And so, this is the time of — any time post-election — right? — especially on the presidential level, like this moment, until the transition, actually, the a- — the official part of where the — where the president — obviously, the president-elect becomes inaugurated on — on January 20th, we have to respect that process.  We do.

Q    So, just to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we do, right?  It — it is — it is — this is what the American people deserve.  They deserve to have a peaceful transfer of power, an orderly transfer of power, and that is what the president is focused on and that’s what he zeroed in on.  And — and that’s what you’re seeing.

It — it is actually — it’s — it’s quite simple.  You know, it is —

Q    (Inaudible) from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — quite direct. 

Q    — all of those people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah?

Q    — millions, tens of millions of people who believed, who were supporters of the pres- — of President Biden’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and believed him when he said that he thought this would be an existential — that — that America might not continue if Donald Trump was elected —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — they now should believe that, you know, it’s whatever, he doesn’t really need to say anything about it because —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because it’s more important to respect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — it — I —

Q    — the process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on a second.  I —

Q    Or does he plan —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  First of all —

Q    — to talk about it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  No, no, no —

Q    — after he leaves office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, here’s the thing — here’s the thing: What the president said, and I’ve said this many times at the podium, he always believes and feels that the American people are obligated to honesty and the truth.  So, everything that he has shared during the last, you know, almost four years about his thoughts about democracy, democracy being a [under] threat still stands.  That hasn’t changed.  So, I just want to be really clear about that. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What has changed — what has changed is there was an election.  There was.

And here’s the thing: A transition — an orderly transition of power is part of our democratic principle.  It is actually part of continuing —

Q    So — so, him talking would make it — him talking about what he believes this means would make it an unorderly or a disorderly transition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — you know, I — I’m not going to go that — I’m not going to go that far. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m going to say is that we are in a — po- — a — a position or a — a transition or a — a part of the next — I guess the next part of — you know, after an election where the president has been very clear that the American people — the American people deserve a transition of power that is orderly, that is peaceful, and something, obviously, that was not afforded to him four years ago.  He wants to lead by example, and that is part of our democratic process.  It is.  It truly, truly is. 

Q    Can I ask it —

Q    Karine, was the president reassured by the meeting?

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Whoa.  Whoa.  Okay, guys.  Okay.  (Laughs.) 

Q    Can I ask it in a different way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, if he still believes it, but right now, he is putting the country over —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Country first.

Q    Yes.  Does that mean right now he’s holding fire until the next president is inaugurated, and then we should expect to hear that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — from President Biden again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about post-January.  I — I’m not — I’m — I don’t, like — right?  I — I’m just —

Q    I’m just trying, like, make logic —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not even sure what next week is going to look like.

Q    — work with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But, Jenny, I —

Q    — why he thinks that is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Je- —

Q    –but is holding fire —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, here’s the thing.

Q    — because right now he’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t even — we — you know how this is.  I don’t even know what next week is going to look like.  It’s — we — I’m not going to get into post-January 20th.

What we’re focused on and zero — zero in on and laser focused on is making sure that we are coordinated with the transition — the Trump transition, make sure that they have what they need so we can pass over what we’ve been able to do and give advice to — to an — an incoming administration.  That’s our focus. 

I’m not going to get into what the president is going to do when he’s no longer president.  He’s president right now.

I mean, the American people deserve this.  They deserve to make sure that we do this the right way.  And you’re seeing from this president leadership, and he’s leading by actually executing.

Q    Was he reassured at all by the meeting yesterday?

Q    What was the question?

Q    Was he reassured at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Was — was he reassured by the meeting. 

Look, I — I’m not going to go into any more details than I shared yesterday.  It — as you know, it was almost — it was almost two hours.  It was gracious.  The — the president-elect was gracious.  He — it was a cordial conversation.  He came with a set of questions that I mentioned yesterday that the pr- — that he and the president went back and forth on.  Some were national security pieces, and some were domestic policy pieces.

I’m not going to go beyond that.  I think the president-elect spoke for himself on this yesterday, and so — and I think he pretty much echoed what I shared with all of you in the briefing room.  And so, I’m just going to leave it there.  I don’t have any more details to share. 

Q    Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The president will come to this summit meeting world leaders who’s looking at this on the — you know, the American people electing Donald Trump and then Joe Biden and then Donald Trump again — like some pretty extreme swings of ideology and priorities. 

Meanwhile, Xi Jinping is coming in, and he’s projecting this image of stability — right? — and his vision of China’s role in the global world order.  What would the president say to — to those leaders who are saying that, “Well, we just can’t hold U.S. commitment”?

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think Jake was asked this question multiple times yesterday and — and ha- — did a pretty good laydown, as the national security advisor, about how the president — about where we are and how the president engages with world leaders. 

And I think it’s just going to be a continuation of that: focusing on the moment, focusing on the — whatever 60-odd days that we have, continuing the progress that we’ve made in almost four years, continuing to talk about how we’re going to strengthen those alliances with partners and also continued shared interest. 

And so, there’s going to be a lot on the agenda.  We’ll have a lot more to share.  I know there’s going to be more gaggles at — when we’re on the ground in both countries, as we move forward with this trip.  And so, we’ll have more to share and more of a readout from different conversations, and — and certainly, you know, what came out of the — the meetings when we get there. 

I don’t want to get ahead of that.  But the president truly believes it’s important to have these leader-to-leader engagements.  You see how effective that has been over the past almost four years.  And so, he’s going to give that encouragement, give that assurance. 

And we really can’t speak to what the next administration is going to do.  We can’t.  You know, what we can do is — and Jake talked about this — is have the conversation, have the dialogue, engage with them, give our opinions and thoughts, and we’ll see what happens. 

Q    And if I can ask for an explanation.  A couple of days ago, the president was asked whether he is confident that he could reach a ceasefire before the end of his term, and he gave a somewhat flippant answer.  If you can explain what he meant by that — why did he respond the way he did?  Was he offended by the question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I think the president — if you — if you know this president and followed this president, obviously, as many of you have — if not for the past couple of years, certainly throughout his career — you know, he’s taken this issue very seriously.  And when we say that we’ve worked on getting a ceasefire, we’ve worked on wanting to not escalate what’s happened in the Middle East, you know, having those diplomatic conversations, for example, with what’s going on in Lebanon.  He takes this all very seriously.  And —

Q    So, was he offended by the question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I — I — honestly, I can’t even speak to that — how he felt about the question — because I haven’t talked to him, so I can’t make a judgment on that. 

What I can say is this is a president who takes — it doesn’t matter if it’s diplo- — domestic issues or foreign policy issues, he takes this very seriously.  And when it comes to a ceasefire, making sure that we get the hostages home.  Remember, we have American hostages as well who are there.  We want to make sure we get them home. 

Q    So, why does — why does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re working on this 24/7.

Q    — taking it seriously lead to a joke about somebody being hit in the head by a — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean, honestly —

Q    — camera?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I mean, Michael, I just kind of answered this.  I — I didn’t talk to him about it.  So, I can’t — I — I —

Q    But, Karine, you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have eno- — I can’t speak to what the president meant about it.  What I can tell you is he is deeply committed to making sure that we get the hostages home, to making sure that we get to a ceasefire, to making sure that the Palestinian people, who are suffering in Gaza, get the ho- — get the — get the humanitarian aid that they need. 

And so, I can’t — I have not spoken to him, so I can’t speak to it directly.

Q    I know you haven’t spoken to him. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But, I mean, you know the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do.

Q    — and you know his mood.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do, but I —

Q    — was he frustrated by the lack of progress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re — it doesn’t matter how many times you ask me this question, I’m going to give you the same answer.  The president is committed to getting a ceasefire deal, and he takes this very personally as well and takes this, obviously, very seriously.  And I’m just going to leave it there.

Q    What did —

Q    Go ahead.  Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q    Earlier you mentioned — I didn’t hear Patsy’s question; hard to hear from this corner — the — Biden wants to engage with leaders.  He is not choosing to engage with the press.  There is no press conference on either leg of this trip.  I- — he has a matter of days left.  I mean, what — what was the issue with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, not days.  What — 60 — 60-some-odd days. 

Q    Sure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you make it sound like we’re out of here next week.  (Laughs.)

Q    Less than a hundred.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Less — okay, that’s better.  Less than a hundred days. 

Look, the president is very much looking forward to his — this historic trip.  He often — regularly takes questions from all of you, and he is going to continue to engage with the press. 

And so, what I would say is stay tuned.  He will continue to do that.  And I just don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    (Inaudible) these press conferences — post-election press conferences in most administrations has been sort of a set piece.  Does that say something about where his head is at, that he’s not in a pl- — in a place —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, as — as your colleague said —

Q    — where he can engage with us?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we have less than a hundred days left.  So —

Q    Right, right, right.  But we — we typically have these —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have — we have time. 

Q    There is — I — I understand that calendar, but we — it’s now — what? — 10 days now we’re past the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Hold on a second.

Q    Typically — typically presidents do engage

with the press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It — it didn’t happen with the —

Q    With Trump. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  With Trump.  And I don’t believe it —

Q    But when — when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t —

Q    Obama did within days with George Bush.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he held a — he held a — a — well, okay.  I’m not going to go back and forth on that.  But he continued — he will continue to engage with the press.  He respects and understands the — obviously, the importance of the work that you all do, especially as it relates to communicating and — and communicating directly with the American people. 

I just don’t have anything more to share.  And he’ll continue — he will continue to engage with the press.  I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    But can you commit that he will speak to us during — during —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I — I — (laughs).

Q    I mean, Karine — Karine, this is a long and expensive trip for our outlets.  We would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I understand that.  I get that.  I’m just saying that he is going to continue to engage with the press.  I don’t have anything beyond that to say.  He will continue to engage with you.  He respects and understands the important role that you all have, and we will continue to do that. 

You’re trying to lock me into something.  I’m just not going to lock — get locked into anything.  I’m just going to tell you to — continue to say he will engage with the press, and he enjoys doing that. 

All right.

Q    Can I — did the Trump meeting accelerate some of the formal parts of the transition process?  I understand their — the MOU hasn’t been signed yet.  Has that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has that accelerated some of the technical parts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we believe that it’s going to happen.  And I’ve said this many times before.  The co-chairs of the Trump transition said that they’re going to sign the MOUs.  I would refer you to the — to the Trump transition about that. 

We want to get this going.  We — we are — I mean, it doesn’t stop.  I know we — we’ve talked about the MOUs.  You all have asked me about that.  And obviously, that’s important to get that done.  But it doesn’t stop what has been happening.

Yesterday, a conversation between the — the two presidents.  Our teams are continuing to talk and have had, I — I think, important conversations on — as it relates to transition. 

And I would relate y- — refer you, pardon me, to — to the Trump — Trump team about the MOUs.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on the Amazon part of the trip.  Obviously, in many areas, you can say you don’t know what the next administration will do, but on climate, they have been kind of clear.  They do- — you know, they want to dismantle basically everything you’ve done on climate.  So, how does that cloud the president’s trip down there and any deliverables that will come out of it that could literally be ripped up in 60, 70 days again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t think it clouds his trip.  He’s very much looking forward to going to the Amazon.  It’s a historic trip, obviously, for a president to make. 

We certainly will have more on the deliverables and what that’s going to look like.  I think we put out a fact sheet this morning on — on that, specifically. 

Look, we are going to do everything that we can to make this transition work in a way that it should on behalf of the American people. 

The Trump administration, when they come in on January 20th, they’re going to do what they believe is — what they believe is — is the way forward. 

And what w- — we can speak to is what we’re going to continue to do right now, in this moment, as the president is president, on behalf of the American people.  That’s our commitment.  That’s what we’re going to be focused on. 

And outside of that, I just don’t have anything else to share. 

Q    Well, you kind of know that it’s not lasting, whatever will be announced right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get ahead of what — what the Trump administration is going to do or not do.  I’m just not going to get ahead of that.

Q    Can you speak to the president’s mood at all?  G- — sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay.  It’s okay, Danny.  Go ahead.

Q    Can you speak to the president’s mood at all going into this meeting? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You know, I mean, it’s — he was — would have hoped to go — be going down there with a, you know, Kamala Harris election victory under his belt.  Now he’s not.  A sense of sadness, regret?  What —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we have not hid this.  Right?  We’ve been very clear.  Like, we did not get the results that we wanted.  I mean, that is just an honest answer. 

And — and I know that it’s very disappointing for many people out there, and it is disappointing.  But we also are going to respect the will of the people.  I mean, that is not just a line that I’m throwing out there.  That is something that we’re actively trying to do and respect that.  That is certainly part of the democratic process — is what we’re trying to do here in this transition. 

And he’s very much looking forward — he’s very much looking forward to this trip.  It’ll be his last G20 he’s g- — obviously, in — in Brazil — and get to see some of the world leaders that he has worked with not just for the last almost four years, but some of them he has known for some time.  And there’ll be, obviously, the APEC in Peru.  And he’s going to do this historic stop — as I was going back and forth with Jenny on — in the Amazon. 

And so, I think this is going to be a — a important trip, a good trip for the president.  He and — and you guys will get to — to see him engage, as he normally does when he does these trips.  And I think it’s — I think — you know, I think there’ll be some — I think we’ll have more to share.  I’ll s- — I’ll leave it there.  We’ll have more to share on what comes out of it.

Q    Can I ask on one of the initiatives that Brazil —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, you cannot ask any more questions, Patsy.  (Laughs.)

Q    Karine — Karine, it’s the same — it’s

the same line of questioning that Jenny asked —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — in terms of commitment.  Right? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Like, one of the things that — that the president will attend is this global alliance for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to fight hunger and poverty —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — by Brazil, which is a key, important G20 initiative.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, it is.

Q    So, what can the U.S. commit that will, you know, have durability?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll have more to share on that.  You’re right, it is a key initiative and is important.  It’s so- — it’s a initiative that we certainly have lead on on the global stage, and we’ll have more to share.  We’ll have more to share —

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what comes out of that. 

Thanks, guys. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

4:25 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan En Route Lima, Peru appeared first on The White House.