Press Briefings

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

3:22 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have a couple things at the top.  So, I want to start by addressing the horrific killing of Sonya Massey.

The president and vice president both released statements on their heartbreak for Sonya Massey’s family and loved ones as they face this unthinkable and senseless loss.

They’ve also been clear that all of us as Americans, regar- — regardless of who we are or where we live, should be able to do so without fearing for our lives.

Sonya’s death at the hands of a responding officer reminds us that all too often Black Americans face fears for their safety in ways that many Americans do not.  Sonya’s family deserves justice.

President Biden has been clear about his commitment to doing everything he can to make our communities safer, including by advancing effective, accountable policing.

That’s why the president has pushed Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and signed an executive order to make federal policing the gold standard of effectiveness and accountability.

While we wait for this case to be prosecuted, the president and the vice president are continuing to urge Congress to get the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to his desk so he can sign it.

I also wanted to share the president and the vice president’s deep sadness at the passing of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

No matter the issue, from delivering racial justice to building an economy for working people, she was unrelenting in her leadership — leadership she demonstrated in her work to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, make Juneteenth a federal holiday, and reintroducing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

As the president said in his statement on Saturday, she spoke truth to power and represented the power of the people of her district in Houston with dignity and grace.  Both the president and the vice president shared the honor of working with her during their times in Congress.

We at the White House join the president and the vice president and their families in sending our love and condolences to the congresswoman’s family, her con- — her constituents, and beloved colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Later this evening, after the president’s speech, First Lady Jill Biden will travel to Paris, France, to lead the U.S. presidential delegation to the Opening of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

The first lady and the delegation will attend the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games and cheer on Team USA at various events.  The First Lady previously led the U.S. delegation to the opening of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, which were held in the summer of 2021 due to COVID-19.

And finally, as you all know and certainly are tracking, what we saw from the president the last couple of days is what we have seen from him over the last several decades: human decency, patriotism, a good man who puts the American people ahead of himself.

As the president said in his letter this past Sunday, “It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your president.  And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for the remainder of my term.”

As a member of his team and as an American, I am proud of this president’s record.  He has accomplished more in nearly one term than most presidents have in two terms. 

The president remains focused on fighting for the American people and building on the historic progress his administration has made. 

He’s focused on growing the middle class instead of delivering big giveaways to corporations and the ultra-wealthy; fighting to lower costs for families instead of raising them by threatening to cut critical programs like Social Security; fighting for a fairer tax system instead of championing a $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefitted the ultra-wealthy; making health care more accessible and more affordable instead of working to eliminate the Affordable Care Act; strengthening and growing NATO, not eliminating it; and fighting for reproductive freedom, not working to take it away.

You will hear directly from President Biden when he addresses the nation tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Tonight, the president will discuss his historic decision to put the country above all else and about the inflection point we face as a country in this moment.

This is one of those rare moments in history when the decisions we make will — now will determine the future of our nation.  America must choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, between unity and division.

He signed historic, monumental pieces of legislation into law and has worked across party lines to get a lot of them done, from jump-starting a historic economic recovery to the largest investment in clean energy and climate action, gun safety, and more.

The president is proud to have delivered these historic results for the American people, and he is going to use the remainder of his term to build on this progress for the future with the enduring faith he has in our nation. 

And so, therefore, I encourage all Americans to tune in tonight to hear directly from the president.

Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president believes that it’s best for the country that he not be in the Oval Office for another four years.  How can he assure the American people that he is up to be in the Oval Office for the next six months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, first I would say is that — and I’ve heard these suggestions out there.  This is not an answer to — to you.  This is an answer to the suggestions that I’ve had — I’ve heard about him resigning from office. 

We believe — and any suggestion of that note is ridiculous.  It is not what we believe.  The president — I just laid out what the president has been able to do in almost four years, and it’s been successful.  He’s been able to do more, again, than any president has been able to do in two terms.  He’s been able to do that more in one term.  And he wants to finish the job that he started and delivering more historic results for the American people.

And, look, he didn’t step down from — from campaigning or from running because he didn’t believe he could serve in a second term.  That is not why. 

And what I would say, as I just finished my opening — I would say, “Tune in.”  Tune in to what he has to say tonight, and he will lay out that out for th- — you all and the American people unto — as to why he made that decision.

Q    So, you’re saying he believes that he’s capable of serving another four years, but he just doesn’t believe that he can win another four years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will let the president speak for himself.

Q    And, so, today, the president believes that he is capable — fully capable of serving in the office that he currently has now and for the next four and a half years if he — if he wanted to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If —

Q    — if he wanted to do it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  And let me just quote from what he said on Sunday in his letter.  He said, “it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for the remainder of my term.”

And what — the decision that he made on Sunday was about putting country first, was about his party, and was about the American people.

Again, I would refer you to what he’s going to say tonight.  He will lay that out, speak for himself, and you will hear directly from the Americ- —

Q    And just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — from the president.  The American people will — certainly will as well.

Q    And just on a different topic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    There’s large protests taking place in Washington, and the White House is now ringed by anti-climb fencing.  The Capitol — there’s some protests around Union Station.  Is the president monitoring these protests?  Does he have a message to the people who are demonstrating right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it’s basically what we have said for some time.  We respect the right for all American to peacefully protest — peacefully protest.  And, obviously, we will continue to strongly condemn any form of violence as it relates, certainly, to protesting or destruction of property.  We’ve been very, very clear.  But Americans have the right to peacefully protest.

Anything that is related to what’s happening outside of this campus — the fencing, as you just mentioned to me — that’s something for Secret Service to speak to directly.

Q    Is he watching the protests, is what I’m asking?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the president is — is — you know, he is always kept up to date on what’s going on.  I — you know, right now, he’s certainly having meetings today with — with his senior advisers and other senior staff.  I can’t speak if he’s right now watching the protests.  Obviously, he is kept up — up to date into what’s happening. 

But what I can say right now: We respect everyone’s right to peacefully protest.  We understand that this is a painful moment for many, many communities.  But obviously we’re going to continue to condemn — strongly condemn any form of violence or any destruction of property.  That is something we’ve been consistent on.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You read the president’s statement where he said that it’s in the country’s interests for him to step aside.  Why is it in the country’s best interests for him to step aside?  Does it have to do with his health or his poll numbers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It does not have to do — there — it has nothing to do with his health.  Again, the president is going to speak to this directly to the American people tonight in prime time.  I know many of you all will be watching it.  There are specials going on tonight.

He will — I promise you: He will speak to this directly to all of you tonight.  But, in his letter, he talked about the country, he talked about the party, he talked about the moment that we’re in right now. 

It is not about his health.  I can say, no, that’s not the reason.  But he- — hear him out tonight.

Q    And the president denied for weeks and you denied for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — weeks that he was even thinking of stepping —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — aside.  What changed from all those days that he had that message —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to Sunday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, he’s going to address this as well this evening.  Let him speak for himself.

But here’s what I will say.  And I think we gave a little bit of a tick-tock to all of you.  He met with a small group of — of advisers on Saturday evening and — and with his family and was thinking through how to move forward.

Sunday afternoon, he made that decision.  It was a — in a very short period of time, as you can imagine.  And then, at 1:45, he got on the phone with some of his assistants to — assistant to the president, some advisers.  He let them know.  And then, minutes later, a letter went out.

So, it was a — in a very short period of time that the president was able to think about this and make a decision.  But I would say, again, the president is going to address the American people.  You will hear directly from him tonight.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Can you talk a little more about how he’s feeling after making such an extraordinary decision, like you said, making it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — quickly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Did he feel bullied to leave the race?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let the president speak for himself.

Look, these are n- — this — I mean, this obviously is a historic moment, but a decision like this is very personal.  It’s not easy to make.  And I think there are very rare — rare politicians who could look at the situation and make a decision.  Right?

And I think it speaks to how honorable this president is, how selfless this president is that he was able to make this decision and say, “It is not about me.  It is about the American people.  This is about the country.”  And make a — again, a personal, difficult decision.

And so, I think that speaks for itself.  I really do.  I think that speaks for itself.

And in the letter, as you all know, he said that he wanted to address the American people, was going to give remarks about his decision, and now we’ve come to that day where he’s going to speak directly to the American people later tonight.  And he’s going to lay out what it is that he wants to say, what he — he believes the American people want to hear directly from him.

Q    So, just switching gears a little bit to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — Netanyahu’s remarks on Capitol Hill.  We’ve heard Republicans voicing serious criticism against the vice president for not being there.  Her team insisting that it was a scheduling conflict.  But how do you respond to that?  What does it say about her priorities, the administration’s priorities that she was not there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just first say that the vice president has — has been unwavering in her commitment to security of Israel.  As you know, she’s been a partner with this president for the past four years — not just domes- — domestic issues but obviously also foreign policy issues.  She’s going to meet with the prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, when he’s here. 

And so, again, has been a critical partner in ensuring that Israel can defend itself and to secure a hostage deal.  As you know, the president — we’ve been talking about that for some time, making sure that we have this hostage deal.  She’s been a partner in that. 

And that’s what I can certainly say — you know, that she continues to be supportive to Israel, making sure that Israel’s security is — is ironclad, as we have been, as the partner — as the president has been.  And she’s going to meet with the prime minister.

Go ahead.

Q    Given the historic nature of Kamala Harris being the top of the ticket, is — does the president have any regrets about the way that he handed this enormous responsibility off in such a, you know, unusual, shortened, kind of truncated fashion, not having her have a normal ascendency to that top position?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the president has no regrets — has no regrets.

Let’s not forget, the vice president obviously has been vice president for more than [almost] four years.  I do not see anyone who is more qualified to step in in this moment.  Right? 

She was a senator.  She was an attorney general.  She’s been a partner to this president — a critical partner, as I’ve said.  I’ve listed out what we’ve been able to accomplish in the last three and a half, almost four years — an unprecedented record.  She was a partner in that to the president. 

And so, look, this is, again, a decision that this president made.  And — and I think he is proud to have made that decision.  I know so.  You saw it in — in what he has been able to say since Sunday.  He’s going to be on camera later today, obviously, to address the American people from the Oval Office because of this moment and how big this moment is.  He wants to do that.  He wants to make sure that Americans hear directly from him, again, after putting out — out the letter on Sunday.

Q    And if you could distill just into a few kind of bite-sized pieces, what specific policies, actions does the president want to get done in these last few months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he certainly wants to build on what we’ve been able to do.  You heard me say this has been a — certainly what he’s been able to accomplish in the four — four years in this first term is more than we have seen in presidents who have done eight — many presidents who have done eight.  And he is going to be known as a consequential president of his time. 

And so, he’s going to continue to build on those successes.  I mean, let’s not forget, if it wasn’t for the American Rescue Plan, we wouldn’t be able to get out of the pandemic, we wouldn’t be able to open up schools, we wouldn’t be able to open up bus- — businesses wouldn’t be able to open up again. 

Thi- — Inflation Reduction Act, which was also a incredibly important piece of legislation if you think about climate change and dealing with that, if you think about — if you think about being able to b- — beat Big Pharma.

You think about the infrastructure legislation, which was done in a bipartisan way.  This president was able to get that done.

CHIPS and Science Act — again, a bipartisan way this president was able to reach across the aisle and get that done.

You think about NATO, making that stronger and bigger.

I mean, there are many ways.  I’m just naming a few things that the president has been able to do.

Look, they — both of them — the president and vice president — are proud to have delivered these re- — historic results, and we’re going to continue to figure out ways on how to build on — on this progress.

So, that’s going to be his focus.  We will have a lot more to share.  I’m not going to call out, name out policies at this time.  But you certainly will hear from this president.  He’s going to run through the finish line.

Q    No concerns about being a lame duck?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We don’t see ourselves as a lame duck president at all — at all in a — in this — in this period of time.  This is a president that has been incredibly successful, and he’s going to do everything that he can to continue to fight for the American people.

I would say, “Stay tuned.  Watch.”

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I have two questions.  One on the vice president and then one on the president’s decision.

First, it’s clear that President Biden and Vice President Harris have met regularly, including their standing lunches, from the outset of the administration.  But I’m — I’m wondering now, since he made his decision, if there are any plans to increase the cadence of this interactions or if he plans to include her in more of his policy-making processes.  How will that relationship and that involvement change?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is the president and the vice president speak regularly.  They see each other regularly.  You named some ways of how they’ve been able to do that, to stay in touch and see each other in person.

Look, the president is committed to being president and leading this country forward in the way that he believes that Americans want to see this country moving forward.  And the vice president is going to be — continue to be a critical partner.  Nothing is going to change in that.

But they’re going to continue to engage, interact, and have important conversations as it relates to policies and moving forward.  That’s not going to stop.

And — and just — I’ll leave it there.

Q    And on the timing of his decision.  It’s now been widely reported that when Senator Chuck Schumer went to visit with the president in Rehoboth a week ago Saturday that President Biden said, “I need another week.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    What did he need another week for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here — I’ll say this.  They had a very good conversation — the president and — and Senator Schumer.  And I’m not going to go into their private conversation.  I’m not going to go into particulars.  But it was a good conversation.

Q    But you said it was a very short timeframe in which the president was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To — in making that —

Q    — was advised —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — decision.  Right?

Q    — and made his decision.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  When he started thinking about it and making that decision.  He st- — it started Saturday evening.  And on Sunday afternoon, he made his decision.

Q    But it sounds like he was presented with data a week prior.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m just not going to get into specifics.  It started Saturday evening.  The next afternoon, which was Sunday afternoon, he made that decision.  A small group of advisers, including family, was with him on Sun- — on Saturday night.  And then, Sunday afternoon, he made the decision.

That’s — that’s how it — it happened.  That’s how it — it — he — he came to — to announcing it.

Q    And on the messaging to us, to the press corps.  It’s been nine days since there has been a briefing.  The president obviously published his letter officially —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on Sunday withdrawing from the race.  Why go on television to make your first comments about that decision —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — rather than make — make those from the briefing room?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I appreciate that.  We’ve always had a protocol here: When the president is not here, we don’t do a briefing.  That’s just a — the way that we’ve always ha- — it’s always happened.

The interview that I did yesterday was on the books for about two, three weeks.  It was way before — way before the president made his decision.  That’s it.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Go ahead.

Q    Did the president exit the race because he didn’t think he could defeat Donald Trump in November?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — into specific details of his thoughts.  I would say tune in to- — tonight when he speaks directly to the American people.  You’ll hear what he though- — thinks about this, his decision.  He said in his letter that would — he wanted to address the American people about this decision that he made on Sunday.  I would tune in to that, and you’ll hear directly from him.

Q    And also, similar to some of the questions my colleagues have asked for weeks: People from this podium —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and other top spokespeople for the president were adamant that there was no way he was dropping out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Just in terms of credibility moving forward, I’m curious if you guys could just address that question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I kind of addressed it a couple times of the president’s decision-making.  When we all t- — when — when folks from my team, from folks from this White House said that he wasn’t going to drop out or he was not planning to drop out, that’s where we were.  That’s where we were in that time.  That’s — that is the guidance that we had.

I mean, it’s not —

Q    So, there were questions about you guys not receiving the proper guidance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — Tyler, on Sa- — on Saturday night, he met with a small group of advisers and his family, and that’s when the decision started.  Sunday, he made the final — Sunday afternoon, he made the final decision.  That’s where we were. 

And we’ve talked about this: This was a dynamic situation.  It was.  This is a historic moment.  You have to — that — that is true.  And it was for this — the president to come to that decision — to come to that decision.

When we told you all that the president — you heard from the president: He’s not going to drop out.  And he actually addressed it himself, not just us.  There were multiple events, multiple opportunities where the president said he’s in it.  So, you heard directly from him multiple times after the debate.

You know, the president, again, met with his — a small group of advisers on Saturday.  Sunday, he made his final decision.  That’s how it worked.  That’s how it happened.

Q    And do you think tonight we’ll get a better sense from him about what went into that decision-making process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I would tune in to tonight.  I would let the president speak for himself in this moment.

Go ahead.

Q    Given the level of support the vice president has received from lawmakers, other Democrats, donors, the party in general, has the president expressed any sentiment that maybe he should have made his decision sooner and — and given her a longer timeline?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is this was a difficult decision to make, a personal decision to make.  And the personal — the president made it.  And I will leave it at that.

Q    Has he given any advice at this point to the vice president in her process of picking a running mate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They speak regularly.  They speak often.  Obviously, they have spoken a couple of times.  And I’m not going to get into their private discussions.

Go ahead.

Q    Is the vice president or her staff going to be more closely involved in the day-to-day operations of the administration, given that she’s now the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — kind of got this question moments ago.  Nothing more to add where — the vice president has been a critical partner.  She’s been import- — played important role to a lot of decisions that have been made in the past three and half years.  That’s not going to change.  And the president has always obviously appreciated her — her policy savvy, her — her ideas, her thoughts.  And that’s going to continue.

Q    Will she get more of a say now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the president is still president.  You know, he’s still very much commander in chief.  He’s still very much the president of the United States.  And he’s still very much going to lead this country in the way and the direction that he believes is right — is the right way to do it.

So, that doesn’t change.  That’s not going to change.

Q    And just to make sure I understood your answer earlier.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    They have spoken about the VP selection specifically or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, the VP selection — that is something — obviously, I can’t speak to the campaign’s — the campaign side could speak to.

What I can say is I — I heard the question as giving advice to the vice president in — in any way.  Right?  They’ve spoken many times.  I’m just not going to get into private conversation.

The VP pick, specifically, anything related to that, obviously, the campaign can speak to that more if you want more details.

Q    But — but current Vice President Harris won’t have extra staff in meetings that wouldn’t normally be there for some sort of overlap transition they would make?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would say that nothing — nothing is going to change.  The president is the president of the United States.  He’s going to continue to lead — you know, lead this administration the way that he sees fit.

They are partners.  They are partners.  They have been.  She’s been, again, a critical partner in some of the big-piece items that we have been able to get done on behalf of — of this country.  Obviously, she’s alw- — she’s going to play a role, as she has done in the past.

Q    Did he watch the prime minister’s speech?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — that just ended not too — too — too long after I came out here.  I have not talked to the president about this, if he was able to catch some of the prime minister’s speech.  Obviously, they’re going to — as you know, they’re going to be meeting here at the White House.  Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the president is going to be meeting here tomorrow.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  This was a White House that was operating, obviously, with an eye towards the next six months but also thinking it might have four more years to serve as well.  Can — I know it’s early, but can you talk through whether there has been any sort of new direction about how this White House will operate given that you — you only have this short amount of time left?

Obviously, the president was also balancing a reelection campaign at the same time.  Does this free him up?  Are there considerations being given to what else he might be able to do that he might not have been?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any policy announcements to make at this time.  The president is going to continue to do what he has set out to do for the, you know, next several months, even while he was indeed running for reelection, which is pretty consistent: building on the accomplish[ments] that he’s been able to get done.  That’s going to be really important.  He’s going to look at this remainder — remaind- — remainder of his term, and there’s going to be important issues that he wants to get done.

Don’t have anything right now to — to lay out.  But we want to continue to build on those accomplishments.  We’ve gotten a lot of things done.  Whether it’s health care, whether it’s the economy, whether it’s manufacturing — right? — we want to continue to build on that.

And so, the president is determined.  He is determined to get that done.

Q    One of the first major initiatives that the president asked the vice president to lead was to oversee the diplomatic work with Central American countries as it relates to flows of migration.  The House Rules Committee yesterday approved a resolution that will go to evoke a full House strongly condemning the Biden administration and its border czar, the vice president, for failure to secure the border. 

Do you have a response to that?  And how — how would the president characterize the vice president’s accomplishments in terms of what we’re seeing in that portfolio?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, as we speak, you have congressional Republicans — they continue doing their — continue with their month-long blockade of critical resources that we need for the border, whether it’s ICE, Border Patrol.  And this is what they’ve been doing.  This is what they’ve been doing.

Let’s not forget:  The bipartisan — a really tough, important bipartisan piece of legislation — or a deal that came out of the Senate that we were able to get done, and they got in their own way.  They got in their own way because they listened to the former president, because they thought it would help Joe Biden.

So, they continue to block critical resources.  That’s what they have done for the past three and a half years.  The president is looking for ways to fund — to fund security funding to get to the border, right?  And he’s done that in a record way.

And so, we’re going to continue to fight to make sure that the Border Patrol agents get what they need and get more personnel — thousands of new personnel at the border.  That’s what we’re going to do.

The president announced new decisive executive orders to secure the border.  Unlawful crossings have dropped by more than 50 percent.  And that’s the president acting without Congress — by 50 percent.  They are now lower at this point than they were in 2019 and lower than when the former president left office.

And the president is doing that one his own — on his own.  They get in the way; he finds other ways to — to make things happen.  That’s been the story of this administration.

Q    One more question.  Obviously, the Secret Service director resigned yesterday.  I’m also curious if there is any consideration to increasing the security around the vice president now and whether the resources of the Secret Service are affected by that — that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, that’s something for the Secret Service to speak to.  That’s something for the vice president’s campaign to speak to.  I — I don’t have anything to add on that as — as it relates to protection.

Go ahead.

Q    How are you doing with all of this, Karine?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You care about how I feel?

Q    Are you going to stick around for a potential President Harris administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my goodness.  Let me just get through the day.  Can I just get through today?

Q    I do have some other questions, Karine.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I think that’s good.  I think we’re good.  I think we’re good.  (Laughter.)

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  How are you doing?  (Laughter.)  Are you good?

Q    I’m doing okay.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I haven’t seen you in a while.

Q    Well, you guys haven’t had a press briefing since President Biden has dropped out of the race, so — (laughter).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The president hasn’t been here.  He just got here yesterday.  And now I’m here taking your questions.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And I’ve taken about three or four at this point from you alone.  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, it — it would seem that people in this White House knew that President Biden was slipping, and it was hidden from the American people.  So, who ordered White House officials to cover up a declining president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know that that is a narrative that you love and — to —

Q    Well, when he was — in 10 days —

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

Q    He did a press conference at NATO. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.

Q    “I’m in it.  There’s all these things that I need to finish.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.

Q    And then, 10 days later, “I’m dropping out.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, w- — okay, you’re asking me, like, two — multiple questions here.  Let me — wait, wait. 

First of all, there’s been no cover-up.  I want to be very clear about that.  I know that’s the narrative that you all want —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  No, no, no.  You can’t in- —

Q    I — well —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    I’ve been with — I’ve been with President Biden for five years.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you going to let me answer the question?

Q    Would you at least admit that the debate was not —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — just a bad night?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — wait.  Can you — can I answer the question?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Are you sure?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  To your first question: It is not a cover-up.  I know that is the narrative that you all want.  It is not.

I’m going to say this again, and you’re — you’re going to hear directly from the president.  I hope you listen tonight.  I think it’s going to be incredibly powerful and important.  The Oval Office — presidents, as you know, when they make speeches from the Oval Office, it’s because they’re important moments that they want to directly make sure that the American people hear from them.  And it’s obviously going to be done in prime time.  I would listen to the president.

And then, what I will say is that it is not easy making a decision that the president made on Sunday.  It is just not.  It is not.  And as all you have — you all reported, it is historic.  It is unusual.  This is not the norm.

And making a decision like that for someone who has been in public service for 54 years — U.S. senator for 36, president to — vice president to President Obama for 8, and now a first term as president himself — these are not easy decisions to make.  They’re just not.

And so, the fact that he was able to make that decision in a selfless way, that’s admirable.

Q    One of the decisions he made, President Biden wants Vice President Harris to be the standard-bearer of the party now.  Does she still want to get rid of ICE?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have seen what this administration has been able to do in the past three and a half years, and they did that with the vice president as a partner in that. 

And Republicans got in the way.  The president went around Republicans and was able to get thousands of personnels at the border.  And now we are seeing a 50 percent drop at the border.  And that’s because of what this president has done.

Q    As a partner, though, she’s been in charge of root causes of migration for years.  She has never spoken to the Border Patrol chief, Jason Owens, or the Border Patr- — Patrol chief before him, Raul Ortiz.  What should that tell us about her leadership style?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  She was supposed to be doing root causes, dealing with diplomacy.

Q    And that does not involve the Border —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Diplomacy — that’s what her job was supposed to be.  Diplo- — diplomatic — that’s the job.

And it — I — I understand that you’re asking these questions, but we should also look at congressional Republicans who got in the way — literally got in the way of everything that this president was trying to do to deal with the border.  They got in the way.  They would say one thing, and then they would change their mind.

They would say, “We want Border Patrol — we want — you know, we want a deal on — on what’s happening at the border,” and then they would walk away from it.  And they did it because of what the former president said.

You guys reported that.  I didn’t — that’s not coming from me.  Some of your colleagues reported that the former president said, “Let’s not move forward with this proposal because it’s going to help Joe Biden.”

I mean, that’s also the reality.  You got to talk about both sides here.

Go ahead.  I — I —

Q    Great. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is —

Q    Can you move to the back of the room?

Q    I get — I get — I get that you’re not going to give us —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You got to — I got —

Q    I get that you might hes- —

Q    You control the briefing, not Peter.

Q    Okay.

Q    Come on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  No, go ahead, Peter.

Q    Fine, one more.

Q    It’s unbelievable.

Q    I get that you don’t probably want to give us —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s good to see you too, James.

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    — a specific name, but were there any names that came forward that surprised you of Democratic officials in the last week who stabbed President Biden in the back? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to say. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, really fast.  Two questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    One on Sonya Massey.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    This is something that’s continued to happen.  The president, before he even became president, was really pushing after the George Floyd death — police-involved death.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    What is the lesson learned, I guess, if you will?  He couldn’t get it through Congress, but he did come up with federal executive orders and efforts.  What is the lesson learned from this moment — that continues to happen — that, I guess, Kamala Harris might have to start dealing with as well if she becomes president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, when you say “lesson learned,” meaning —

Q    How could you have done something differently or what could you have done to maybe change the dynamic?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think we got to step back a coup- — for a second here.  The president has been able to reach across the aisle and get a lot of things done.  He has.  Gun — gun legislation — the first bipartisan gun legislation that we saw in decades — that was important.

And there is issues that — you know, infrastructure legislation — was able to get that done.  He reached over, across the line and got bipartisan support. 

So, we have seen this president and this vice president be very successful in doing that.  There are some — been some issues that have been a little harder — to your point, police reform.  And what the president did when — was when that wasn’t to get done in a bipartisan way in Congress, he took an executive or- — order to deal with it on the federal — federal law enforcement level.  And that was a step that he was able to take.

And he’s going to continue — it doesn’t stop.  You heard me mention the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act probably twice or three times at the top because it’s important to — to use — to use our platform, to use this podium to continue to call for what we believe is right.

There’s always going to be lessons in how people govern and decisions that we made here, but there has also been a lot of success.  And when action wasn’t happening in Congress, the president took action — the president took action.

Q    So, as you said, you mentioned this at the top —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — emphasizing this heinous death and how it happened, but is this something that the president hopes — I mean, it was one of his passion projects.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, in 2020, for sure.

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.

Q    Do you — does the president hope that if Kamala Harris becomes president of the United States that she could champion this and that she could get what he couldn’t —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.

Q    — get done?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  For sure.  Absolutely.  This is an important issue for this president.  He’s going to do everything that he can, you know, with the — and with the rest of his term to get this done.  He’s still going to work on this.  It doesn’t stop.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A few days before the president announced his withdrawal from the race, he said that he was going to be rolling out proposals for Supreme Court reform.  Is he still committed to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the president believes that when you hold a high office, you should be held by certain ethics and transparency.  That’s something that the president believes.  And so, he certainly will continue to do everything that he can.

I don’t have any policy announcements to make at this moment, today, in front of you.  But once we will, we certainly will share that.

Q    And just secondly, has the president spoken with former President Obama since making the decision —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No calls to read out.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I have a foreign policy-related question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    President Biden will be one of the few sitting presidents since the reestablishment of U.S.-China relations not to visit China during his tenure.  Could you please explain the reasoning behind this decision?  Isn’t this a missed opportunity?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you heard from the national security adviser himself many times, and we’ve talked about our relationship with China.  It’s been very deliberate in its — in our strategy, in our approach to our relationship with China.  Very deliberate.

And, as you’ve heard us say many, many times — again, I mentioned the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan — we are pursuing competition without conflict.  That has been our goal from day one of this administration.

You know, the met — the president, as you know, met in a bilateral fashion with the President Xi just last November, as you know, in California with that goal in mind. 

Again, we want competition without conflict.  So, we have also had a number of Cabinet secretaries — we’ve — we’ve — we’ve spoken to that, whether it is Secretary — is it Secretary Blinken or the Treasury secretary, they’ve had travels to China over the past several years.  And — and many more.

And so, look, we’re going to continue to have these high-level officials travel there, to China, to continue to have those conversations.  But we have been incredibly deliberate with our strategy. 

Again, competition without conflict — that’s how we’re moving forward.

Q    There are still a few months left.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Will there still be opportunity?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part.  Will there still be —

Q    Be a chance he may go abroad?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t have anything to share about foreign travel.  But we have been very deliberate with our strategy, we believe it’s worked, and we’re going to continue to move forward in that fashion.

Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president said that he wants to push for a Gaza ceasefire in his last six months in office.  But Prime Minister Netanyahu just gave a pretty uncompromising speech to Congress just a day before he comes here to the White House.  Does the president really believe that Netanyahu sounds like a man who’s likely to go for a peace deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple of things.  I do want to give our reaction to — to the prime minister’s speech.  So, we appreciate Prime Minister Netanyahu for thanking President Biden for his unwavering support for Israel in his efforts to secure the release of the hostages. 

President Biden looks forward to meeting the prime minister here tomorrow to discuss developments in Gaza, including negotiations on a ceasefire deal and the humanitarian situation on the ground. 

And my colleagues, in — in the 4 o’clock hour, is going to — at NSC is going to hold a — a press call where they’re going to address additional questions regarding the prime minister’s address and also his visit.  So, I would certainly tune in.  You’ll hear more from — from them directly.

Look, they’re going to meet tomorrow.  The president has always been clear on how — on how he see the future: a two-state solution.  He’s always supported that.  That’s something that he’s going to continue to speak to.

They’re going to have a conversation tomorrow.  The president looks forward to that.  The vice president is also going to have a meeting with the prime minister tomorrow.

And so, I’ll leave it there.  But the — my — the National Security Council is going to be doing a — a press call, so I would certainly refer you to any — any further questions that you may have on the visit.

Q    But you’ve got no sense of whether he does have any confidence this — this is really an achievable goal in his last six months?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe that the president is optimistic.  This is a president that believes that anything could happen if you stay focused, if you work hard towards it.  So, he’s going to be optimistic.  The work continues.  And that’s not going to stop him, for sure.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Given that you’ve had a lot of questions about the president’s agenda here over the next six months, I’m curious: Does the president believe that some of what he’d like to get through Congress between now and the end of the year is made easier if he’s not a candidate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t quite understand the question, because he’s not on the — on the —

Q    Does he think that — that it will be easier or harder or the same to — to kind of get some of these things —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I —

Q    — that he’s been struggling —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — to get through Congress —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — until now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — well, first of all, this has been — the fact that the president has gotten this much done — right? — the — the historic pieces of legislation —

Q    Well, I’m not talking about what he said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.

Q    — he wanted to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on.  Let me — you guys got to give me a second to answer — to at least —

Q    My apologies.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to actually warm up into the — into the answer. 

So, look, the president has gotten a lot done — historic amount of legislation passed — historic pieces of legislation passed.  And that’s — and that’s — that wasn’t done with an easy political climate.  Right?  It’s not.  I mean, I think you could agree with me there. 

And so, look, we’re going to have more to share on what the next several months — the final several months of his term is going to look like.  We will share that.  The president wants to build — continue to build on those historic initiatives that he was able to get done. 

This has not been an easy political climate.  And some of that work, he was — did it in a bipartisan way. 

And when he wasn’t able to get it done in a bipartisan way, he found policy, ways to do that with an executive action.  And we’ve been able to be successful, whether it’s the border — right? — whether it’s trying to get things done on student l- — on the student loan side. 

There’s been ways that the president has been very — still very, very focused on making sure we’re delivering on the initiatives, on the goals that we set out to do in the beginning of this administration. 

That doesn’t stop.  That doesn’t stop.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I have two questions: domestic and foreign policy.  On domestic, was there any reason why the president did not endorse the vice president in the first tweet?  It took, like, a while — maybe 15, 20 minutes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I mean, look, “the first” meaning —

Q    When he — the first tweet was he’s withdrawing from the race, but he did not say clearly that he is endorsing her.

Q    From the letter to the (inaudible) —

Q    To the tweet.

Q    Yeah.

Q    There was a half hour —

Q    It was about 20 minutes.

Q    It was 30 minutes.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because there was a 30 minutes — 

Q    Thirty minutes, yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re questioning a 30-minute window?

Q    I’m just asking because he’s — no, I’m not questioning.  I’m just asking if there was a reason.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean, that — look, he put out a letter to the American people about a decision that he had made.  That deserved a standalone letter, I believe, right?  A decision — an important, historic decision.  He wanted to do that and speak directly to the American people.  That’s why he did the letter. 

And then, obviously, 30 minutes later, you — you got the endorsement.  That’s not a — that’s not a significant amount —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But it’s not a significant amount of time.  I think if you look at the letter, you see that he was truly trying to lay down the decision — a very weighty decision — and he wanted to say that directly to the American people.

Q    Fair enough.  You explained it now.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I appre- — tha- — thank you for — for approving that answer.  (Laughter.)

Q    My second question, on foreign policy.  Just a follow-up on Danny’s question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    What message does the administration send to the world when we see the White House is barricaded — barricaded in anticipation of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit here, considering that the ICC found a reasonable ground to indict him as a war criminal and 70 percent of Israelis want him to step down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can’t speak to Israelis.  That’s — that’s — you know, I’m not going to speak to domestic politics.  I think we’ve been very clear on our feelings about ICC and their recommendation, something that we do not agree on.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

Look, when it comes to what we’re seeing outside — as you said, the barricades and such — that’s something for Secret Service to speak to.  They can speak to why they feel that it’s needed.  That is not for me to speak to. 

But it doesn’t change the fact that we believe in the right for all Americans to peacefully protest.  That is something that we’ve always been very clear about.  It is the right of all Americans to peacefully protest.  And we understand that this is an incredibly painful moment for many communities.  And we respect that. 

And also, in that same vein, we’re going to strongly condemn any type of violence or destruction of property.  That is something that we’ve been very clear about as well.  But peacefully protest — that’s something that we support. 

I can’t speak to — there’s reasons why the Secret Service is deciding to do that.  That is for them — for them to speak to directly.

Okay.  Go ahead, Raquel.

Q    Hi.  Thank you, Karine, very much.

Karine, you were saying how difficult it was, this decision for President Biden.  What is his mood since he took this decision?  And what will be the tone of the address tonight?

Also, why did he decide to do it from the Oval Office?  I wonder if he’s going to do —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — (inaudible) campaigning from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a coup- — a couple of things.  Look, I — I saw the president not too long ago — a couple hours ago.  He’s determined.  He’s in good spirits. 

He wants to speak directly to the American people tonight.  That is his focus. 

He is doing it from the Oval Office because, as many of you all reported — and we agree with all of you — this is an important moment.  This is a historic moment.  And this decision was a big decision, was an important decision.  And Oval Offices are used for moments that — I would say moments like these that are historic. 

So, he wants to do it from the Oval.  He’s going to do it in prime time.  He’s going to speak directly to the American people.  I would say, again, tune in.  You’ll hear from — what he has to say.  And I think — I think it’s going to be important.  I think it’s going to be important.

Q    Can we expect that he’s going to ask people to vote for Harris from the Oval or doing any kind of campaigning from there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — it’s going to be a speech.  I believe, we believe that it is going to be important for the American people to hear directly from this president in this moment — in this historic moment. 

And I’m not going to get into details, get into specifics.  I’ve said this many times from here: I’m not going to get ahead of the president. 

This is an oppor- — his opportunity — his opportunity for — to explain that decision and for the American people to — to listen in.  And so —

AIDE:  Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I’ve got to go.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks so much, Karine.  Can you give us any more color about the preparation for the speech?  Who has been helping the president write it?  If he’s been sounding — you know, using anybody as a sounding board —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to go into details.  Obviously, this is the president — this is a speech that the president is very deeply involved in.  You don’t use the Oval Office often.  Yo- — you use it for incredibly important moments.  And that’s what you’re going to hear tonight.  I’m just not going to get into specifics as to how the president is preparing. 

I will say this: Obviously, his senior advisers are always heavily involved.  And this is a president that’s taking this very seriously, very focused, like he does with any other speech. 

And so, tune in.  Tune in.

Q    And can you say whether or not you’d be willing to have the president’s doctor come to the podium, particularly given that he is — the president does intend to serve out his term and there have been a number of questions about, you know, his fitness for office? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    Some of those questions could be settled if, perhaps, there was a — you know, the doctor — if his doctor would come to the podium or if more medical records could be released. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’ve heard from the president’s doctor, I believe, every day that he had COVID.  He gave his assessment of what was — what was going on, what was happening.  There was a memo that was sent out to all of — to all of you.  Obviously, the memo was given to me and we shared it publicly. 

I don’t have anything else.  We — and you’ve heard me say this many times: There was an extensive medical evaluation that was done — physical that was done in February.  You all have that.  I just don’t have anything else to share from here. 

All right.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll be back tomorrow.

4:12 P.M. EDT

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:59 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, bear with me.  I have a few things at the top. 

So, I want to start by saying that what the country witnessed last night was historic.  We saw the leadership we always see from Joe Biden.  We saw a man who, as he has always done, put country first.

Surrounded by his family, you heard the president say, “I revere this office, but I love my country more.”  He went on to say the defense of democracy is “more important than any title. I draw strength and find joy in working for the American people.  But this sacred task of perfecting our Union is not about me.  It’s about you, your families, your futures.  It’s about ‘We the People.’”  And “I have decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation.  That is the best way to unite our nation.”

This is a selfless act — something that very few politicians would ever do.  President Biden will go down in history as one of the nation’s greatest presidents, accomplishing more in nearly four years than most presidents do in eight years. 

To quote him again, “I have given my heart and my soul to our nation, like so many others have.  And I have been blessed a million times in return with the love and support of the American people.” 

He made clear last night that over the next six months, he will be focused on doing his job as president of the United States and building on his historic results for the American people.  That is his focus. 

And I will end by saying that I am so proud to work for this man, who has served his country for more than 50 years with honor and dignity.  And I look forward to working — continuing to work with him again for — ahead — ahead in the next several months. 

Today, the Department of Homeland Security released additional data on the impacts of the ex- — executive action President Biden announced on June 4th. 

Since then, encounters at the border between ports of entry have dropped more than 55 percent.  Average daily encounters are now lower than they were at the end of the previous administration and lower than at this point back in 2019. 

But we know the only way to bring lasting solutions to secure border — to secure the border and to begin to fix the broken immigration system is to pass the bipartisan border security agreement. 

Sadly, congressional Republicans have decided to put partisan politics ahead of our national security and twice voted against the bipartisan agreement and badly needed resources to hire additional Border policy — Patrol agents and fentanyl detection technology at the border. 

In the absence of legislation action — legislative action, the Biden-Harris administration has taken decisive actions to secure the border. 

Recently, the administration has taken action to hold criminal organizations accountable, including sanctions against different gangs and smuggling organizations that are responsible for various criminal activities.  That includes human smuggling and trafficking, gender-based violence, and money laundering. 

We have also taken concrete steps to make our immigration system more fair and more just and to keep families together. 

That is why, in August, eligible spouses of U.S. citizens and their children who have lived here for 10 years or more will be able to apply for legal status while remaining in the United States with their families. 

We’re also helping young people who have been educated in the U.S., including DREAMers and DACA recipients, receive work visas more quickly.  These actions will help more young people use their talents to enrich our communities and strengthen our economy. 

This administration will continue taking action to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system. 

Now, when President Biden took office, we were in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  But as the president said last night during his Oval Office address and as today’s GDP report makes clear, the United States has the strongest economy in the world. 

This did not happen by accident.  Under the leadership of President Biden and Vice President Harris, we saw the economy grow a strong 2.8 percent last quarter, with business investments mo- — up more than 5 percent.  Nearly 60 million jobs have been created, and wages are up higher than before the pandemic, with inflation down to 3 percent. 

But as the president said, we have more work to do.  Over the next six months, the president and vice president will keep fighting to lower costs for hardworking families, from lowering health care and housing costs to making billionaires pay their fair share and cutting taxes for families with the Child Tax Credit.

While congressional Republicans side with special interests and threaten Social Security and Medicare, the president and vice president will continue fighting for the middle class. 

Today, we are praying for the thousands of Americans under mandatory evacuation orders out West as widespread wildfires burn hundreds of thousands of acres across Oregon, California, and elsewhere. 

We are grateful for the brave firefighters and first responders who are working to protect people and save lives. 

We urge everyone in the — in the affected areas to remain vigilant and heed the warnings of local officials, especially those who have been ordered to evacuate.

And the president has been briefed on the fires, and we are in close touch with the governors’ office — offices in affected states to ensure they have all that they need. 

White House and federal officials are also in close contact with state and local officials on the frontlines of these fires.  And 6,800 federal personnel from the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior are on the ground, helping to fight the blazes and keep people safe. 

The Department of Defense has also mobilized four of its C-130 modular airborne firefighting systems to support fire suppression effort. 

FEMA also issued several fire management assistance grants to help reimburse states for firefighting costs. 

As always, we stand ready to provide further support as needed. 

And finally, on Monday, Iowa’s extreme abortion ban will take effect, banning care before a lot of women even know that they are pregnant.  Iowa will be the 22nd state with an abortion ban in effect.  All of these bans imposed by the Republican elected officials put women’s health and lives in jeopardy. 

The president and the vice president have been clear: This should never happen in America.  Yet, this is exactly what is happening in states across the country since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

And it’s not stopping at the state level.  Republican elected officials in Congress have proposed four — four national abortion bans, while refusing to protect nationwide access to IVF and contraception. 

President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health care.  They continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law and fight efforts by Republican elected officials to undermine our fundamental freedoms. 

And with that, I will turn it over to the admiral, Admiral John Kirby, who is here to take questions about the prime minister of Israel’s visit and meeting with the president today and take any questions on the Middle East. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

As you all know, the president and the prime minister are meeting right now in the Oval Office.  There is a lot on the agenda, but first and foremost will be discussing how deeply and how strongly the president feels, we feel that we’ve got to get this hostage deal in place so we can get a ceasefire also in place, at least for phase one for that first — those first six weeks. 

There are gaps that remain, and our team continues to work with our counterparts in the region to see if we can’t close those gaps.  We believe that they are of a nature where they can be closed and that we can achieve a deal, but it’s going to require, as it always does, some leadership, some compromise, and an effort to get there. 

The president will be reaffirming for Prime Minister Netanyahu that he believes we need to get there and we need to get there soon. 

Today is the 293rd day that these hostages have been held captive by Hamas.  And you just have to assume that it is the most horrific of circumstances.  Sadly, we know that not all of them are alive.  Still — hostages still need to get home to their families.  Two hundred and ninety-three days, there ought not to be a two hundred and ninety-fourth.  And we’re going to keep working on that. 

I do anticipate that the two leaders will also cha- — also have a chance to talk about other substantive issues, in terms of the blue line up at the north and making sure we don’t see an escalation of the conflict between Israel and — and Lebanon and make sure that we’re providing opportunities for both Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes, as well as, of course, the need — the critical need for stability in the West Bank.  We’re still seeing violence in the West Bank that the president has been absolutely steadfast calling out as unacceptable.

They’ll also discuss the United States’ ironclad commitment, of course, to Israel’s security, including countering the very serious threats that Iran and its proxy groups continue to demonstrate throughout the region. 

The president and the prime minister, of course, after their meeting today in the Oval, will have a chance to meet with families of the Americans that are being held hostage by Hamas.  This will be this president’s second in-person meeting with these families.  As you all know, we have kept up a regular drumbeat of interaction with them. 

Since the 7th of October, Jake Sullivan has met with them 10, 12 times — something like that.  And other members of the team have also kept in touch with them to make sure that they know everything that we’re doing to get their loved ones home. 

Just quickly before we go to questions, a quick word on Venezuela.  We support the peaceful elections that we expect and hope will come on Sunday — elections that will reflect the will and the aspirations of the Venezuelan people for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous future. 

Any political re- — repression and violence is unacceptable.  And, of course, regardless of who wins, we encourage both candidates to commit to a peaceful outcome and to work together for the good of all Venezuelans.

With that, I’ll take some questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, John.  First, in ter- — one, the president is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu right now.  Does the president believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to get a hostage deal that — given his political consideration at home, in Israel, that he’s actually capable and willing to bridge those gaps that you say remain?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, yes, and yes.  He has said so publicly himself, Zeke.  He wants to get the hostages home. 

And the Israelis, the — the government, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been working with us to try to get that — that deal over the finish line. 

That said, as I — as I mentioned at the top, there’s still some gaps that remain, and we’re going to be talking to the prime minister today about the — closing those gaps. 

Q    And just on a broader note: The president mentioned last night that he plans to spend the next six months in — of his time in office focused on some foreign policy issues.  How does the president’s announcement change what the White House, what the NSC has planned for the balance of the year through January 20th, in terms of an issue of the president — travel by the president?  Will we get to Africa?  You know, what — what are the — the —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — to-do list of things that maybe hadn’t been planned for the second term that he now has to — has less than six months to get done?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, now that — that he’s not running for reelection, certainly, you can expect that there’ll be opportunities on the calendar that may not have been before.  And so, we’re all exploring what those opportunities can look like in terms of advancing his foreign policy agenda and national security opportunities here and around the world. 

But I don’t have anything on the schedule to speak to now.  But I mean, you know, stay tuned.  I think there’ll — there’ll be some opportunities that the president is going to want to explore.

Look, I mean, still got a war in Ukraine, still got a war in Gaza.  You still got climate change to deal with.  You still got a very restless Indo-Pacific.  I mean, I could go on and on.  There’s plenty of things for the national security team to try to continue to get done. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    John, we heard from the vice president earlier with comments stric- — sorry, strong comments related to the vandalism and the protests that we saw yesterday.  We haven’t heard yet from the president or from the White House at large.  Do you condemn what you saw yesterday?  How do you characterize the protests, including what we saw at Union Station?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we did put out a statement last night from the White House.  But absolutely condemn any violence in protest activity.  I mean, it’s a First Amendment right to peacefully protest.  We fully support that.

We know that there are strong views about what’s going on in Gaza.  And some of those views are in opposition to some of the policies that we’re pursuing.  We get it.  That’s democracy. 

But when it turns violent and when you burn an American flag and pull it down off a U.S. government site, that’s just absolutely unacceptable.  And — and obviously, we condemn all that.

Q    Are these protests pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel?  How do you characterize what we’re seeing?

MR. KIRBY:  I think it’s a little bit all those things.  I mean, I can’t speak for the protesters.  Obviously, I don’t share their views.  But, obviously, they took great exception to the prime minister speaking on Capitol Hill.  And as I said, many of them have taken exception with our — with our policies with respect to Gaza.

Q    Today, we heard from one of the family members who is going to be meeting with both the prime minister and the president a short time from now, Aviva Siegel.  She was a former hostage of Hamas.  She says, “I want to ask President Biden, if Bibi is not able or willing, to agree to the ceasefire and hostage deal to bring the Americans home.”  Is there anything more that President Biden is prepared to do unilaterally to try to bring those hostages home?

MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t get into hy- — hypothesizing and speculating about options one way or the other.  We want to get all the hostages home — clearly, the Americans in particular.  And that’s why this deal was so important, Peter. 

And we are close.  We are closer now, we believe, than we’ve been before.  The gaps are closable.  No question about that.  And we believe, the president believes that getting that hostage deal in place, getting that six-week ceasefire — that’s the best way to get all these loved ones back with their families.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thanks, John.  Did the U.S. find any of Netanyahu’s remarks yesterday to be false or misleading?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to parse everything he said or, you know, do a factcheck here from — from this podium.  He — you know, he should speak for himself about what his — his views are.

Q    He should, but he had a powerful stage: a joint address before Congress.  Do you agree with assertions that Iran financially backed some of the protesters; that if there are Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t getting enough food, it’s not because Israel is blocking it — as two examples.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on the first example, we’ve said ourselves — the director of National Intelligence came out publicly and said that we do know that Iran has been funding and encouraging some of the protest activity here in the United States — some of it.

We do not believe that all the protest activity out there on a daily basis is being fully funded by Iran.  There’s a lot of organic concern out there in the American people about what’s going on in the Middle East.  And most of these protests are — are formed and fashioned in that regard. 

On the second question, it’s a — there has been an — a steady increase of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza.  The problem isn’t getting it to Gaza right now.  The problem is getting it around Gaza.  And one of the reasons why it’s so dang difficult to move things around inside Gaza is because there’s a war going on and bombs are dropping. 

And, regrettably, in the conduct of some of their — their recent operations, the Israeli military has, in fact — not on purpose; we have no reason to believe they did this deliberately — but there has been accidental strikes on some of the — the trucks and the convoys that have been moving around. 

So, there’s — it’s a — it’s not — it’s not one or the other.  There’s a lot of reasons why it’s not moving around.  And some of that is, of course, the military activity of the Israelis inside Gaza. 

Q    And then, now that the vice president is the likely Democratic nominee, has she communicated with the president whether a Harris administration’s Israel policy would be the same or different as his?

MR. KIRBY:  You would have to talk to the vice president’s office and the campaign for that. 

I would just — before we leave that, though, just want to remind: She’s been a full partner in our policies in the Middle East, particularly with our policies towards Israel and the war in Gaza — a full partner, been involved in nearly every conversation that the president has had with the prime minister, and very much engaged throughout.

Q    Okay, before I get to my questions, can I just — a quick follow-up on that.  Can you j- —

MR. KIRBY:  Sure.

Q    Can you explain to the American people who might think it just looks odd that she is having her own private meeting with the prime minister, separate from the president’s, that suggests that they aren’t speaking with one voice.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I reckon if she was here, she’d be in the room right now.  But she’s not physically here.  There’s nothing unusual about that.  And the vice president has — has and I fully expect over the next six months will continue to have meetings of her own with foreign leaders.  She’s met privately with President Zelenskyy as well and others.

Q    It was 20 days ago that the administration first said that they were really optimistic about finding — really closing the deal.  Has nothing changed in 20 days?  Is that still where we are?

MR. KIRBY:  I wouldn’t say nothing has changed.

Q    What — what are the remaining gaps?  What are the sticking points?

MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)  Yeah, I’m not going to negotiate in public. 

I wouldn’t say nothing has changed.  I mean, there’s the last 20 days that you talk about, and we’ve been working really, really hard to try to get those gaps closed. 

There are — there’s still more work to be done.  But

we believe, as I said earlier, we’re closer now than we’ve been before.  And we think it’s absolutely achievable to get this over the finish line.

Q    Just sort of following up what you just pointed — there’s one other thing that the prime minister said yesterday that’s getting a lot of attention — is that the conflict has had one of the lowest ratios of combatant-to-noncombat casualties in the history of urban warfare.  Obviously, our own State Department has found it reasonable to assess that the Israeli’s actions at times have been inconsistent with international law.  So, who is correct here?  And is the United States comfortable with the ratio of deaths between combatants and civilians?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to go line by line through the prime minister’s speech and debate it here from the White House podium.  He should speak for his comments.  He should speak for his views. 

What I can do is speak for ours.  And the right number of civilian casualties is zero.  And there has been too many civilian casualties in this fighting in Gaza.  And as I just indicated in my previous answer, there continue to be civilian casualties in this war in Gaza.  There continues to be desperate need for food, water, medicine because it’s a combat zone, in many places.  And we need to bring the war to an end. 

And one of the principal things that the president — president is going to talk to the prime minister about today is how we get there, how do we end this war.  And the best way, in his view, is to get this deal in place, get a six-week ceasefire, get phase one going so you negotiate to phase two, get a cessation of hostilities, and, more critically, get those hostages home.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  You mentioned in your topper the word “compromises.”  Does the president believe that — specifically that Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to make compromises to achieve a ceasefire deal and that it’s not just Hamas?  And also, what are those compromises that Netanyahu would have to make, if so?

MR. KIRBY:  Both sides have to make compromises.  And because we still have gaps that haven’t been closed, I think you can surmise from that that there are still compromises that need to be made.

The Israelis already have made many compromises to get us to this point.  Hamas, through their interlocutors, have made compromises to get us to this point.  And yet, we’re still not there.

So, there’s still — there’s still a need for compromise.

Q    And will the president be saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, “You need to make compromises”?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re going to do a read out, and we’ll — we’ll tell you how the meeting went after it’s over.  But as I said in — in the opening statement, this will be a — a prime topic of discussion: that it’s time now to get these compromises in place.  It’s time now to get the negotiation in place and get the hostages home.  It’s time to end the war.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Asma.

Q    Thank you.  How does the administration reconcile the comments that the president has made about the fact that Hamas has been decimated; its military objectives achieved, as he said, some weeks ago; and the fact that we heard the prime minister again reiterate that he wants total victory?  How do you all reconcile those two visions?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think they need to be reconciled.  I think they’re — they’re — both things can be true.  We do believe that, from a military perspective, Hamas has been very, very badly beaten and — and denigrated.  No question about that.  Doesn’t mean they’ve been eliminated.  They still have leadership in place.  They still can direct operations.  They still have fighters at their beck and call.  And we’re seeing that every day.

And we also still believe that they need to be defeated; that the threat to Israel needs to be eliminated from Hamas; and that whatever the post-war situation looks like, it can’t end with Hamas being in — in control over Gaza.

So, I don’t think that the two things are necessarily irreconcilable or — or at odds with one another.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Lalit.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  To what extent the war in Gaza has impacted that president’s ambitious project, IMEC Corridor?  And is I2U2 being discussed today in the bilateral meeting?

MR. KIRBY:  For the IMEC Corridor?  I think it’s too soon to know whether there’s going to be a big impact on that.  The president is absolutely still committed to it.  We still got the teams pulling together and working on that.  It’s got great promise for infrastructure and investment opportunities across that whole corridor not only just for the movement of — of commerce but the jobs that it will create just in — just in its establishment.

Q    And, secondly, the president’s another key initiative has been the Quad.  Is president still committed to attending the Quad summit being hosted by India this year?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re still committed to there being a Quad leaders’ summit this year.  But there’s nothing on the calendar right now for it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Jeff.

Q    Thank you.  John, the meeting with the hostage families this afternoon that you referenced — can you just give us a sense of what message the president and the prime minister want to bring to those families?  What are they going to say?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t speak for the prime minister, but the president intends to tell them how seriously he is still committed to getting this deal in place and getting their loved ones home.  He is going to tell them that we’re going to maintain the contact with them that we have had, that there’s not — not going to be a gap in communication as we get — as we get closer here, hopefully, to the end, and that he’s not going to rest until all their loved ones are back.

Q    The — the pool was in the Oval Office briefly for the beginning of their meeting, and the two men were friendly and cordial.  And President Biden was joking about how old he was when he first had a meeting with a — a previous prime minister. 

But we know that there have been tensions between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Biden.  What’s your — can you talk a little bit about the state of their relationship right now?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s a healthy relationship.  And by “healthy,” I mean they’re not going to agree on everything.  They haven’t.  They haven’t, through the long political lives that both of them have — have enjoyed, always agreed on everything.  They come from two different political traditions.  But they know one another. 

I beli- — I can — I’m only speaking for President Biden that — that he’s very comfortable in the relationship that he has with the prime minister and the ability that he has — he would do it anyway, but certainly with — with Prime Minister Netanyahu — the ability that he has to be candid and honest and lay it all out there.  And he’ll — he’ll do that today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Tyler.

Q    Did the president watch the — the prime minister’s speech yesterday or see anything that he —

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know if he — I don’t know if he watched it.  I — I don’t know that.

Q    And you didn’t — do you have a sense of his reaction?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t.

Q    Okay.  And — yeah, okay.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  You’re welcome.  That was easy.

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

Q    On Venezuela.  Do you think that Maduro has the ability to kind of fully rig the election?  Or do you think that he wo- — it’s more likely that he would just contest the results?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s difficult to know exactly how this is going to play out, so I can’t really answer that specifically.  That — but — well, the reason I mentioned it in my opening statement is to make it clear to Mr. Maduro that we’re watching.  We’re watching closely.  They need to be free and fair elections — free of repression, free of voter intimidation.

And, again, no matter who wins, our expectation is that the winner is going to continue to look after democratic institutions in Venezuela.

Q    But — and so, if the opposition does win, are you concerned about violence that might break out?

MR. KIRBY:  If we weren’t concerned about the possibility, I wouldn’t have mentioned it in the opening statement.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Admiral, two questions on Iran.  How is POTUS Biden going to deal with Iran?  I mean, which aspects of dealing with Iran is he going to prioritize in the next six months in office?  And which one of them would he be recommending to VPOTUS Harris if and when she gets to the White House again?

And my second question —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, she’s already at the White House.  She’s already a key partner in our foreign policy objectives.

Q    As a commander in chief.  If —

MR. KIRBY:  I would tell — tell you that you’re going to continue to see, over the next six months, the same focus by this administration, this team, which of course includes the vice president, on holding Iran accountable for all their destabilizing activities — support to the Houthis, to Hezbollah, to Hamas; the merchant attacks that they’re allowing the Houthis to continue to perpetrate and that they’re perpetrating themselves in the Gulf region; as well as their support to Russia in Russia’s war in Ukraine.  I could go on and on.

We have sanctioned Iran some 600 different times just in the last three and a half years of this administration.  We’ll continue to hold them accountable.  That will be a steady focus for the president.

Q    Israeli prime minister yesterday labeled those — part of the protestors as “Iran’s useful idiots.”  What is the administration’s method of dealing with them?  I mean, what is it —

MR. KIRBY:  First of all, that’s not a phrase we would use.  As I mentioned, I think, to Peter’s question, we know that Iran certainly has tried to meddle here.  They’ve tried to sow discord.  They’ve obviously contributed to some funding of some protesters. 

But I — I think to — to paint everybody with that brush is unfortunate and not — and not an accurate reflection.  Most of the protest activity here in the United States is peaceful.  Most of it is — the vast majority of it is organic; it comes from people who have real concerns.  And that’s what a democracy is all about. 

Q    And do you agree with the — with the prime minister’s assertion that basically that Israel is protecting U.S. — I mean, why — is it sort of an overt criticism from leader of an ally?  And what does U.S. need protection from an ally?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, can you —

Q    Yeah, well, he said, “When Israel fights Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, we are fighting Iran.  When Israel acts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we are not only protecting ourselves, we’re protecting you.”  So, why does the U.S. need protection from an ally?  Isn’t U.S. doing enough? 

MR. KIRBY:  It is clear that — that Israel and the United States share a concern about Iran’s activities.  And the prime minister is not wrong.  When you — when you’re going after groups like Hezbollah or Hamas, in this case particularly, or when we together try to defend each other against the Houthi missiles and drones that continue to fly, that — that is also because of the proxy nati- — nature of it, also countering Iran’s activities.  I mean, together, that’s what allies and partners do. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, John.  Just to take the long view of this.  Pretty early in President Biden’s presidency, February the 4th, 2021, he spoke at the State Department about his priorities in foreign policy.  And he said that one of those priorities was “reclaiming our credibility and moral authority.” 

The prime minister of Israel is, in the judgment of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a war criminal.  Isn’t hosting an alleged war criminal in the Oval Office undermining of credibility and moral authority?

MR. KIRBY:  No, because we don’t consider him a war criminal. 

Q    But the International Criminal Court does. 

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t agree.  And as we’ve said before, we don’t find the ICC’s finding to be relevant or appropriate in this case.  We don’t find him to be a war criminal.  He’s an ally and a partner and a friend. 

Q    Well, the — the chief prosecutor says that Israel does have legitimate war aims, of course.  But the way Israel chose to achieve these in Gaza, namely intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population, are criminal. 

MR. KIRBY:  Is that a question?

Q    I —

MR. KIRBY:  Because if it is — if it is, I’ve already answered it.  We don’t consider him a war criminal. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Janne.

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

Q    Thank you — thank — yes, she called me. 

Q    I thought she said “Jake.”

Q    And thank — thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I said “Janne.”  I said “Janne.”

Q    Oh, Janne?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    My bad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s all good. 

Q    Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, John.  I have two questions.  Recently, American families who were victims of Hamas filed a lawsuit against North Korea (inaudible) in the U.S. Federal Court demanding $1 billion in compensation from North Korea, claiming that North Korea was responsible because the weapons used by Hamas were weapons supported by North Korea.  What is your comment on this?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, Mr. Kim continues to export military capability.  And we continue to work with allies and partners and counterparts to hold them accountable for that.  They’re also exporting technology and weapons systems to Russia so they can kill innocent Ukrainians.  And we’re going to continue to hold them accountable for that kind of behavior. 

Q    Also, second question.  If Vice President Kamala Harris is elected the next president, will she continue (inaudible) keep going on between U.S. and South Korea or (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I am not going to speak for a hypothetical electoral outcome, and I’m certainly not going to speak for the vice president in this regard.  You really should talk to her team and — and her campaign. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, the president has been pushing for a peace deal, a ceasefire for weeks, if not months.  Now that he has announced that he’s not running for another term, how, if in any way, that complicates those efforts to reach a peace deal?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t believe it does.  And in the conversations that we’ve been having in just recent hours, there’s no reason to suspect that his decision not to run for reelection is going to have an impact on our ability to get the deal done. 

What’s going to have an impact, as I said before, is leadership — leadership on all sides and the ability to continue to compromise.  We are close.  We just have to finish it. 

Q    The president also last night spoke about his goals in his remaining six months in office.  One of those goals is to get back those wrongfully detained Americans, people like Evan Gershkovich from the Wall Street Journal. 

MR. KIRBY:  And Paul Whelan. 

Q    And Paul Whelan.  Exactly.  The president has been described by some as a “lame duck president.”  Does it complicate those efforts to get back those wrongfully detained Americans?

MR. KIRBY:  I can assure you that we continue to work extremely hard at getting all wrongfully detained Americans around the world, including those in Russia that we’ve been talking about, getting them home where they belong.  They don’t need to — there’s no reason for them to be detained.  The whole team is working on this around the clock.  I can absolutely assure you that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to have to start wrapping up.  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thank you.  And thank you for the answer, also, on the last question.  Yesterday, Netanyahu asked the U.S. to fast-track weapons in his speech.  I’m wondering if the president is considering lifting his pause on the 2,000-pound bombs that the Israelis have requested?

MR. KIRBY:  No change to that policy at this time.  And I would just add that that is the only shipment of the only type of weaponry that has been held up, that all the military security assistance that had been going to Israel continues to go to Israel.  They are still getting the tools, the capabilities, and the weapons that they need for the fight that they’re in. 

Q    Thanks, John.  Thanks, Karine.  What conversations has President Biden had with Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of her meeting with the Israeli prime minister?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t speak to private conversations between the president and vice president.  I wouldn’t do that on any given day, and I’m certainly not going to do it starting today.

The vice president — I’m sure her team will give her a readout of how the conversation with — between the president and the prime minister is going right now.  And then that will, I’m sure, inform her conversation.  But I’m not going to give more detail than that.

Q    And just second question.  What additional pressure is the president willing to exert upon Netanyahu, just given that the framework, as my colleague mentioned, was just submitted about a few weeks and still nothing has come of that?

MR. KIRBY: The framework for the deal?

Q    Mm-hmm.

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, my goodness, there’s — you know, I know it’s — I know we don’t — we’re not there yet, and I — I get that there’s more work to be done, but think about what has happened since he laid that out on the 31st of May.  We went from that framework proposal to getting the framework itself agreed to now by both sides. 

There’s some haggling that’s being done over some of the details.  Some of that haggling has had positive results, and we have closed some gaps.  There are still gaps that remain to be closed, as I said earlier, some details that need to be worked out. 

There’s an awful lot of energy and effort being put into this — certainly, by our team, but I’d — I’ll go so far as to say by — by our counterparts as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jake.

Q    Thank you.  I’ve got two questions.  But first, can you tell me the backstory behind the — the nice bling you’ve got around your neck there?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I — I had a chance to meet with some of the hostages’ families myself back in December.  And the father of one gave me this to wear, and I try to wear it as much as I can just to remember that — again, 293 days.  They need to be home with their families.  And since they’re here at the White House and this is going to be a prime topic of conversation, I thought it was appropriate to wear it today.

Q    Does the president have one?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know.

Q    Okay.  I’ve got two questions.  Is it or is it not the U.S. government’s position that UNRWA is complicit in terrorism?

MR. KIRBY:  UNRWA does some things that no other agency can do on the ground in Gaza.  You and I both know that. 

Now, there has been an investigation done to some of their employees.  And I understand that there’s been some additional

claims or charges against additional employees to — that had been laid out there.  But it’s clear to us that UNRWA has taken this seriously.  They fully investigated it.  They eliminated the employment of those that they believe were involved in terrorist activities. 

It’s absolutely unacceptable — not just to us, but it should be, and we believe it is, unacceptable to UNRWA.  But UNRWA is still — you know, and, yes, I know, we’re not providing funding to them now because of legislation, but I think it’s important for people to know that there are things that can’t get done without UNRWA’s cooperation and support on the ground. 

Q    And the government’s position is that those are claims and charges, right?  Nothing more than claims and charges?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, some of them have been verified because they did their own investigation — UNRWA did — and — and terminated some of those employees.  So, clearly, there was something to it. 

Q    My second question.  Hezbollah has been firing thousands of rockets.  At what point does that violate the president’s “don’t, don’t, don’t” warning?

MR. KIRBY:  We are working, as I said in my opening statement, to try to resolve the differences at and around the blue line.  We haven’t seen — although there has been firing back and forth across that blue line and we want to see that stop, we haven’t seen it escalate into an all-out war here nor do we want that to happen, which is why we’re working so hard, diplomatically, to try to find a solution.

One of the things that the prime minister and the president will talk about today is what we need to do — what more do we need to do to stabilize the situation on the blue line so that families, both Lebanese and Israeli, can start to move back to their homes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Let’s let the admiral go.

Go ahead, Jared.  You have the last question.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, Admiral.  The progress that you cite as it relates to sort of the phase-one hostage and ceasefire deal, does that signal that there has also been progress in the day-after, post-conflict Gaza and sort of what that government looks like?

MR. KIRBY:  No, those are two different processes.  I mean, we’re — when I’m talking about progress made and gaps that can be closed, I’m talking about the ceasefire deal itself, which, as you know, has mul- — has two phases to it.  Phase one gets you six weeks of — of a ceasefire and the return of the most vulnerable — but not all — but the most vulnerable of hostages. 

That’s a separate process than what you call “the day after,” which is something, frankly, that Secretary Blinken has been working on since almost the day after October 7th in terms of trying to figure out — with our partners on the ground, including the Israelis, but Arab partners — what does governance look like when the war is over and how are the aspirations of the people of Gaza actually met by a governing body and a governing authority that has an interest in meeting their aspirations for peace and security.

Q    How would you characterize that process right now?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s ongoing and still a lot of work is being done.  I mean, if you want me to give it a, you know, report card, I can’t do that.  But I can tell you that Secretary Blinken, Jake Sullivan, the whole team is still very much dedicated to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

Q    Hey, John.  Pope Francis reiterated his call today for a — an “Olympic truce.”  Can you comment on that?  Karine, could you?

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

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Yest- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral.  I forgot to thank him.  (Laughs.)

Q    And yesterday, you were asked a couple of times about the — the rationale for the president’s decision.  You said, “Tune in.”  One thing the president did not say was explicitly why he stepped aside.  He s- — you know, you talked about how he believed it was in the best int- — interest of the country to step aside, but why did he?  Did he believe he was going to lose to Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think that the president actually answered this question. 

Q    He didn’t.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait — no, no, no.  I think the American people think he answered the question.  He said, “I revere this office, but I love my country more.”  He said, “I draw strength and I enjoy in working for the American people, but this sacred task of perfecting our Union is not about me.  It’s about you, our families — your families, your futures.  And I’ve decided the best way — the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation.  That’s the best way to unite our nation.” 

He talked about unity.  He talked about passing the torch. 

“I know there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life, but there’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices — yes, younger voices.  And that time and place is now.” 

That is what he said.  That is why he laid out why he’s passing the torch, why it’s time to give — give it over to new, fresh voices.  And he also talked about unity. 

And I would also refer back to his letter where he talked about also wanting to unify his party.

Q    Did the president believe that his presence in that race was divisive?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into more than what the president laid out.  He talked about unity.  He talked about bringing the — the party together.  He talked about putting the country first.  He talked about passing over the torch, bringing in new voices. 

I think he laid out very clearly why he decided to make this decision.  And I believe the American people got it.  They understood it. 

Q    If it was clear, I wouldn’t be asking the question, but I’ll — I’ll move on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s clear.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do. 

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think that the American people do.

Q    For several weeks, the White House has said — had said multiple times that the president was not going to leave the race.  He ultimately did. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You’ve also said several times that — that the president would not pardon or commute the sentence for his son, Hunter.  I just want to make sure that that is not going to change over the next six months.  The president is saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s still —

Q    — he would not —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s still — it’s still a no.  It’s still a no.

Q    It will always be a no?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s still a no.  It will be a no.  It — it is a no.  And I don’t have anything else to add.  Will he pardon his son?  No.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, picking up on Zeke. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Sure.

Q    For such a monumental decision, the president did address why he left the race, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, thank you. 

Q    — but — but he left a lot of it for us to read between the lines.  He did not make clear why he’s leaving the race.  Even in the excerpts that you bring up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he says that, you know, “the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation.”  Is he saying it’s because he was too old?

You know, in another one, he said that it was for the sake of democracy.  That does not answer why he thought he was in the way of democracy. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, go ahead.  Sorry.

Q    Why did he make this decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, a new generation — and he also said the next seten- — sentence was to unite — is also to unite the nation. 

Look, the president has talked about this twice — one in a letter that he addressed to the American people on Sunday, laying out a very monumental — to your point, it is.  It is a monumental decision that he made, and he thought very long and hard. 

He also said that he’s been serving this country as a public servant for more than 50 years.  It is not an easy decision to make.  He talked about unity.  He talked about the next generation.  He talked about passing the torch.

I was asked in this room a couple of da- — I don’t know, maybe two weeks ago — all of these days are coming together — that when the president ran in 2020, he talked about passing the torch, he talked about the next generation, he talked about being a bridge to the next generation.  And I was asked, “Is that something that the president still wants to do and still cares about?”  And I said yes. 

And so, this is part of that.  Right?  This is part of what he said in 2020.  He talked about unifying the nation.  He talked about unifying the party.  And he believed the time was now.  The time was now to step down from his reelection and to move — you know, to move ahead with the next six months, the end of his term.  And that’s what he decided to do. 

Q    Before he made the decision, he said that there were three things that could sway him: the Lord Almighty, a medical condition, and if his team showed him that he could not win.  So, was it because of the polling?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I could just — I can tell you it’s not a medical — it was not a medical decision, because I’ve been asked before and we answered that very straightforward and in a — in a very direct way.  I’m just not going to get beyond that. 

Q    And then, finally, President Biden spent much of his speech talking about the choice that Americans face in November.  Trump’s campaign manager called it a campaign speech.  Your response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  My response that it’s not a campaign speech.  I would remind my friends on the other side that the president is no longer a candidate.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Democrats on Capitol Hill are being handed this card with talking points about the vice president and the border.  Do you know who’s handing this out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have no idea.  You probably should ask her campaign.

Q    So, the first one says, “Vice President Harris was never appointed border czar.  There’s never been such a position.  It doesn’t exist.”  Why are Democrats so sensitive about the vice president and the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Why are Republicans so sensitive about actually not owning up to them getting in the way of a border deal?  Why?  Why won’t they own up to that?  Why won’t they own up to the last president told them not to move forward?

It was a bipartisan deal on — just right there, available to them, and they voted twice against it — twice against it. 

Why are they so sensitive to moving forward and actually dealing on an issue that majority of Americans care about — is dealing with what’s going on at the border?

Q    Do you think that the border would be less of a talking point now if there was less migration to the border, say, if somebody had addressed root causes of migration —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — sooner?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on a second.  Did you not hear the beginning of my — it was — I know there were a lot of toppers, but one of the toppers I talked about: what we’re seeing at the border.  It’s down by 55 percent.  Not because of Republicans in Congress and what they did — it’s because what this president and this vice president did.  They s- — they — he moved forward and took actions to deal with what’s going on at the border. 

Republicans continue — continue to block getting resources to the Border Patrol agents.  They continue to block actually dealing with an immigration system. 

So, yes, we are going to debunk the false — the false, you know, characterization of the vice president.  She was not a border czar.  Are it’s not just us.  Independent fact-checkers have said the same thing — that that did not exist and that is not true.

Q    And a different topic.  Russia and China are teaming up in the skies near Alaska for the first time ever.  Are you getting a sense yet, based on everything that’s been going on, that some of America’s enemies might be looking at what’s happening here and think there’s nobody in charge?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say this.  There is very much someone in charge.  The president is the president until the end of his term.  So, that — that statement is certainly false.  And we have seen the president bring together our allies and partners.  He reinvigorated NA- — NATO.  He got more than 50 countries behind Ukraine to make sure that they were able to defend themselves against Putin.  He stood up to Putin.  And he’s done a lot more. 

And now — right now, as we’re speaking, I believe it’s still happening, the president is having a bilateral conversation, meeting with the — with the prime minister of Israel.  So — who, by the way, the prime minister of Israel thanked the president for the work that he’s been — he’s been able to do in helping to make sure that Israel is able to have an ironclad security.  Right? 

And so, that’s that.

But let me be clear — I want to actually address your — I guess, the basis of your question, outside of saying there’s no leadership. 

Our Department of Defense did not see this activity in Alaska air defense identification zone as a threat.  North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, continues to monitor PRC and Russian activity near North America.  And to meet — to meet presence — and to meet presence with presence, U.S. and Canadian aircraft detected, trackted [tracked], and intercepted the Russian and PRC aircraft. 

And, more broadly, the U.S. remains concerned about the PRC and Russian collaboration across all instruments of national power that do not promote global stability and security, not just the — in the Arctic. 

But the President, if anything, if you look at his foreign policy objectives and what he’s been able to do and what the last administration did, they — the last administration ruined our relationships with our partners and allies.  This president had to fix that and make sure that we — we actually mended our relationship with our partners and allies.  And that’s what we’ve been able to do.  And a perfect example is what we’re seeing with Ukraine being able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. 

Go ahead.

Q    So, yesterday and again today, you insisted that the president didn’t make this decision because of a medical condition.  It wasn’t about his health.  Yesterday, you said that he could have finished a second term if you — if he won one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, was this decision to step out of the race just a political calculus?  He just didn’t think he could beat Trump? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to add to what the president said himself last night, to what he penned and released to the American people on Sunday.  Don’t have anything more to add to that. 

He wanted to unite the country.  He wanted to pass the torch.  He felt after 50 — 50-plus years of public service, the time was to do just that.  I don’t have anything else to add.

Q    Do you have anything to add on what he teased about proposing reform to the Supreme Court? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So that is something, certainly, that the president would talk to — more about in the ho- — in — you know, in the upcoming weeks, just for so- — folks who may have missed that.  He said — last night, he said, “I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy — Supreme Court reform.” 

And I answered this question — this part — I said this part of — to a question yesterday.  He believes if you are serving in — at the high — in high office, you should be held to a transparency, accountability, and you should be held to a high ethics. 

That’s what the president believes.  I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the president.  And he will have more to share with all of you soon. 

Go ahead, Tyler.

Q    Just — I know many of my colleagues have asked these questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    And just given the historic nature of the announcement and the decision, I think it’s important to get some more transparency.  You just said that the president thought long and hard about the decision to exit the race.  But also, yesterday, you said that he made a decision on Saturday night.  And prior to that, the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s — that — there’s — there’s — I — you could still think about something long and hard if he started thinking about it on Saturday night and finally made his decision on Sunday. 

Q    Okay, that doesn’t seem like a long time period.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s — that’s your — that’s your — that’s your assumption. 

Q    I just wanted to clarify —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But, you know — but that’s your — that — that is your assumption.  Not everybody will have that same assumption or thought, right?  I mean, it is — it is a decision that he felt that he needed to make and that was — that was — that was the tick-tock of it, if you will. 

We were laying out to you how it happened, and that’s how it happened.  That’s how the president said it happened. 

Q    And do you expect the president to address any further his decision-making process?  As my colleagues have asked —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — we don’t feel that we have gotten the clarity about how he made this monumental decision.  And so, obviously, we’d love an opportunity to ask him questions himself.  But barring that, do you think we should expect any more clarity from him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to — the president is going to make his decision on his own on how much more he wants to share.  Obviously, he gave an Oval address and addressed the American people, as he said he was going to do in his letter back on Sunday.  And he had a letter on Sunday as well. 

Maybe there’s — there’ll be more than he wants to share.  We have six months.  Certainly, the president enjoys taking all of your questions.  He’ll continue to do just that.  I don’t have anything to share beyond what you’ve heard from the president on Sunday and his Oval address to the American people last night.

Q    And just one last one on sort of the next six months.  We just asked Kirby about this.  But is there anything you can tell us about how operations at the White House may change, the president’s schedule may change, anything else that reflects — obviously, he has a lot more time now that he’s not going to be a full-time candidate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — I mean, you’re right.  He has a lot more time.  Now he won’t be a candidate.  That is true.  And the president said he wants to continue his — obviously, as he was doing before, continue and solely focused on being president and what that means and — for the American people and delivering and building on unprecedented successes that he’s been able to get done.  Right? 

We still have a lot more to do.  We still have to make sure there are — I was just asked about the Supreme Court.  Right?  He mentioned that in his speech.  I won’t get ahead of that.  That is something that he cares about: the ethics — right? — and transparency, something he wants to make sure that that is addressed. 

Again, not going to get ahead of the president.  But he gave a little bit of that.  He laid out what he’s done for almost four years and making sure we’re building on that, whether it is continuing to lower costs — he talked about that — bringing down inflation, creating good-paying jobs.  All of these historic legislation that he was able to get done, they still have to be implemented.  Right?  Whether it’s the s- — the — the CHIPs and Science Act, whether it’s the infrastructure bill, whether it’s the Inflation Reduction Act, there’s still a lot of work to get done to make sure that we deliver the good things — the good components of those — those now laws to the American people. 

Still a lot to get done, he’s focused on it, and we’ll certainly — we will certainly have more to share.  As you know, he’s going to be going to Austin on Monday.  And so, you know, stay tuned.  Stay tuned. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, after President Biden said he was going to step aside and endorse Vice President Harris, Democrats quickly coalesced around Vice President Harris.  I was wondering if President Biden sought assurances from other leading, you know, Democratic candidates that they would challenge her — that they wouldn’t challenge her? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get into specifics or behind-the-scenes conversation.  I’m just not.  And also, that’s kind of on the campaign, the political side.  So, going to be careful from here. 

Look, I think it’s important that what we saw the first 48 hours — 24 hours, 48 hours after the president decided not to run, the coalescing of support behind the vice president, which is not surprising.  She has been a partner — a critical partner to this president in — in everything that we have been able to successfully get done, some historic items that we’ve been able to get done. 

She’s been the critical partner to this president.  She has four years — almost four years of experience as vice president, also as a senator, also as attorney general.  She has an impressive résumé. 

And I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: I do not see — and the president obviously did not see anyone else who would be more qualified to step in.  And so, it is not surprising that she got the support that she has and continues to get.  And the president certainly is going to continue to support her. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president praised Vice President Harris last night in his address as a good partner and a strong leader.  Will he have any objections as she starts creating a little bit of distance with him on any policy areas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, certainly, I can’t speak to how she’s going to move forward with her campaign on policy issues.  That’s something that the campaign would have to address directly. 

I would say — again, kind of repeating myself but saying this in a little bit different way: The last four years has been very successful policy-wise.  They’ve been able to get things done.  They’ve been able to turn around the economy. 

We have — not to forget — we should not forget what happened when the president and the vice president stepped into their roles.  Right?  They stepped into the presidency, the admin- — administration.  We had a once-in-a-century pandemic that the president turned us around and with the help of the vice president.

You think about the American Rescue Plan, you think about the Inflation Reduction Act, many of these legislation, she played a role in getting it across the aisle.  She also presides — right? — in the Senate.  Right?  She — she really gave us some really important — important votes in getting things done. 

So, they’ve been partners in this.  You know, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here about what — how she’s going to move forward with her campaign.  But you think about crime, you think about health care, you think about the economy, you think about immigration and the successes that we have seen in those particular areas — and that’s just a few — foreign policy, she’s been in part — a partner of tha- — in that.

Q    Sure.  And she’ll no doubt have to run on the

record that they have together.  But the relationship has changed a little bit.  She’s not just a supportive vice president; now she’s also the candidate and — the candidate for the party going forward in the election.  So, if she decides to show a little bit more of her own views on Gaza, for example, is the president okay with that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, a hypothetical that I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole in.  What I say is that the president respects the vice president.  He endorsed her, believing that — as I said, pashing — passing the torch to the next generation of new voices — that she was more than qualified to do the job, more than qualified to step in on day one, as he said himself.  I’m just repeating him. 

And I think that says volumes, coming from a president who’s been a senator, who’s been a vice president — right? — who knows how this place works, who knows how Congress works.  Now, who knows what it’s like to be president of the United States.  I think that is — I think, coming from this president, says a lot. 

I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here. 

They are — pretty much have been a hand in glove, if you will, these past four years on getting things done, on the different policy issues.  And I suspect that will continue. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You mentioned now about what the president said last night about the vice president, but one thing he didn’t do was explicitly tell Americans to vote for her.  He said, “Now the choice is up to you, the American people.”  Why not use that moment, when he had millions of people tuned in, to say that message flat out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because he was being mindful.  This was an Oval address.  This was not a campaign political address.  This was an Oval address.  And he thought it was important, as he is — he said it: He started off his remarks talking about being at the Resolute Desk, talked about the space and the portraits that were in the room, the busts that were in the room, the importance — the heavy weight of that office.  And he believed this was a monumental decision, as many of you have reminded me today, that he made. 

And he wanted to take that opportunity to talk through what he’s been able to deliver; to talk about what it meant for him to be president, an honor of a lifetime; and, you know, to lay out what this next six months is going to be.  And so, that’s what he wanted to focus on. 

There will be many — plenty of times — plenty of times for him to go out on the campaign trail and talk about choices and talk about what it — what’s — what’s at stake.  I’m going to be very careful here, but there will be plenty of time to do that. 

He didn’t feel like that was — the time to do that was last night.

Q    And can you tell us a little bit about the — after the speech? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    We know from some social media posts, we could hear it here —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    — that the president walked out into the Rose Garden —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and several hundred staff were out there.  But what was that like?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    What did he do afterwards, private time with family? Just tell us how his mood was afterwards.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, it was — look, it was a beautiful, beautiful moment.  The president went to the Rose Garden.  There were hundreds of staff cheering him on.  I’m very proud to have been part of this administration — many of us for — since the beginning of this administration, almost four years. 

And he also wanted to appreciate the staff.  He knows how hard it’s been — not just the past three and a half years, but certainly the past couple of weeks. 

And so, I think it was a very special moment, a very powerful moment for the staff here.  I was there, out in the Rose Garden.  I got to listen to him speak off the cuff and say thank you and talk about, you know, the work that we have been able to get done — the historic amount of work that we’ve been get- — able to get done and what’s ahead the next six months.

So, yes, there were hundreds of staff here in the Rose Garden.  We — some — some of us — I was able to be in the Oval and — and watch the president deliver the remarks.  Many of the staffers were able to watch together, here, at the White House in the Residence. 

And afterwards, we all came together and cheered on the president and thanked him.  And so, I think — and he was able to thank us and appreciate us as well.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Just following up on that, Karine.  What’s the mood of the staff right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think —

Q    Is it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’m sorry.

Q    No, that’s all right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.

Q    I’m just curious: Is there melancholy? What — what’s — what’s the exact mood right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s a little bit of what I just said to Karen.  I think there’s a lot of pride in the work that we’ve been able to get done on — under this leadership of this president.  I think that there’s a lot of understanding there’s a lot more work to be done in the next six months.  We’re energized. 

And, look, I mean, I’m not going to — I’m going to be very honest.  It’s been hard.  It’s been very hard.  You know, when you — when you do these jobs, you believe in the work ahead.  You believe in the leadership of the person that you’re working for.  This person being Joe Biden. 

And so, it was — it has been a tough couple of weeks.  But we are so — we are so full of pride of what we’ve been able to get done.  And now, there’s six months left. 

Q    I — I noticed — and maybe I — I misread it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — but when you had your prepared remarks at the very top, it seemed as if you got a little emotional —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — talking a little bit — no?  I missed that?  I misread that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no.  I mean, no.  I mean it is emo- — I mean, I’ve said it.  It’s an emotional moment for everyone, you know, including me.  It’s an emotional moment, you know? 

This is a — you know, you do these jobs; they don’t — they don’t pay all that well, as you know.  (Laughs.)  You guys have tough jobs as well.  And it takes you away from your family.  You don’t sleep as much.  (Laughs.)  They are, you know, 24/7 jobs, for sure.  And you do it because you believe in the work. 

Whether you’re — whichever side of the aisle you’re in — right? — I would hope and think that people who do these jobs believe that you’re going to make people’s lives better — right? — or you’re very much connected to the issues that you’re working on.  I think that’s important. 

So, yes, it’s emotional. 

Q    Follow on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s emotional.

Q    In the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  What would the president say to those who have increased their attack on vice president based on the color of his skin, her gender?  They’ve been caught using terms like “lunatics.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, there’s something I do want to say about that.  When you have the lead — the speaker of the House — obviously, he’s a Republican — and this is something that you all have reported — set up a meeting to tell Republican leaders to stop being racist, to stop being misogynist, to stop being sexist, I think that says a lot that they have to be told to not do that. 

But, more broadly, I think it’s — I think it’s desperate, I think it’s disgusting, and I think it’s a dog whistle. 

And we ha- — we should not forget that she is the vice president of the United States.  She’s the vice president of the United States.  She should get that respect.  She has been doing this job with the president for almost four years.  She’s a former senator and has been a critical partner in getting the economy re- — restarted and making sure that — that we deal with the pandemic.  And to hear that is frankly disgusting.

Q    I have one more question, a follow-up on the — your topper about illegal —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part.  On —

Q    I have one more question to follow up, basically, what you said about the legal immigration system at the top of your remarks. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    There are around 200,000 American kids who came to this country at the age of maybe six months, two years.  But they’re all facing deportation as they age out at 21 years of age.  Around 40 senators and congressmen wrote a letter to the administration that — coming out with some legal mechanisms so that they can stay in this country, that many of them are doing quite well.  What would the president be doing for them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I — certainly, we don’t have any policy announcements to make at this time. 

But, again, I talked about the bipartisan agreement that came together from the Senate, where we negotiated a process to help the so-called “documented DREAMers,” and sadly, Republicans, and I’ve said this many times already at this podium today, which is that they voted it down twice.  They voted it down twice. 

And as I said at the top, you know, we are going to provide protection to more than 500,000 people and keep families together in the U.S.  That is something that the president announced back in June, and that is something that we’re going to continue to do. 

Look, the way to get — to deal with a broken immigration system is to get legislative process done and move forward.  We started that.  Republicans voted it down twice.  We had a bipartisan option that would have been the toughest and the fairest way to move forward in dealing with the immigration system, something we hadn’t seen in years, and they voted it down twice. 

And so, that is how we’re going to move forward is making sure Congress gets done — the work done that they need to. 

I know, I think I have to — right? 

Go ahead — (laughs) — go ahead, Ed. 

Q    Thanks — thanks, Karine.  Two topics, the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And, Jenny, I’ll come back.

Q    — the economy first, if I could.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    There’s a new CM — CNN poll out that says 39 percent of adults worry most of the time or all of the time that their income will not be enough to meet expenses.  Prices are up 19 percent since President Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice president, came into office.  How long do Americans have to wait until this worry goes away?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, too many — too many families are still struggling to make ends meet.  That is something that the president understands, and that is why he works every single day to make sure that we address these issues for hardworking Americans. 

I talked about the historic accomplishments that this president has done.  You think about the Inflation Reduction Act, which only Democrats voted for.  Insulin is now capped at 35 bucks a month for seniors.  The president wants to see that go more broadly.  This goes into the question that I was asked, “What else does he want to do?”  Continue to lower costs, right? 

You think about — you think about what he’s been able to do to get housing assistance for Americans who are having a hard time with rent, with getting a house.  And so, he’s — he is — he is — has taken actions to deal with tha- — with that issues that Americans have.  We get it.  We get it.  Over the next six months, that’s what we want to continue to focus on as well.

And we know that Americans, again, have — are — are having a difficult time, but our stance and where we — how we see this country is very clear.  Republicans want to give a tax break to corporations — a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires.  They want to actually go after Social Security and Medicare.  That’s not what we believe.  That’s not what we want to do.  We want to protect those important programs that Americans need. 

Q    So, if I could, the other topic: Last night, the president kept with the theme of “saving democracy,” alluding to the fact that maybe former President Trump is a threat to democracy.  The vice president is using the same language.  Is this a dangerous rhetoric?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it is important that we continue to talk about unity.  It is.  Saving democracy, making sure that we’re unified as a country.  And he called on the country to come together.  That is something that — that is a — that is a theme that he’s talked about since 2019.  Since 2019.  Nothing new here.

And I’ll quote, “Keep calling out hate and extremism… make it clear there is no place — no place in America for political violence” — that’s something that the president said last night — “or any violence ever, period.  I’m going to keep speaking out to protect our kids and [from] gun violence.”  This is something that the president truly believes in.  But bringing the country together is a big part of — that is actually the theme.  Unity is the theme that you heard from his — his remarks last night.

Go ahead, Jenny.

Q    Yeah, but he still — but he still talks about “a threat to democracy.”  I mean, there were now three public attempts that were — or threats to the former president that we know of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Iran, being of one of them.  There was the shooter the other night.  So, how many threats are enough to lower the temperature?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The president has called on lowering the temperature.  But here’s the thing, Ed, it takes on all of us to lower the temperature.  All of us.  I hope you can read between the lines of what I mean by “all of us.”  It takes all of us to take that action and to lower the temperature. 

And I think when you have a president that uses the Oval address to talk about unity not just once — he did it right after — sadly, right after the former president — the attempted assass- — assassination on the former president.  He talked about lowering the temperature then, and also talked about really denouncing, condemning political violence and how it has no place in this nation.  He talked about it.  Used the Oval Office to do just that.  And we’ve been condemning political violence for some time.

Go ahead, Jenny.

Q    “Passing the torch,” obviously, was the central theme yesterday of — of the address —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Many themes.

Q    Okay.  One of the central themes. 

And you just mentioned his commitment in 2020 to run as a bridge candidate.  Two weeks ago, at the NATO press conference, he was asked exactly that: And what changed, why he’s not doing this anymore.  He said, “What changed was the gravity of the situation I inherited in terms of the economy, our foreign policy, and domestic division.” 

Obviously, since the presser none of these factors have changed, so I think it’s a fair question for all of us to ask you if you can help us understand —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing —

Q    — his shift in thinking that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — no, I’m sorry.  Go ahead.  No, I’m sorry.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m sorry.  Go ahead, Jenny.  Go ahead.

Q    — made him arrive at this conclusion that passing the torch now is the right time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And it is a fair question to ask.  I don’t have anything else to add to what the president said.  I’m not going to get ahead of this president.  I’m just not. 

He’s — he put out a letter, and he said what he wanted to say about the situation last night. 

I’m not going to get ahead of it.  I’m not saying it’s not a fair question to ask.  I do not have anything more to add than what the president said. 

Yes, he talked about passing the torch.  He talked about unity.  He talked about bringing the country together.  That is what he wanted to share to the American people. 

If there’s more to say, he certainly — I will leave that to him to say that. 

Q    And — and then —

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

Q    — one other quick thing.  Obviously, Kirby just teased that there might be opportunities for trips or legacy engagements in the next six months.  Is there anything you have talked to him about, something that he wants to do before he leaves office?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think he’s still thinking through it.  You know, I think that — I think that it’s going to be a process.  We have a lot of things that we want to get done domestically, in foreign policy space.  NSC is thinking through it.  The president is thinking through it.

And when we have more to share, we certainly will share that with all of you. 

Thanks, everybody. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

3:10 P.M. EDT 

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

Via Teleconference

4:18 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining us today to discuss tomorrow’s meeting here at the White House between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official, and is embargoed until the end of the call.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, the senior administration official on today’s call is [senior administration official].

So I’ll just turn over to [senior administration official], who has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get through as many questions as we can at the end.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll keep this pretty topline, and we’ll have more to say, obviously, tomorrow.

So tomorrow, of course, the President will welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu and his delegation here to the White House.  We will discuss, obviously, developments throughout the Middle East. 

The President will discuss his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security, the very serious threats from Iran and from Iranian proxy and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. 

We will talk about our ongoing efforts to ensure the defense of Israel, including through broader integration in the region as we saw play out in April with that unprecedented attack from Iran.

We’ll also talk, I’m sure in depth, about developments in Gaza and the negotiations on the ceasefire and hostage release deal, which we believe is in the closing stages and it’s reaching a point that we believe a deal is closable and it’s time to move to close that agreement.

We will discuss the humanitarian situation — Lebanon, West Bank — everything that the President and the Prime Minister often discuss when they have their many phone calls. 

And, of course, it’ll be the first time they saw each other since the President’s historic trip to Israel shortly after the October 7 attacks — the first visit to Israel by a president in wartime.

After the meeting — the meeting tomorrow will be about 1 o’clock.  And afterwards, the President and the Prime Minister will meet together with the families of Americans.  These are Americans held hostage by Hamas in Gaza.  And, of course, as you know, we meet regularly with this group of families, an extraordinary group of families, including we just met here yesterday with Jake Sullivan to discuss the state of things and our efforts to get their loved ones home.

This will be the President’s second in-person meeting with this particular group, although he’s met with other families, of course, throughout this just horrific ordeal, which has gone on since October 7.

Of course, the Vice President will have a meeting later in the afternoon, here at the White House.

So we’ll have the Israelis and their delegation here at the White House for a period of hours, and I think we have a lot of substantive issues to discuss.  We’ve done a lot of prep work, both here internally and together with the Israelis.  And we hope to have a very substantive, very detailed discussion on the sets of issues that I laid out in front.

This, of course, follows on the Strategic Consultative Group meeting we had here a couple weeks ago and just our ongoing, regular communication dialogue with Israelis at multiple levels across out interagency.

So that is what’s on tap for tomorrow, and I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

Q    Hey.  Thank you.  I just wanted to ask you about the speech to Congress and the tone of it.  In it, in part, the Prime Minister vowed to press on with the war until “total victory.”  Does that undercut negotiations for a ceasefire and a hostage release?  Does this in any way sort of push back sort of the notion that you guys are still at the closing stages?  And could it be counterproductive?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I was actually in the — we were in the Situation Room doing some other stuff, so I did not see the speech.  We were in consultation with the Israelis, and I think I had a sense of it. 

But I think from all indications, the framework of a deal is basically there.  We’re working out the implementation.  There are some very serious implementation issues that still have to be resolved, and I don’t want to discount the difficulty of those, but they are the, kind of, implementation arrangements of the deal.  There are some things we need from Hamas, and there are some things we need from the Israeli side.  And I think you’ll see that play out here over the course of the coming week.

But I’m not going to characterize or comment on the speech here on this call.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Steve with Reuters.

Q    When you say “the closing stages,” how did this come about?  I mean, it’s been a long road, and we’ve been close to a deal for months in the past.  What’s new here?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, what’s new is that Hamas have been very dug in on this position for a permanent ceasefire, for a withdrawal of Israeli forces.  And then they kind of vague promised to release some hostages after that happened.  That had been their position.  That, obviously, is completely unacceptable.

We worked out a pretty detailed text of the arrangements, of how a hostage exchange would actually work, including with significant benefits for Gazans and humanitarian provisions, everything else.

And then the sequencing, what was the breakthrough a few weeks ago — which I think I discussed with this group a few weeks ago — was the way the phasing of the deal works.  So you now have an initial phase, which is women, men over 50, and sick and wounded hostages will come out first over a period of 42 days.  You have to have a negotiation, starting about halfway through that period, on the conditions for the second phase, which does — (connection lost) — 

Q    I lost him.

MODERATOR:  Hey, Britny, it seems like we disconnected from [senior administration official], if you wouldn’t mind looping him back in.

One second, folks, while we get [senior administration official] back on the line.  Apologies for this.

Okay, folks, one more second.  We’re reconnecting.  We should be back online soon.  Appreciate everyone’s patience as we work through this.

Thanks, again, everyone, for your patience.  As you can see, we’re almost back.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, it’s [senior administration official].

MODERATOR:  Hey, we can hear you again.  Awesome.  Thank you so much.  I will bring Steve back in, and then we can move forward.  Thanks, again, everyone for your patience as we worked through that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, am I back?

MODERATOR:  You are, yep.  We can hear you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay.  Hey, I’m really sorry.  I don’t know what happened.  And then I tried to dial back in from three different phones, and it finally worked.

So I think the question was: What changed?  And the key change, as I think I’ve discussed with this group before, is the phasing of the deal is now very clear: that there’s the phase one part; and then to move to phase two, you have a negotiation going on and you have to have conditions set for phase two, which is basically what the President laid out during his May speech, which Hamas has accepted that basic phasing.

So you now have that framework, exactly what the President laid out, what is in the Security Council resolution agreed, and you’re now in the implementation arrangements about how it will actually work day to day, leaving little to chance.

So that is a pretty intense negotiation that’s actually ongoing.  But, again, we think the pieces are coming together, and it’s time to kind of move to close this out.

Q    And do you have a timeframe in mind of when this might come to a conclusion?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m very hesitant, Steve, to put a timeframe on.  But given that we have lives of hostages on the line, there’s really no time to lose.

Q    Thanks.  Thank you.

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

Q    Thanks.  The Prime Minister said during his address to Congress that Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t getting enough food is not because Israel is blocking it, it’s because Hamas is stealing it.  Is that the assessment of the U.S.?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think we’ve spoken to this multiple times, including, I think, my colleague, Assistant Secretary Leaf, testified before Congress.  David Satterfield has spoken to this.  Again, we do not see the Israelis blocking the entry of provisions into Gaza.  We have some issues of distribution that our folks are working through all the time.  It’s a very difficult wartime environment.

So — but, again, I’m not going to chara- — I’m not going to speak to the Prime Minister’s speech, but I will say that we have a massive effort ongoing on the humanitarian side that we can get you a full briefing on, which we — again, my colleagues from State Department speak to this quite frequently.  So, I’ll leave it at that.

Q    Just a follow-up on that.  When they’ve spoken to it and they’ve testified, they have suggested that some of the policies at checkpoints from the IDF have made it harder to get resources and food in.  So the administration is still standing by that assessment that — from U.S. officials — that that’s part of the problem?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s a difficult wartime environment.  So, yeah, there are checkpoints.  There are issues with so-called armed gangs taking over convoys, whether that’s Hamas, or whether you want to call them an armed gang, you know, it depends.  Sometimes it’s hard to know.  So, it’s difficult.

But the quantity and amount of provisions getting into Gaza has increased significantly, largely, I must say, because of the efforts of the United States of America.  It’s something we focus on every single day.

And when there’s a barrier or a hurdle, we break them down.  And the President has gotten on the phone multiple times, whether to Prime Minister Netanyahu or to President Sisi, or working with King Abdullah for the route directly from Jordan into northern Gaza, which is now running almost every two days, 40 to 50 trucks coming directly from Jordan across Israel and into northern Gaza.  That has worked quite effectively.

So, you know, this is all — this is something we work on every single day.

But the problem — most of the problems we have right now are not primarily on the Israeli side.  It’s just the difficulty of the operational environment inside Gaza, which is one reason why to get a ceasefire in place there are provisions in the deal for significant relief for the civilian population in Gaza.

And of course, again, just a reminder: Hamas leaders are living underground.  They do not allow civilians to use those underground facilities.  You’re talking hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, multiple stories.  They live under there as the civilians suffer inside Gaza.

So, anyway, we’re working towards a ceasefire.  Until we get the ceasefire, our folks work every day to do all they can to address the humanitarian situation.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.

Q    Hey, Sam.  Hey, [senior administration official].  Couple of specific questions on the ceasefire negotiations that you may or may not be willing to engage with, but let me try.

I know you didn’t watch the speech, but Bibi did not publicly endorse the deal that’s on the table or really even engage with it.  Is that a disappointment?  Has he recently focused on any topics that could prolong the negotiations?  And as I understand it, you still don’t have an agreement on the transition from the temporary to permanent ceasefire.  So how does that square with the fact that you say you’re in the closing stages?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  In the closing stages for phase one.  So just in terms of Israeli — this is — met with the Israelis just yesterday.  This is their deal.  Ready to move ahead on phase one, if we can get the arrangements worked out.  And we need some things from Hamas, including the hostages who are going to come out.  And we’re not going to do a deal until we know exactly the hostages that are coming out and on the schedule they’re coming out.  This is something that has to happen.

On phase one to phase two, it’s written into the deal, as I think the President actually laid this out in his speech in May: You begin the negotiations for phase two about a third of the way through phase one.  And that’s the negotiation that might go on beyond the 42 days of the first phase to set the conditions for phase two.  See, it’s very true, there’s not — there are not the conditions set or negotiated yet for a permanent ceasefire.  That is what you would negotiate during the phase one and getting out the initial contingent of about 33 hostages.  So we’re working hard now to get into phase one.

And then, during phase one, you work out — try to work out getting into phase two.  But there’s no kind of automaticity from phase one to phase two.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this.  And I think I asked you this several times, and you sort of dodged it before, but I’ll ask again.  What makes you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu really wants a deal and is not just playing for time, trying to wait you out until November?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If we draw that conclusion, we’ll say it very clearly.  I mean, right now, there has been progress in this process.  The issues that are being negotiated, the implementation issues, are real.  You can’t do a deal until they’re kind of worked out.  But we also think they are resolvable.  These are not, kind of, unbridgeable problems.  So we’re not ready to draw that conclusion.

And again, I think as I said, we’ll have the important meetings here tomorrow.  And then, I think you’ll see more activity over the coming week in terms of the work to try to get this done from Bill, myself, and others. 

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

Q    Hey.  Thank you for doing this.  If you are in the final stages of closing this deal, can you clarify whether it is your view that this deal is the Prime Minister’s to accept at this point?

And also, just to clarify your response to Barak’s question: Are you saying that you do not think the Prime Minister is deploying, you know, delaying tactics right now?  I know that on some of these previous calls, you’ve at times sort of gingerly suggested that Israeli politics may be a factor.  So, I just wanted to clarify that. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m not going to draw that conclusion here.  I mean, literally, what we have is a framework that is agreed, and you have part of it.  There are two columns in which there’s disagreement between the two sides.  So, you have to work that out.  And there are things in those columns that you need from Hamas, and there are some things you need from Israel.  And that’s what the mediators are working to bridge.  

If I’m talking to you a month from now, and we’re still kind of where we are now, I might draw a different conclusion.  But that’s certainly not the case now.  These are real issues.  I would not want to get into a deal until you know exactly how it’s going to go and who’s coming out and when, and that’s what we’re working out. 

There’s a — as you know, similar to the November deal, there is an exchange provision in this deal in which Palestinian prisoners are released in exchange for hostages, and that is an equation that has to be worked out — the who and when and where.  And so that is all being — that’s kind of what is being discussed now.  And there are some other issues that are in the implementation. 

It’s a very different negotiation now than it was, say, a month ago, in which we had just some fundamental — fundamental, potentially unbridgeable issues.  I think those have basically been resolved.  You’re now in the implementation.

But I would not — I’m not making a final prediction.  As I think I’ve said on these calls before, we’re still dealing with Hamas.  And their leaders are — some of them are in Doha, some of them are in Turkey, some are in Cairo, and their key leader lives in a tunnel in Gaza. 

So it’s — this is anything but a normal negotiation.  But there has been progress; there has been progress because the Israelis have put an awful lot on the table, and that’s kind of brought us to this point.  

So, yeah, so I’m not going to draw that conclusion here on this call.  Again, if I’m talking to you guys a month from now, might have a different conclusion, but we are looking to move forward and try to get this done and get the hostages home. 

Q    Did you have a response to my first question?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What was the first question?  Was that the follow-up on Barak’s?

Q    Whether — no, whether it’s your view that at this moment, this deal is for the Prime Minister to accept?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh.  Well, in fairness, it’s not — I mean, it’s not at the point where it’s ready to be signed and implemented.  I think it — but we do believe that with some effort and work by the mediators, that what is left is bridgeable and is not something that’s going to take an indefinite period to actually bridge. 

So we think the time here over the coming week or so — again, we think we will see a lot of activity over the coming week.  And we think it’s not only possible, it’s essential and necessary, because we have to get these hostages out.  And what has been ironed out in this agreement is basically what the Israelis have wanted to see.  And now we need some things from Hamas to allow us to move forward, and we also need some things from the Israeli side, and all of which is being worked.  

So the Qataris are doing some things and the Egyptians are doing some things on the Hamas side.  Obviously, we’re working with the Israelis on the other side to try to bridge some of these final implementation issues.  And that’s what we’ll be focused on.

And, again, the President — as we saw the President today, you know, he’s ready for a pretty — he knows, kind of, every chapter of this deal, because we’ve been at it for some time, and is ready for that discussion with the Prime Minister tomorrow. 

Q    And just on the meeting with the families of the American hostages: Is the President planning to make any specific commitments to the families tomorrow?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think as he said to them before, he is committed to doing everything possible to bring their loved ones home.  Of course, we have a group of families, including Americans that we believe are alive, and we also have a couple, unfortunately, that we know are deceased.  And the deal also envisions the return of remains. 

So we want to bring hostages out, and we want to bring closure to the families whose loved ones are unfortunately deceased. 

It’s just — the whole thing is tragic, horrific.  And we’re determined to do all we can here to get this done. 

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

Q    Thanks very much for doing this.  Just wondered if you can give us an idea of what President Biden is going to say personally to Prime Minister Netanyahu to try and get him on board with this.  Thanks. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, again, I think the premise of your question is that the Israelis are not on board.  I think what I expect the conversation to be tomorrow is about these remaining gaps and, kind of, how we close them, and what the parameters are. 

And then, we as a mediator will work with the Egyptians and Qataris to try to bring that forward.  And I assume there will be some in-person meetings here over the next week to try our best to wrap this up.  I’m not putting a timeframe on it, but I think we have already been coordinating about a couple meetings here over the coming week that will be pretty important.

So I don’t expect the meeting to be a yes or no.  It’s kind of like how do we close these final gaps.  And there are some things we need from the Israeli side, no question.  But there’s also some key things that are only in the hands of Hamas because the hostages are in the hands of Hamas.  And at the end of the day, this is a negotiation for the release of hostages with a terrorist group.  So we got to keep that in mind. 

And we’re also mindful of ensuring this agreement — as the President said when he spoke to the agreement in his address in May — fully protects the security and national security interests of Israel.  So we’re not going to support a deal that endangers Israel in any way.  We think what is on the table now meets those interests.  But we want to ensure that that is played out in the implementation as well. 

So we’re taking this extremely seriously because it’s an extremely serious matter and also quite difficult. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our final question will go to Asma with NPR. 

Q    Hey there.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a question about the Vice President’s meeting.  I was wondering if you could characterize what you see as the role for the Vice President in this moment in time, and if you will be present yourself for that meeting.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the Vice President has been a full participant in almost everything we’ve been doing here for the last 10 months.  I think every call with the with the Prime Minister and multiple engagements, meetings.  Met with the families; I was there for that.  

So, again, we look forward to the meeting.  I think we’ve talked about the role she’s played in terms of her engagements with the Israelis throughout, and I think that’ll be an important engagement I know she’s looking forward to. 

And we were just talking about it here with Phil and others about kind of the two meetings — because we have the team here at the White House for a number of hours, which is an opportunity to get an awful lot done.  And then, of course, it’s capped by when the Vice President returns from her domestic travel.  I think we’ll go into the meeting with the Prime Minister I think around 4:30 or so.

So, yeah, I think it’s a pretty good sequence of engagements from the President, to the families, to the Vice President.  And we’re looking forward to the day tomorrow. 

Q    Can I just ask one quick follow-up there?  Do you see her role to reiterate the President’s message?  Or do you see any unique role for her in these meetings, in diplomacy?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There will obviously be no daylight between the President and the Vice President.  I think they talk all the time.  We know very much exactly what we want to try to get done tomorrow. 

And I think the message they’re sending to the Prime Minister tomorrow is that we’re completely aligned; it’s time to do all we can to close the hostage deal, get the hostages home.  And also, we as an administration will continue to do all we possibly can to continue to support Israel’s self-defense against Iran, Hezbollah, all the threats I just mentioned, and the Houthis and everything else. 

So it’s a — I mean, I just want to — I know there’s a lot of focus here on the hostages, a massive agenda when it comes to Israel.  The relationship is so multifaceted.  The threats to Israel are real.  And so, there’s an awful lot to discuss, including, again, I mentioned the Houthis; we just had the attack in Tel Aviv last week and the Israeli response.  Of course, it’s a problem; that’s a challenge we deal with day to day.

So it’s a big agenda.  And between the President and Vice President, the Israelis will hear full alignment.  But, again, I think we have a very good sequence of meetings here set tomorrow. 

Obviously, we were going to do this earlier in the week, but because of the President’s COVID, as we discussed with you, we had to do it here towards the end of the week.  But I think as the week has played out, it’s actually pretty — the way it kind of has come together for tomorrow, I think we’re looking forward to it.  It’s a unique opportunity to have their whole team here for a period of hours to see the hostage families and the President and the Vice President, all in a period of an afternoon. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you again, everyone, for joining and for dealing with us during our little tech glitch, but we made it through.

And thank you, [senior administration official], for your time today.  

The embargo for this call has now lifted.  And as a reminder, it was held on background, attributable to a senior administration official.

As always, if we weren’t able to get to your question, feel free to reach out to the press distro and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Enjoy the rest of your evening. 

4:50 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call Previewing the Bilateral Engagement Between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

12:10 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  I actually do have quite a bit here.  I know it’s been a long time since we gaggled, so please bear with me. 

First of all, I’m sure you saw the news yesterday that the United States is going to begin the process of transitioning away from the temporary pier in Gaza to other solutions.  The Department of Defense has spoken to this.  USAID have already spoken to it.  I’m not going to go through all the details with you.  But I do think it’s important to just, again, put all this into context. 

The first thing is that the pier was always supposed to be part of a comprehensive response to the situation in northern Gaza in particular, and it did help enable the development of Cyprus as a port that can be used for inspections and for deliveries directly into Gaza.  Aid can now also be inspected in Cyprus and delivered directly into Gaza through Israel’s Ashdod port and crossings into the north.

Second, the pier accomplished a lot.  I mean, nearly 20 million pounds of aid delivered.  That’s the highest volume of humanitarian assistance that we have ever been able to deliver in the Middle East.  And that’s, of course, 20 million pounds of aid that would otherwise have not reached the hungry people of Gaza. 

And then third, the deployment of the pier certainly helped secure Israeli commitments to open up additional crossings into northern Gaza.  Since the opening of those crossings, we have seen a sustained flow of trucks moving from Jordan directly into northern Gaza, averaging roughly around 200 trucks a day overall.  I’ll stress again that that’s still not enough.  We still want more.  And we’re going to continue to work with the Israelis to see if we can get the number of trucks increased.

That underscores why we are working so hard to try to get a ceasefire deal, because that would give us six weeks of a pause, which would allow us a much greater flexibility in terms of increasing the ground flow of vehicles and aid. 

From the very beginning, we said that the pier was going to be temporary; it was not going to be permanent.  We said it was not going to be an easy mission, and it certainly wasn’t.  It’s complicated stuff to do that, and JLOTS is not designed for the permanent infrastructure, additive capabilities.  And of course, we said it was going to be impacted by the weather.  And, by God, it was impacted by the weather.  And we saw that play out in the eastern Med in the summertime.  Again, not a surprise. 

But we’re grateful for all the incredible work that was done by the United States military, the men and women of the military, to not only get the pier anchored on several occasions and operate it, but also moving it into position and, of course, helping with the flow of aid coming out of Cyprus onto the pier. 

So, an awful lot of good work was done, and the President is very grateful for all the effort that went into it. 

And now we’re turning, as we should, to bolstering up the other kind of capabilities that we have, including now Ashdod. 

But the pier not only enabled additional aid, it enabled us to work on other initiatives.  It gave us some breathing time and space to get Ashdod operational and to get other crossings opened up.  And I think it’s — this is just a little bit of context that I think too often gets forgotten when we talk about the pier and the difficulties that the pier sometimes ran into. 

So if I could, quickly, turn to Sudan.  We continue to be deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict there, which has forced 10 million people to flee their homes.  It’s left more than 25 million facing unacceptable levels of food insecurity and nearly the entire country now facing unconscionable violence. 

We continue to be disturbed and, frankly, unambiguously condemn the perpetrators of this conflict in the strongest terms.  And we call to cease attacks on innocent civilians for unhindered humanitarian access to get to the people that are so desperately in need. 

The United States continues, and we will continue going forward, to support the Sudanese people, providing urgently needed lifesaving humanitarian assistance and assistance for those that have been internally displaced by the conflict. 

That’s why, earlier today, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, announced another $203 million in humanitarian assistance for people affected by the conflict in Sudan, including refugees and others who have fled to neighboring countries.

And the U.S. Agency for International Development is announcing $69 million in humanitarian assistance for crisis-affected people in Chad, including more than 600,000 Sudanese refugees and 200,000 Chadian returnees from Sudan who are in need of protection and lifesaving assistance.  And that, of course, includes food, medicine, and nutritional support.  So, a lot going on there. 

And then, if I could just turn quickly to irregular migration.  Since President Biden announced the executive order to secure the border in June, encounters at the southwest border have decreased by more than 50 percent.  We’re also taking steps to go after smuggling criminal organizations that prey on and profit from the most vulnerable people. 

That’s why today, in coordination with our Mexican partners, Treasury sanctioned the Abdul Karim Conteh transnational criminal organization, and also sanctioned Abdul Karim Conteh, his wife, and two members for supporting this human smuggling organization.  Yesterday, the Department of Justice also unsealed an indictment against Abdul Karim Conteh.

We will continue to use all available tools to disrupt these criminal organizations and ensure that they are held to account of the harm that they are inflicting on innocent people.

With that, I can take some questions.

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

Q    John, thank you.  Two things.  Could you give us an update on the President’s health? 

And secondly, will he be able to meet with Netanyahu when Netanyahu is in town next week?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, I’m afraid I’m not a reliable source to speak to his health right now and his COVID recovery.  I know that he is isolating as appropriate and that the White House physician and the whole team is helping him through this.  But I’m afraid I’m not a qualified individual to speak to the recovery efforts on COVID. 

On Netanyahu, what I can tell you, Steve, is that, as we’ve said before, we have every expectation that the two leaders will have a chance to see each other while Prime Minister Netanyahu is in town.  I can’t tell you at this point, Thursday midday, what that exactly is going to look like.  But as we get closer, we’ll certainly be able to provide you some more context.

Obviously, we need to make sure that the President’s health and his recovery from COVID takes priority.  And if and how that might affect a discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu, we’re just not in a position today to be able to know. 

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

Q    Hi.  Long time no talk.  I have a couple questions.  So, I wondered if the White House is concerned about Ben-Gvir’s decision to visit the hilltop compound, the mosque, today?  I wondered if it was, you know, unnecessarily provocative?  Maybe it could disrupt hostage negotiations?

And then I had a question about whether or not you can speak to what the threat matrix looks like right now regarding foreign actors and the presidency, just in the days after the information about Iran, the threat from Iran to Trump.  I just wondered if you could sort of talk generally about what the threats look like today when it comes to foreign actors and presidential candidates.

MR. KIRBY:  On your first one, I would just say we continue to be concerned about rhetoric and actions that are counterproductive to peace and security in the West Bank.  The President has been, I think, pretty strident about his concerns over, for instance, the settler violence.  And we have also expressed our concerns about activities and rhetoric by certain Israeli leaders.  And those concerns remain valid. 

And what we would continue to urge our Israeli counterparts to do is nothing that inflames passions or could lead to or encourage violent activity one way or the other.  So I think I’d leave it at that. 

On your second question, there’s a — I hope you would understand — a bit of a limit to what I can say.  I can tell you that we continue to monitor and watch for any malign activity by foreign actors with respect to our electoral politics in this country, and do everything we can to reassure the American people that that process is safe and secure and will be free and be fair.

With respect to physical manifestations of this — and I think we’ve spoken to this before — we certainly have been mindful of and monitoring the threat specifically from Iran when it comes to officials of the former administration in particular.  We’ve been monitoring this for now — for years, all tied to the strike that killed Mr. Soleimani and the Iranians’ desire for retribution for that.  And this is something that we’ve been very, very closely monitoring and will

continue to do so.

I don’t have any updates nor, if I did, would I necessarily believe it would be the best thing, for the safety and security of those who might be threatened, for us to speak to it in great granularity, except to say that it’s not something that we have ever lost sight of or stopped monitoring, and also that we continue to communicate as appropriate with those who could be targeted.  I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michelle with Bloomberg.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Good morning.  Just two on Israel.  My colleagues reported just in the last hour that Israeli officials are considering transferring control of the Rafah border crossing to the EU and Palestinians.  I’m wondering if you’re in position to confirm and comment on that. 

And then separately, I wanted to get your reaction to news — it was a bit of a different tone that the Israeli parliament passed a resolution expressing formal opposition to establishing an independent Palestinian state.

MR. KIRBY:  On the first one, I’m not able to confirm those reports.  I saw the press reporting just before starting to gaggle, and I’m just not in a position to confirm it. 

I would just say what we’ve said before, which is that we want to see that crossing back open; we want to see it open in a sustainable, credible way that can allow for the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza specifically.  And we are in constant touch with our counterparts, both in Egypt and in Israel, about trying to achieve that outcome.  But I can’t confirm the specific reports.

On the second question, I think the best way I can respond to that is to just reiterate our firm belief in the power and the promise of a two-state solution.  And that is not something that President Biden is going to give up on.  And we’re going to keep doing everything we can to try to achieve that outcome.

We know it’s not going to happen tomorrow, and we know it’s not going to be without difficulty.  And we also know that it requires leadership — strong courage and leadership in the region to bring about that outcome.

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

Q    Hi there.  Thanks very much for taking the question.  Admiral, I know this isn’t necessarily your bag, but in as much as it concerns national security, do you have any more details on Saturday’s incident in Butler in terms of the shooter, the threat profile?  Anything else regarding that?  Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t, Danny.  I’m sorry. 

Q    Thanks anyway.

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

Lara, we can’t hear you if you — it looks like you muted yourself.

Okay, we will — oh, and it looks like we lost her. 

Our next question will go to Justin with ABC.

Q    Hi, John.  Thanks for holding this.  I wanted to ask about the President again.  Can you say if he had department briefings this morning?  Is he working while he’s also isolating?  Just anything along those lines.  Or is he getting a briefing this afternoon?  And if so, how did he sound, if you all spoke with him?

MR. KIRBY:  He’s — I mean, I think we can all understand that while he’s certainly focused on getting better, as anybody who’s had COVID would want to do, he’s being kept up to speed as appropriate by his leadership team, and certainly that includes on the national security front. 

I don’t have any specific briefings to speak to or schedule items, but I do know that he’s being kept updated and up to speed as he normally would.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Patsy with VOA.

Q    Thank you.  Hi, John.  I have two questions.  The first one is: Can you confirm reporting that the U.S. privately warned Iran over its suspicious nuclear activities?  And is this something that will be discussed with Prime Minister Netanyahu? If there’s anything else you can share ahead of that visit, including the concerns of all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah?  That’s my first question.  I know it’s a bit cheating.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, there’s a lot.  There’s a lot to that.

I’d say, number one, the Iranians should have absolutely zero doubt about where we stand on concerns about any advancement of their nuclear weapons ambitions. 

Number two, we send messages to Iran when it’s in our interest, and I’m not going to get into detailing what that looks like or how that feels.

Number three, I can’t think of any meetings that we have with Israeli leaders where we don’t talk about Iran and Iran’s destabilizing activities which continue, to include their ongoing support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas.

And I’m sorry, you had a question about Hezbollah specifically? 

Q    Yeah.  How concerned is the administration about the possibility of an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah at this point?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, heck, we’ve been concerned about escalation up there at that border since the very beginning, and those concerns are still valid now.  We’re not seeing signs that tell us that there’s, quote, unquote, to use your words, an “all-out war” in the offing here.  But there’s a reason why we’ve been applying a whole heck of a lot of intense and personal diplomacy, is to avoid that outcome.  And that’s still our concern, and we’re going to keep at that work. 

Q    Yes.  Thank you for that. 

And my second question, I guess, is that Turkish President Erdoğan and Syrian President Assad have signaled that they are interested in restoring diplomatic ties with Russia’s blessing. 

How does the administration view the possibility of this normalization, considering the potential of Ankara and Damascus working together to further curtail U.S. ally Kurdish groups?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  First of all, I think that was, like, your 17th question. 

Q    (Laughs.)  Yes.  I’ve been away for a while, John. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  No, that’s okay.  It’s why we do these gaggles.

Look, we’ve seen the reports.  It won’t surprise you that we’ll refer you to Mr. Erdoğan to comment on that. 

There have been similar reports like this in the past, and nothing has come of them.  So we’ll see what happens here.  Each nation, you know, of course, has to decide for itself what its foreign relationships are going to look like, and they need to speak to that.

MODERATOR:   Thank you.  Our next question will go to Mike with Washington Examiner.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for taking my question.  I’m going to try on Iran.  When did the NSC first hear about this new intelligence?  And can you say when it was transmitted to the Secret Service?  And does this threat specifically focus on former President Trump, or is it including all of the other officials who have previously been reported on?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I appreciate your effort to try to get me to talk about intelligence matters, and I hope you can understand that I’m just not going to do that. 

We’ve been monitoring this threat, this credible threat, for quite a while.  And we will continue to — we will continue to monitor it.  We’ll also make the appropriate notifications, particularly to the U.S. Secret Service, as needed.  And we did that.  And again, that process will continue. 

But the last thing that I’m going to do here in a public setting is get into a lengthy discussion about what the intel picture specifically looks like and when and how we have obtained information that we have felt we needed to act on and pass along.

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

Q    Yeah.  Hi, John.  Thanks for doing this.  First question: Knowing that Vice President Harris will be in Indianapolis on July 24th, which is the day of Bibi Netanyahu’s speech, so does that mean she will not be attending his address and, therefore, she will not be sort of behind him during that

speech?

And then secondly, have there been any NSC meetings, national security briefings with the President, or anything like that, any delays in the national security process since the President has been, you know, preoccupied with his political future of being the Democratic nominee over the last couple of days?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, I’d refer you to the Vice President’s Office.  I think they’re better suited to speak to her schedule.  My understanding is that she will, as well as the President, see Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s here.  But as for her specific schedule, I think I’d refer you to them. 

And I’m sorry, can you repeat your second question, Alex?

Q    Yeah.  Just, have there been any, you know, national security briefings with the President, any national security processes, decisions that have had to be delayed or moved or postponed in any way as the President has been understandably busy with his domestic political issues at the moment?

MR. KIRBY:  No, not at all.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jared with Al-Monitor.

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you for doing this.  I know you’ve mentioned a few times that it will take a lot of political courage regarding Israel and, you know, a future Palestinian state.  But I guess my question is: Israel’s political opposition hasn’t stepped up, and the Knesset just broadly rejected a two-state solution with this resolution.  I mean, what is the administration’s plan B moving forward on this Middle East strategy here?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s not about a plan B, it’s still about plan A, which is moving towards the possibility of a two-state solution.  And nobody — nobody is blind here to how difficult that’s going to be.  We believe that the first priority has got to be getting a ceasefire — getting the ceasefire deal in place, getting those hostages back with their families where they belong, getting six weeks of calm.  That’s phase one.

If we get phase one, then negotiations can begin on phase two.  And phase two, as the President said himself last May, can get us to a permanent cessation of the hostilities.  If you can get that, then you can begin to really start to lay the groundwork for post-conflict governance in Gaza that is free of Hamas but also free of challenges to the security of the Israeli people.  And then you can really start laying some tracks towards a potential two-state solution over the long haul. 

I mean, one of the things that we were working on, as you know, before the war was normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.  We have indications that both sides are still interested in pursuing that outcome.  And so, if you can do that, that’s another big milestone potentially towards a more integrated Israel in the region and the possibility of a two-state solution. 

So we’re still on plan A, and we believe that that effort is worth the time and the energy to put into it.  And that’s what we’re focused on.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Gabby with the Jewish Insider.

Q    Hey.  Thank you for doing this.  A couple of questions.  First, to go back to the pier: Yesterday at the briefing, the folks at DOD were calling this “mission complete.”  And so, hoping you can say more if that’s your assessment as well, and also where you think things stand right now in terms of what Israel is doing to bring aid in.  Are they doing better?  You know, you’re going through Ashdod now, so does that mean that you guys are feeling that Israel is being cooperative?

And then also, there’s reports that I’m just seeing now about Brett McGurk in the Middle East, and so I’m hoping you can speak about what he’s doing there.

MR. KIRBY:  Brett is traveling in the region, primarily stops in UAE and Jordan.  Not unusual for Brett to travel to the Middle East.  Of course, that’s kind of his job.  So he’s in and out all the time.

On mission complete, “mission complete” meaning the temporary pier, that the work of using and deploying the temporary period is over.  And it’ll be disassembled and retrograded, as we say in the military, back to the United States or back to wherever it came from.  But that’s what “mission complete.” 

What is not complete, as I tried to allude to in my topper, is the effort to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza and to work hard to find — to not only identify additional avenues to do that, but to reinvigorate those avenues that are open.  And as I said in my opening statement, the use of the pier gave us time and space not only to make Ashdod now an acceptable alternative for the reception of goods coming from Cyprus, but also working with the Israelis to open up additional crossings.  As I said, we got a couple of hundred trucks that are going in every day; not enough. 

And so, to your second question about whether Israel is being cooperative or not, they have been.  And we have every expectation that they’ll continue to be.

But we’re not resting on laurels here.  We’re going to continue to work with them every single day to increase the flow of ground traffic into Gaza to try to get it above what we’re achieving now — about 200 trucks a day. 

And if you don’t mind, I’ll take this opportunity to underscore, again, why the ceasefire deal matters so much and why we’re still working so hard on that, because that can give you, at least in phase one, six weeks of calm, no fighting in Gaza, which will dramatically improve the confidence level of aid workers and truck drivers to move around inside Gaza, because it won’t be a combat zone. 

So all of this ties into the efforts that we’re working so hard — working so hard on to secure the ceasefire.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Hi.  I hope you can hear me now.  I wanted to go back to President Biden.  Given the fact that he is so involved right now with his political campaign and that he’s not feeling well, can you reassure people in the Middle East — can you commit to the fact that he is still fully involved in the issue of the Gaza war, of the hostage deal?  Is there any attempt to pass that on to someone else in the administration, or is the President involved directly in that?

MR. KIRBY:  Of course, he is.  Of course, he is.

And the fact that he’s got mild COVID symptoms and the fact that he’s obviously running for reelection doesn’t obviate his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief or his leadership over

the national security team, here at the NSC or throughout the interagency.  All of that remains absolutely 100 percent in place. 

And as I said earlier, even though he’s home recovering from COVID, his team is keeping him up to date and up to speed as appropriate.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jonathan with Nine Australia.

Q    Can you guys hear me there okay?

MODERATOR:  Yep, we can.

Q    Thanks very much, Admiral.  I just wanted to ask you, in relation to how it impacts national security and the administration as a whole, there’s reports in the Washington Post that Barack Obama is talking to allies about his concern over the President’s path to victory.  How do reports like these, like the ones we’ve seen about Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, how does that impact the day-to-day work of the administration?  And what was the President’s mindset the last time you spoke with him?  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about my personal conversations with the President.  I would never do that.

And I can’t confirm or speak to reports that you’re alluding to in terms of what former officials may or may not be talking to allies about. 

I think the way I’d approach this is just based on, you know, our experience last week at the NATO Summit, where leader after leader approached President Biden and thanked him for his leadership, thanked him for the way that he helped pull NATO together and advance NATO’s capabilities, including increasing in size now by two extra countries.

Leader after leader expressing even more broadly how important American leadership is on the world stage, not just in the Alliance but across the globe. 

I mean, you had four countries that weren’t even — that aren’t NATO partners, from the Indo-Pacific, coming to that NATO Summit.  You had President Zelenskyy there.  It was a demonstration of how much U.S. leadership actually matters.  And as the President said, it’s not just American leadership; our partnerships matter. 

And this is a president who believes in those partnerships, believes in those alliances, and has invested an incredible amount of energy over the last three and a half years in strengthening them and making them stronger. 

And so, I think it was on display for everybody to see that the President’s approach to alliances and partnerships not only is appreciated and respected around the world, it’s needed.  And he has every expectation that he’ll continue to lead in that regard.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll try Lara one more time, and then we have to close it out.

Q    Hey, can you guys hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep, we can. 

Q    Okay, good.  So, two questions.  First, on the pier.  Is Ashdod really a viable alternative to the pier?  My understanding is only 40 trucks a day are getting through the Erez Crossing.  So if you could address that, that would be helpful. 

And then secondly, has the administration discussed the Israeli strike against Mohammed Deif the other day, that used 2,000-pound bombs and killed scores of civilians, with the Israelis?  Is this in line with producing civilian harm?

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question: Yes.

On your second question: Have we discussed their airstrike targeting Mohammed Deif?  Yes, of course, we have discussed that with them.  I’m not going to detail the discussions or talk about what the Israelis have briefed us or not briefed us.  They can speak to their operations as appropriate.

And, look, the reports of civilian casualties obviously give us great concern.  We have said time and time again the number of civilian casualties as appropriate in any operation is zero.  We understand that that’s a difficult benchmark to meet, particularly in a populated area like Gaza, but that doesn’t mean that our expectations for the Israelis aren’t that they’re going to try to have zero.  And that’s not a new conversation.  We’ve been having that with them for a very, very long time now. 

But I’m not going to detail what the Israelis have shared with us about that strike in particular or how they executed it.  They should speak to their operations.

Q    Is there a sense that the operation was disproportionate, especially since they did not even get the target?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to go any further than I just did there, Lara.  We continue to talk to the Israelis about their operations.  We continue to make sure that they have what they need to defend themselves.  And we will continue, as we have, to stress that they do so in the most discriminant and careful of ways when it comes to causing civilian casualties.

Q    And on the pier: Do you acknowledge that sending it through Ashdod is going to drastically reduce the amount of aid that goes through?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s going to be an added development.  I mean, you know — look, I think what we want is to be — get caught trying here when it comes to getting aid into Gaza.  And we never said the pier was going to be a panacea for everything.  We said it was going to be hard.  We said it was going to be — that there were going to be physical limitations in the amount of cargo that could flow across that pier.  And you know what?  It turns out there was. 

Ashdod is not a panacea.  Ashdod is not going to fix every humanitarian assistance problem in Gaza.  But it’s going to be additive; it’s going to give us another way, another venue, another vehicle to get aid in.  And it’s going to particularly be valuable in terms of facilitating the flow from Cyprus.  Because now, because of the temporary pier, we’ve now established this process in Cyprus that we don’t want to let go of; we want to stay and keep that going.  And Ashdod gives us a way — a terminus, if you will — for the humanitarian assistance that will be flowing in and out of Cyprus. 

So, all that’s to the good.  All that’s to the additive.  All that’s to the positive.  And it doesn’t obviate or take away the fact that we still need the additional crossings that the Israelis have opened to stay open.  It doesn’t reduce the need to continue to work with the Israelis to increase the flow of trucks across those new crossings.  It doesn’t take away our desire to see the Rafah crossing back open again — in the question I got before.  And, if I might, it doesn’t take away any sense of energy or effort that we’re applying to get this ceasefire deal in place.  Because, my goodness, if you can get six weeks of no fighting, man, you can make a big difference in terms of moving trucks around in Gaza. 

So all of those things are going to continue.  Ashdod will be added to that effort, but it’s not going to be — not going to be some big, old Band-Aid that’s going to solve all the problems.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you, everyone, for joining.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, feel free to reach out to our distro.  Thanks.

12:50 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.

Via Teleconference

5:26 P.M. EDT

MR. EDWARDS:  Hi.  Thank you for joining us this afternoon.  My name is Jeremy Edwards.  I’m with the White House Press Office. 

In a moment, you’re going to be hearing from several speakers about new actions we will be announcing tomorrow to make rents more affordable for millions of Americans that the president will announce.

Today, you’re going to be hearing from National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard, Domestic Policy Adviser Neera Tanden, and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Steven Horsford from Nevada.  After those opening remarks, we’re going to switch to a Q&A that will be on background and that — attribution for that portion will be to a “senior administration official” who will be participating in the Q&A. 

With that being said, we are going to jump in.  But before so, I just wanted to make sure that folks are reminded that this call and its contents and the background materials you receive will be embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.  That’s tomorrow 5:00 a.m. is when the embargo lifts.

All right, and with that, I’ll kick it over to National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard. 

MS. BRAINARD:  Thank you.  And thanks to everyone for joining us. 

President Biden knows that high rents are making it hard for young people to set out on their own and for families to live near good jobs and good schools.  One third of Americans are renters, and the share of renters is even higher for young people and for lower-income households. 

In places like Las Vegas, institutional investors are buying up homes with cash, turning them into rentals and raising rents.  Some corporate landlords are raising rents by more than their costs, expanding their profits at a time when millions of Americans are struggling to cover rent each month. 

To address the high cost of rent, the president believes that corporate landlords should either cap their rent increases to no more than 5 percent or lose their special tax breaks.  This would apply to landlords with over 50 units in their portfolio, who account for roughly half of the rental market. 

Under this policy, only corporate landlords that keep annual rent increases to no more than 5 percent for the next two years would be able to take the faster depreciation write-offs that all owners of rental housing currently benefit from. 

This policy wouldn’t affect new construction and units that have recently undergone substantial rehabilitation so as not to discourage new supply. 

The proposal to condition corporate landlords’ tax breaks on capping rent increases builds on actions the administration is taking to make rents more affordable.  The administration is capping rent increases on the rental units financed with federal tax credits, cracking down on price-fixing by landlords that use special software to raise rents, and banning misleading and hidden rental junk fees like move-in fees. 

And the president’s budgets and American Rescue Plan have contributed to the largest issuance of new Housing Choice Vouchers in decades. 

The president previously announced a plan to address the high cost of homeownership through a mortgage relief tax credit for two years.  The cap on rent increases would be in place for two years and serve as a bridge until more housing units are built and housing units currently under construction become available. 

The president’s housing agenda prioritizes building more new units to bring down the cost of housing over time.  Already, state and local governments have invested nearly $20 billion from the American Rescue Plan’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund for housing.  And those federal investments have contributed to the 1.7 million housing units under construction, which is a 50-year high. 

In what experts have called “the most consequential” housing plan and more than 50 years,” the president has called for the construction of 2 million new affordable units across the country. 

The Senate could get started on the first 200,000 new units right away by passing the tax legislation that had strong bipartisan support in the House.  But we can’t afford to simply wait for Congress to act.  The administration is using all available tools and taking a number of new steps to unlock more affordable units. 

And I will pass to Director Tanden to discuss these new actions. 

MS. TANDEN:  Thanks so much, Lael.  As noted, the Biden-Harris administration is focused — seriously focused on bringing down rental and housing costs for good.  And we know they have to rapidly boost supply of affordable housing to do that. 

That’s why the President likes to characterize his plan as “build, build, build.”  And we know that we’re already making major progress across the country.  More units are under construction during this administration than in the last 50 years.  And the rate of new housing starts is up 17 percent compared to the previous administration.

But we do know we need to do a lot more.  The cost of rent and housing is too high.  That’s why the president has put forward what experts call, and as Lael just said, “the most consequential” housing plan in a generation.  And we’re very focused on — on the fact that it will build 2 million new affordable homes across the country. 

Congress needs to pass the president’s plan now.  It has critically important proposals, and it’s — some that he’s outlined in the 2025 budget, including the $20 billion Housing Innovation Fund, as well as additional low-income housing tax credits.  Both of these combined can really drive additional housing, which we — we know we need. 

Today, we are announcing a new government-wide effort to repurpose federal land and other properties to build more affordable housing.  This is a crucial component of our agenda.  The federal government is the biggest landowner in the country, and some of its land is currently underutilized or entirely unused. 

The president is asking federal agencies from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Defense to identify opportunities to repurpose surplus property to build more affordable housing.  We know this is a critical national need and that is why it is this priority across agencies. 

I do want to say agencies are already taking action.  And I’m pleased to announce that today the Bureau of Land Management is announcing forthcoming sales under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Action Program, the biggest-ever sales under the program, which will create hundreds of affordable units for sale and for rent. 

And BLM is now working with local governments in Southern Nevada on an additional 562 acres that have been identified as to appropriate for housing, which could support an additional 15,000 affordable units or more in Southern Nevada. 

We are — the federal government is the biggest landowner in the country, and some of its land is currently underutilized or entirely unused as I said.  The president is asking federal agencies to address this problem.  BLM is now working with local governments in Southern Nevada on additional support, as I noted, and that the Biden-Harris administration is also calling on state and local governments and other public entities to follow our lead and consider whether land they hold may be suitable for housing development. 

The opportunity is massive.  New analysis released today estimates the development potential of underutilized state and local government plant — land near transit — transit locations at roughly 1.9 million units. 

Additionally, tomorrow, HUD is announcing $325 million in Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants, which is funding to communities across the country to build more homes and revitalize neighborhoods that have been left behind.  That funding will go towards Choice Neighborhoods.  They — this funding goes to the largest place-based program that exists within the federal government. 

Choice Neighborhoods — the Choice Neighborhoods program has transformed communities nationwide.  With each year’s annual appropriations, HUD is looking to expand the program’s reach to as many communities as possible. 

So, with that, we are thrilled with the work that has been undertaken.  The private and public sector are stepping up, but it is really critical that we move this ball forward.  And that is why the president is excited about making these announcements tomorrow.  And Las Vegas Choice Neighborhoods funding will help provide low-income housing along the historic Jackson Avenue strip. 

And as I said, our focus is on “building, building, building” additional units.  This will continue to be a major focus for the administration in the weeks and months ahead as we do everything we can to build more housing and lower housing costs. 

And with that, I am pleased to turn it over to a great leader and my friend, Congressman Steve Horsford. 

REPRESENTATIVE HORSFORD:  Thank you so much, Director Tanden.  It’s great to be on with you.  And, Lael Brainard, thank you for your leadership and work on this as well. 

And good afternoon, everybody.  I’m Congressman Steven Horsford.  I’m proud to represent Nevada’s 4th Congressional District.  And I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss just how important these housing announcements are and its impact to my constituents here in Nevada’s 4th District. 

Now, we know housing is a fundamental issue that affects all aspects of our lives, from economic stability, to health and education.  Today’s announcement by President Biden is a significant step forward in addressing the housing crisis here in Southern Nevada, as well as all throughout the country. 

But we must continue to push for more comprehensive solutions to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at being able to afford the rent — because I agree with many of my constituents who think that “the rent is just too damn high” — as well as to get in the position to own a home and to live in a safe and secure environment. 

Now, President Biden is taking a stand against corporate landlords who exploit the national housing shortage by raising rents unfairly.  The president is calling on Congress to pass a law to cap rent increases at 5 percent.  Similar to some of the executive powers that were — that are provided for in my bill, the HOME Act. 

This policy targets large landlords with more than 50 units and encourages rent stabilization by making it less attractive for corporate landlords to raise rents because they would lose valuable tax benefits if they chose to do so. 

My HOME Act would give the president the fex- — flexibility to define a housing emergency and to protect renters from the egregious price increases that we’ve seen in the last few years. 

Also, the Federal Housing Finance Agency is working to implement new renter protections, which I applaud, for properties that are financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  These include 30-day notices before increases and lease expirations take effect and a 5-day grace period for late fees.  These are essential renter protections that are also part of my HOME Act, which aims to prevent unfair rent hikes and ensure basic renter protections in federally backed properties. 

Our advocacy and dialogue with key stakeholders helped to make these protections a reality, and I’m pleased that they’re included in today’s announcement. 

I also want to commend the administration’s plan to include using federal land to build thousands of affordable homes focusing here in Nevada.  The largest-ever sale under SNPLMA, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, will help Clark County develop nearly 150 homes, and similar efforts that are pending in Henderson will provide nearly 300 affordable units. 

The Bureau of Land Management is considering over 562 acres of land to be designated and prioritized for affordable housing here in Las Vegas.  This could potentially support up to 15,000 more affordable units. 

I’ll continue working with local authorities and stakeholders to identify and advocate for more land for housing because we know that this is a top priority.  These are crucial steps that are being taken.  And, again, we need quicker and more decisive action to free up public land and to streamline the development process to meet our housing needs. 

The administration will continue to work with us to provide the resources that are necessary to ensure an accelerated transfer and development of these lands. 

Finally, let me commend the work that’s being done around the Choice Grants.  I’m excited that as part of a national award that, after years of advocacy, the Department of Housing and Community Development has awarded or will award $50 million to restore and expand Marble Manor in the historic Westside neighborhood of Las Vegas. 

This is the neighborhood that I grew up in.  I have friends that lived in — lived in and residents and constituents who live in Marble Manor today.  This investment will restore 235 affordable units and build 400 more.  Let me say that again: It will restore 235 affordable units and build 400 additional units. 

It will also fund infrastructure improvements: a co-op market, something that we desperately need to address the food desert shortage of not having adequate supermarkets in our neighborhood.  It will provide for a preschool, additional parks, a health and wellness center, as well as support business expansion and economic development. 

Our efforts have helped to bring an additional $212 million in public and private resources for these projects — projects, showing that there really is power in partnerships to revitalize our communities. 

This is not something that we can do through government alone.  But this $50 million investment from the Choice Grants will definitely help us advance these projects further. 

Finally, I’ll conclude by thanking the Biden-Harris administration and their actions which reflect a broad approach to tackling the housing crisis by building more homes, tapping rent increases, and investing in community development. 

While today’s announcement is a big step, we will continue to work with the administration to find other ways to take it executive action and legislative support.  And I’m calling on my Republican colleagues on the Financial Services Committee — I’m a member of that committee — to work with the ranking member, Maxine Waters; the subcommittee ranking member, Emanuel Cleaver; and myself to continue to support and to fully address the housing shortage and affordability issues.  There’s a lot of good, bipartisan bills that we could work on, even now, if Republicans would come to the table. 

So, I remain committed to pushing for stronger measures and ensuring that our community’s needs are met.  I’ve long called for an all-of-government approach to confronting our housing crisis.  And I’ll continue to utilize every tool that’s available to us to provide Nevadans with the relief that they need. 

Today’s announcement is a victory for Nevada and a testament to what we can achieve through persistent advocacy and collaboration.  Our work is far from done, but I look forward to the partnership with the Biden-Harris administration and those of us who see affordable housing as a priority for all Nevadans and Americans. 

So, thank you for allowing me to participate today. 

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, Congressman.  With that, we’re going to turn over into our background portion of the call for some Q&A. 

We have speakers who are from HUD, as well as NEC and DPC.

So, with that being said, please use your “hand raise” function.  We’ll get a queue going, and we’ll get started I think in, like, 30 more seconds.  Thanks.

All right.  Thank you, again.  Reminder that this is going to be on background, attribution to “senior administration officials,” and that this will also be embargoed until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow. 

So, with that, I am going to take our first question from Josh Boak with the Associated Press.  Josh, you should be able to unmute.

Q    Hi.  It’s Josh Boak with AP.  Thanks again for doing this.  Could you walk us through the timing of how this came together, and why now?  Some affordability advocates say that had policies like this been in place, you would have reduced homelessness post-pandemic, while some of the industry look at this and say this is tied to election messaging.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, everyone.  It’s [senior administration official].  I can take that.  So, as you know, we have been deeply focused on this issue of housing affordability since the president came to office.  It is one that has evolved in the time that the president has been to office.  So, early in the administration, we were deeply focused on doing everything possible to keep families in their homes during the pandemic, a historical provision of rental assistance and support to state and local governments to help keep families in their homes.

We then, you know, really aggressively turned to the issue of building more housing, you know, addressing the long-standing shortfall in housing supply — in the supply of housing in this country both through putting out a Housing Supply Action Plan that included concrete steps to increase housing supply, administrative actions wherever we could take them — things like improving the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, improving Rescue Plan funds to make it easier to use those to build housing, including land use and zoning as important criteria that would make it easier to get federal funding from the Department of Transportation and other entities. 

And, you know, then, I think, really, to build on that, have focused on what else we could do to help provide aspiring homeowners and renters relief in a kind of bridge period as it takes time for that new supply to come online.  So, one of the things you’ll see in today’s propo- — in today’s proposal is it really is — we think of it as a bridge to, you know, additional supply coming online: the 1.6 million units that are under construction now, the 2 million units that would be built if the pre- — if Congress passed the president’s proposal, and now this legislative proposal that, you know, would be an important bridge to that new supply coming online.

You know, this is an area that, you know, the — the president, in the lead-up to the State of the Union, encouraged his team and asked his team to do more on.  He spoke to housing issues in the State of the Union and, since then, has continued to — to push the team to do more. 

This specific proposal is one that, you know, we’ve been working through for several months.  The president has kind of teased at this issue twice in the last several weeks.  So, this is not a new issue to us; it’s one that we’ve been working through.  And, of course, the housing issue generally is one that this administration has been deeply focused on for three and a half years.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you for that response. 

Before we take our next question, I just want to note that we also have a representative from the Bureau of Land Management on as well to be helpful there as needed.

Our next question is going to come from Emily Peck from Axios.  Emily, you should be able to unmute now.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Thanks for doing this.  I think you might have already answered my question.  But just to be clear, the — the proposal to cap rents for the next two years, that’s something you’re asking Congress to do?  Is — do you have any indication that Congress would be able to do something like that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, this is a legislative proposal.  It would deny depreciation deductions over the next two years for corporate landlords, so above 50 units — they hold — that hold above 50 units that are raising their rents by more than 5 percent. 

You know, this is an issue that is affecting households across the country, families across the country.  Housing is an issue that we absolutely must do something about. 

The president has put forward plans to build more housing.  This plan goes along with that, and we think that Congress absolutely should be taking action here.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 

We’re going to go to Jeff Mason from Reuters.  Jeff, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thanks so much.  Follow-up on Emily’s question.  So, just to clarify, it’s a legislative proposal, but I think we all know that there’s — it’s very unlikely that Congress is going to be doing anything between now and November.  What gives you an- — other than saying they should do it, what — what gives you any sort of sense that they will? 

And as a second question, can you just clarify the second part of the proposal that you guys are walking us through?  Where does the money come from for that, for the housing piece in — in Nevada?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take your second question first.  So, the — the — of the announcements from today, the public lands piece is administrative and then the — the money for — really, around the country, but the specific $50 million piece for Nevada, that comes from funds that were already appropriated by Congress. 

On the — on the first part of your question, you know, when the president, you know, teased at this issue in Michigan on Friday, you know, he laid out that this is a proposal that he would fight for in a second term.  It’s one that we think Congress shouldn’t wait to act on.  You know, we put out a budget every year that includes proposals that really reflect the president’s vision and what we believe Congress should be doing.  This is one of those proposals. 

I’ll leave to you all the precise chances for Congress acting now, for Congress acting later. 

But I think the bottom line is that this issue of housing affordability is one that is felt in communities across the country — urban, rural, suburban, Democratic districts, Republican districts.  It’s one that we need to do more on.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you.  Our next question is going to come from Brian from NBC.  Brian, you should be able to unmute now.

Q    Thanks, Jeremy.  Thanks for doing this.  I wanted to ask just for a little bit more just projections on what the impact of that cap would be on landlords.  I was reading that, you know, it would apply to landlords with over 50 units in their portfolio, covering more than 20 million units across the country.  So, is 20 million units the estimate of how many units would be affected by that cap or beholden to that cap?

And then is there any sort of other economic analysis — not asking for an exact CBO score here — but just on, like, how much in aggregate this could lower rental inflation in the United States?  Like, any estimate on the economic impact of a cap like that being taken into effect?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, the 20 million or the, you know, somewhat less than half of all rental units nationwide, that’s held by, you know, property owners with 50 or more units.  Look, our expect- — our hope and our expectation would be that, you know, there wouldn’t be a significant, you know, revenue raising here because — in terms of a kind of CBO-type estimate — because landlords would comply with this. 

We — we’ve had a period of substantial rent increases in prior years.  We have a lot of supply coming online.  We think there’s every reason that landlords would comply with this proposal.  And that’s particularly true if the depreciation deduction would be denied if they don’t. 

So, we don’t have a precise budgetary estimate.  But I think that this is a choice — if landlords are faced with this choice in this next two-year period, you know, many, many, and hopefully most landlords would be compliant here.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thanks for that answer.  We’re going to go to Jacob from Scripps.  Jacob, you should be able to unmute now.

Q    Thanks, Jeremy.  And thanks so much for all the folks doing this call.  Just a couple of questions, one trying to get at something some of the folks had asked about earlier and then another on a different topic. 

You know, thinking about the feasibility of this proposal actually having any sort of, you know, ability to become law through Congress, does the president have any plans to perhaps, you know, use the bully pulpit a little bit more?  Can you preview any conversations he may have had or may have with lawmakers trying to push for action on this — the proposal — the rent cap one, specifically? 

And then, secondly, just hoping you can provide a little bit of background perhaps about this engagement you’ve had with stakeholders thus far — both, you know, perhaps affordable housing advocates, also, you know, developers and construction companies — and those who might not be too happy with this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, I’ll — I’ll take the second one first. 

So, you know, as part of our policy development on housing in general, we are, you know, consistently seeking advice and feedback from experts that range from, you know, academic experts, to housing developers, to renter and tenant advocates.  We — we’re in touch with a range of expert- — experts across the spectrum in designing this proposal, as was the case for our proposals to build 2 million units.  So, you know, you’ll — you’ll see that, obviously, the idea of trying to put in place a cap is one that a number of renter advocates have advocated for. 

We also — in consulting with industry, we’re really adamant in this proposal to make sure we were exempting new construction, exempting substantial rehabilitation, really emphasizing that this is a proposal that’s paired with new supply proposals, because we wanted to make sure — based on their feedback, but also the kind of economic needs out there — that we weren’t having a negative impact on supply. 

On your first question, I don’t have any conversations to read out to you on this proposal, specifically.  Obviously, he’ll announce it tomorrow.  But, you know, we — we look forward to further conversations on this proposal with key stakeholders, with members of Congress. 

You know, we will continue to advocate for additional investment in housing.  We’ll continue to advocate for policies that lead to the construction of more housing across the country.  And tomorrow, you’ll hear from the president discussing that he thinks that this proposal could be a really helpful bridge to getting to that additional supply.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thanks, [senior administration official].

We have time for a couple more questions.  So, I think we’re going to go over to Elizabeth from ABC.  Elizabeth, you should be able to unmute now.

Q    Thank you so much.  I just wanted to get at that question about the practicality of this.  Have there been any conversations at this point between the administration and members of Congress about how this could get done?  Thank you so much — the rent cap, of course.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, I don’t have a specific conversations to read out to you, but we are constantly — across the administration, at the level of the president — have had, you know, many conversations over the last months, in particular, on what more we can do to address the housing affordability challenges that folks across the country are — are experiencing.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you.  We’re going to go to Amy next from CBS.  Amy, you should be able to unmute.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  Thanks for taking my question and hosting this call.  I just wondered if you can talk a little bit more about the faster depreciation that you’re targeting with this proposal.  I’m wondering, you know, how much of a financial impact would this — losing that really have on corporate landlords?  And why wouldn’t they just say, “Well, you know, I can raise the rent 10 percent.  It will offset losing that depreciation”?  Or, you know, is it not equal?  I’d love to hear a little bit more about that. 

And, secondly, do you have any sense of whether corporate landlords have been increasing their rents more than 5 percent a year on average in the past few years?  I’d love to hear a little bit about that, too.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  (Inaudible.)

So, the second, obviously, you know, it depends.  There’s significant (inaudible).

MR. EDWARDS:  Hey, [senior administration official].  [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah?

MR. EDWARDS:  Sorry to jump in on you.  I — I just — I was getting, like, a lot of feedback.  Yeah.  If you could — sorry.  Sorry, to jump in late there, but I wasn’t — if you’re able to, like, fix your phone or jump back into that question again, I think that would helpful for our folks here.  Sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Is this better?

MR. EDWARDS:  Not really.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What about now?  What about now?

MR. EDWARDS:  That’s a little better.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay.  (Inaudible.)

MR. EDWARDS:  Yeah, I’m sorry — I’m sorry, but it’s still — it’s just getting, like, robot voice. 

And we’re actually kind of towards time.  So, I think we can split the diff, or if [senior administration official] wants to jump in perhaps, that could be helpful.  Do you have a — do you have an answer to provide here, [senior administration official]?  Otherwise, we can always offline with you and get you a response to that question. 

So, I’ll give [senior administration official] a moment to maybe jump in.  But otherwise, I think we can just leave it there and —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Ye- — yeah.  Can you hear me okay, Jeremy?

MR. EDWARDS:  Yeah, yeah.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, probably — probably best for [senior administration official] to get back to you. 

What I — what I can say is that, you know, certainly during the pandemic — 2021, 2022 — we saw, you know, many instances across the country of landlords raising rents, you know, far exceeding — exceeding 5 percent in a way that we saw, you know, as egregious. 

And so, but in terms of year over year, we can — we can probably follow up with you on, you know, the last, you know, five or eight years in terms of what we’ve seen in terms of average annual rent increases.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And is this better?  I’m on my phone now.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, that’s much better, [senior administration official].

MR. EDWARDS:  (Inaudible.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay.  I’ll go.  And so, I don’t have anything to add to — on that part of the question that [senior administration official] covered.

And then, on the other part, so, right now, residential real estate has an accelerated depreciation schedule as compared to other forms of real estate.  It’s 27 and a half years compared to 39.  We would, under this proposal, deny depreciation deductions altogether in the year that the rent was increased by more than 5 percent. 

It’s, you know, a relatively complicated calculation to understand what the kind of break-even point for a landlord is.  But — and it — and it varies based on things like the — how valuable the land is as compared to the property, how — what the current tax rate is of the landlord, whether they’re a corporation or a partnership. 

But if you look across scenarios, our analysis is that it’s – it’s the — the break-even point is going to be well above 5 percent and often significantly above 5 percent.  So, that — it will be a better deal for the landlord to comply with the cap and not give up depreciation.

MR. EDWARDS:  All right, thank you for that.  And at the risk of any more technical difficulties, I think we’ll call it there. 

So, folks, if we weren’t able to get to you, I do apologize.  Feel free to follow up with us over email.  You have my email.  You can reach out to [redacted].  So, again, feel free to follow up, and we do appreciate your time and covering this. 

And as a final reminder, background was attributable to “senior administration officials” for the Q&A portion and the embargo will lift tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.

Thank you, again, and have a great evening.

6:01 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on New Actions to Make Renting More Affordable for Millions of Americans appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:58 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, last night, President Biden spoke directly to the American people about the urgent need to come together and lower the temperature in our politics. 

We must remember that while we may disagree, we are not enemies.  We are fellow Americans, and we must stand together.  We must stand together in the wake of an attempted assassination on the former president of the United States.

Over the past several days, the president has been briefed regularly by key members of his homeland security team and senior law enforcement officials, and he has spoken directly to the American people.

As President Biden has said, we are thankful the former president is not seriously injured.  And President Biden, the first lady, and the entire White House are keeping him and his family in our prayers.

We also extend our deepest condolences to the family of the victim who was killed.  Corey was a husband, a father, a volunteer firefighter, and a hero who lost his life shielding his family.  Our prayers are with Corey’s family during this unimaginable time.

The president spoke about an ongoing investigation.  And as he said, “We do not know the motive of the shooter yet.  We don’t know his opinions or affiliations.  We don’t know whether he had help or support or if he communicated with anyone else.  Law enforcement professionals are investigating those questions.” 

And we urge that everyone avoid jumping to conclusions.  Let the law enforcement professionals do their job.

But as President Biden made clear, what we do know is that a former president was shot in a senseless act of violence, and a fellow American was killed while simply exercising his freedom to support a candidate of his choosing.  

We must not go down this road in America.  

There is no place in America for this kind of violence ever.  We cannot normalize this.  Right now, the most important thing we can do is unite against this type of political violence and reject it.

That’s what the president is going to focus on.  As he said last night, “While unity is the most elusive of goals right now, nothing is more important than standing together.” 

Now joining me today to answer your questions is Secretary Mayorkas.  W- — normally, would have done a gaggle because the president would have been on the road, but we wanted to make sure that we did this briefing, get an on-camera briefing, and also have the secretary here to take any of your questions.

So, he has been alongside the president and — and — and the president’s entire team as they work to get the answers for the American people.

Secretary Mayorkas, thank you so much for joining us today.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you very much, Karine.  Good afternoon.

At the very outset, I want to echo what President Biden said last night.  Our entire administration is grateful that former President Trump is okay.  Our hearts and prayers are with the family of Corey Comperatore.  We pray for the full and swift recovery of those who were injured on Saturday.

We are thankful for the heroic agents of the United States Secret Service who so quickly and bravely responded to the threat at Saturday’s campaign event.  We unequivocally condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence our nation witnessed that day.  Such acts are unacceptable in our country and in our democracy.

Both President Biden and former President Trump are constantly the subject of threats.  We are in a heightened and very dynamic threat environment.  The United States Ser- — Secret Service — we, including the FBI and our other partners across the federal government, take the threats very seriously and adjust security measures as warranted.

Maintaining the safety and security of the president, the former president, and their campaign events is one of our most vital priorities.

In light of this weekend’s events, the president has directed me to work with the Secret Service to provide protection to Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Both prior to and after the events of this past weekend, the Secret Service enhanced former President Trump’s protection based on the evolving nature of threats to the former president and his imminent shift from presumptive nominee to nominee.  This includes enhancements related to securing the former president during the Republican National Convention this week.

I cannot discuss specifics of the producti- — protection or the enhancements made, as they involve sensitive tactics and procedures.  I can say, however, that personnel and other protective resources, technology, and capabilities have been added.

At the RNC, we have steadily increased implementation of significant physical and technical enhancements at every protective venue in support of protectees, including miles of anti-scale fencing, screening technology, and tactical support.  We are also leveraging strong relationships across the law enforcement community, including agents and officers from Homeland Security Investigations, the Transportation Security Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies, all of whom have been deployed at the convention.

Since the attempted assassination of former President Trump, we across the government are focused with urgency to understand how it happened.  At President Biden’s direction, an independent review of the incident will be conducted, one that will examine the Secret Service’s and other law enforcement actions before, during, and after the shooting to identify the immediate and longer-term corrective actions required to ensure that the no-fail mission of protecting national leaders is most effectively met.

The men and women of the Secret Service have one of the most solemn and difficult jobs in government.  Their work involves tremendous sacrifice, risk, and bravery.  We saw those qualities in action on the stage at this past Saturday’s event.

With respect to the tragic event of Saturday, the FBI is leading the criminal investigation, which is ongoing.  An independent review will be conducted to understand the facts regarding protection of the event and make findings and recommendations accordingly.  I will therefore not be able to comment on the facts subject to investigation and review at this time.

With that, I will take your questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thank you, Secretary.  On that independent review.  Who will lead that independent review?  What is the timeline for how long it will take to understand the failings that happened on Saturday?  And will those findings be made public or at least a summary of those findings be made public?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We are indeed in the process of selecting who will lead the independent review.  The findings indeed will be made public.  It is very important that we achieve transparency so that the American people have confidence in the work of the review and in — in its findings and recommendations.  And we need to move with swiftness and urgency because this is a security imperative.

Q    And — sorry, Mr. Secretary.  On that, does — do you — does the president have confidence in the Secret Service director after Saturday’s failures?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I have 100 percent confidence in the director of the United Stetes — States Secret Service.  I have 100 percent confidence in the United States Secret Service.  And what you saw on stage on Saturday with respect to individuals putting their own lives at risk for the protection of another is exactly what the American public should see every single day.  It is what I indeed do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thank you, Secretary.  Is the Secret Service stretched too thin?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  The Secret Service in — in times like this calls upon other resources and capabilities to handle a — a campaign of this magnitude.  This has been the case each and every presidential campaign.  We draw upon resources not only across the federal government but with state and local law enforcement.  And I do intend to speak with members of the Hill with respect to the resources that we need.

Q    And a few House Republicans have suggested that this was an inside job, that this administration or the Secret Service wanted Donald Trump to get shot.  There are conspiracy theories proliferating online.  How do you feel, how does the rank and file feel when they hear that?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, let me — let me — let me just say this.  First of all, that is preposterous and it is also dangerous to propagate rumors that are so unequivocally false and provocative.  And as the president so powerfully said to the entire nation, we have to tamp down the rhetoric in this country.  The rhetoric itself creates a threat environment that really is quite dynamic and evolving.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly.

Q    Mr. Secretary, what concerns you about the fact there were witnesses who had identified a gunman on the building, there was local law enforcement assigned to that building, and, of course, the Secret Service having the overall responsibility?  Where do you think a breakdown may have occurred?  Is it because you had to rely on local law enforcement, maybe not having the kind of synergy you might need?  Where do you see the breakdown, with witnesses saying, “There’s a gunman,” and action not happening fast enough?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, there ha- — there have been

statements by many people with respect to what did and did not occur.  We’re going to let the investigation and the review deliver th- — the factual findings, and we’ll act upon those. 

We rely upon local law enforcement and other assets, resources, and capabilities every day.  And we are incredibly proud to do so, and we’re incredibly proud of the courageous law enforcement officers upon whom we rely.

Q    And, sir, in the time that you’ve been here, the former president has selected J.D. Vance.  What can you tell us about the security for the running mate? 

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, the United States Secret Service, when a selection is made, will provide the appropriate level of security. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve.

Q    When you say we’re in a heightened threat environment, what’s the underlying reasoning for that?  What — what’s — what can you tell us more about that?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, this is — this is something that both Director Wray of the FBI and I have communicated publicly, both in hearings and outside the hearing context.  The threat landscape is very dynamic, both domestically with the rise of domestic violent extremism — the rhetoric to which one reporter referred only contributes to that — and, of course, we have seen the foreign threat environment increase as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jenny.

Q    Thank you, sir. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Jenny.  Jenny.

Q    Thank you.  You just said that you have 100 percent confidence in the Secret Service.  Does the president share that confidence?  Have you talked to him about it?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I will — I will not speak for the president.  What I know, as a protectee, he’s incredibly —

Q    Well, if Karine can —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’ll — I’ll —

Q    — answer —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s — I’ll speak to that when we — when it’s my turn.

Go ahead.

Q    Hi, Secretary.  Thank you.  Can you speak to any enhancements to the president’s security for his trip to Las Vegas this week and other locations?  I mean, how has that changed, if it’s changed at all?  And I have a second question as well.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, I’m not in a position to share particulars, because we do not disclose tactics, techniques, and procedures.  But let me say that adjustments have been made to the former president’s detail, to the current president’s detail, as well as to the vice president’s detail.

Q    And with social media companies, I mean, terms like “deep state” have been one of the most viral terms over the weekend on platforms like X, on Meta.  Has there been any outreach to these companies from administration officials to try and stop the disinformation or to kind of quell it in any way?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Well, the rhetoric that we hear — you know, we are very mindful of the First Amendment right that is one of the underpinnings of this country.  And so, the balance between respecting the First Amendment and actually rhetoric that is — that can be addressed by these social media companies is something that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks so much.  Law enforcement officials tell ABC News that the building where the shooter was on the roof was actually the staging area for local — for the local police tactical team who was watching over the crowd.  I understand you can’t comment; you have an independent review.  But why would the Secret Service not be tasked with overseeing that building with a direct line of sight at the former president?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, once again, I will not comment on — on specific facts or asserted facts with respect to the subject of the independent investigation, both the review and the FBI’s criminal investigation. 

But remember something: that local law enforcement, with whom we work all across the country — including, for example, at national security special events, such as the NATO Summit that concluded successfully — that is something that we do all the time.  It’s a very well-defined protocol and regime.

Q    Was the local law enforcement in direct communication in real time with the Secret Service?  Or was there some sort of breakdown there?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Again, I’m — I’m not in a position to speak of particular facts of what did and did not occur on Saturday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Mr. Secretary, would the President dismiss his Secret Service director if this investigation returns findings of failures by that agency that could have been prevented?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I am not in a position to speculate, nor — nor should I.

Q    Can you — how is it that we are now about 48 hours out from this, ju- — just shy of that, and we still don’t have any information on a motive?  Is it that the investigation — investigators are withholding any information out of sensitivity to this heightened threat environment that you mentioned or the political events that are happening right now?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, remember s- — remember something: that the — the assailant is deceased.  He was shot and killed by the United States Secret Service.  The ability to identify a mo- — a motive is something that, in this situation, is a result of extensive and intensive investigation.  And so, it is, in fact, only 48 hours after the — the tragic events of Saturday. 

And you will recall, I think, in the very, very tragic shooting in Las Vegas quite a number of years ago, because of the fact that the assailant then was shot and killed, a motive was not identified at all.

Q    And we still don’t have a motive there, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Correct.

Q    Are you suggesting that we might never find one?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I’m not suggesting anything.  I just cited that as an example of the difficulty in identifying a motive. 

Q    And one more, sir.  At least eight Republican lawmakers have blamed President Biden for this.  An additional 21 blame Democrats, the left, and the media critical of Trump for driving the rhetoric that led to this outcome.  How does the White House respond to that blame coming from some Republican lawmakers?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I will let Karine answer that, but I think the president’s comments with respect to the rhetoric that we need to tamp down in this country is —

Q    Will that start here at the White House?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  — is responsive.

Q    Sir, will that start at the White House?

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

Q    Thanks.  Mr. Secretary, you — you’ve said that there was a failure here.  There’s a criminal investigation up and running.  What is taking time for the independent investigation to be up and running?  And — and it didn’t sound like you were giving a timeline of when and that will occur.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We’re going to commence the independent review as quickly as possible.  We are going to be reaching out very, very shortly to individuals who will hopefully lead that independent review.  And I will communicate to — to those leaders the need for swiftness of action, in light of the fact that we are dealing with a security protocol. 

Q    But if that’s the case, is — this is, like, days?  Weeks?  Wh- — what is your sense of timing of when this review will be up and running given the security imperative?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Days.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Can you — to follow up on Matt’s question.  You say an “independent review,” you’re reaching out to people who will lead that.  Are you talking about people outside of government?  Are you committed to somebody who does not work for you or for President Biden to — to lead this review?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I am committed to going externally of the dep- — the department and externally of the government so that no question of its independence can be raised.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Secretary, I understand —

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  If I — if I may, Peter.

Q    Yeah.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  It’s very important that this independent review have the confidence of the people.

Q    Thanks.  Secretary, can you give us any — any details at all about what areas this review will be looking at in terms of the failures that — that happened on Saturday?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I would rather not until this review is — is underway.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’re going to start wrapping up.

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Just quickly, if I may.  Secretary, can you fill out any more of the timeline of what loc- — loc- — excuse me, local law enforcement knew or didn’t know before the shooting?  Just — this is in reference to this interview with a individual who said that he saw somebody crawling up the building, and we’re still a little unclear on the timeline of how that information was communicated.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I hate to — to end this session on an answer — on a question that I cannot answer.  And so, perhaps Karine will reach out for another question — (laughter) — because as I’ve mentioned — as I mentioned before, I — I cannot speak to what did and did not occur.  The facts are the subject of an independent review — or will be — and also a criminal investigation is underway.

Q    I would like another one, then, in that case.  Is there any progress on hacking into the suspect’s cell phone?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Same answer.

Q    Sir, what do you tell —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    — Americans who —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, no, no, no, no, no.

Q    Can I get one —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  Nope.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Thank you for coming to this briefing.  You said that you have 100 percent confidence in the Secret Service.  Do you have 100 percent confidence in Director Cheatle specifically?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Yes.

Q    And, Mr. Secretary, since Saturday, has anyone been reassigned or removed from Donald Trump’s security detail?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I don’t have knowledge of that.  I do not believe so.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Last question.  In the back, go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, are — is the U.S. Secret Service — they’re responsible for, of course, protecting a wide variety of events.  Are they considering changes to the type of outdoor events that will be coming up in the next, you know, four months of campaigning for candidates on both sides?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We are constantly — the Secret Service and the entire community is constantly assessing the threat environment, the threat landscape, and making adjustments accordingly.  And so, that is a factor in our assessment of the landscape.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you, sir.  Thank you, sir.

Q    Sir, what do you tell Americans who may feel —

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thank you, sir.

Q    Sir, what do you tell Americans who may feel nervous about going to political rallies now?  Sir?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Thank you so much, Secretary.  Appreciate it.

I just have one more thing, and then we’ll continue.  So, I want to take a minute to thank Kelly O’Donnell, your outgoing president of the White House Correspondents’ Association.  Kelly, the past year has presented no shortage of news — (laughter) — opportunities, and challenges.  You’ve been a great partner day — day to day here at the White House, and we’ve closely worked together on major events, minor logistics, and travel, both domestic and foreign.

I — I want this room and the many members of the WHCA to know that you have had a trusted ally, friend, and leader in Kelly O.  And you have always — always advocated heartfel- — heart- — heart- — heartedly on behalf of your fellow journalists.  And we are grateful for your service, and we are relieved you will still be on — on the beat here at the White House and in the briefing room.

It has been — it has been a joy.  And — and I have had — I have had the opportunity to know you for some time, even before being at the White House, and I really appreciated, more personally, your guidance, your mentorship in tough times.  And so, thank you so much, Kelly. 

And we are also looking forward to working closely with Eugene Daniels, the new president of WHCA.  And we congratulate him as well.

It has been a joy.  And thank you so much.  Thank you so much.

Q    Thank you.  That’s very kind of you.  (Applause.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Zeke, let’s go.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Following up on Jenny’s question there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the president have confidence in the director of the Secret Service?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  Yes.  So, the answer is yes. 

But I do want to say the director is working hard to examine what happened and to ensure protectees have needed security.  And she has committed to cooperate fully with the independent review that the president obviously announced and directed to — to move forward with just a day or so ago.  Everything is com- — is moving so quickly.

The men and women at the Secret Service have a — a hard job, as you heard the secretary mention.  They work tirelessly every day to protect the president, former presidents, and other people.  Their mission is critical, and we need all hands on deck in this moment.

Right now, we are focused on getting all the facts so we can get to the bottom of this, of what happened.  It is important for the American people to know what happened.  That’s why the president directed a independent review.  And, you know, the — direct the — direct a independent review — that’s what the president asked for: direct the Secret Service to provide Donald Trump and all other protectees the resources needed to ensure safety and ordered the Secret Service to review all se- — security measures for the Republican Convention, which is what you’ve heard directly from the Secret Service — speak to in the past 24 hours or so.

But, yes, he has confidence.

Q    And does he have confidence in — Secretary Mayorkas — obviously (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    Okay.  And does the president have plans or has he spoken with the family of the — of the man who was killed at the rally?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you heard me at the top and you heard the president speak in — in his Oval address, and then — and one time before that, obviously.  And he gave a heartfelt condolences to — to Corey’s family and — and the families, obviously, who were affected by the horrific shooting on Saturday. 

And so, the president kn- — understands loss, obviously, as you all know.  He understands what it means to lose someone that you love.  Our condolences, our prayers go out to — to Corey’s family.

I don’t have anything else to add.  I — we want to be really, really mindful and — for their privacy — protect and respect their privacy.  I just don’t have anything else to add to that.

Q    And then, lastly from me, the president last night said it’s time for everyone in the political space to tone it down, to cool the political rhetoric.  Does the president regret anything that he has said in the course of this campaign about his Republican rival or anybody else in the political space?  Does he plan to adjust his rhetoric or is it just a call for other people to make changes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to just be very clear, and you know this.  I’ve been asked about — anytime there’s violence, sadly, that — that comes up across the country, we have — the president has always — always spoken out forcefully against violence — always.

Political violence has no place in America.  You’ve heard the president say this.  He re- — repeated — repeated his thoughts in the Oval address last night.  He repeated his thoughts multiple times before then and obviously throughout his presidency — throughout his entire — throughout his entire career.

We want to make sure that we are not pol- — politiciz- — politicizing this.  At this moment, it is not a time to do that.  We want to make sure that we bring Americans together. 

When you think about why the president ran in 2020, the cornerstone of his presidency is uniting this country — is uniting this country.  And he also said that it is okay to have disagreements on agendas.  It is okay to have disagreements on character or record.  But we cannot — cannot have violence in this country.  And that is something that he’s going to continue to be very, very clear about.

Q    Does he — so, does he or does he not regret anything that he has said about former President Trump or any of his other political rivals?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is the president has forcefully spoken out against violence.  That is something that he has done over and over again.  And he believes that — and he feels strongly about the stakes of the — of — of this campaign.  He feels very, very strongly about that. 

He wants to bring the temperature down.  He wants to lower the temperature.  It is important that we do that.  And it is a moment that we come together.  And that is what this president is all about, and he wants to continue to work on uniting this country.  That’s what he wants to focus on.

Go ahead.

Q    Follow-up on that.  Just last week, in Michigan, President Biden called Trump “a threat to this nation.”  Should we expect that he will not be calling out Trump with that kind of rhetoric going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is that it is important — right? — we believe it is important to continue to forcefully speak against any type of political violent.  That is what the president believes.  And we do not want to politicize this moment.  Politicizing this moment is unacceptable. 

We believe and the president believe — you heard from him, in very clear — in — in a very clear statement last night, about the importance of uniting this country, the importance of continuing to do so, and that we cannot tear America apart to score political points.  We cannot do that. 

And so, we don’t want to politicize this moment.  We want to unite.  We want to continue to focus on that.  And that’s what the president is going to focus on right now.

Q    So, will his messaging change this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  His messaging is going to be really clear.  He’s going to continue to engage with the American people.  That’s what you’re going to see in the next upcoming days, upcoming weeks.  Nothing different than what he’s done in the last almost four years.  And lay out his agenda, highlight his agenda. 

There are differences.  There are differences in our agenda and what Republicans believe, right?  There are differences.  And that is okay.  And it is okay to speak to someone’s record and someone’s character.  But we cannot accept violence.  We cannot accept that. 

And so, the president is going to continue to do that: highlight his agenda.  It’s important for the American people to hear directly from him what he d- — has done in the last three and a half years and how he sees the future of this country.  That will not change. 

Go ahead.

Q    Speaking of that agenda, the president told a group of Democratic lawmakers on the phone this weekend that he has been working with experts on some Supreme Court reforms that he will be unveiling at some point in the future.  Can you tell us anything about those reforms —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — when he might unveil them, and what he is seeking to achieve?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I appreciate the question.  I’m not going to get ahead of the president.  So, I don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    He also said in his press conference last week that he is looking at rent caps.  What can you tell us about his policy when it comes to rent caps?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m going to let the president speak to that when time comes. 

Thanks, J.J.

Q    To follow up again on — on the Oval Office —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — address and lowering the temperature. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the president want to see any concrete actions from former President Donald Trump to show that he too is working to lower the temperature?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let the — the former president speak for himself and move forward with how he wants to move forward with his campaign, with how he sees the country — the future of this country.  He has to speak to that.  I — I’m not going to get into that from here.

Q    And is there anything else you can tell us about the call between the president and the former president?  What the tone was?  Did the race come up at all?  Did the former president mention anything about politics?  Or was it just well wishes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to stick to what we have been able to confirm for all of you.  Obviously, the president — and the president said this as well, that they spoke on — on — the president said this on Sunday, yesterday; he spoke with Donald Trump on Saturday.  He is sincerely grateful that he is doing well and recovering, he had a good and respectful conversation with him, and that the president and the first lady will continue to keep them — keep Mr. Trump and his family in their — in their prayers. 

I just don’t have anything else to add.  It was a private conversation.  But we were able to confirm to all of you what was put out by the campaign.

Go ahead.

Q    Was it a matter of minutes, this phone call?  Wh- — how long was it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it happened on Saturday.  Don’t have — don’t have a timeline for you.  It was a respectful call.  It was a good conversation.  And the president is going to continue — and the first lady is going to continue to — to send well wishes.

Q    Does the president feel like this effort to get him to step aside is now fizzled out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re not going to politi- — politicize this moment.  We’re just not. 

The president is going to continue doing what he’s been doing for the past couple of weeks, for the past three and a half years, which is going out there, engaging, talking directly to the American people about his record, what he’s been able to do on behalf of the American people in the past three and a half years; the economy; health care, continue to expand health care; continue to make sure that the wealthy corporate — corporate and billionaires are paying their fair share; and make sure that we’re building an economy from the bottom up, middle out.

That is what the president is going to focus on.  We’re not going to politicize this moment.

Q    And — and lastly, we saw reports that he had met with Chuck Schumer over the weekend.  Is that true?  What — anything you can say about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say about that is that — and I think Chuck Schumer put out a note on that.  It was a good meeting, like — like the senator said.  And I’m not going to read out beyond that.  And the president is looking forward to continuing to work with Leader Schumer, continuing to work with Leader Jeffries in how we can — how we can focus on the American people, do the work that we’ve been able to do — that historic work, building on unprecedented record.

That’s the pr- — the president wants to focus on: focus on the American family, the middle class.  And that’s what I can say about that. 

Go ahead, Michael.  Michael.

Q    Oh, I’m sorry.  Senator J.D. Vance, who Donald Trump has just picked as his running mate, put out a message on social media Saturday, about two hours after the shooting, blaming President — President Biden’s rhetoric for the shooting.  In fact, he said, “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”  What’s your response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, this — I’ve kind of gotten this question in many different ways.  I’m not going to politicize this moment.  We are not going to politicize this moment.  It is wrong to politicize this moment.  We have been, you know, very clear on how sick — the president said this word.  Saturday’s events were sick.  It’s not acceptable.  Political violence is not acceptable.  And we have said that over and over and over again, and we will continue to be very clear about this. 

We need to lower the temperature.  That’s what we need to do: lower the temperature and — and unite the country.  That’s what this president — that’s the cornerstone of his presidency, is uniting the country.  That’s what he wants to do.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  This assassination attempt happened right after the NATO Summit, where the president wants to show the world about the American leadership.  Are you concerned this incident may damage America’s international image?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it’s really r- — repeating what the president said: Now is the time to focus on uniting the country.  You heard directly from NATO leaders just — just last week on how they appreciated and respected the president’s leadership, especially over the last two years — more than two years, as we think about the war in Ukraine because of Russia’s aggression, as we see what’s happening in the Middle East. 

And, in particular, NATO — this is a president that has strengthened NATO and has helped to expand NATO. 

And so, that’s what you saw from the leaders.  That’s what you heard from the leaders.  And that’s what you saw from this president, obviously, in — in his term here at the White House.

We’re going to continue to — you hear from — directly from the president: We’ve got to lower the temperature.  We’ve got to unite the country.  That’s what the president is going to continue to focus on.

Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much.  Have the tragic events of this weekend shifted the president’s sense of urgency or position on gun control legislation?

And then, secondly, there’s been a lot of right-wing chatter about the female agents guarding the former president, specifically whether women are up to job.  People are noting that they’re smaller, that they weren’t able to cover the president.  But, I mean, this — this is a talking point —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that is circulating.  So, what’s your response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s ridiculous.  Your — to your second question, obviously, it’s ridiculous. 

Q    I’m not — I don’t think —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No, wait.

Q    — it was a ridiculous question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  No, no, no.  To your — not to your question.  I understand why you’re asking the question.  I — the — the sentiments coming from that about women and not being able to do the job, that’s ridiculous.  Just to be really clear about that.

And, look, you heard from the secretary.  These men and women put their lives on the line.  What they’re doing is brave.  And we should not discount that.  We should not discount that if it’s a man or if it’s a woman.  And to have that sentiment out there is unfair and it’s ridiculous.

Now, to step back, there’s going to be an independent review here.  This is something that the president directed and asked for.  We got to get to the bottom of this, of what happened.  And the American people deserve an answer, and that’s what the president wants to see. 

And so, getting into these types of speculation is just ridiculous.  It’s just ridiculous.

Yeah.

Q    Gun control.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, yes.  Look, the President has been, obviously, a strong advocate on gun control.  He has been throughout his career as a senator, as vice president, and now as president. 

As you know, we were able to get a bipartisan legislation done — the first bipartisan legislation to deal with gun — gun control that we hadn’t seen in about 30 years.  And the president led on that effort and was able to get that done.

There’s a lot more work that we need to do.  That is on Congress.  We have to continue to get Congress to ban assault weapons, for example, and to do a lot more. 

The president has done — signed more than two dozen executive actions because we understand and he knows that guns are an epidemic in our — sadly, in our country.  It is an epidemic.  The number one killer of our children is guns.  And that should not be.  That should not be.

And so, the president is going to continue to be steadfast on this.  We have the White House Office for Gun Prevention, which the vice president leads on.  That is something that was created here in this White House — never existed before.  And that shows the president’s commitment on dealing with this epidemic.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, speaking of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, in the past when there’s been, you know, mass shootings or casualty incidents with gun violence, they’ve sent resources and — and had folks on the ground.  Are there any plans to do that for the (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, right now, as you know, it’s an FBI investigation, so they got to get to the bottom of it and see what occurred and see what happened and get answers to that. 

I don’t have any information at this time on how the White House Office of Gun Prevention is — is — is assisting in — in — in the families and — and obviously the folks who attended.  I would have to speak to them directly about that.

But we need to get to the bottom of this.  That’s why there’s an independent investigation.  That’s why we brought the secretary here to answer your questions, to be as — you know, as — as trans- — you know, transparent as we can be at this time.  We got to let the investigation move forward.  But it’s important to do that.  And hopefully, we’ll have more to share with you on your question.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Is it the White House Counsel’s view that the attorney general has the legal authority to appoint special counsels?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, if you’re speaking to the announcement that came out, I have to refer you to Department of Justice.  I don’t want to have an opinion from here.  The Department of Justice is independent, as the president has said.  Even during his 2020 election, he said that he would want to restore the independence of the Department of Justice.  He’s done just that.

They make the decision on their cases independently.  So, that’s a question that I would have to — refer all of that to Department of Justice.

Go ahead.  Go ahead.  (Inaudible.)

Q    After — the president paused his campaign events over the weekend.  Obviously, he didn’t go to Texas.  Now he’s heading to Las Vegas this afternoon.  Can you give us a preview of what to expect?  Are we anticipating a different tone out on the road than we’re used to seeing with the president when he’s out on the trail?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as I mentioned a couple of times before and as the president has said, we have differences in our agenda.  We do.  What we — what we believe is very different than what Republicans believe and how we see the future of this country.  And that is important to have differences.  It is important — it is okay to have differences. 

And so, we will — he will talk about each of those differences.  It is crucial, though — it is important that we bring the temperature down.  That’s what the president has said.  That’s what he wants to see.  And, you know, he’s going to live to those values.  And that’s what you’re going to see.

Talk about his agenda, highlight his agenda — that’s what you’ll see in the next couple days.

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Taking another stab at the question you’ve answered — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — several different ways.  But I guess, more simply, are we going to continue to hear the president in official events or on the campaign trail use the phrase “threat to democracy” specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I want to be very clear.  The president is always going to denounce violence, forcefully delo- — denounce it.  Be- — he’s always been against this — throughout his career, throughout the last four years.  We do not want to politicize this.  It’s unacceptable to do that.  That’s what the president has said.  It is time to bring this country together, to bring American people together.  That’s what he wants to see.

And so, that’s where I’m going to leave it.  He wants to unite this country.  And that is something that he’s been saying since 2019. 

Q    That could be really hard to do, though, if you’re trying to make a shift away from what has been the platform of this administration, of his campaign, in that the view is that Trump and the MAGA Republican agenda is a threat to democracy.  So, how do you get that message across while bringing the temperature down?  How is that phrasing going to be replaced?  Is it going to be replaced?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, what I can say is this.  We have our differences and it’s okay to have our differences.  And it is okay to speak to someone’s record, to speak to someone’s character.  That is — that is the difference of — that is important to be able to do to show — right? — what — the American people what you’re all about. 

We’re just — we’re just going to continue to denounce violence.  It is important to do that — forcefully be against violence.  Political violence has no place in America.  It should not be.  It does not have a place here.  The president is going to continue to be very, very forceful about that. 

But we have a difference of agenda.  That is the truth.  That is the truth.  And we’re going to continue to speak to that difference, and the president is going to highlight his agenda.

Q    Does the president view Trump’s agenda as a threat to democracy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I will say is, right now, we’re not going to politicize what happened on Satur- — what happened on Saturday was horrific.  It was.  It was sick, as the president said.  And we got to move forward in a way that — where we — we respect each other, that we don’t have —

Q    (Inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that we don’t have this type of discourse.

Q    Can you bring us inside the room, though, in a way that you’re — you’re asking to bring down the temperature and have people consider the language that they use in order to dial back where we’re at.  So, how are those discussions going on inside? 

Is there a reflecting on language that’s been used?  What should — what example is the president setting for others?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I think the president has set an example.  On Saturday —

Q    How does that look, though?  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but the — look, we can’t also discount what’s happened in the past three days.  Right?  We can’t discount what the president did on Saturday.  Right?  We can’t. 

He — he spoke to the former president.  He was briefed by his team.  He addressed the American people the same night — right? — came back to D.C. 

Yesterday, he had another briefing with his team.  He — right after that briefing, he went into the Roosevelt Room, spoke to the American people, and then used the Oval Office, one of the most important tools to use — important places to make a — to make an — to — to give an important address to the American people in primetime on a Sunday. 

I think that’s important.  He wanted to make sure that he — that the American people heard directly from him, from the president of the United States, and also wanted to lay out that we should be able to have differences.  Violence shouldn’t be a part of that.  Right?  He wanted to lay that out and say, “We have to bring the temperature down.” 

That was — tha- — I feel like those three moments that we’ve seen in the last three — three days shows how the President is moving forward.  It does. 

And it is lowering d- — lowering the temperature, saying violence has no part in our — in our democracy in — in America, and saying it is okay to have differences.  He also said that.  He also said it’s okay to have differences. 

Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Thank you.

AIDE:  Karine, you have time for just one more.

Q    Can we just take Jacqui’s timeline — the timeline that you just referenced and move it back to four days before —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — today?  When the President was in Michigan, he said, “Over my dead body it will happen,” referring to Trump becoming president.  He also said, “Another four years of Trump is deadly serious — deadly serious.” 

And I think that’s the type of language that we’re — we’re referencing here.  And would it be possible to get some sort of indication about whether that kind of language is what we’d expect to continue to hear from the president? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I would refer you to is basically what I told Jacqui is the last three days and what the president has said — you heard directly from him — what he’s — what he’s laid out, how he sees the future, how it’s important to be able to speak to different agendas.  It is.  It is important to speak to someone’s record, someone’s character. 

Violence has no place in America.  Political violence is not okay.  It is not.  It is just not. 

The president said what we saw on Saturday was sick.  I’ve said this about three times — used that word three times in this press briefing. 

It is not something that we should condone.  We have to condemn violence.  And that is something that this president has done — has done throughout his career. 

Q    And I think we’re clear on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    It’s just: Will the language shift from the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will s- —

Q    — given what you’re talking about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is you’ll hear the president highlight his agenda over the next couple of days.  He will continue to do that.  He will speak to the importance of — of the American people understanding the differences of where he stands and where Republicans stand. 

I got to be mindful here because it is a campaign that we’re speaking about. 

And I think, though, if you look at what the president said, if you heard what the president said the last three days and how he’s led this country in this horrific time that we saw coming out of Saturday, I think that’s important.  And I think that’s what the American people want to see. 

Toning down the vi- — toning down the — the rhetoric and condemning — condemning violence. 

I got to wrap it up.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m being pulled.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  So — so, then given the language from the leader of the free world, how — does the president or the administration bear any of the responsibility for the environment that we’re in?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is — and this is just a re- — re- — repetitive of what I’m saying here: We have to lower the temperature.  You heard that from the president.  There is no — no place in America for violence.  It is important that we are really clear about that. 

We do not know — we do not have the answers to what happened on Saturday.  What we know is a former president was shot.  That is not something that should be accepted here.  Right?  That is something that we have to condemn.  That’s what we know. 

There are a lot of questions that are still out there.  There are a lot of questions that are still out there.  But we have to lower the temperature. 

AIDE:  Karine —

Q    But the president, from the Oval Office, said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  We have to — we have to —

Q    — yeah, the president, from the Oval Office, said we have to lower the temperature, but he never said, “It starts with me.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  When it comes to political rhetoric out there, when it comes to being mindful of how we are moving forward with our politics here, it takes all of us to lower that temperature, and I think that’s important.  That’s important to note.  Right? 

And I think that’s what the American people want to see.  They wanted to hear what the president said in the Oval yesterday.  They wanted to hear what the president said on Saturday.  Right?  It is important to speak to the moment that we’re in and say, “We got to condemn this type of violence.”  We do. 

Now, there are a lot of open questions here.  We don’t have answers to those open questions.  The independent investigation will be thorough.  That’s what the president wants to see.  We want to get to the bottom of it because there are questions that the American people should know as to what happened, what led to that awful, awful night in Saturd- — on Saturday. 

I have to actually — the president is waiting for me.  So, I have to actually go. 

I’ll see you guys on the road.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

3:44 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, July 15, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Detroit, Michigan

3:18 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have friends.  I have friends.  I have friends.

Q    Oh, wow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody.  I have more friends.  Here we go.  Watch your — 

MR. TYLER:  I’m just going to stand behind you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Watch — come on in.

Okay.  Justin Sink. 

Q    Hey, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Your “big boy” press conference came to fruition.  Ten reporters, 19 questions.  Not bad.

Q    We were very excited —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — that the president saw the value of an extended press conference, and we hope it happens again soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

Q    Next week?  Same time next week?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  All right.

Okay.  So, last night you heard directly from President Biden during an hour-long press conference.  Several of you here had the opportunity to ask him questions.  And you had deep, substantive policy exchanges about his work to strengthen NATO, build a more secure world, and deliver for working families here at home.

The president demonstrated his understanding of the biggest challenges facing our nation and why he’s the most qualified person to build on the results his administration has delivered.

You heard similar sentiments from our leading — our leading allies too.

UK Prime Minister Starmer said President Biden has “shown incredible leadership.”

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said, “We are the” — “We are lucky on the world stage to have Joe Biden leading here at NATO, on the — on the G7, in some extraordinarily consequential times.”

And German Chancellor Scholz warned against underestimating Joe Biden.

Today, families in Detroit will hear directly from the president.

He’s going to remain laser-focused on delivering for working families and building on the historic progress we made.

As the president said last night, “I have… to finish this job because there’s so much at stake.”

This week, we got a lot more evidence that President Biden’s economic plan is delivering for the middle class and working families.

As you heard from the president last night, inflation is — has fall- — has fallen to 3 percent and overall prices fell last month, and wages are rising faster than prices for 16 months in a row.  And a new report found communities left behind by the previous administration are making a “remarkable comeback,” creating jobs five times faster under President Biden.

Earlier in the week, the president announced an agreement with Mexico to protect American steel and aluminum workers.  He also made a historic investment to ensure the future of the auto industry is made in America by American union — union workers.  We made the largest-ever investments in registered apprenticeships.  And the administration announced the recovery of $1 billion in unpaid taxes from millionaires thanks to the president’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Still, President Biden knows there is more to do to — to many families are still — too many families are still struggling to make ends meet.

As he said yesterday, he’s going to keep fighting to take on corporate greed and make pri- — and take — and bring prices down.  You’ll hear more from him on that in the coming days.

Now, as you all know and can see right behind me, I have Michael Tyler from the campaign and some other guests on Air Force One who’s traveling with us. 

And with that, Michael —

MR. TYLER:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — go ahead.

MR. TYLER:  I’m also going to do a quick topper. 

So, obviously, we’re headed to Michigan today, following the strong press conference where the president gave answers to a wide range of questions, reminding Americans that he is the best leader to continue to move our country forward and the best candidate to beat Donald Trump.

So, here’s where we’re at in the race as we head into Detroit today.

Since last night, we’re seeing strong support across our coalition.  But most importantly, we’re seeing it with our grassroots base.  We have close to 40,000 donations last night alone.  Donations exploded during the president’s press conference.  In fact, we hit seven times our average during the press conference.

As it relates to polls, polling continues to show the same race we’ve been seeing — right? — one that is close, not affected by the debate.

President Biden has enduring strength with high propensity voters while Donald Trump demonstrates a low ceiling and unable to expand his support.

If you look at the Marist Poll out today, it continues to show a tight race, right?  The president leading 50-48.  Reath- — reaffirms our theory.  The president picking up a point since the last time they polled.  Two thirds of voters are more concerned about a president who lies than one who is old.

The bottom line is that voters do not support Trump.  They do not support his agenda, and they’re scared as hell about Project 2025.

This comes alongside a slate of polls coming after the debate that shows this as a dead-heat match.

That’s an opportunity for us to grow if we focus on the work, if we focus on the choice, and we focus on the threat posed by Donald Trump.

So, that’s what we’re doing here today as we fly into Detroit and what the president will continue to do in the coming weeks.  As we approach the Republican National Convention, we’ll be focusing all of our attention on defining the choice in this election.  You heard the president do that last night when he warned of the threat of Donald Trump’s Project 2025 and he talked about his own vision to keep making people’s lives better.  And you’ll hear him talk about that again today in Detroit.

Donald Trump knows he has a Project 2025 problem.  In fact, if you look at a lot of the metrics over the course of the last week, we are now at a moment in time when more searches on Google are for Project 2025 than we have for Taylor Swift or the National Football League. 

You can expect to continue to see that trend pick up the pace next week as we head into the Republican convention in Milwaukee.

This campaign, the Democratic Party, Democrats across the country are going to be laser-focused on making sure that people understand the stakes of this election between Joe Biden, who is fighting for the American people, and Donald Trump, who is running a campaign as a convicted felon based upon revenge, based upon retribution, based upon his disastrous Project 2025 agenda. 

So, today, you’ll see the president standing with the mission-critical coalition here in the state of Michigan — labor leaders, reproductive rights advocates, local elected officials, congressional officials.

Next week, he’ll do the same thing as we head to Texas, to Nevada for the NAACP and Unidos.  We’re going to present a stark contrast again in Milwaukee between Donald Trump and his extreme MAGA base, their Project 2025 agenda and the president. 

So, we urge, at this moment in time, every Democrat to get behind this effort, present a clear choice in this election, because we have one singular mission moving forward, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. 

So, with that, I am proud to have two guests here who are traveling with the president today: Congresswoman Dingell, Liz Shuler of the AFL-CIO.  I’m going to pass it off to the congresswoman very quickly as well. 

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Hi, everybody.  Go Blue!  You’re coming to Michigan territory.  (Laughter.)  I keep trying to tell the Democrats that should be our theme this year. 

I’m really glad the president is coming today, because Michigan is a battleground state, which I don’t bullshit any of you on. 

But I warned you all, at this point, we were going to lose Michigan in 2015 and 2016, and nobody believed me.  I knew at this point, we were going to win in 2020.  And right now, I’m going to look all of you in the eye and say this state is competitive and nobody better write it off. 

We are going to work — and the president knows it.  The first we talk- — the first thing he said to me today was he knows Michigan is a battleground state.  But I’m going to tell you that we are going to work our tails off and make sure that everybody knows about Trump’s Project 2025. 

And we — the women of Michigan know how to win Michigan, just in case you haven’t noticed.  And we’re going to make sure that women know that the Project Trump 2025 will take away their right to make their own health care decisions.  We’re going to make sure that workers know they don’t want to pay overtime.  We are going to make sure that parents know they don’t want to believe in school programs. 

I could keep going, but we have a long edu- — and, by the way, every senior, seniors are going to win this election.  And when they know that Donald Trump wants to reduce or eliminate their Medicare, their Medicaid, Social Security — and I want to promise you all I will personally be everywhere in the state of Michigan.  We’re going to educate them. 

And I want to say that nobody believed me in 2015, 2016.  Nobody listened to me.  They get tired of my yelling at them, but they listen. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Zeke, you want to — you have any —

MR. TYLER:  No, sorry —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’m sorry, Liz.  Go ahead.

MS. SHULER:  Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO president.  I’m bringing the voices of 12 and a half million working people, 60 labor unions to Detroit because Detroit is a working-class town.  It is the bedrock of the American labor movement.  And we are standing strong with President Biden and Vice President Harris because they’ve stood strong with us. 

We know the record of the most pro-union president in our lifetimes, who has delivered for working people over and over again, whether it’s the investments that have been creating new, good high-road jobs clean energy; bringing manufacturing back to our country; whole new industries like the semiconductor industry; training and apprenticeship you were talking about.  The list goes on and on. 

And so, we want to see the — the Biden-Harris record, the deli- — things they’ve delivered for working people continue into the next term, and we are the difference makers.  You look at a state like Michigan, it’s the labor movement that can deliver those marginal votes in the communities that will make a difference.  And we have the grassroots operation to make it happen. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Awesome.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Mike.  In your topper there, you s- — appealed to Democrats to unite behind the president against Donald Trump, except your seeing more defections, including some more this morning.  And last count before we took off, I believe, was 18 House Democrats.  There may be more now. 

Does the campaign, does the president believe that every House Democrat or House — or Senate Democrat or po- — or celebrity that is defecting from his campaign is — is making it more likely that Donald Trump wins in November?

MR. TYLER:  Well, listen, I think, again, it’s important to state — reiterate the facts — right? — which is — which is what the president has said repeatedly.  He is in this race to win it.  He is the Democratic nominee.  And we are going to defeat Donald Trump in November because Democrats are going to become — are going to be united in taking on the threat posed by Donald Trump in the Project 2025 agenda. 

Democratic voters understand that.  That’s why you’ve seen throughout the polling after the debate, there’s been no fundamental shift in this race.  We continue to re- — this is going to be a very close, competitive race.  That is what the Marist Poll has showed.  That’s what all the polling has showed since the debate. 

And so, what this campaign and this president understands right now is that we’re going to continue to go out and put a — put in the work.  The president, as he did last night during the NATO press conference, was not only leading on the world stage was — but was demonstrating that he is the best person to continue to lead this country right now but is the best person to take on Donald Trump and defeat him at the ballot box as he did in 2020. 

So, as we hit the stump today in Detroit, as the president hits the stump next week in Texas and Nevada, across the country, we’re going to continue to present a clear choice to the American people between the president, who’s fighting every single day for them, and Donald Trump, who poses a fundamental threat to the American people. 

His Project 2025 agenda would gut checks and balances; allow him to rule as a dictator on day one, as he promises to do out on the stump every single day; would allow him to ban abortion without Congress.  And so, that is what the president is laser-focused on communicating to the Demo- — to Democratic voters and voters across the country who understand the fundamental stakes of this election. 

The president understands that there’s still some anxiety on the Hill; I think we all understand that.  And that’s why he’s laser-focused on demonstrating that he is the best person to take on Donald Trump and d- — and defeat him in November.  And that’s what this campaign is going to remain focused on over the course of the summer. 

Q    Can you run us through the events today?  You know, who is the president trying to talk to, who is — who is he trying to reach with this event tonight?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, tonight in — in Detroit you’re going to see the Democratic coalition come together to talk about the stakes of this election.  That’s why we’re bringing together labor leaders, reproductive rights —

Q    But I mean, where is he going?

MR. TYLER:  That’s — we’ll — we’ll provide more details on the exact specifics when we hit the ground here.  But we are going to remain laser-focused on bringing this coalition together in presenting a clear choice between working people

across this country who understand that they have a fighter in Joe Biden who is working every single day to improve their lives and that we are running against Donald Trump, who in this Project 2025 agenda is going to tear down the very fabric of our democracy and who’s going to roll back all the economic progress that we have made. 

You’ve seen Moody’s talk about the fact that everything that Donald Trump is talking about doing from an economic standpoint is going to cause another recession in 2025.

Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, just yesterday, saying that Donald Trump’s economic agenda is going to blow up inflation. 

That is the fundamental choice that we’re going to present today in Detroit and that we’re going to continue to present as we crisscross the country. 

Q    I have a question for all three of you.  Briefly, Reuters reported yesterday that the UAW’s Shawn Fain is having doubts about whether President Biden can win and is looking at their options.  Are you confident that you’re going to keep that endorsement?  And what options are you concerned that he may be looking to take?

MS. SHULER:  Yeah, I think we, as the labor movement —

Q    Liz Shuler, right?

MS. SHULER:  Liz Shuler.

We came together two days ago; we had our version of a family meeting, and we had our conversations and came out completely unified in a vote — actually, unanimous support — for reaffirming our endorsement for the president.  So, that included Shawn Fain of the UAW.  It included all the labor leaders speaking with one voice.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  And I’m going to say that you’re going to be in Detroit today, and it’s gr- — but you’re going to see a group that’s from all around Southeast Michigan.  My district actually has more Democratic votes than any district in the state of Michigan, and a number of my constituents are going, from all the stakeholder groups.  You’re going to see environmentalists there.  You’re going to see the union workers there.  You’re going to see seniors there.  So, I want to make that clear. 

And among the people that you are going to see there are a couple of members of the executive committee of the UAW that I’ll be happy to point out to you when we get there.

Q    Pl- — please do. 

MS. SHULER:  And the president has done more for autoworkers.  He actually joined them on the picket line — the first president in history to walk a union picket line.  He has brought back more manufacturing jobs.  He has actually juiced up the electric vehicle industry to make those high-road, high-wage union jobs. 

So, the president walks the picket line; Donald Trump crosses picket lines.  We have an actual photograph of him crossing a picket line. 

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  (Inaudible) picket line.

MS. SHULER:  Yeah.  So, we know the difference.  And I think UAW members know the difference between these two candidates.  We’ve seen the president, his investments.  He wakes up every morning thinking about working people.  He — throughout the agencies, the regulatory proof, the Cabinet members that he has appointed, health and safety policies around investments in — in infrastructure — all affecting working people, compared to — we’ve seen this movie before with Donald Trump, right?  We know he wants to tear down working people. 

He has Project 2025 that would essentially gut public-sector unions, eliminate them from existence.  So, we see the stark contrast.  We know that dystopian future, and so do working people.

Q    I remember Shawn Fain — Fa- — being at the — the picket line, but he’s not going to be there today.  Why not?

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Because he did — I know where he is.  He’s speaking to Netroots in Baltimore.

MS. SHULER:  Shawn is in demand.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Yeah.  But I mean —

MS. SHULER:  He’s actually doing —

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Netroots, in —

MS. SHULER:  — I think, Netroots — 

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Yeah.

MS. SHULER:  — in Baltimore.  Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  But other — I mean, there are going to be UAW leaders at this event today, and I personally talked to him.  So, don’t —

MS. SHULER:  He can’t be everywhere.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Let’s just be clear.

Q    I’m just asking.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  I’m just answering.  (Laughter.)

Q    Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Hey, you guys, it’s me.  You know how I get feisty.  (Laughter.)

Q    Can I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, Rob.

Q    Can I ask about a —

Q    For — for the campaign.  We’ve heard from the president a couple of times about the heavy workload he’s under, events starting too late.  I wonder how you’re going to accommodate those concerns in the future. 

MR. TYLER:  Listen, nobody is going to work harder to beat Donald Trump than the president of the United States, Joe Biden.  That’s what this swing is about right now, as we kick it off in Detroit.  We’re going to leave Detroit.  Next week, the president is going to Texas; we’re going to Nevada.  He is going to not only continue to be out on the stump as he is today, we’re going to get out in communities, as you saw him do in Pennsylvania over the course of the last weekend. 

We’re going to continue to sit down for interviews, s- — as he did last week, as we’re doing on Monday, as we — as we’re doing today, as well. 

We’re going to continue to make sure that the American people get to see the fighter that they have in Joe Biden.  We are not going to relent.  We’re not going to let up because there is too much at stake, and nobody understands that more than Joe Biden.

Q    But the president himself said some events are starting too late.  I mean, are you not going to take notice of that? 

MR. TYLER:  We are going to continue to make sure that we use every single tool at o- — at our disposal to reach the voters.  That means the president putting in the work as a candidate day in and day out, and it means this campaign using every tool at — at its disposal to reach the voters. 

That is why we have now over 11,000 staff across all the battleground states.  We have over 300 offices open because we are communicating with voters everywh- — in every community where they are.  It’s why we continue to run ads: $50 million in paid advertising in the month of July building off what we did in the month of June to make sure that we are reaching the Biden-Harris coalition and all voters where and when they are — they are consuming their media. 

This campaign is going to use every tool at its disposal between now until November to communicate the fundamental choice in this election between Joe Biden, who is fighting for the American people, and Donald Trump, who is a convicted felon fighting for himself in an attempt to enact his extreme and dangerous Project 2025 agenda.

Q    M.T., can I — can I ask just about a couple what sounded like tough conversations with the president — between the president and lawmakers this morning — or late last night and this morning?

Leader Jefferies brought up again the path forward, according to his readout, even after the president obviously has reiterated repeatedly that he’s going to stay in the race.  It sounded like Congressman Levin, in the CHC call today, explicitly to the president’s face called on him to resign.

What was the president’s message back to — to both of these sort of critical allies who seem to continue to urge him to — to be considering his decision?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, a couple of things.  So, I’m not going to read out private conversations between the president and congressional leaders.  I will say that I think Leader Jeffries and others have made clear they continue to stand with the president and they will stand with the president.

They understand that the president is running, is the Democratic nominee, and that the choice in this election is going to be between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. 

And so, as we move forward in the month of July and as we approach the Republican convention, that is where our focus is going to be now moving forward — between the fundamental choice in this election. 

Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee.  Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. 

Joe Biden is running to restore Roe, to make sure billionaires pay their fair share in taxes, to make sure that we have better eldercare and childcare in a second term. 

Donald Trump is running to ban abortion nationwide; give tax cuts to the wealthy, to corporations; to tear down the very fabric of our democracy. 

That is what this campaign, what this president is going to continue to focus on as we move forward. 

Does there continue to be anxiety?  Yes, we understand that.  The president understands that.  That’s why he’s going to continue to engage with folks on the Hill.  That’s why we’ve engaged with governors, with mayors across the country, the vast majority of whom are firmly behind Joe Biden and understand the stakes in this election, understand that Joe Biden is the candidate who is prepared to take on Donald Trump and beat him at the ballot box in November. 

Q    In terms of that engagement, can you kind of walk through the next couple days?  I — I know that there’s reporting that he might meet with progressive lawmakers, but — but who are the kind of li- — the lineup is of folks that he is going to be —

MR. TYLER:  Yeah.  I don’t have anything —

Q    — (inaudible)?

MR. TYLER:  I don’t have anything further to read out on private conversations. 

Q    Congresswoman, you said Michigan this year is very competitive.  Obviously, even before the debate, there were challenges in Michigan, including the Arab and Muslim vote there, you — people who have said they’re not going to vote for the president because of Gaza. 

What do you think the president needs to do over the next few months?  What do you see as his possible path in Michigan to winning the state?

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  I think there are a lot of issues.  We got to turn out the voters.  It’s getting your base energized.  And I talked about those issues. 

First of all, one of the issue — the issue that really matters to many, many people is the right of a woman to choose.  That — that is one of the issues. 

But you — pe- — the seniors care deeply about Medicare and cuts to Social Security.  And Project — Trump’s Project 2025 spells out what they’re going to do. 

We got to get in the union halls.  We know that; we talk about it.  They’ve changed their whole union program.  They’re going to worksites.  They’re — they’re doing that worker-to-worker program so people know what he has done for the worker. 

And when they start hearing what they want to do to workers in their Project 2025, they — they know how much he has done for the workers, how he’s trying to create jobs for union workers, how salaries are going up. 

And people are worried about the economy.  We got to talk about the economy. 

But I want to thank the Republicans for making the first day of their convention’s theme “Make America Wealthy Again.”  All that does is reinforce Donald Trump wants to give his billionaire friends a cut and doesn’t give a damn about working men and women in this country. 

And our job — my job as one of the Michigan leaders is to make sure we are communicating with absolutely every voter in Michigan defining what the choice is.  And I am meeting with many. 

I — look, I lived in Dearborn for 40 years.  That was my — I’m now in Ann Arbor, but I got constituents there.  I would — I have been talking to many of them.  They’re still — they’re hurt, but a lot of them are now focused on what he wants to do and how he wants to deport them.  And they know.

A very prominent leader said to me yesterday, “We are in high danger if Donald Trump gets elected again.”

Q    And, Michael, I’m wondering if you can comment on the reports that millions of dollars are being withheld from the president and potentially being redirected to House and Senate races, because some donors don’t want him on the ballot or are waiting to see if he’s going to remain the Democratic nominee.

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, listen, I — I think I read out at the beginning of this call — or this gaggle that we had nearly 40,000 donations during the president’s press conference.  The June — or, excuse me, July has been — the start of July has been the best start of any grassroots fundraising month that we’ve had in this campaign. 

And we’re confident that as we move — move forward here and return the concentration and the conversation to the fundamental choice in this election, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, that this campaign is going to have the resources it needs to continue to build upon the infrastructure that is already our competitive advantage in a very close and competitive election, to do the work that we need to do to beat Donald Trump in November.

Q    And do you feel like you could move forward without the big donors if they did continue to withhold those donations?

MR. TYLER:  We are confident that donors — both grassroots, major donors, and everybody within the Biden-Harris coalition — is going to understand the fundamental stakes of this election as we move forward and put in all the work that we know that we connect — collectively need to do to defeat Donald Trump in November.

Q    You three had face time with the president today.  How is he feeling about his performance last night, especially the two gaffes that he made — calling President Zelenskyy “Putin” — and the fact that, for many Americans, not just his detractors, those are what stick out?  How are you guys going to campaign against that?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, Joe Biden has been making gaffes for 40 years.  He made a couple last night.  He will probably continue to do so. 

Our opponent is somebody who every single day out on the stump is calling for a “bloodbath” if he loses.  He was pledging the rule as a dictator on day one and is pledging to ban abortion nationwide across the country. 

The voters of this country are smart.  The voters watched the in — totality of that press conference.  They saw a president lead on the global stage, talk about complex issues, the ways in which he’s uniting the West around Putin’s aggression, the ways in which he is working on securing a ceasefire framework in the Middle East, and they saw him present a clear choice against the opponent in Donald Trump, who I just laid out all the fundamental threats that he poses to the American people.  We are confident that the American people are smart enough to understand the fundamental choice in this election. 

And if — as we and the president continues to campaign relentlessly across all the battleground states, the only answer to that choice is going to be Joe Biden. 

Q    Congresswoman?

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Why don’t people look at Donald Trump’s rants?

MS. SHULER:  I know.

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  The things that he says in these rants are absolutely crazy. 

And I — I mean, they’re — he never does a rant that he doesn’t go after electric vehicles.  And he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to EVs. 

I — we are competing in a global marketplace.  I need to know that we’re going to have a president that’s going to make sure that my industry stays competitive in a global marketplace. 

But he also says some of the most devastating, horrific, hateful, divisive things every time he rants.  And I wish people would write about that.  And he also makes a lot of mistakes.

MS. SHULER:  We want a president that’s going to talk about what working people are experiencing every day, which we know workers are still making ends meet and they’re worried about how they’re going to put food on the table, versus someone like Trump who’s talking about water pressure and how overweight Chris Christie is.  I mean, we want someone who we can take seriously — right? — that is going to wake up every morning thinking about working people. 

And so, I would say that as — as Michael said, yeah, there have been a — there’s gaffes.  Right?  That’s happened throughout his whole career.  But what we look at is what he’s delivered on, and that’s manufacturing jobs and infrastructure and making sure that working people can make a decent living and provide for their families. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to try to wrap this up. 

Go ahead, Zeke. 

Q    Over the last 15 days, the national political conversation — it was like the number-one story outside of politics, too — has been the president’s mental capacity and will he, won’t he stay in this race.  How urgent do you feel the need to change the national conversation heading into the Republican National Convention — that if the conversation for the next 100 days is about the president’s mental capacity; his fitness for office; will he, won’t he remain the Democratic nominee that you don’t have the chance, and that you’re trying to redirect the conversation to Trump now?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah.  Well, Joe Biden is, in fact, the Democratic nominee.  He is running —

Q    Yeah.

MR. TYLER:  He is — he is the presumptive Democratic nominee.  He will be the Democratic nominee.  And he’s going to be the one taking on Donald Trump. 

So, that is what we are focused on right now as a campaign is focusing our attention on the fundamental choice in this election.  That is what the campaign is focused on today as we hit the ground in Detroit, and it’s what we will be focused on as the president crisscrosses the country next week, while Donald Trump is putting on a showcase for MAGA extremism and Project 2025. 

We are confident that if we focus our attention on the fundamental choice that we will be successful in November. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

MR. TYLER:  All right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Thanks. 

MS. SHULER:  Thanks.

MR. TYLER:  Thanks, y’all.  I’ll see — I’ll see you on the ground.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Thanks, everybody. 

REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL:  Thanks, everybody.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

Q    Can you talk to us about the AT&T hack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — sorry.  (Laughs.)

Q    Whether the president has been briefed on that, who you think the culprit is?  And, also, as you know, a lot of federal employees have AT&T phones.  Were any of the administration officials’ phones compromised? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be — I’m going to be really careful here.  I need to go back to the team and get an assessment of — of what you’re asking me. 

But, obviously, this is something that we’ve taken seriously for the last two, three years, about making sure that we’re working with these corporations and making sure that they — they take heed to our recommendation on protecting — right? — protecting, you know, their businesses.  And so, that’s something that we’ll continue to do.

As it relates to the president, I have to check in.  I’m sure the president has been briefed, but I just — I don’t want to confirm that right now.  But I have to check in on that — on that piece of it. 

Q    Do — do we have time for a quick Gaza question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A quick what?

Q    A Ga- — a Gaza question. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sure. 

Q    The White House has said in the past that journalists have a responsibility and a right to report from Gaza.  Does that extend to international correspondents?  And do you support their campaign for independent access?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the U.S. has always been very steadfast and forceful and strong about making sure that we support the critical work that journalists do around the world — not just here, obviously, but around — around the world. 

And that includes those reporting the conflict in Gaza.  We understand how important it is for journalists to do their job there. 

So, what I can say is that, of course, the importance of media freedom is one of them.  Right?  We have issued statements expressing our alarm and deepen — deep concern with reporters who — who have been killed in — in this conflict, be- — because it is imperative that reporters be able to gather information to inform the world safety.  And that is — certainly be able to do that without personal risk.  And so, that is something that we’re certainly committed to. 

Q    But is it acceptable that Israel is not allowing in independent international correspondents? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m — we’re continuing — we’re always going to have diplomatic conversations with Israel about issues, including like this one.  I certainly don’t have anything else to — to read out when it relates to that — that diplomat- — those diplomatic conversations.

But we believe it is important for that — for journalists to be protected, for journalists to be able to do their jobs not just here in this country, but, obviously, around the world.  And we’ve been pretty consistent with that.  And so, we’re going to continue to be very clear about that. 

Q    But just to be clear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in those conversations, have you asked Israel to allow in independent —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I am not — and what I’m trying to say is I’m not going to — we talk about a range of issues.  I’m not going to share our — our private diplomatic conversations. 

But I think we have led in the world when we talk about protection of journalists, the important — that they have — you know, that they are able to do their jobs freely, unimpacted, and make sure that there is no personal risk to them as they’re doing that job. 

And so, we’re going to continue to be very clear about that — very, very clear.  I’m just not going to get into diplomatic conversations.

Q    Karine, has the president had any conversation with former President Obama since that debate?  And we saw that tweet from the former president, Obama, but have they had any interactions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to any interaction of late — of recent, in, like, the last couple of days. 

What I can say — look, obviously, the — this president was the vice president to the former president for eight years.  They have a respectful, very close relationship.  And the president is, you know, very proud to have that relationship. 

So, I can’t speak to a conversation of late, of recent.  And I know they — they speak often, but I can’t speak of a current, a recent conversation.

Q    Karine, the president tweeted today that there was an agreement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This president?  (Laughter.)

Q    Yes.  An agreement — or a framework agreement in Israel. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    Was there ac- — is there any actual change?  Is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — does the ball move forward any today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president laid out the framework — the ceasefire framework last night in his topper right ahead of — before taking questions from all of you, your colleagues, certainly. 

I don’t have anything new to share beyond what the president laid out in detail. 

When I can say — think you’ve — you’ve heard us say this over — throughout the week: Brett McGurk is in Cairo, so those conversations are continuing to happen.  The president and his team has been working 24/7 to get this hostage deal, to get to a ceasefire.  And that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

But I would certainly refer you to the president’s statement, as he laid out himself what the framework was going to be.

Q    Quickly, does he ne- — does he intend to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits in later July?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I talked about this ear- — earlier this week.  So, I — I — we believe that they will have some engagement.  I just don’t have anything to announce at this time.

Q    And when he’s in Texas next week, will he visit Houston after the — the fl- — the devastating storm damage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, the president has a — has moved forward with the declaration after receiving that request from the lieutenant governor a couple of days ago.  On this particular trip, nothing has changed.  We’re going to go to Austin, so nothing has changed about this particular trip.

Any- — anything beyond that, I don’t have anything to change.

Q    Why not?  Does this not meet the standard —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — the level?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I probably should have said that there’s a lot going on on the ground.  We try to not take away from the — from — from the assistance that’s needed on the ground and from, obviously, all of the — all of the help that the people of Houston need.  And so, we try to make sure — the president, as you all know, has a very big footprint, so we just want to be mindful of that.

And still — we’re still very much in the early days, and so nothing has changed on this trip.  And if anything — if a trip in the future comes up, we certainly will share that with you.

But the President continues — and FEMA is on the ground, offering assistance to the people of Houston and working with the city — and city and local affect- — local electeds.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, thank you, guys.

 3:49 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Representative Debbie Dingell, Campaign Communications Director Michael Tyler, and AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler en Route Detroit, MI appeared first on The White House.

Walter E. Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

11:33 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thank you for joining this on-the-record gaggle with Jake Sullivan.  We have only a short amount of time, so we probably have time to take questions from the room, but we’re going to turn to Jake now.

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we obviously feel very good about the NATO Summit and its outcomes.  I think you’ve seen a tremendous display of unity.  Genuinely, concrete progress on everything from the defense investment pledge to the contributions that — to 2 percent — that 23 out of 32 Allies are making.  And, in fact, Canada, the final Ally that doesn’t have a plan in place for 2 percent, is getting one in place.  So we’ve got all 32 Allies now on track to get to 2 percent.

And, of course, later today, we’ll have the Ukraine session, where we will see the concrete building blocks in the bridge to NATO that we’ve talked about before, with full agreement from all Allies and full buy-in from Ukraine as well. You may have heard from Andriy Yermak earlier today. 

You know, their view that we are delivering for them is holding significant at this summit, both in terms of the NATO outcomes and the commitments on F-16s and air defense.

So we’re feeling good about where we are.  And I think the broad message coming out of this summit is not just unity, but purpose and resolve and strength from the NATO Alliance on our 75th anniversary. 

So with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Q    Jake, obviously this is taking place in the context of the President’s domestic political situation.  He’s talked a lot about how America is back on the world stage.  Have you or the President had any conversation with any world leaders or any of your counterparts expressing concern about the President’s standing here at home and the potential return to a Trump administration?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I haven’t heard that in the President’s conversations with his counterparts.  What I have heard is they went around the table yesterday in the North Atlantic Council session, the session just with the NATO Allies — was a drumbeat of praise for the United States but also for President Biden personally, for what he’s done to strengthen NATO, especially as president but also over the course of his entire career.  And leaders really made a point of reinforcing their gratitude to him on that.

The President met with Prime Minister of the UK yesterday.  That conversation was extended and substantive, particularly on Ukraine, on the situation in the Middle East, and on how we carry forward the special relationship under a new leadership in the UK. 

So the focus here really has been on the substance.  It’s been on what we’re trying to deliver for the defense of the Alliance and deliver for Ukraine and deliver in our partnerships with the Indo-Pacific.  It hasn’t been about politics.

Q    Jake, Ukraine has called for Allies to lift all limits on the use of their weapons.  Is that something the United States would consider or support?

MR SULLIVAN:  We’ve made our position clear, which is, you know, we have a common-sense policy about cross-border strikes when Russia is attacking from the other side of the border.

We’ve seen that play out in Kharkiv; it could potentially play out in other areas of that border like in Sumy.  But we have not authorized the use of ATACMS for deep strike into Russia.  And I don’t have any announcements for you all today.

Q    Just to be clear, though — not having an announcement, does that mean your policy hasn’t changed?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Our policy has not changed.

Q    May I ask about Viktor Orban’s so-called peace mission?  He went to Moscow, Kyiv.  He met with President Xi.  Do you have any reason to believe that this is coordinated with former President Donald Trump?  He will be meeting him.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not going to speculate on that.  All I’ll say is that it certainly isn’t coordinated with the Ukrainians.  They’ve indicated that they have grave misgivings about any effort to negotiate some kind of fake peace with Russia without the Ukrainians being at the heart of that effort.  And the U.S. position, the Biden administration position is: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. 

So whatever adventurism is being undertaken without Ukrainian’s consent or support, you know, is not something that’s consistent with our policy or the policy of the United States.  But I can’t speculate as to what Orban is up to exactly or what other people are up to.

Q    Jake, one more.  The White House keeps saying that the Allies know President Biden, they trust him, they’ve seen him on many occasions.  But what’s your message to U.S. enemies who may misread President Biden’s performance at the debate?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I would say look at this summit.  Look at NATO having added two very strong and capable Allies in Finland and Sweden.  Two countries that were historically neutral, avowedly neutral, have now said we’re going to be part of this defensive alliance.

Look at what we’ve gotten the Alliance to do in terms of stepping up on burden-sharing.  Look at what we’ve gotten them to do in terms of investments in their own defense industrial bases.  The capacity and strength of this Alliance should send a clear message to any of our adversaries anywhere in the world.

And as we speak right now, we’ve got Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand sitting in that room, confirming that we will coordinate closely with our closest democratic allies in the Indo-Pacific so that there is a network, a latticework of allies, globally, standing up for democracy and standing against the kind of aggression we’ve seen from Putin and the support for that aggression from some of these other dictators.

Q    Can we ask a bit about the F-16s that are being provisioned?  Anything you can say about how many might be available for Ukraine this year, for instance?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it’s a completely fair question to ask for details on numbers, exact dates, exact places.  And those are just things I can’t share for operational reasons.

What we have said is that the transfer is underway and that Ukrainian pilots will be operating in theater this summer in F-16s.  Beyond that, in order to ensure that there is sufficient operational security for them to be able to use this capability effectively, we have to be careful about what we say.

Q    Can you just speak broadly to why the President — the U.S. authorized this?  What do you think the upside is for Ukraine?  What does it mean for Ukraine to have the F-16s made available?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, just for context, the President first announced his authorization for the transfer — third-party transfer of F-16s.  It’s the Danes and the Dutch actually providing the aircraft.  The U.S., of course, is central to this because it’s a U.S. platform — back in Hiroshima, at the G7, in May of last year.  So, more than a year ago.

So this has been a work in progress because we’ve had to get Ukraine to produce pilots.  Those pilots have had to get trained.  All of the capabilities to support an F-16 squadron or a set of squadrons had to get in place.  And that is a laborious and time-intensive process, as we said at the outset and we’ve been very clear about.

But once in place — the F-16 is a fourth-generation fighter aircraft — it will provide capability to Ukraine to be able to help defend the forces on the frontline and also help Ukraine as it seeks down the road to take back territory as well, territory that Russia currently occupies but that is sovereign Ukrainian territory.

So, it is an important and sophisticated capability, but the ramp-up period to get it operational has been considerable.

Q    Our friends at the AP are also saying $225 million in need and weapons being announced for Ukraine.  Is there anything you can say about that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The President will have something to say today about that, so I won’t get ahead.

Q    Jake, can I ask you about the situation in Gaza?  I have two questions. 

One is: I just wanted to get confirmation that a portion of the bombs that were paused have been restarted.  Can you explain that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  As the President said a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. policy on this has been clear.  We paused the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs.  That is what we have held, because we believe that they are not able to be effectively used in densely populated areas without causing undue civilian harm.  Two-thousand-pound bombs.

The President has stood by that.  That continues to be our policy.  There’s been no deviation.

We have had shipments where other capabilities that are not 2,000-pound bombs were mixed in.  And this is just a simple logistical matter of unmixing them.  So there’s never been a policy of a pause on capabilities other than 2,000-pound bombs. And there’s not a policy on that today.

Q    Can you give us an update on talks towards a potential pact of some kind to cease hostilities or pause (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We see progress.  We see the possibility of reaching agreement.  Obviously, can’t guarantee that because there’s a lot of details to be hammered through.  Our teams in the region, as we speak, are working through many of those details.  We think that the remaining issues can be resolved, should be resolved.  And we’re going to keep driving until we actually get a deal.  And President Biden will say a few words about this later today.

Q    Do you think you’re more optimistic than you were the last few weeks, since (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN:  “Optimistic” is always a hard word to use in a sentence around this tragic conflict.  But I think the signs are more positive today than they have been in recent weeks.  Yes.

Q    Moving back briefly to Russia, sorry.  There’s an ODNI report that talks about Russians targeting specific demographic groups in its war.  Can you — you must be aware of that report.  Is that of particular concern for the U.S.?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, I would just say that this is out of the Russian playbook from past elections as well.  So they are repeating a lot of the tactics and tradecraft they’ve used, targeting particular populations in the United States to try to influence the outcome of our election.

And, yes, this is of serious concern to the United States and to me personally.  It’s not a matter of politics; it’s a matter of national security.  This is a hostile foreign power trying to interfere in American democracy, and it should be intolerable to every American.

Q    Another on Russia.  Do you have anything to say about Russia vowing military response to the U.S. deployment of missiles to Germany?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I did not actually see what they said, so I will have to take a look at that before I respond.  You said they vowed a military response?

Q    Yeah.  “Without nerves, without emotions, we will develop a military response, first of all, to this new game.”

MR. SULLIVAN:  Okay.  I mean, I can’t interpret that sentence.  But what we are deploying to Germany is a defensive capability like many other defensive capabilities we’ve deployed across the Alliance across the decades.

So, you know, more Russian saber-rattling obviously is not going to deter us from doing what we think is necessary to keep the Alliance as strong as possible.  And beyond that, we’ll have our opportunities to understand better what the Russian position is on this, and we will respond accordingly.

Q    Jake, just back to the F-16s.  Without getting into operational questions, in terms of basing for those aircraft for operation missions, they would not be taking off from NATO airbases or — NATO nation air-bases — if they’re carrying out operational fights against Russian forces?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The F-16s will be based in Ukraine.

Q    And then, sorry, just one other follow-up.  You were asked about the Orban meeting.  Is the U.S. government aware of his plans to meet with former President Trump?  And do you have any specific response to that piece?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have not heard directly from anybody about this meeting.  I have heard indirectly about it, as many of you have.  So, that’s basically all (inaudible).

Q    But there hasn’t (inaudible) diplomatic engagement of that that you’re aware of?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Not that I’m aware of.

Q    Can I just quickly go back to talks in the Mideast?  Impossible to tell, but can you give a sense whether a deal could be reached in days?  Or is this just a holding pattern in the negotiations?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Always impossible to handicap, but, you know, these are — this is a complex negotiation with a lot of moving parts and a lot of details to be worked through.  So I think there’s still miles to go before we close, if we are able to close. 

So I don’t want to say that it’s immediately around the corner, but it does not have to be far out in the distance if everyone comes at this with the will to get it done, because the deal is there for the doing.

Q    And you announced today this pact, ICE Pact, as it’s being called?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.

Q    This is in response in part to collaboration between Russia and China, obviously.  I wonder if you could say a few words about what the U.S. will get under this.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think this is a very exciting initiative. The ICE Pact is a pact between the U.S., Canada, and Finland, about enhancing the collective capacity of our three countries to build icebreakers at a time when we are seeing an increasing need for those icebreakers from partners around the world who want to operate in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions and can operate there with greater freedom than before because of the impacts of climate change.

And, yes, there are authoritarian nations that are making or offering the icebreakers to the world, want to corner the icebreaker market.  We’re determined to have democracies be in the lead in producing icebreaking capabilities.  Both Canada and Finland have considerable experience in shipyards and producing icebreakers.  The U.S. is currently producing icebreakers for our Coast Guard, but we would like to expand that to include building icebreakers here in the United States, American-made with American jobs, to sell to countries around the world as well.

All three of us stand to benefit from this.  But beyond that, we then will have the industrial base for a capability that has both economic and strategic purposes.  And democracies need that, and the U.S. is happy to be at the center of it.

Also, if we can make this work — and I believe we can make it work — then it becomes a model for other forms of shipbuilding as we go forward.  Other types of capabilities that we can partner with democracies on it becomes a new model for how the United States can both rebuild its own shipbuilding industry and also ensure that we have the industrial base as the West to be able to produce the necessary types of every kind of ship needed for economic and security purposes in the future.

Q    Can you speak to geopolitical risks of it?  Is it that the Chinese will start shipping in the Northwest Passage, and the U.S. and Canada would (inaudible)?  What is the risk?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think the biggest geopolitical risk is the same kind of supply chain chokepoint that you see in a lot of other industries, where if the capability to build this atrophies in the West and a country that does not share our interests or our vision for the world corners the market and they’ve got leverage on us that is undue — but not just on us, the United States, but democratic nations around the world. 

And we also believe that having an inherent capacity that is scalable and sustainable to build ships, not just icebreakers, but (inaudible) ships, has deep both strategic and direct military purposes in the future.  The ICE Pact is not about military, but the broader spillover effects of this can have that kind of impact.

Q    Jake, can I ask one more on the Middle East?  I just want to ask you about the pier.  We’re hearing reports that the pier off the coast of Gaza will be permanently removed.  I wanted to, A, confirm that that’s accurate.  And, B, I just wanted to know what happened.  I know this was touted quite a bit by the administration as a possible route to getting humanitarian aid in.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, it was a route to getting humanitarian aid in.  And I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but we unloaded a significant number of pallets that have provided lifesaving assistance. 

And our view has always been all of the above: Every route we can get aid in, including a maritime pier, if we can do it, we should do it.  And some of that food over days and weeks that it was being delivered has made a difference in trying to deal with the heartbreaking humanitarian situation in Gaza.

I don’t have an announcement for you today.  I’ll let CENTCOM speak about their plans with respect to the pier.  But I do anticipate that in relatively short order we will wind down pier operations.  And the reason for that is because if we now look at the sustained supply of aid getting in through many of the crossings that, frankly, President Biden got opened — the Zikim crossing and Kerem Shalom crossing — the real issue right now is not about getting aid into Gaza, it’s about getting aid around Gaza effectively.  That’s partly why Israel announced this daily humanitarian pause to try to create better conditions to move aid around.

But there are a lot of things that we need to work through, including lawlessness; armed gangs; in some cases, Hamas itself trying to disrupt and derail the delivery of humanitarian assistance.  And that is really, chiefly, the obstacle to ensuring that the people of Gaza, the innocent people of Gaza get the lifesaving food, water, medicine that they need.  It’s distribution within as opposed to distribution from without, into Gaza.  And so that’s had an impact on our thinking about the duration of the pier remaining (inaudible).

Q    Did you see the pier as a success?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I see any result that produces more food, more humanitarian goods getting to the people of Gaza as a success.  It is additive.  It is something additional that otherwise would not have gotten there when it got there.  And that is a good thing.  It is an unalloyed good thing, from my perspective, that we were able to get thousands of metric tons worth of food into Gaza.  And if the pier hadn’t happened, if that food wouldn’t have gotten in, for me it’s hard to think about why one would object to that.

Q    Can we have one more?

AIDE:  We have time for one.

Q    Just one more.  Ukraine asked Poland to shut down Russian missiles over western Ukraine.  There was some confusion initially about Poland’s response.  But two days ago, Polish defense minister told me that Poland will not be unilaterally shutting down those missiles, that it needs to be decided by NATO.  So what’s your position on that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Our position is let’s get that air defense into Ukraine so Ukraine can shoot them.  That is the most effective way to protect the skies of Ukraine.  So that’s why we’ve been going around to every Ally and saying, “Any system you can spare, spare it,” because we want as many strategic air defense systems inside of Ukraine, operated by Ukrainians, defending their skies.  And we think that’s by far and away the best method of stopping the Russian aerial attacks.

This is the last one?

AIDE:  This is the last one.

Q    There’s a CNN report that — I’m wondering if you would say anything to it — that the U.S. has uncovered a Russian government plot to assassinate the CEO of a German arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall.  The CEO, Armin Papperger.  A foiled plot, obviously.  Is there anything you can say about that — whether the U.S. has intelligence about that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have anything to say about that today because I’m actually not sure what it is that —

Q    Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, so I’ll just leave it at: Let me go find out — not about the underlying story, but about, you know, what we could say on that (inaudible).

Q    And in (inaudible) earlier, the President was trying to put on a show, in part for his domestic audience, on what he sees as the importance of NATO.  How is he viewing this domestically in terms of the stakes for the U.S., given that there are two pretty different visions for NATO on the ballot?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, look, there are voices in our country who say what’s the value of NATO, and the President does believe that it’s his job as the Commander-in-Chief and as the leader of the nation to remind the American people of what NATO has delivered in terms of security and prosperity for the United States over 75 years, and then what the lack of NATO would mean for us going into the future.

But, you know, he doesn’t believe that that’s an uphill battle.  He believes that he is reinforcing preexisting goodwill on a bipartisan basis by a vast majority of the American people.  But he does think the 75th anniversary is a good opportunity for everyone to take a pause and collectively remind ourselves that we are extremely lucky to have NATO, and we would be very unfortunate if we were to leave it or if it were to fall apart.

Q    (Inaudible.)  Since I know you were at Camp David with the President (inaudible), when you saw the President on stage, were you surprised by that performance?  At any point, have you had any concerns about the government’s decision-making capacity or anything along those lines?  Were you surprised?  Was that the person that you saw on the stage unlike the person you had seen days before at Camp David?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not have concerns.  He said he had a bad night.

Thanks.

Q    Thank you, Jake.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, everyone, for joining.  And thank you to our poolers in the room.  They have recorded very artfully, and we’ll send around an audio to the group.  So thank you, everyone.

11:54 A.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by APNSA Jake Sullivan appeared first on The White House.

11:49 A.M. EDT

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for joining today’s press call on new action from the Department of Energy to ensure the future of the auto industry is built here in America.

As a reminder, the call will begin with on-the-record remarks from Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, the president’s National Economic Adviser — Adviser Lael Brainard, the president’s National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, and Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta. 

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

The contents of this call and the materials you all will receive over email are embargoed until tomorrow, July 11th at 5:00 a.m. Eastern.

With that, let me turn it over to Secretary Granholm.

SECRETARY GRANHOLM:  Thanks so much.  Hello, everybody.  Thanks for joining us today. 

President Biden came into office determined that the auto communities in America who built the cars of the 20th century would also build the cars of the 21st century. 

And that’s why I am so thrilled to share with you that tomorrow, the Department of Energy is going to announce nearly $2 billion to modernize historical auto manufacturing facilities as they retrofit to produce electric vehicles and components.

This investment, which is funded by the president’s Inflation Reduction Act, is going to expand or reopen or revive 11 at-risk facilities in eight states.  It’ll save 15,000 jobs and create nearly 3,000 more.  And a majority of these jobs are union jobs.

This announcement is a hallmark of the Biden administration’s industrial strategy, which is a strategy to bring manufacturing and jobs back to America after years of offshoring. 

When I was governor of Michigan before and during the Great Recession, it became painfully clear to me that the auto industry needed to embrace the future.  But in order to do that, they needed a federal partner, especially to compete with other countries who were subsidizing their auto industries.  And that’s what this massive investment is all about.

The nine selectees include major automakers like GM, Fiat-Chrysler Automotive, Volvo, as well as suppliers like American Auto Parts.

And together, these selectees have a collective 575 years of experience in auto manufacturing, which is why they’re ideally positioned to take this industry into the 21st century.

These companies are receiving federal funding to retrofit and upgrade their facilities, including installing new equipment to make their operations cleaner and more efficient.  And these projects will enable production of over 1 million electrified light-duty vehicles and 40,000 electrified trucks and buses per year, nearly doubling our country’s annual production of electric vehicles.

As a condition of receiving funding, the nine selectees have made strong commit- — commitments to supporting autoworkers.

And we competitively selected these projects to protect high-skilled, high-quality auto jobs.  Every one of these facilities is unionized.  And every selectee has committed to funding training to ensure workers have the skills to remain essential in the next industrial revolution.

For so long, we acted as though the best days of American manufacturing were behind us and there was nothing we could do about it.  Under President Biden, we are doing something about it.  We’re giving 15,000 American workers the chance to keep their jobs.  We’re giving the communities who built American cars for generations the chance to build the vehicles of the future.  And we’re giving American manufacturing a chance to get off the sidelines and get ahead of the competition.

Thank you so much.

And now I will pass it over to my colleague, Secretary Su.

ACTING SECRETARY SU:   Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for your extraordinary leadership and your commitment to centering workers in our nation’s new industrial strategy.

So, I am so proud to join you today to make this announcement about these conversion grants.  What this announcement shows is that we can achieve our climate goals and our good jobs goals at the same time.  In fact, we must.

President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda is about building our country and investing in industries to make electric vehicles and batteries right here in America, to install electric vehicle charging stations from coast to coast, to weatherize homes.  And at the same time, it’s about creating good jobs with the power to change lives.

A good job is a job that comes with good pay and benefits, where workers are treated with dignity and respect, where they know they will come home healthy and safe at the end of the workday, and where they can exercise rights. 

As President Biden says all the time, “It’s about being able to look your children in the eye and say, ‘Everything is going to be okay’ and mean it.”

The Department of Labor has been hard at work with our colleagues across the administration to make sure that federal investments are also creating millions of good jobs.

And the Department of Energy’s work on this has been really key. 

In President Biden’s America, we’re creating over 2,900 high-quality auto jobs and, as Secretary Granholm just said, saving over 15,000 more jobs through these grants alone.

In President Biden’s America, we’re reprioritizing workers who have been left out, left behind, and let down by failed economic policies of the past.

Together, we’re funding projects where workers have a real voice on the job, where they have training and upward mobility, and where they have access to supportive services like childcare and transportation.

We know that good jobs are not just good for workers, not just good for customers, not just good for families, but also good for employers.  Good jobs mean higher retention and lower recruitment costs. 

In total, we estimate these projects will generate $3.9 billion in total economic value.

In a pro-worker, pro-union administration, we recognize that union workers have built the middle class, and those same workers are going to power our clean energy future.  They’re the ones building electric vehicles, installing those charging stations, and engineering new climate solutions.  And they’re the ones who are going to get a fair share of the profits they’re creating.

So, we will not let our transition to clean energy be a — be a zero-sum game where workers get left behind and where local plants close and move overseas.

The Department of Energy has made clear, as this administration has made clear, that grants are not blank checks to corporations.  They should uplift entire communities and maintain high-wage jobs. 

This is just transition in practice.  It’s how everyone will share in the promise and prosperity of a clean energy future.

So, thank you for letting me join you today, and congratulations to all the grantees. 

I will now turn it over to the president’s economic adviser and director of our National Economic Council, Lael Brainard. 

MS. BRAINARD:  Well, thank you, Acting Secretary Su.  And thanks to everyone for joining us.

This announcement marks another important chapter for the U.S. auto industry, ensuring that the workers and communities that have powered the iconic American industry for the past century will continue to lead it for the next century.

This investment delivers on the president’s commitment to enable our auto companies to retool, reboot, and rehire in the same factories and communities, and enable the manufacturing communities and workers that were left behind under the previous administration to make a comeback.

The president believes the American auto industry is a vital engine of the U.S. economy, creating pathways to good middle-class jobs and making up the largest share of American manufacturing output.

This investment is a key element of the president’s strategy to position the American auto industry and American autoworkers to win the future.

The president has delivered a historic recovery for the auto industry, creating 275,000 auto jobs and celebrating 20 new auto facilities, while 90,000 auto jobs were lost and zero new auto plants were announced during the previous administration.

Already, we’ve seen nearly $180 billion in announced private-sector investments in electric vehicle and battery supply chains on the strength of the president’s auto industry policy. 

The president has combined tax credits and funding to support investments along the entire auto supply chain and rebates to enable consumers to own the car of their choice along with hubs to ensure we have the best auto workforce in the world and protection against unfair and nonsecure practices, including a 100 percent tariff on imported Chinese vehicles and data security oversight of these connected cars.

The president has been personally engaged to make sure good auto jobs remain here in America, inviting a worker from Blue Bird to the White House to discuss the organizing campaign that has led to a successful first contract, traveling to Michigan to stand with UAW members, and celebrating successful organizing drives from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Fort Valley, Georgia.

The president will not take his foot off the pedal when it comes to supporting the U.S. auto industry.

And, with that, I’m going to turn it over to National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi.

MR. ZAIDI:  Thank you, Lael.  Thanks, everybody, for joining.

When President Biden came into office, he laid out how tackling the climate change meant creating good union jobs and advancing environmental justice in communities so often left out and left behind.

Over the last three and half years, you’ve seen the president deliver on that vision, translating policy choices on things like vehicle emissions standards and investments in cleaner transit, championing our workers all into wins both for climate and for our economy and our workforce.

And at every step of the way, you’ve seen folks count out this comeback.  You’ve seen folks say that we could not bring back batteries that were invest — invented in the United States, in our labs, and by our scientists back to the United States to be manufactured here. 

And yet, thanks to the president’s investment agenda, we have 15 gigafactories and counting to build those batteries here in the United States of America. 

Folks said we couldn’t compete on the upstream of the electric vehicle revolution — areas like lithium production and processing and recycling. 

And yet, today, across the country, we are seeing new facilities be opened up — from the beginning of the supply chain all the way through circular economy to the recycling — being built, manufactured by workers here in the United States of America. 

Folks looked at the United States lagging on private investment in the electric vehicle revolution that’s taking place around the world, lagging countries like China.  And now, thanks to the President’s leadership and despite all the skeptics who said it could not be done, the U.S. is leading — the number-one nation destination for clean energy manufacturing capacity, attracting that private capital, becoming a magnet for that investment to come here to the United States.

Transportation, as you all know, accounts as — accounts for the single-largest source of pollution in terms of greenhouse gases in our economy in the United States.  But thanks to the president’s leadership, we are on track to tackle that source of emissions and do it in a way that creates good-paying jobs across the economy. 

In doing that, not only are we delivering new sources of clean transit — that iconic yellow school bus going green –but we’re also delivering to the American people options to save money on mobility from point A to point B — thousands of dollars of fuel and maintenance costs saved over the life- — lifetime of a vehicle. 

It’s never been a good bet to bet against American workers, American innovation, American ingenuity.  And the U.S. auto industry is proving that: proving that when you have a president who looks at the challenge of climate change and sees jobs, a president who invests in America, we have what it takes to win the future. 

With that, let me turn it over to my colleague, John Podesta.

MR. PODESTA:  Thanks.  And thank you, everyone, for joining.  I’ll be brief.

I do want to commend Secretary Granholm and her team at the Department of Energy for their diligent work in getting these important awards out the door.

And I want to commend Secretary Su for her leadership in making sure that clean energy jobs are good-paying, union jobs.

As my colleagues have noted, this is what “Investing in America” agenda is all about: investing in communities all across America who’ve been left out and left behind by targeting facilities from Marysville, Michigan, to Toledo, Ohio; Belvidere, Illinois, that were shuttered or at risk of closing.

American can and will win the competition of the 21st century by retooling those facilities to support clean car production and lead the global auto industry, creating nearly 3,000 good-paying, union jobs and retaining 15,000 more.

President Biden sees the climate crisis as an imperative, but also an opportunity.  And it’s because we can and must build the clean energy economy that benefits everyone — one that brings new industries to life, creates the high-performance clean vehicles of the future, leaves workers better off than they were before, improves public health, and takes care of our planet.

Today’s awards are bringing that vision ever closer to reality.

Thank you.  And that — with that, I’ll turn it over to Angelo to take your questions.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, John.  And thanks, everyone. 

We will now move on to the question-and-answer portion of the call.  As a reminder, this will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”  As some of you are already doing, please use the “Raise Hand” function on Zoom.  And we will get started in a second.

Great, we will get started with Maxine. You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey.  This is Maxine Joselow with The Washington Post.  Thanks so much for doing this call.

I just wanted to request if you could send us all a list of the 11 manufacturing plants that are actually getting this funding.  I noticed on the materials that you sent out via email those — that list wasn’t included and was just hoping that you could get that to all of us.  Thanks.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Yep, we will have that to you all today. 

Okay, our next question will come from Rachel.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey.  Thank you for taking my question.  I was just wondering if you could speak a little bit more, I guess, to the need for this.  Like, would these facilities have otherwise shut down?  And, if not, like, why are they getting these funds? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi, Rachel.

So, yes.  I’m going to go ahead and shift over to [senior administrator official] to answer this question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Rachel.  [Senior administrator official] here. 

We are looking for facilities that are at risk of closure in this program.  And so, the goal of this program is to support facilities that have an opportunity for conversion, have been long-standing operating facilities in historic automotive communities.  And we prioritize the new selection facilities that were — were either temporarily shuttered or were at risk of shuttering. 

And so, as you’ll see in our — our jobs numbers, we are both retaining jobs that would have otherwise been lost as well as adding new jobs associated with the production of new vehicle types and new components.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We will go to David next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks for having this call, everyone. 

Following up on Maxine’s question about the list.  Maybe I could see it on the list later, but I wanted to see if you can give any color or narrative around some of the plants that have been chosen — since we’re not going to have access to you when we see those that list — about what kind of plants we’re going to see and also whether any of these are actually closed now and are going to reopen or whether they’re all factories that are currently operating.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m happy to jump in again. 

So, we indeed do have some facilities that — that are closed and are going to be reopening through this program and re-ramping back up in terms of production. 

And in terms of the (inaudible) facilities, you’re going to see vehicle components manufacturing as well as full-vehicle assembly.  And that is across different vehicle types: light-duty passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and even, you know, (inaudible) in the two-wheeler space.  So, you know, a broad range of — of vehicle types and including some facilities that are going to be coming back online through this program. 

Thank you.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.

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

Q    Great.  Thanks for doing this call.  Grant Schwab here with the Detroit News.  Just wanted to ask: What kind of application process was there for these grants, and how many applicants did you guys get?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi.  Yes.  So, we — you know, all of the DOE awards go through a rigorous merit review process.  This included a concept paper initial submission, followed by full applications.  I will say that the program was heavily oversubscribed.  You know, our concept paper phase was more — more than a four-to-one ratio of what the ultimate funds were — were ultimately allocated.

We can’t speak to the specific companies that applied, but we had a wide range of applications, which, you know, is also reflected in the ultimate selections that span, as [senior administration official] mentioned, the — the supply chain and ultimate assembly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And to underscore — so, you know, very competitive merit review process as we go through with all of our grants at the Department.  This program had a particular focus on labor. 

So, we really dug in and tried to understand how facilities were planning to not only just, you know, convert the design of their manufacturing facilities to produce new products but how they were going to bring that workforce along with them and actually, you know, retrain, reskill, and ensure that, you know, the support was provided to workforce to be able to — to kind of come in to the site and attain a high-paying job through the course of this ramp-up and ultimately post-conversion.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We’ll go to Ben next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  So, one thing I’m wondering is: Will 100 percent of the output of these facilities — whether they’re automakers or elsewhere in the supply chain, will 100 percent of the output of facilities receiving funding need to be for electric vehicles specifically?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, we take electric vehicles as a very broad term.  So, EVs — so, the output from these facilities, some of that is relevant for fuel cell vehicles, hybrid vehicles, as well as fully battery electric vehicles.  So, a broad range of new high-growth vehicle (inaudible) will be supported.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  And we have about time for two more questions.  We will go to Matthew next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    In the press release, you mentioned this is not a commitment by DOE to actually award this money.  So, what timeframe are we talking about actually getting this money out the door?  And if you could just go again a little bit more into your criteria for how these companies were selected, since you have not given us a list of who’s — who’s won the money.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, as we move forward in our standard process, our first step is to make our selections.  That means that we are going to move into negotiations with each of the companies, and we are going to work through actually creating budget periods and milestones for each of the companies that will unlock tranches of this funding.

So, you know, we’re not handing out all of the funding at once but actually working with the company to align the funding to their construction plan and, you know, be able to have that clear — clear milestones that need to be met for the next tranche of funding to be unlocked.  And that activity — negotiation activity usually takes a few months, and we will initiate it tomorrow, right after we make those selection announcements.

As to the second question on the criteria, our criteria are, you know, as mentioned, the commercial viability and the strength of the plan.  First and foremost, the labor and, you know, the strength of the plan that the company had around actually retaining and re- — for maintaining the staff to work in these facilities and as well as adding new jobs. 

And then, you know, we also look at the technical merit of the solution that they’re going to be producing and pulling forward.  That is, of course, in the — all in the context of having a strong community benefits plan, even, you know, outside of labor and making sure that these projects are structured in a way that gives them a license to operate for the long run and that they continue to be part of our history of American automotive manufacturing.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  And our final question will come from David.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey, thanks for this.  Thanks.  I may have missed this part.  But so, are we going to get the full list?  When will we get the full list of the projects?  Is that tomorrow?  Is it a date down the road?

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  We’ll have that list for you a little — a little later today.

Q    Okay, thanks. 

And can you — just in terms of what the companies have to commit to — right? — as part of getting these awards — you know, what are the clawback provisions?  Do they have to commit to specific job totals, commit to keeping the plants open for a specified period? 

And even on the case of some of these awards, you know, this is for projects that might not start for a couple of years.  Is the government basically holding the money back until those — those projects begin?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Go — go ahead.  Sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, absolutely.  So, the companies are committing to a production schedule in terms of ramping up manufacturing capacities and new products.  For facilities that are shuttered and reopening, that involves, you know, reactivating these facilities.  And so, as part of that, we have, you know, our usual milestones around new equipment delivery, groundbreaking and construction that’s happening.

There’s also a training and reskilling schedule around workforce, as well as, you know, ultimate targets around number of jobs retained and number of jobs added. 

So, you know, the companies that made commitments over the course of the application process, we are going to layer those commitments into time now in our negotiation window.  And as the company meets those milestones — which extend to production milestones as well as workforce milestones and community benefits milestones — they will unlock, you know, the next measured amount of capital.  We typically — it depends on each project.  Each project is (inaudible).

But we — we have a series of budget periods, and we define those with the company upfront before we finalize the award.  And then the company will kind of move forward into that process, so there won’t be any kind of, you know, holding back that the company is not expecting.  Rather, we — we align on that schedule upfront and then hope to expeditiously move forward.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you so much.  And that’s all the time we have today. 

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

Thanks for joining us. 

     12:16 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on New Action to Ensure the Future of the American Auto Industry appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

3:02 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thank you all for joining today’s call. This is Michael Feldman with the NSC Press team.

Today’s call is to preview the new trilateral Icebreaker Collaboration Effort between Canada, Finland, and the United States.

On today’s call we have Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics, Daleep Singh, who will provide opening remarks on the record.

Following Daleep’s opening remarks, we will move into the Q&A portion of the call, which will be on background, and speakers will be attributed as senior administration officials.

Today’s call will be held under embargo until 10:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow morning. And by participating in the call today, you are agreeing to these ground rules.

With that, I will turn the call over to Daleep to do opening remarks.

MR. SINGH: Thanks, Michael. And thanks, everybody, for joining. Tomorrow, the leaders of the United States, Finland, and Canada — President Biden, Prime Minister Trudeau, and President Stubb — will announce their intent to form a trilateral arrangement to collaborate on the production of icebreakers.

We’re calling this partnership the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact. The objective is to advance a shared and strategic interest. That is, each of our countries want to strengthen our shipbuilding and industrial capacity. And by collaborating on this effort together, we’ll deepen our economic and security ties.

The pact has three components.

First, enhanced information sharing on polar icebreaker production, as well as on Arctic and other polar capabilities.

Second, collaboration on workforce development so workers and experts can train in yards across all three countries.

And third, an invitation to our allies and partners to take advantage of the significant investments we’re making in highly complex shipbuilding capacity by purchasing polar icebreakers from American, Finnish, or Canadian shipyards for their own needs.

For the United States, what’s the value proposition? Well, it’s to bring world-class expertise and experience to our shipyards that helps them attract demand, scale up their capacity, and compete on the world stage.

As the President has emphasized, we’re committed to revitalizing our capacity to build American ships in American shipyards with American sailors.

And to repeat, this is a strategic imperative. Polar icebreakers are exactly the kind of high-complexity, high-tech market segment in which America is well positioned to thrive and lead, particularly with added expertise in technology. And this will help build out our industrial capacity but also provide benefits to our Allies, consistent with the message you’ve been hearing this week at the NATO Summit.

There’s also a signaling benefit. The ICE Pact will reinforce the message to Russia and China that the United States and its Allies intend to, number one, doggedly pursue collaboration on industrial policy to increase our competitive edge in strategic industries like shipbuilding. Two, to build a world-class polar icebreaking fleet at scale. And three, to project power into the polar regions to enforce international norms and treaties that promote peace and prosperity in the Arctic and the Antarctic.

Said differently: Without this arrangement, we’d risk our adversaries developing an advantage in a specialized technology with vast geostrategic importance, which could also allow them to become the preferred supplier for countries that also have an interest in purchasing polar icebreakers.

So we’re committed to projecting power into the high latitudes alongside our allies and partners, and that requires a continuous surface presence in the polar regions, both to combat Russian aggression and to limit China’s ability to gain influence.

In terms of next steps, we intend to sign a formal memorandum of understanding by the end of the year with Finland and Canada, and then implementation will begin. Once we’ve signed the MOU, we’ll consider adding additional allies and partners to the ICE Pact.

I’d be happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Daleep. We’ll now move into the Q&A portion. And as a reminder, again, this portion will be on background and attributed to senior administration officials.

If you have a question, use the “raise hand” feature, and I will unmute you. And then when I call on you, please state what outlet you’re with as well. Thank you.

Our first question will go to Dan. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Yes, thank you. Dan Lamothe with the Washington Post here.

For some of us who have spent time on these ships, who have spent time around this, we’ve heard for years concerns about a growing gap, particularly with Russia. There has been plans to build more polar icebreakers for the Coast Guard for some time, but they seem to continue to slide back to the right. Do you see this concrete (inaudible) creating a schedule that people can stick to? How quickly might we see more icebreakers actually come online? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Thanks, Dan. I mean, for the first part of your question, you’re right. I mean, taking Russia in particular, they’re an Arctic nation. They have a fleet of over 40 icebreakers; they have more in production. And we know Russia and the PRC signed an MOU last year to strengthen their collaboration and their joint operations in the region. And actually, Russia conducted two combined naval patrols with the PRC in the Bering Sea in recent years, and as you know, that’s right along our maritime border.

And then, on China — and I think it was in 2018, the PRC declared themselves, as well, a near-Arctic state. They set out the ambition to launch what they called a Polar Silk Road. And since that time, they’ve also increased icebreaker production. They’ve sought investment opportunities in many Arctic nations. And they’ve increased collaboration and partnership with Russia, as I mentioned before.

So we intend to scale up our capacity using the expertise and the know-how from Finland and Canada.

I can’t give you a specific timeline, Dan, but right now, you know, we have only two polar icebreakers, and they’re reaching the end of their usable life. And we intend to scale up by multiples of the current amount as soon as we can.

Q Relatedly, can you speak at all to the need to get after shipyards on the American side and, you know, create more opportunities to build these things quickly?

And also, just as we’re looking at this, those shipyards have run into a lot of problems over the years, and there aren’t very many of them. Do you see increased investments in shipyards here?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, so we’ve — you may know, Dan, we’ve already appropriated almost $2 billion to our icebreaker program of record, the Polar Security Cutter Program. And, you know, the shipbuilder for that program has made additional capital expenditures on top of that. So, we — look, the scale that we want to build out, it could cost as much as $10 billion to fully deploy the fleet that we want.

Part of the effort here is going to require interoperability of vessels between the U.S., Finland, and Canada. So that could involve operational interoperability, communications, maintenance. We think that’s important because it’ll increase the incentive for Finnish and Canadian companies to invest in American shipyards but also to train American workers.

We have tentative agreements with them to fund a workforce development exchange. We’ve also made tentative suggestions from our Coast Guard and Navy to sponsor personnel exchanges of the officers who lead shipbuilding for the U.S.

We think that kind of collaboration is going to speed up and accelerate our deployment at scale. And that’s what this is all about, is — you know this is an industry that requires heavy upfront investment. Being competitive requires generating economies of scale, and so that’s why we can’t do this alone. And Finland and Canada are best in class. That’s why we’ve chosen to partner with them.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is going to come from Cal.

Q Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Yeah, I could hear you before. I think you just muted yourself.

Q Okay, now you can hear me?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

Q (Laughs.) What a klutz I am.

All right, you said $10 billion investment, $2 billion already made. And I think the $2 billion funds the first two polar security cutters. And I think the program record is three, maybe four. So what numbers are we talking about in terms of polar security cutters and/or polar security cutters slash — I think they call the other one the medium-type icebreaker that would replace the Healy. So if you could start with that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Again, I think Dan had a similar question. I can’t give you a specific number that we’re targeting. You’re right, we have two working icebreakers. They’re both past their usable service life. So we need to build — we need to build — the problem we’re trying to solve is we need to build our icebreaking fleet faster and more efficiently than we can right now.

And, you know, look, we’d originally appropriated funds. You mentioned a third ship that is still being built. There’s a long lead time associated with it, especially for the materials. And so, funding has been difficult to come by. But we think with this announcement, we’re going to be able to scale up much faster with private investment and potentially demand coming in from countries other than Canada and Finland. And that’s what’s going to allow us to meet our targets. I mean, I would just say the targets are multiples of what we currently have in our fleet.

Q Okay, so the — I guess — I mean, I know we’re already working some with Canada; we have used their test facilities on polar security cutter designs, if you will. I’m not sure what we’ve done with Finland, although I thought the original contract was based on, at least, a European design.

I’m not sure — why would somebody — other countries that have, I think, have maintained a more robust industrial base for building icebreakers want to buy from the U.S.? And are we open to buying foreign-made icebreakers?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, so just to clarify on, kind of, the mechanics of how this will work: Each government is going to identify participating yards in their own country; Canada and Finland have already done so. And then we’ll refer allies and partners to the shipbuilders themselves. And so, that’s the way this is going to work. We’re going to basically have a consortium of shipyards across all three countries in this pact. And the idea is let’s pull demand from governments and partners all across the world so that we can create a stable order book.

And if you have a stable order book, if you have a demand signal that’s large enough, we think the investment will come and will generate the scale that we want.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Our next question is going to come from Suzanne Kelly. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Thanks, everyone. Suzanne Kelly from the Cipher Brief.

This might be somewhat of a stupid question, but as I kind of get my head around this story — I haven’t been following for years — but I really want to augur in a little bit on the funding with private investment. Is it correct to assume that once you identify the shipyard partners, that the funding will come to those shipyard partners to be able to get the facilities, the materials they need to produce these faster via private investment? Is that — am I kind of on the right track with understanding that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, you’re on the right track. I mean, we want to attract private investment in order to build American icebreakers in American yards. And we think if we have a big enough demand signal that really comes from beyond our borders, that’s going to create a different equilibrium in the market than we have now. Right now, it’s too small, it’s taking too long, and we’re not generating the production that we need. So we’re trying to break that current equilibrium. Yep.

Q Okay, got it. Sorry, just as a very quick follow-up, any idea on kind of a timeline for when you, you know, kind of need this to happen from a national security perspective?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I mentioned some of the activities that are taking place in the Arctic from Russia and China. So we view this as an urgent strategic priority.

I mean, I can go back a little bit to your first question and just give you a bit of a sense. I mean, if we’re trying to build a long-term order book to create the demand signal we need to have the investment that’s required to generate scale, really, like what we’re trying to do is to leverage the global order book. And our sense is if we look at Allied nations that are trying to purchase icebreakers over the next decade, it’s 70 to 90 vessels.

And so, what we want to do is have American yards compete for a sizeable share of that total order book. And if we do so — you know, we think we have the requisite expertise and experience to really thrive. This is a specialized portion of the icebreaker — of the shipbuilding market. And once we generate economies of scale, we’ll also be able to have an ecosystem in which our design, our construction, our delivery, they all work together and we generate a leading position along with our partners. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Our next question will go to Michael Martina. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Michael, you can go ahead.

Q Hi, can you hear me?

MODERATOR: I can hear you.

Q Okay, thanks. So, just so I’m clear: Allies and partners will have a choice of country from which to procure, you know, different models of ship? Or are we talking about a consortium that’s together going to create, you know, a similar model?

And if I could ask a second: You mentioned China’s self-labeling as a near-Arctic state. I’m wondering if you see that as a legitimate framing for China’s role in the region. Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, I mean, I’ll leave them — you know, I won’t comment on their label of what their activities are on the Arctic, but certainly their activities are ramping up. Their collaboration with China [Russia] is also intensifying. And we do view this as a strategic challenge.

In terms of, you know, how our efforts will be compatible with Finland’s and Canada’s, I mean, maybe I can give you a bit more detail.

The first part of this is we’re going to have an increase in information exchange on our polar icebreaker production. And again, the idea is to increase interoperability across icebreaking platforms for all three countries. That’s going to improve joint operations. It should lower the cost of vessel repair. It should also reduce the cost of design and construction.

The second piece is workforce development. And the idea here is to train workers that can operate in each of the three countries. So American workers might take advantage of opportunities to learn from Finnish or Canadian shipbuilders, and then Finnish and Canadian designers could be sent to the U.S. to learn from American shipbuilders. That’s what helps to create the interoperability I was just referencing.

And then, the last bit is we’re going to encourage Allies outside of the pact to build — really to help us build economies of scale in American, Finnish, or Canadian shipyards to create polar icebreakers. As I mentioned, the global order book from Allied countries is quite large, and it’s very difficult for each country to develop their own industry of this kind. We’re offering that opportunity to our partners now, as we think they’ll be quite interested in taking advantage of it.

MODERATOR: All right, and our last question is going to go to Daniel Olin. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Daniel, I think you’re on mute.

Okay, we will go to Robert Delaney. You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q Hey there. Can you hear me okay?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can hear you.

Q Great. Yes. Thanks for doing the call. This is Robert from South China Morning Post in Washington.

Could you comment just a little bit on the timing of this? Obviously, this announcement is coming out during the NATO Summit. Could you give us a sense of how much — to what extent this particular initiative was discussed in the broader NATO Summit context? Or is it something that — you know, that we should consider sort of like a sideline initiative attached to NATO? Or is it more accurate to characterize this as just something completely separate from the goings-on at NATO?

And then, one of the questions was just — you mentioned — when you said “we” have only two polar icebreakers, I’m assuming that’s just the U.S. Can you give us — and my apologies if you mentioned this before, but how many do Canada and Finland have? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. So, I mean, it is important that this announcement is happening during the NATO Summit because — I mean, I think the message you’re probably getting from the proceedings, really, it’s — military collaboration and our defensive alliance are always going to be at the forefront of the Alliance, but also economic security and industrial capacity are key, increasingly prominent themes coming out of this week’s discussions.

And so, this initiative actually fits very nicely. We want to enhance our shipbuilding capacity. We want to reduce the costs of building scale. We know we can’t do that alone. Finland and Canada have world-class expertise and experience that we want to leverage. And we think we can attract investment that will benefit our partners as well. We’re trying to put all that together really in the context of a blurring line between economic security and national security.

In terms of your — I think your first question as to how directly does this fit into the NATO conversation: The President has discussed with Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister [President] Stubb on the margins of the summit, this deal. But it’s occurring on the sidelines rather than this being a direct deliverable from the summit itself.

And in terms of the number of icebreakers that Canada and Finland have in operation, Canada has about 20 icebreakers and plans to build more, and then I believe Finland has 9 icebreakers. But I would refer you to both countries to confirm.

MODERATOR: Okay, thank you, everyone. Thank you [senior administration official] for doing this. Thank you, everyone, for joining.

Just a reminder that today’s call will be held under embargo until 10:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow morning. And if you have any further questions, feel free to reach out to myself or the NSC Press team distro and we will get back to you. Thank you very much. Have a great afternoon.

3:23 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call Previewing the New Trilateral Icebreaker Arrangement appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:34 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Really sorry for the delay. I just got out of the Oval Office with the president, who wanted me to relay a few me- — a few new messages to you all on Hurricane Beryl. This is important to him, and he knows it’s important to the people of Texas, so he wanted to make sure that, be- — before I came out here, I had all of this information.

So, the president spoke with Houston Mayor Whitmire and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo about the impacts of Hurricane Beryl, and they both asked for help from the federal government.

Because of — the governor of Texas is currently out of the country, the president then called the lieutenant governor of Texas to ensure that Texans are getting the resources they need and deserve following this devastating storm.

On the call, the president raised the need for a Major Disaster Declaration and immediately approved it while on the call when the lieutenant governor requested it.

With this Major Disaster Declaration in place, we will be able to provide lifesaving and life-sustaining activities.

The president and his team have been working around the clock for the past two days to ensure Texas has the resources and tools needed to respond to Beryl and keep Americans safe.

Officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and FEMA have been on the ground, and senior White House officials have been in constant contact with their counterparts.

While the storm has passed, our greatest concern right now is power outages and extreme heat. So, we want to encourage residents to remain vigilant as temperatures rise, especially older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

Fortunately, 800,000 have had power restored overnight, and we expect another 1 million to have their power restored today.

The federal government has also offered generators to help reduce the impact of the power outages.

The president continues to take decisive action to help the people of Texas recover, and he looks forward to working with the state to get more critical resources to the people that need them.

I also want to share one additional scheduling item with all of you, as well, at the top. In addition to many NATO meetings we announced yesterday, on Thursday afternoon, President Biden will meet with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to discuss our unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to defend itself from Russian aggression.

That meeting will be at 1:30 p.m. at the Convention Center, which, as you all know, is where the NATO sessions are being held, and it will take place just before the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting.

This will be the third meeting between both presidents in recent weeks, following their sit-down in France and also a sit-down at the G7 in Italy, and it will further demonstrate the strength of the partnership between our counties.

And, finally, just a personal note here, I want to say a few words about Sam Michel here, who served as acting deputy press secretary for the part of — a good part of this year.

We are sad that today is indeed his last day, but we are so grateful for his service. And he has been incr- — an incredible colleague. He is — we were lucky to have him on our team — on our press team. His sharpness, his ability to stay calm under pressure, and his strategic thinking has been a real asset to us all.

Sam, you will be greatly missed. Thank you so much for being on the team and stepinning — stepping in when we really needed you.

Okay. All right. Seung Min.

Q Thank you. I just want to get a clarification on the letter that was sent last night on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure, absolutely.

Q — from Dr. O’Connor. And you can correct me if I’m wrong, but it didn’t seem to explicitly describe the nature of Dr. Cannard’s meeting with Dr. O’Connor. So, can you say whether that one meeting was related to care for the president himself?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can say that it was not.

Q It was not. Okay, great.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

And can I just ask why that information that was released last night —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — just wasn’t said at the briefing yesterday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — no, actually, a lot of what is in the letter was said at the briefing, to be very, very clear. I said — many of the things that were laid out in the letter was actually repeated right here behind this lectern, at this podium yesterday.

It was —

Q But the letter said that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, hold on.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I said “many of the things.”

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: “Many of things.” And we got claricafi- — claricafi- — clarification, obviously, from Dr. O’Connor, but it was in line with what I said.

When I said “only three” — right? — I said “only three” visits that this particular doctor had. I said “a neurologist.”

What I was not able to confirm is the name and the reason why — is because we do not share private information. That is something that we respect. And we wanted to make sure that we protect the — our consultants here that work with the White House Medical Unit — their security as well.

And so, that is the one thing that I was not able to confirm. Obviously, Dr. O’Connor’s letter confirms that. But we had to get permission from Dr. Cannard and also the president in order to put that information —

And it is not normal. And that also states that in Dr. O’Connor.

But many of the things that I said right here at this podium is in the letter.

Q And could I just also ask a little — this is the second time in less than a week where the briefing had prompted a need for later clarification on questions about the president’s health. And I’m just wondering if you could speak to wh- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I disagree. I disagree, Seung Min. It’s not.

Yesterday, a lot of the things that I said right here in this briefing room — I know you were not in the briefing room — I actu- — it’s in the letter. It was in the letter.

It was being incor- — incorrectly assumed and insinuated that the president had seen Dr. Cannard more than three times. I said that it was only three times that the president had seen a neurologist. I didn’t confirm the name, but I did say it was only three times.

It was being incorrectly assumed and insinuated that the president was being treated for Parkinson’s. I said right here that the president was not being treated for Parkinson’s. I actually went a step further and said he wasn’t taking medication for Parkinson’s. I said that right here.

It was also being assumed and insinuated that Dr. Cannard was someone who only worked on Parkinson’s, when, in fact, he is a general neurologist. That was something that Dr. O’Connor was actually able to confirm, that he was a general neuro- — neurologist — not — in fact, a general neurologist.

And we also wanted to set the — we just wanted to set the record straight. And so, you know, it is important — we believe it was important to all of you — I actually even said here at the podium: If there was more information that we could provide, we would do that. We would do that. And we did.

But many of the things that I said right here is in the letter — is in the letter.

Go ahead.

Q Does the president feel like he’s beat back this effort to force him to step aside?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, you heard the president yesterday when he called in to “Morning Joe,” did about 18 minutes of Q&A yesterday morning. He sport ver- — he spoke very — very, I think, forcefully, passionately about where he stands, about how he sees things moving forward.

And we also have said many times, we respect — we respect members of Congress, we respect their view. But I also want to say there’s a long — also a long list of — of congressional members who have been very clear and — in support of this president, whether it’s the CBC, who gave a full — full support — the Congressional Black Caucus, for folks who are watching and are not sure what CBC is. They were very much supportive.

They said, “We think that” — this is Representative Joyce Beatty, to — to be clear — “We think that the call went extremely well. The president was very responsive.”

Representative Troy Carter, who’s also a member of the CBC, he was “elated to hear directly from — from the president” and “that he is all in, and we are all in with him.”

You hear from — you got a Congressional Hispanic Caucus — they put a statement in full support of this president. And there — there are others.

And so, look, he is going to focus on continuing to work on behalf of the American people, continuing to build on an unprecedented record that he’s been able to get done with many of these congressional members that he’s proud to be — to have worked with. But that’s his focus right now. That’s his focus.

Q Is he still talking to more people, more lea- — more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s going to —

Q — members of Congress?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — continue to engage. As you saw him in Pennsylvania when he was on — you know, when he was in the Commonwealth, h- — on the road, he — he had two of th- — two of the senators, two of the congressional members with him — the House members with him.

He’s going to be traveling later in the week. He’s going to be engaging.

I have mentioned a l- — I mentioned yesterday his robust schedule for the next two weeks. When he’s in state, he certainly will continue to engage. I don’t have a list of additional — additional calls to — to read out. But he did CBC last night — Congressional Black Caucus — and he’s going to continue and engage as he has been.

Go ahead, Mary.

Q To follow on that. The president has made clear he’s done talking about the debate; it is time to move on.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q But some of his allies have made clear they’re very much still in this wait-and-see mode.

I mean, Senator Patty Murray said he “must do more to demonstrate he can campaign strong enough to beat Trump.”

Senator Durbin saying he’s concerned whether this is just a one-off or a larger issue.

So, I guess, you know, how worried is the president that despite his best efforts, he’s not going to be able to close the book on these concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And, Mary, I appreciate the question, but as you know, there are hundreds of members in Congress — hundreds. And I laid out a list of folks who have supported him. We’ve heard from Senator Coons. We heard from Senator Fetterman. There is support there as well for him.

And so, just want to make sure that we put that out there as well.

Q But he wants the party united behind him, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, look, Representative Gregory Meeks said — coming out of the congressional Democrats meetings — said that they’re united.

And you just saw the Dem Caucus leadership take questions from some of your colleagues over at the Capitol. So, that is important as well to note.

But, look, he had a bad night. We’ve talked about it. He understands people’s concerns. We have been out there — as we have been in previous months, but out there, obviously, in the past 10 days — more than 10 days now since — since the debate. And you see from his engagement with everyday people on the ground. You see him with congressional members having — who are showing their support, speaking on behalf of this president while we’re on the ground in — in that respective state or Commonwealth, being where we were in Pennsylvania on Sunday.

And so, we’re just going to continue that. But, look, what we can say — what I can say is: Look, we respects — we respect people’s opinion. These are — you just mentioned two senators that we were very proud working with over the past three and a half years to get historic — historic legislation done, and that’s what we want to focus on.

You’re right. We do want to turn the page. You heard me say this last week. We want to get to the other side of this. We want to continue doing the work, and that’s what the president is going to do.

Q And just to be clear, does he have plans to talk with leadership again soon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any calls. We don’t have calls to read out or — or to preview. He is going to continue to engage. I just don’t have anything right now to share at this moment. He talked to CBC — again, the Congressional Black Caucus — members yesterday. They had a very, very good call. And so, he’s going to continue to engage.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The White House has obviously fielded a lot of questions in recent days about the president’s health, whether the White House has been forthcoming or not about that issue. And I just wondered: Have the last 12 days made you reconsider any specific statements that you might have made in recent months on — on that issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — look, I appreciate the question — I really do — and the opportunity.

I think there has been moments here when I have said — and I — especially in the gaggle, I think — and a- — and actually yesterday, if I — if I have, you know, said — misled in something that I’ve said or haven’t had the full information, I actually own up to that and I actually say, “I will do my best to get you the information.” Hence, the letter — hence, the letter for Dr. O’Connor. Right?

And so, I will — you know, I have always said I’ve always been committed to doing the best I can to give you the information that we have. That is a commitment from the team.

It has been an unprecedented time. I think you guys can admit that. (Laughs.) Right? It is an unprecedented time. And so, we are meeting the moment — a new moment that has never really existed before. And so, we want to make sure that we get you all the information that we have. And when we don’t have it, we do try our best to provide that information.

And so, that is something that I’m going to continue to do, and I’ve always said it is an honor and a privilege to be standing in front of you every day, exercising in the freedom of the press. This is — this is a briefing that is watched around the world, because we lead in democracy. Right? We lead in the freedom of the press and what that looks like.

Honor and privilege, and I will continue to do my best to do just that.

Q And — and we certainly understand —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — you know, you speak on behalf of the president and you defend him, his actions, his positions — his policy positions included.

Could I just ask you about one example just going back that comes to mind? September 20 —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: In the past — you’re talking about the last 12 days?

Q I’m — I’m talking about recent —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, you’re —

Q — recent months.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, well, you just said recently. It’s been — you know, we’ve been going back and forth, and so in the last, you know, 12 days or so, that was — that’s how — I believe that’s how you asked me the question.

Q Yeah, I — I was talking generally.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q But if I could just ask you about one example.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, if you’re going to ask me about something from months ago, it probably would be fair for me to — I probably won’t be able to answer that right away — whatever it is that you’re — you’re going to say to me.

Q You can come back to us if — if you need.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, yeah, I’m happy to do that.

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — but it’s also to — to say, “Hey, from September of whenever year” — right? — that is — that is something that I probably should get a little space to kind of see exactly what you’re speaking about.

Q Okay, and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right?

Q — that’s fine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — if that ends up being your an- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — you know, I just want to —

Q — your response.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — make sure that we —

Q Sure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — kind of give some context here.

Q Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And you’ll remember this. This was an event where the president called out Congresswoman Jackie Walorski —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — looked for her in the room even though she had recently died.

You told multiple reporters at the time, and this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — was asked in multiple —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She was top —

Q — different ways.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She was top of mind.

Q Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And it was because she was top of mind —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — for the president. I mean, would you — on — on that example, would you offer a different explanation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would not, because, honestly, I spoke to the president right before coming out that day, and that is what the president told me. It’s not something that came from me. That is something that came from the president.

Q So — so, he was saying even as he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She —

Q — was looking for her in the moment, it wasn’t a misspeak.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She was top — she was top of mind.

Q Okay. Could —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is coming — as you just said in your question, I speak for the president. I — I speak on behalf of him. That was coming from him, and I was delivering, directly from the president, what he was thinking at the time.

Q Great.

A very different kind of example. And this is more recent.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, sure. Sure.

Q When the president was in Italy for the G7 and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q — you’ll remember he skipped one of the leaders’ dinner, which was a major event for the summit. And I remember you were asked about it by reporters, and you said, “You know, we shouldn’t read too much into the fact that he is skipping one dinner.” I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — what — would the explanation actually have been that he was tired and that he needed to skip something that was happening so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I wouldn’t — and my — my —

Q — late in the evening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And my answer stays the same. I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s not the first time that he has. He has a really busy schedule, and there is a lot going on.

As you know, when the president is abroad, he has continued to do domestic stuff as well as — as well as meeting with global leaders. And so, I truly would not read too much into it, and I will leave it there.

Q Okay. I have a very final question on the —

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

Q — the annual —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Okay. Sure. Sure.

Q — letter from Dr. O’Connor.

He said that the president “continues to be fit for duty and fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exemptions or accommodations.” Just because it’s been a couple of months, do you know if that statement is still accurate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s still accurate.

Q So, no exemptions, no accommodations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No exemptions. No accommodations.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s accurate.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, there was a — an announcement from the Department of Justice today about a crackdown effort to interrupt a Russian state-sponsored bot operation, an AI-fueled operation to denigrate politicians in the United States and elsewhere.

Have — have you — do you have any concerns right now that this is the leading edge of any part of a Russian effort to interfere in the election? Has the president been briefed on this?

And have you seen any evidence that the Russians or other foreign powers have tried to seize on the debate performance to repeat some of the president’s most embarrassing moments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, that’s a very good question. I would have to talk to our team about those particular questions that you just asked. There were multiple questions in your statement there. I would leave it to the Department of Justice as — what they announced. Obviously, that’s for them to speak to.

Look, AI has always been a concern. That’s why the president made some announcements recently — an executive — to take executive action on how we can deal with AI. We want to see more — more action — more fulsome action legislatively from Congress. That is something — it is a — it is a technol- — a cutting-edge technology that we need to get our hands on and make — get a better — you know, better understanding of what it could potentially do. And so, that is something that the pr- — the president is certainly — is looking — is looking to make sure that we deal with this in a full — a whole-of-government way.

On those particular questions, I would have to check in with our — of — with our team here. And, obviously, what’s — whatever is related to the Department of Justice in that — in that — in that statement, I would refer you to them.

Go ahead.

Q Yeah, thanks, Karine. You said just a minute ago that the president wants to turn the page on the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — on the last couple of weeks and get to the other side of this, or the White House wants to.

You know, has President Biden seen enough support over the last 36 hours from fellow congre- — or from fellow Democrats in Congress to now start turning the page and look ahead? I mean, what’s his reaction been to — to what — to what he’s seen since Congress has gotten back?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, it’s very similar to how I answered your — the question to one of your colleagues. He’s very much focused on what’s — what’s ahead. Right? He’s very much focused — he has a fulsome, robust schedule the next two weeks that we laid out for all of you. He wants to focus on that, the messages that he wants to come out when he goes to Texas next week, when he goes to Vegas next week. He’s going to — to — going to be on the road on Friday as well.

And I also want to say, look, you know, he is proud of — of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said they have — he — he has their support. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus did the same. And other — and other members of Cong- — of Congress, obviously.

And so, look, he wants to move forward, as your colleagues said; definitely, unite the — unite — unite the party, continuing to unite the party.

We heard from Representative Meeks, who said that Democrats — the congressional Democrats came out of the meeting today united. I think that’s important to note.

But the president is going to move forward. He’s going to move forward, and he’s going to continue to go out there, engage — engage with the American public like you saw him do in Pennsylvania. And he’s going to stay focused on that.

Q But do you feel — does he feel like he’s weathered this storm, so to speak?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I think that he is more determined than ever to continue to get the — the job done; to continue to build an economy that — that works for all; to continue to make sure that we have a middle class — right? — that is — that is strong — right? — that we don’t have a trickle-down e- — economy. That we have an economy that’s built from the bottom up, middle out. That’s what he wants to continue to do.

I think this week, with the NATO Summit — the 75th year of NATO — let’s not forget NATO has helped to protect Americans and pro- — and also protect the world and what it’s been able to do for the past 75 years. You’re going to see the president engaging with 32 leaders of this Alliance. I think that’s really important. That’s — again, on behalf of the American people. So, he wants to do that.

He has a lot on his mind as — as it deals with making sure we deliver for the American people. That’s what he’s going to focus on.

Go ahead — go ahead, Peter. I know — I know we had our chat yesterday.

Q Yes. Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, go ahead.

Q Does President Biden commit to serving a full second term if reelected?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q Thank you. We know the president says that his health is fine, but it’s just his brain, and that he’s sharpest before 8:00 —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He was joking, by the way. I just want to make sure that that’s out there. And people — people —

Q What’s the joke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Pe- — he was making a lighthearted joke as he was speaking off —

Q That he has a problem with his brain?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He was speak- — he was speaking off the cuff, and he was making a joke. You know the president. He likes to joke a lot.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s the same guy who says, “I know I look 40.” Right? So, he likes to make jokes.

Q That’s a joke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It is a joke. He —

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think people laugh when he says it.

Q Well, he also said he’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, it’s a joke.

Q — he’s sharpest before 8:00 p.m.

So, say that the Pentagon at some point picks up an incoming nuke; it’s 11:00 p.m. Who do you call? The First Lady?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He has a team that lets him know of any — of any news that is pertinent and important to the American people. He has someone — or — that is decided, obviously, with his National Security Council on who gets to tell him that news.

Q So, Kevin McCarthy just said that when he was the speaker, “Many times when we had meetings in the Oval Office, Jill was there as well.” When the First Lady is in these meetings, is she making decisions, or is she just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — advising the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. The president in the president of the United States. He makes decisions.

Q Okay. Another family member. President Biden has told me before he and his son don’t have any business dealings together. So, what is Hunter Biden doing in White House meetings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Are you talking about the meeting where they came together from Camp David and the two of them walked to the president’s meeting and he was there?

Q There is a report that aides were struck by his presence during their discussions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I can’t — I’m — I’m certainly not going to get into private conversations that o- — that occur. What I can say is — and I talked to this — I spoke to this before — is that when they came back from Camp David — the president spent a couple of days at Camp David with his family. He is very close to his family, as you know. It was the week of Fourth of July, which is why his family members were here last week. They walked together and — they walked together into the meeting.

Q Can you say if Hunter Biden has access to classified information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q And are you guys just not, since February, testing President Biden for Parkinson’s or for dementia because if he gets a bad result, it’s all over that day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, as I’ve said many times before, the president has had a fulsome, comprehensive — what we said — what we shared with you was comprehensive, but he’s had a full physical. We’ve sh- — we’ve shown the results of those physicals this past three years. We showed it just four months ago.

And it is in line with what we have done similar to President Obama, similar to George W. Bush. We are committed to continue to be transparent. We are committed to continue to show the results of those — of those physicals.

And, look, it’s the president’s medical team that makes the decision. We are not — with all due respect, you’re not a doctor. I’m not a doctor. It is the president’s medical unit that makes the decision on what the president needs.

Q Not a doctor —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — just play one on TV.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s — that’s scary.

Q But I know that — that is scary. (Laughter.)

But I know that, especially as adults get into their 80s, health conditions can pop up more than just once a year when he’s getting his physical. I think if my wife saw me on TV misspeaking or saying the wrong thing or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — seeing a change in my appearance, she would probably say, “Let’s go to a doctor just to make sure that you are okay. You have a family. You have an important job.”

Why doesn’t anybody in the president’s family urge him just to go to get checked out to say the coast is clear?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, just to step back just a little bit, because I think you weren’t in the briefing room last week. I — I don’t want to go backwards, but just to share a little bit about that night.

The president said it was a bad night. He talked about it. He had a — a cold, right? He talked about his schedule — right? — being abroad. And so, we’ve spoke about what that night was like for him. And we understand what the American people saw, what you all saw. We’ve spoken to that.

And I also would say — and I think you know this, Peter. You’ve — you’ve covered a couple administration at this point — a couple administrations at this point — that the president — every president has a White House Medical Unit that is with him 24/7 — that is available to him 24/7.

That is unlike any other American, right? That is not the norm. That is uncommon. Just down on the other side of the colonnade is where the medical unit is. And I did share in the — that the president checks in while he’s exercising with his doctor on — a couple times a week.

And so, he has that. He has something that most — majority of Americans — all Americans, I would probably argue, don’t have, which is a full medical unit that is with him at all times.

And he gets a full — full, full physical — annual physical that we share with all of you. And that is very different — very different than an everyday American who — sometimes they’re lucky if they can go get a physical. They have to get into a car. They have to take public transportation. The president has, again, a medical unit that’s with him here at the White House and travels with him.

Q So, I guess the question is just — this is not — you’re saying this is not a situation where you would rather just not know if there is an issue —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I will tell you —

Q — with the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — is —

Q — because if he does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look —

Q — get a bad result, it is all over.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all —

Q He has to leave office right away.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all —

Q He can’t run for reelection.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all, it’s a hypothetical — right? — that — you’re giving me a hypothetical. But I will also say — just to clear this up — hi- — the White House Medical Unit, his — his doctor, they don’t believe that he needs anything more than what we have been able to provide: a full — full, detailed, very comprehensive physical that he had four months ago.

That is their decision to make. It’s not yours. It’s not mine. It’s the White Hou- Me- — White House Medical Unit.

Go ahead.

Q Hi, Karine. You mentioned that the Democratic Party was united. Perhaps leadership, but a lot of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — rank-and-file Democrats have a lot of concerns. And one of them, Steve Cohen, said today: Not only are they not on the same page, but they’re “not even in the same book.” How does the White House — is the White House concerned about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, we — I’ve said before — right? — we respect congressional — congressional members. They have their opinions. We respect their opinions. Many of them that — we’ve g- — we had t- — opportunities to deliver really, really good results on behalf of the American people.

But there is — the whole Congressional Black Caucus — they support the president. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus support the president. Those are pretty impressive numbers.

Senator Coons, Senator Fetterman support the president. There’s also another list here that shows support for this president.

You’re going to have some congressional members who feel differently. It is — that is — that is up to them, right?

The president wants to continue. He’s going to have those conversations. He’s going to engage with congressional members. He’s going to continue to do that, as he has. That’s not going to stop.

Obviously, the campaign is doing their work. We’re doing — continuing our engagement with congressional members, as we do pretty much all the time on whatever issue we want to work with them on.So, that’s not going to change.

You heard from AOC, the co- — the congresswoman from New York. She said, “The matter is closed… and I support him.” Right?

You heard from Maxwell Fro- — Frost, who was on CNN today, gave — was very supportive on CNN. So, you do have other out there just today — just today or yesterday giving support to the president.

I can’t — you know, you’re mentioning one person, but there are others as well.

Q Well, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — I’ll — on a separate topic, slightly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q Cedric Richmond, this morning — he said that the — that the debate stage was words and the debate stage was performance, “I would say look at actions and accomplishments.” The president’s allies have made some version of that argument to not pay attention to what he said on stage but what his accomplishments are. But when you’re — when you’re the president of the United States, don’t words matter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, when you’re the president of the United States, I think any ki- — any leader — right? — especially including a former president, their words do matter. You’re 100 percent correct.

The president has owned up to that night. He said it was a bad night. He said this. He’s said this many times. He has even said he “screwed up.” So, those are the president’s words. That’s all I can give you at this time.

We do believe that we should not just look at the 90 minutes. The president has had — has done more than any other modern-day president’s administration. Historic — historic things have gotten done.

When I was watching the Democratic Caucus, they talked about 35 dollars insulin — right? — capping that. When you think about seniors who were paying hundreds and hundreds in dollars. We were able to get that done because of — of a very important piece of legislation that we m- — we moved through, right? And only Democrats made that happen. That’s also because of the leadership of this president.

And that’s just one. That’s the bipartisan infrastructure legislation. There’s the CHIPS and Science Act. There’s the — the PACT Act for our veterans.

I mean, there are things that he’s been able to do that elected officials, presidents before him have been trying to do and could not getting done — get done: beating — beating Big Pharma.

So, there is a long list of impressive things that this president has been able to get done — getting us out of the pandemic — that we do believe is important to note here as well as an accomplishment of this presidency.

Q Another question that I don’t think has been asked — correct me if it has.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q The White House and also the campaign has said that he had a cold that night. He then went to a watch party afterwards, which you have brought up. I was a that watch party. If he did have a cold, why then push him to another event where he spent some 45 minutes along the rope line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, and not just a — and I would add to that: It wasn’t just a watch party. We landed at 2:00 a.m. in the morning in North Carolina. He greeted hundreds of North Carolinians in North Carolina. He woke up the next day in North Carolina, gave a speech in front of — in front of thousands of North Carolinians —

Q But my point is: Wasn’t he contagious? (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, I — I’m just — I’m just trying to lay — you’re giv- — you gave me an opportunity, and I’m just using that opportunity, obviously, to lay out what the president did in those two and a half days.

Look, you know, one of the reasons that we shared that he had a cold is because during the debate, in real time, everybody heard his — his hoarse voice, and folks asked. And we were able to c- — we were able to confirm right away that he had a cold and that — and that he was also — tested negative for — for COVID. So, we were able to share that in real time, so just also want to share that.

Look, he pushed forward. Right? Many of us have colds, and we still push forward. He’s the president of the United States. He understand how important it is to continue to get up every morning regardless of how you feel — right? — to get things done. That’s how this president is. I’m su- — I’m sure that’s how many presidents before him were as well, when it comes to really not letting a cold get you down. And — and I think that’s also why he pushed forward in the debate also on that night.

So, look, he pushed forward, tried to get things done, wanted to make sure that he had opportunity — people who watched him do a debate, who were waiting for him; people at 2 o’clock in the morning in North Carolina who were waiting for him — he wanted to make sure that he engaged with Americans.

Q And finally, Karine, this morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson said, as he has before, that Democrats have been covering up the president’s mental acuity for years. How do you respond to that? And has the White House misled Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, I’ll say this. Americans out there, folks who are watching who are not normally in the day to day of what’s happening in this world, there’s a comprehensive medical — full comprehensive medical report on the website, WhiteHouse.gov. I would encourage them to take a look — to take a look. Read — read that report.

And they can also read for themselves what his — his, you know, specialist — a group of specialists — of — coming out of the medical unit decided on, what they examined, what they saw, what they reported on. I think that matters as well. It is a group of them that come together when it comes to doing their physical. It is extensive physical.

And so, there is something there for them. It’s transparent. It’s out there. It’s for them to read. It’s for the American — not just for you — for the American people to take a look. And I think that’s important to note as well, and that’s what I would share with them.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I’ll come to you, Ed, in a second.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The president said yesterday in his letter, in his interview that he talked to a wide range of voters. He overwhelmingly heard from people that they wanted him to stay in the race.

Our polling shows that 76 percent of Democrats think he is too old to run this year. How is he coming to this conclusion? Are you sure that a handful of events is giving him a representative view of swing state voters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — I mean, look, that has been — you all have asked me about polling and his age for, I feel like, a year now. It’s come up many, many times. And, you know, I’m not going to speak to polls. It’s not something I’m going to do from here. I’m just going to let the experts, the pundits, and all of you —

Q But he’s saying he conducted his own poll —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. We —

Q — effectively.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was — I was about to answer your question. Just give me — give me a second.

Look, for the past three and a half years, the president has been out there talking to voters. And if you think about — and I think what he was referring to, when we to — when he went to Atlanta right after the watch party, he saw — he — he literally did a rope line. Some of your colleagues were there. Some of your colleagues spoke to some of the folks who were there and heard from them directly. He heard from folks at the rope line.

I mean, these are everyday — engaging with everyday people. That’s what he did. Landed at 2:00 a.m. in — in the morning in North Carolina — hundreds of people there. He did a rope line, engaged with everyday people. The next day, thousands of folks — thousands of people were at the North Carolina event, and you heard chants, “Let’s go, Joe!” “We love you, Joe!”

I mean, that’s something that you feel, right? That’s something that you feel out there, and that’s what he feels out there.

The next day, he went to New York, and he was able to — spoke to — to speak to some supporters there and then went to New Jersey. So, it is a continuation.

On Sunday, 600 people at the church. The whole — if you watch that — that service, you hear- — you heard from that congregation. If you watched him in Harrisburg, you saw people — you saw him engaging with people.

I mean, that — there is nothing that takes away — all respect to the polling out there, but nothing takes away, I don’t think, from engaging with everyday Americans. I think that matters too. And that’s just — I’m just laying out the last 10 or 12 days, right? That’s just the last 10 or 12 days.

Q One more. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on a senior White House official who apparently worked with the president in his vice presidency, in the 2020 campaign — said he shouldn’t seek reelection. They thought he was not up to it; he was showing signs of his age. Does — does the White House know who this person is or made an effort to find out? Are you comfortable having someone who apparently is traveling with him and working with him in this way who thinks this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, that is — that is the first time I’ve ever heard that was in that reporting. You know, we — this is not — this is not the last administration, where we try to find who is, you know, speaking or leaking. That’s not something that we do here.

Everybody has their opinion, but that is the first time I’ve ever heard anything like that. I’ve never heard any speak — anyone speak in that way from here.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q To follow up on something you were saying to Gabe about congressional outreach, has the president spoken to — does he plan to speak with any of those that have publicly called for him to go?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I don’t have a list of people that the president is going to call. He’s going to engage with congressional members. That’s something that he’s going to do. I can say, you know, I — I’m sure folks here in his Office of Leg Affairs has had regular communication with everyone. I just don’t have a list of who he’s going to speak to.

But the president is always willing to speak to people who agree with him and don’t agree with him. You know that about him, if you’ve covered him. He’s very much that type of — of president. I just don’t want to get ahead of — of his decision on who he’s going to call and how that’s going to look.

Q One thing I don’t think we’ve gotten public clarification about yet.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q In the interview Friday night, he was asked, “Did you watch the debate?” And he said, “I don’t think I did, no.”

Did he watch the full debate or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know —

Q — what of it has he watched?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, that’s a good question. I should — I did- — never followed up with him, and I meant to. I — I have not asked him that question. I was there in the room when he was being asked that question. I just never followed up. You know, that is something that, you know, we can follow up with him on. I have not.

Q Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m sure he’s seen clips. I’m sure he’s seen clips. I just haven’t — I just haven’t had — asked him that full question.

Q It’s hard — it’s hard to avoid them, so I can — yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q Okay. One other thing that’s come up just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, it’s getting round — round-the-clock coverage — right? —

Q That’s one way —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — from all of you. (Laughs.)

Q One other thing that’s come up in the last little bit. The Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines — I don’t know if you’ve seen this — issued a statement a little while ago —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — saying, in part, “In recent weeks, Iranian government actors have sought to opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza using a playbook we’ve seen other actors use over the years. We’ve observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protestors.”

She goes on later to urge Americans “to remain vigilant as they engage online with accounts and actors they don’t personally know.”

But that’s a pretty big charge to make —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — that Iran may be trying to influence these protests in the streets of the United States.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, yes, I know what you’re speaking of, what the DNI warned about. Obviously, for any specifics, I would have to refer you back to Director Haines and her statement.

But broadly speaking here, just bear with me for a second, Iran is seeking to opportunistically take advantage of protests. So, I want to echo the DNI’s remarks today. Americans across the — the political spectrum, acting in good faith, have sought to express their own independent views on the conflict in Gaza. The freedom to express diverse views, when done peacefully, is essential to our democracy.

At the same time, the U.S. government has a duty to warn Americans about foreign malign influences and activities. This is — this is important to help Americans guard against efforts by foreign powers to take advantage of or co-opt their legitimate protest activities. We will continue to provide these warning as they arise.

And, today, I just want to convey and — and — a firm message from here to Iran and any other foreign actor that seek to conduct these types of influence activities: Meddling in our politics and seeking to stroke [stoke] division is unacceptable, and we will continue to expose attempts to undermind [undermine] our democracy and our society, just as we are today.

That is something that we will continue to do. The U.S. government will continue to vigorously support and defend Americans in their exercise of their First Amendment rights to protest and express political views peacefully.

At the same time, we will continue to warn against, expose foreign efforts to meddle in our inter- — internal affairs and attempt to amplify conflict.

The former is an essential part of a robust, functioning democracy. The latter is a threat, and it will not — it will not — will not be tolerated.

Q And the president has been read into all this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s been briefed.

Q There’s no problem with it being shared publicly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s been briefed. He’s been read — read in. He is aware. And it — we believe, as I just stated here, it is our duty — it is our duty here, as the U.S. government, to share that.

Q In the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q I have a question about the NATO Summit.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q There has been a lot of discussion about Ukraine but also the southern flank of NATO, countries like Italy and Spain. They want the summit to approve a new strategy to improve relations with countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and work together on challenges like migration or instability.

So, does the U.S. support this? And is the president trying to — or planning to meet with any leaders of the southern front?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I think we announced some of the bilateral — we announced the one with the UK prime minister; I just announced with President Zelenskyy. We will do our best. You know, the president is hosting the 75th NATO Summit, so he is going to be pretty busy engaging with global leaders and, obviously, hosting the event.

So, if we have anything more to share, I know my colleagues at the National Security Council will do our best to share that with you.

I’m not going to — we’re going to have some deliverables. We’re going to have some — you know, some statements to make, declarations. I’m not going to get ahead of any of that, so I’m just going to let this — let this summit begin and let the president actually lead — lead these next couple of days.

Q But does the president support this strategy? It has been out there for months.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I — what I’m saying to you, I’m not just — I’m not going to get ahead of the summit. We’re going to have many conversations, many, many meetings here. I just want to be super mindful.

You also asked me about any other bilateral engagements. We have — we’ve already announced two. And — and so, just don’t want to get ahead of anything else.

I — you know, things happen when the president is there. He gets pulled to the side. We do pull-asides. We try to share them in real time as quickly as possible. I just don’t have anything to share outside of that.

Go ahead.

Q Sticking with NATO, are there any details you can share on President Biden’s meeting with President Delen- — Zelenskyy? Just any, you know, details on potentially what they might discuss, if Biden had said he would announce new air defense for Ukraine. Will that come up at all?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We will definitely — there will be more air defense that we will be announcing. Don’t want to get ahead of the president.

Look, you saw — as I announced as the top, you saw the president do a bilat with President Zelenskyy in France and also at the G7. It is always — obviously, part of those conversations is to continue to show our unwavering support for the Ukraine.

The president has led in this effort globally. Right? If you think about NATO and how st- — the strength of NATO and how it has — it has grown plus two and how we have been able to have a stronger alliance than we’ve ever had before. That’s because of this president. And backing, obviously, behind Ukraine — that’s because of this president.

So, our support continues to be unwavering. And we will have more to read out from that — from that bilat.

Q And as it’s the 75th anniversary, you know, by — it’s here in D.C., obviously. But what does the success look like for Biden, given everything that is going on in, kind of, the debate aftermath? Kind of, what — what is he measuring?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — I will say this, and I’ve said this many times before as it relates to foreign leaders — and, look, I will say that the foreign leaders have had an opportunity to see what the president has been able to do in the last three and a half years. They’ve seen that, certainly, up close and personal the last three years, and they know that they are dealing with a president who has been effective and has just — has been able to get things done.

I just talked about NATO and the president’s leadership and how we’ve been able to strengthen NATO, ma- — make sure that we invigorated the NATO Alliance, and that has — that we’ve been able to — to see in the last three and a half years.

So, the president was — continue to strengthen those — that partnership and strengthen those alliances. Obviously, it’s not going to just be NATO — NATO Allies here. We’re going to see others. For example, Japan will be here on Thursday and other — other heads of states. I believe there’s going to be 38 heads of states that will be here.

And so, we want to str- — continue to strengthen those relationship, and that’s what the president wants to see. It is an important year, the 75th anniversary, and I think all of the work that the president has been able to do will be on full display.

Q And just one last question. If the president’s health were to decline rapidly next week just kind of out of the blue, have you had any conversations with — with him? Or has he made any comments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — on if he would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely not.

Q — step aside?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a hypothetical. No.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. Staying on the NATO Summit. While the summit, of course, is being held in Washington, China is criticizing NATO as the relic of the Cold War. It’s causing a higher security risk to the world and the region. What is the White House response to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine poses a threat to transatlantic security. That’s what it does. And it shows how critical the NATO Alliance is and how important it is to continue to make sure that it is strong, and that’s what the president has been able to do.

I am not surprised — we are not surprised that China doesn’t understand that through — that, though, considering how they are actively enabling — right? — they are themselves enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine, so it doesn’t surprise me — or surprise us that that statement was made.

But, look, NATO is an — is an important alliance. It’s been around for 75 years, protecting, here, U.S. Americans — American citizens but also the world. And so, we are going to continue to strengthen that alliance.

Q And my second question. Indian Prime Minister Modi is visiting Russia. We’ve all seen the footage that he’s hugging, being friendly with Putin. Also seeking to deepen bilateral relationship. We see that — saw the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy already express his disappointment. Is the U- — the United States concerning that India, as a U.S. ally, might be actually aiding Russia either intentionally or unintentionally.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I believe my NSC colleagues have spoken to this. And I’ll just add that — and just reiterate that India is a strategic partner with whom we engage in full and frank dialogue, including their relationship with Russia. And we’ve talked about this before.

So, we think it’s critical that all countries, including India, support efforts to re- — to realize an enduring and just peace when it comes to Ukraine. It is important for all our allies to realize this.

And so, we also believe India’s long-standing relationship with Russia gives it the ability to urge the — the president — President Putin to end his brutal war — an unprovoked war in Ukraine.

It is for President Putin to end. They star- — President Putin started the war, and President Putin can end the war.

Go ahead.

AIDE: Karine, time for one or two more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q A couple questions on unrelated subjects. First, there’s been some reporting by my colleagues in the British press that His Majesty King Charles would like to visit his grandchildren in California and could do so in conjunction with a state visit. Has there been any discussion or will there will be any discussion between President Biden and Prime Minister Starmer about such a visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to share. That is something, obviously, that the State Department and NSC would certainly engage on if that were to be the case. As you know, the — the new prime minister will be here for the NATO Alliance. I just mentioned that there will be a bi- — bilat between President Biden and the new prime minster, so the president looks forward to that.

An upcoming visit that involves the king — King Charles. I don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q Okay. Next question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q The president yesterday on “Morning Joe” said he wanted to make sure that the — the average voter out there still wants Joe Biden to be running for president. And you’ve rattled off a long list of — of campaign engagements that he’s had over the last 10 or so days since the debate.

Those engagements — whenever the president travels, whether it’s part of the campaign or official travel, there are advance teams. People who get near him are screened either by the Secret Service or the campaign or both.

So, how are these groups of people he’s meeting with, supporters of his — that they are supporters, they — they get to these official events — these official campaign events. They are — they are known to be supporters of the campaign. They self-select by coming to his events. How is a — how are groups of people that come to his events, make the time out of their day to do that, and are — are vetted by the campaign and are allowed into these events representative of the average voter?

And then, I have one more for you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m going to be really careful because you’re asking me a political question. You would have to talk to the campaign on how the process works.

Q I’m not asking you about the process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, wait. No, hol- — give me a second. Give me a second.

On how — on how that process works on who is in — who is — who is at the — these campaign events. So, I just want to make that clear, because I have to say that from here and — and make that clear.

I would — I would remind you that 14 million people — this is something that I can talk about — voted for the president in the primary. That’s 87 percent of the vote. That matters. Those numbers matter.

And so, that is kind of a reality, a datapoint that matters as well. And so, I’ll just leave it there.

But I think it does matter — I hear the question that you’re asking. He’s still engaging with everyday people. He’s still hearing directly from them. They’re still sharing information, sharing how they feel, sharing how they see the future of the — his presidency. And I think that matters as well.

As far as who is in the room, how that’s — that — how that comes together, who is in front of him, you would have to speak to the campaign about that.

Q Okay. And one last thing. You’ve described his — his engagements with Dr. O’Connor on a regular basis as — as “check-ins.” That’s what you’ve described him having after the debate — a “check-in” versus an “exam.” Can you elaborate on what the difference is between a check-in and an exam? At these check-ins, does — does Dr. O’Connor or another staff member take the president’s vitals or — or anything like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ve talked about this on Friday. They’re verbal check-ins with the president. They check in. As the president is exercising, that’s usually how this happens. And they are not a medical exam. I’ve said this already. I’ve cleared that up. They’re not phy- — it’s not a physical.

It is a verbal check-in that the president does multiple times with — with his doctor. It’s normally as he’s working out.

Q Does anyone from the Medical Unit take the president’s vitals on a regular basis?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — what I can tell you: He gets regular check-ins — he does regular check-ins, a couple of times a week, with — with Dr. O’Connor. And that is for his doctor to decide on. That is not something that I can speak to from here.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thank you. The president has come out very aggressively in the past 24 hours, from that letter to Democrats, the call-in to MSNBC, the phone call with donors, the CBC last night. Was that his decision —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q — personally to step up that outreach (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It has been. He is — he is — he’s ready. He’s — he’s on fire. He’s ready to go. And he wants to get out there and continue to show that he has more work to do. Right? He has more — more important issues for the American people to get done.

And so, he wants to get out there. He always has, though. I mean, the last two, two and a half years, three years, three and a half years, he looks forward to getting out there, speaking directly to the American people.

And he — and I know we say this, and I know sometimes you guys don’t believe us, but he does want to engage with you all. He does want to talk more to the press. And so, now we’re — we’re certainly going to continue to create opportunities to do that.

He’s done interviews 47 times in this year alone. And we’re going to continue to create opportunities to do this. We’re going to get out there so he can engage with the American people more directly. So, we’re going to continue to do that.

Q But in terms of — you know, especially in the last 24 hours —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — that type of outreach to ease concerns among Democrats about his campaign continuing, was there something specific that he heard or read that prompted this — what seemed more like a flurry over the last 24 hours — that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — didn’t happen last week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah —

Q We really saw him doing more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I get it.

Q — since yesterday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I get the question. Look, I — I wouldn’t say there’s anything specific. This is something that he wanted to do. And if you — if you think about it, you know, he was — he’s been on the road a lot since — since the — since the debate. He was on the road on Friday; he was on the road on Sunday. And then right out of the debate — right? — he did about two — he did two and a half days of going into about four states.

So, he’s just been on the road, busy engaging with — with — with Americans.

But — and he did the ABC interview, as you know, obviously. And so, he wants to do more. He wants to do more. There is nothing specific, but he understands — he understands what — what you all saw. Right? He understands he had a bad debate. He understands that Amer- — what Americans saw.

So, he wants to go out there and continue to prove to all of you that, you know, he continue to — can continue to do the work —

Q And does he feel —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — and the job.

Q — that outreach is working to ease those concerns after the bad debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I think he’s — you know, this is kind of the question that I got from other colleagues. He’s hearing directly from the American people. And I think that matters. You know, I think — I think him being out there and them — Americans seeing him directly, being able to touch him and ask him questions and see him face to face, I think that matters.

And so, look, we’re going to continue to move forward and do — and do what we have to do.

All right. I think I can take one more. Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q Thank you so much. So, we’ve seen the president, like, being on the ground more, but we’ve also noticed a slightly new tone from him. He said he was frustrated with the elites of his party. He dismissed polls. He criticized media coverage, saying that journalists get election results wrong. So, is this the kind of tone we should expect to hear from him going forward? And does he believe this is the kind of tone that the average voters, as he says, expect from him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I would say this. I think what we’ve seen the last 10 to 12 days is certainly fundamental to wh- — the Joe Biden story. He is someone that is certainly counted out many, many times in his career. People tend to — tend to knock him down, and you heard him say he gets back up.

This is the story. This is the story of him standing up for himself, standing up for millions of Americans and — and, certainly, millions of Americans who back his leadership and, like him, care — they care about working people. They care about getting things done.

And I — you know, it really, truly is who he is at his core to fight — to fight not just for himself but what he believes in.

And he has seen this over and over again: People count him out. People say he’s not going to win. People say, you know, all of the — (laughs) — all of the — the negative things that they want to put at his feet, and he proves them wrong over and over again.

You think about 2020 — folks said the same thing. “He’s not going to win. He’s not going to make it.” And he won.

In 2022, we had a midterm election. And going into that midterm election, it was supposed to be a “red wave.” There wasn’t a red wave.

It happened in 2023.

Now we’re in 2024, and he’s going to continue to fight. That is his commitment. That is quintessential Joe Biden’s story. That is fundamentally who he is — is continuing to fight.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Thank you, Karine.

3:32 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, July 9, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:19 P.M. EDT

Q    Good afternoon.

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

It’s going to be a great week.  I have — I have very long things — l- — long toppers at the top.  Just warning you all.  No falling asleep, please.

Okay.  So, we’ve gotten more strong economic news in recent days. 

On Friday, our economy created more than 200,000 jobs last month.  Under President Biden’s leadership, we have now created a total of 15.7 million jobs over the last three and a half years. 

Yesterday, a record 3 million travelers were screened at airports — a sign that our economy is strong and Americans are back on the road for the summer in record numbers. 

Speaking of which, last week, we sold 1 million barrels of gasoline to help lower gas prices ahead of the Fourth of July, which saw the lowest gas prices in three years. 

And today, a new report from the Economic Innovation Group highlighted what the New York Times called a — quote, “a remarkable comeback” under President Biden. 

That report found that communities that have been lifted [left] behind struggled under the last — last administration — what the Times called “a particularly grim stretch under Donald Trump.”  But those communities are coming back under President Biden, with jobs growing more than four times faster than in the previous four years. 

Investments spurred by the president’s Investing in America agenda are benefiting previously left behind communities. 

That’s just some of the economic progress happening under President Biden.  Watch out for more news in the coming days.  Exciting. 

And next, I want to share highlights from the president’s recent schedule, as well as looking ahead to the next two weeks.

So, over the last 10 days, President Biden has been hitting the road and meeting directly with the American people, as well as continuing his job as leader of the country. 

In the two days after the debate, he met with supporters in Atlanta, Raleigh, New York, and New Jersey. 

Last week, he delivered remarks on the Supreme Court, visited the D.C. Emergency Operations Center for a briefing on extreme weather events, hosted a Medal of Honor ceremony, and joined the First Lady for a Fourth of July barbecue with active- duty military service members and their families.

Throughout the week, the president also spoke with leaders of the UK — United Kingdom — Israel and the Republic of South Africa.

On Friday, the president traveled to Madison, Wisconsin, for a campaign rally.

On Sunday, just yesterday, he held numerous events across Pennsylvania with elected officials, including Governor Shapiro, Senator Fetterman, and Congresswoman Madeleine Dean. 

He participated in interviews, including joining “Morning Joe” just this morning. 

And throughout, the president has engaged with elected leaders, including members of Congress, governors, and local officials. 

This week, President Biden will speak to National Labor leaders of AFL-CIO; host the NATO Summit to show the unprecedented strength of our alliance; hold a press conference — a “big boy” press conference, according to Justin Sink from Bloomberg — (laughter) — who’s not here.  But, Josh, you are here.  I see you. 

Q    Hi, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  So, that will happen on Thursday.  And travel to Michigan on Friday for a campaign event.

And next week, he will travel to Texas and Las Vegas. 

On July 15th, he will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas.  He will highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s progress advancing civil rights and his vision to bring America together.

On July 16th, he will address the 115th NAACP National Convention in Las Vegas, emphasizing the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to advancing racial justice and e- — equity for all Americans, including Black Americans. 

On July 17th, he will speak to the UnidosU- — Unidos Annual Conference where he will underline the Biden-Harris administration’s historic accomplishments, including lowering prescription drug costs for America’s seniors, lowering the Latino uninsured rate, and creating a Latino small-business boom. 

And finally, I just mentioned the U.S. is going to be hosting the 75th summit — the NATO Summit right here in the United States, obviously, in Washington, D.C., this week.  NATO is the most powerful and capable alliance in the world.  And President Biden is proud — very proud to have worked to strengthen it and also expand it.

So, with that, the admiral from the National Security Council is here to take your questions on that.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  Appreciate it.

I, too, have a few things to get through, so I ask you to bear with me.

As Karine mentioned, the president is looking forward to hosting the leaders from 38 different countries this week in Washington for a historic summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the NATO Summit.  This will obviously include the leaders of all our NATO Allies, as well as NATO partners, including Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea. 

Before we discuss the schedule, I just want to take a minute to discuss the context in which NATO leaders will be gathering this week. 

For 75 years, NATO has served a vital role in protecting the American people and in making the world a less dangerous place. 

NATO is the strongest defensive alliance in history.  And today, it is bigger, stronger, better resourced, and more united than ever before, in large part due to President Biden’s leadership over the past three years. 

He’s worked hard to expand the Alliance by welcoming two new members, Sweden and Finland, and we’ll officially welcome in Sweden this week.  He has spent countless hours rallying the Alliance in 2021 and 2022 to build a global coalition to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and provide indispensable support to that country.  And I’ll get that — more on that in just a second.

The president has also strongly encouraged greater partnerships between the NATO Alliance and friendly nations around the world, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, as you will see.  And the president knows that the global threats and challenges that we all face, including from authoritarian actors and terrorist organizations are inextrictab- — inextricably linked.

He has also encouraged our NATO Allies to join him in making significant investments in our mutual defense and deterrence capabilities.

And when the Biden and — Biden-Harris administration took office, only nine NATO Allies were spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.  Two percent was the Wales pledge.  That was the goal that every member of the Alliance had — had swore that they would get to. 

Today, a record 23 NATO Allies are at or above the minimum level of 2 percent of GDP on defense spending — more than twice as many as in 2020 and nearly eight times higher than when the Allies first set that 2 percent benchmark a decade ago.

Now, just quickly turning to the schedule.  Tomorrow evening, President Biden will welcome NATO leaders, and he and Dr. Biden will host the 75th anniversary commemoration event at the Mellon Auditorium.  That is the site, I think you all know, when the NATO Treaty was formally signed in 1949.

On Wednesday, the president will hold his first bilateral meeting with the new prime minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, here at the White House.  The president will also meet with the 32 members of the Alliance at the Convention Center.  And then later that evening, he and Dr. Biden will host NATO leaders for a dinner, again, here at the White House.

On Thursday morning, NATO will hold a meeting with the EU and with NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners — that’s Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand — to deepen our cooperation.  And then on Thursday afternoon, there’ll be a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, after which the president will host an event with President Zelenskyy and nearly two dozen of our allies and partners who have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine, just as the president did, as you saw, in Italy a week or so ago.

After that, the president will hold a press conference — I guess a “big boy” press conference —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

MR. KIRBY:  — is what we’re calling it — and take some questions from y’all. 

Now, we’re working to also set up some additional meetings — bilateral meetings.  Ri- — the only two that I can speak to right now are with the UK prime minister and President Zelenskyy.  But I have no doubt there will be ad- — additional bilats.  And as we get more fidelity on those, we’ll let you know.

Finally, as customary for — as customary for summits the United States hosts, there will be a leaders’ spouses and partners program hosted by Dr. Biden.

Now, if I could just quickly turn to Ukraine, because back to the context for what this meeting is all about, I think it’s important to just do a quick update here what — what the situation is on the ground. 

Since the passage of the supplemental in April, the president has authorized seven security packages to help Ukraine, including five drawdowns of munitions and equipment.  The resumption of that U.S. aid has made a significant impact on the battlefield. 

Instead of the nightmare scenar- — scenarios that were predicted several months ago about what we could see heading into the NATO Summit, we’ve seen the situation stabilize.  Ukrainian forces have successfully stopped Russia’s attack north of Kharkiv, denying Russia the ability to take that city and limiting Russian gains to areas just across the border. 

The Ukrainians have held the line in Chasiv Yar.  They’ve held fast east of Pokrovsk, hardening their defenses and ensuring that Russia will not break through.  And they’ve halted Russian attacks in Zaporizhzhia.

Throughout these last three months, the Russians have attacked relentlessly across all those fronts, and the price that they have paid for the few meters that they have gained here and there has been extensive: heavy casualties, destroyed equipment, disrupted supply lines, degraded morale.

The people of Ukraine have yet again demonstrated that when supplied and when supported by the international community and the United States, they can hold off the largest — though certainly not, I think is clearly evident, the most capable — army in Europe. 

Their success is not just limited to the front.  Ukraine has put U.S.-provided ATACMS — the long-range strike missiles — to good use in Crimea, destroying Russian surface-to-air missile systems, command nodes, airfields.  They sunk the last cruise missile-capable warship in the port of Sevastopol.  And the Russian Black Sea now — Black Sea fleet has now fled Crimea in response.

While it has been heartening to see Ukraine hold on in this critical period, we should not forget the grim reality.  Russia continues to bombard frontline towns with massive and low-accuracy glide bombs and sending missiles at Ukrainian cities, including over just the past weekend, where they hit a hospital — a children’s hospital.  Russia has ramped up its campaign against Ukrainian electrical generation, depriving the civilian population of power and attempting set the conditions to punish them over the fall and the winter. 

To strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses and to help Ukraine protect its cities and its grid, the United States and several of our Allies will have several big announcements at this week’s summit.  And the NATO Alloance [Alliance] will announce significant new steps to strengthen its military and political partnership with Ukraine to help Ukraine continue to defend themselves today and to deter Russian aggression well into the future.

These elements, taken together with bilateral support, are part of a bridge to Ukraine’s NATO membership.  Together, the Washington Summit will send a strong signal to Mr. Putin that if he thinks he can outlast the coalition of countries that are supporting Ukraine, he’s dead wrong again. 

As President Biden has said himself, Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.  Let’s go ahead.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, John.  You mentioned the context of the summit this week.  It’s also the first time the president has interacted with these world leaders since that — the disastrous debate against former President Trump 10 days or so ago, where the president struggled to confront the former president on all sorts of things. 

What is the president’s — you know, does the president feel the — how does he plan to reassure American allies in NATO that he is up for the job now when he couldn’t confront Trump on stage then?

MR. KIRBY:  I think your question presupposes the notion that they need to be reassured of American leadership and President Biden’s commitment.  And I don’t believe that’s the case. 

We’re not picking up any signs of that from our allies at all.  Quite the contrary.  The conversations that we’re having with them in advance is they’re — they’re excited about this summit.  They’re excited about the possibilities and the things that we’re going to be doing together, s- — specifically to help Ukraine. 

Q    So, you’ve seen zero — I mean, there have been stories, multiple outlets, from both sides of the Atlantic over the last several days with questions from European leaders about the president’s capacity to le- — to lead the United States.  Are you just denying that?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any such conversations that have been had.  Certainly none with us.  And — and here at the White House and with our staff, we’re looking forward to it. 

I want to, you know, go back to what I said at the beginning.  In the last three years, rather than browbeating and insulting and demeaning allies, this president has invested in allies and partnerships. 

And when he took office — what I said — nine — only nine allies had reached the 2 percent level — now 23.  That’s not by accident.  That’s because of leadership.  That’s because of constant stewardship of the Alliance and other partnerships around the world. 

The president’s record speaks for itself.  And the Allies and the non-NATO al- — friends and partners that are coming as well, they know that.  They wouldn’t be coming — New Zealand, Japan, South Korea — to a NATO Summit if they didn’t believe in American leadership and how important it is and if they didn’t believe that President Biden takes that responsibility extremely seriously. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Admiral, good to see you.  On the point about European countri- — or NATO members boosting their defense spending, that was something, though, that was a big concern of the last president.  It was part of the reason many of them were boosting their funding.  (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  And it was a concern of the president before the last president.  As you recall, President Obama said the same thing.  This — this pledge goes back a decade or so. 

But the numbers speak for themselves, Ed.  And rather than browbeating and yelling and screaming and complaining and whining about it, President Biden invested in this Alliance.  And he — just the last three and a half years now, more than double the number of Allies have reached that 2 percent. 

Q    Two questions on the fallout from the debate.  Have you, in your meetings with him, ever seen him appear similarly to the way he did on debate night?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I’m a spokesman, and the last —

Q    And you’re in a lot of meetings with him.

MR. KIRBY:  I am.  And the last thing I’m going to do is sit here and talk about every meeting I’ve had with the president. 

What I can tell you is what I saw in that debate is not reflective of the man and the leader and the commander-in-chief that I have spent many, many hours with over the last two and a half years in terms of the — the specificity of the way he probes, the questions he asked.

Heck, just this morning, he was asking me questions about the situation on the European continent that I couldn’t answer, and I told him I had to get back to him.

Q    On ano- — when he met with governors last week, he suggested he’d like to curtail events that begin after 8:00 p.m. at night just because he’d rather focus on resting and doesn’t want to have a long day. 

In your understanding of things, has the National Security Council ever withheld information from him he should have known late at night out of concern he might not be able to process it?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Mary.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Russia has bombed Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital, as you noted.  Do you believe the timing of these strikes is meant to send a message to NATO ahead of this week’s summit?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s hard to draw a line, Mary, to that.  I mean, sadly, this is par for the course for Mr. Putin to hit civilian infrastructure.  And he doesn’t care whether he’s hitting hospitals or residential buildings.  I — I can’t draw the line that — that this is some sort of message. 

But, look, I mean, as I said, what you’re going to see over the course of the week is a very set of — of strong signals and messages to Mr. Putin that he can’t wait NATO out, can’t wait the United States out, that we’re going to continue to support Ukraine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    I’m sorry —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Andrea.

Q    Oh, okay.  I just wanted to ask about the air defenses and some of the sort of deliverables that are coming out of the NATO Summit.  Can you walk us through what you think will be happening in terms of any additional commitments in — in addition to the — the funding packages that come?  And can you say a few words about this project to sort of consolidate the way that weapons are going to Ukraine through the distribution center, the — I think there’s a — an — a center that will be set up in Vyspa and under NATO —

MR. KIRBY:  Coordination center?

Q    Coordination center.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I mean, I don’t — the purpose for me to come today was just to kind of give you the laydown of the — of the — the summit ahead and not to get too far ahead of the leaders and the specific deliverables. 

But — so, without doing that and without getting fired, I’ll just tell you that — (laughs) — you’re going to see some announcements on air defense.  You’re going to see some announcements on deterrence capabilities, not just with respect to helping Ukraine but — but boosting the Alliance. 

You’re going to see some announcements with respect to the defense industrial base and how to shore up that and make it more resilient and invest in it more, including in our own industrial base here in the United States. 

And you’re going to see, as I alluded to, some discussion about Ukraine’s path to NATO and what that — and what that can look like and a reaffirmation of what the president has long said, that — that NATO is in Ukraine’s future.

Q    Just to follow up on that.  Can you say whether the word “irreversible” will be in the communiqué?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get ahead of the specific language one way or the other.

Q    And then just on Israel and Gaza.  Can you say anything about the Israeli response to the Hamas response to the ceasefire proposal?  Lots of responses.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  So, no surprise to you all.  I’m not going to negotiate here from the podium or in public.

I would just tell you that there has been some back and forth.  As you know, we have a team in Cairo right now that includes Brett McGurk and the director of the CIA.  They’re meeting with their Egyptian, Israeli, and Jordanian counterparts, and there’ll be follow-on discussions after that over the next few days. 

Look, we’ve been working this very, very hard.  And there are still some gaps that remain in the two sides and the positions.  But we wouldn’t have sent a team over there if we didn’t think that we had a shot here.  And we’re going to take every shot we can to see if we can’t get this ceasefire deal in place. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, David.

Q    Within days?

MR. KIRBY:  I couldn’t give you a date certain.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, David.

Q    Thank you.  John, thanks for doing this.

First, just to follow up on the communiqué, even if you can’t get into “irreversible.”  The president’s objection last year and Chancellor Scholz’s objection, if I remember Vilnius correctly, was that neither one of them wanted a date set for fear, I assume, that the United States and its allies would be drawn into the ground war if — if Ukraine was still at war while a NATO member. 

Does that remain today to be his primary object- — objection?  Is he willing to do wording that just is short of a date?  Because even if you do the word “irreversible” or not, it doesn’t really change the meaning very much of what you published in Vilnius. 

And I have a second on just the level of —

MR. KIRBY:  L- — I’ll — I’ll make this simple but unsatisfying.  Again, I’m not going to get into the text and the discussions about what the draft is going to look like, David.  I think you can understand that. 

But I do think your question is important to — to provide some context due.  The — the president still believes that NATO is in Ukraine’s future.  What that future looks like depends on an awful lot of factors.  Right now, you’ve got a war going on inside Ukraine, and the focus, rightly, has got to be on helping them win that war, and we are, as I detailed in my opening statement.

Number two, for any country that wants to join NATO — any country — and it’s — and it’s a — and it’s an alliance of democracies — the democracies have to meet certain — certain guidelines, particularly when it comes to governance.  And we are and will continue to work with Ukraine on reforms that are necessary for any democracy that wants to be a member of NATO. 

And then the third thing I’d say is, you know, it’s a — it’s a unanimous vote.  Everybody has to be on board with that, and that can take some time as well. 

So, the focus is on making sure that they can win now and that we can continue to work with Ukraine so that there is a path to NATO. 

The last thing I’d say is — back to the bilateral security agreement that the president signed with President Zelenskyy at the G7 in Italy — I mean, we’re one of many other nations that have done that, too, because we know that whenever this war ends, however it ends, and whatever the border looks like, Ukraine is still going to have a long border with Russia that’s going to need to be defended.  And they’re going to need the reassurance of being able to put forth a capable and competent defensive capability against Russian forces going forward.  And that’s why we’re making sure that there are things in line to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself.

Q    And one follow-up on it.  You mentioned that it was 10 years ago that the 2 percent GDP goal was set.  Obviously, there was no war underway at that time.  And so, the entire security situation looks radically different than it does — than it did when that — that was set.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I beg to differ.  There was — there was fighting in Afghanistan —

Q    There was — there was Crimea in —

MR. KIRBY:  — and —

Q    — in ‘24 —

MR. KIRBY:  — and Mr. Putin —

Q    — in ‘14.

MR. KIRBY:  — invaded Ukraine in 2014.

Q    In ‘14, yeah.  But I think the 2 percent may have been set —

MR. KIRBY:  It was in Wales.  It might have been set before the invasion. 

Q    Before that.

MR. KIRBY:  But nevertheless —

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  — it was still a tense security environment.

Q    Right.  We’re in something mu- — much different today.  I think we’re — we’re all in agreement, just given the amount of arms and so forth —

MR. KIRBY:  No argument.

Q    — going in.

So, is part of the president’s message at this summit that 2 percent is in the rearview mirror, that the NATO Allies are going to have to be spending significantly more than that — maybe double that for some countries, some larger economies?  Or is he going to stay away from numbers?  I know it’s politically sensitive with all of them. 

You also — you mentioned the word “win.”  I was wondering how you’re defining that. 

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  There’s a lot there.  The president is not going to set a new bar or a new level of GDP spending on defense here at this summit.  The goal is 2 percent.  It was a commitment everybody made 10 years ago.  Not everybody’s there.  Most of the remaining nations that haven’t reached 2 percent — most of them, not all — are working on it and are getting there. 

And so, I think the president wants, you know, to focus on that — wants to laude and commemorate those who have but also make it clear that those who haven’t still has- — they still have some work to do.

On “win,” I — I think we’ve been consistent about this.  I mean, at least I think I have.  I mean, we — we want all of Ukraine’s sovereign territory respected, which means we want no Russian forces in any part of Ukraine by the internationally recognized boundaries.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April.

Q    John, you just said — answering a question to Zeke — you’re not picking up on signs of Allies needing reassurances when it comes to President Biden.  But the Allies also look for a secure United States.  Have you heard any conversations from the Allies about issues of the elections process here, what they’ve been seeing, and the stability of the United States in the next few months, couple of years, et cetera?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any specific conversations with respect to our domestic political situation.  But, look, April, we watch the domestic political situation of our allies and partners, of course, like we did with the UK and with France over the weekend, and we have no doubt that they’re watching ours as well and that they’ll be watching our election with — you know, with a lot of keen interest.  We — we certainly would expect that.

But I’m not aware of any conversations that we’ve had at senior levels here, at the NSC or elsewhere at the White House, from Allies specifically about this — this particular election.

Q    Not even members of the European Union who — who gathered reporters a couple of years ago with concerns about democracy here? 

MR. KIRBY:  They — they might be talking to you all, but I’m not aware of any specific conversations here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    Just want to circle back, Admiral, on Ed’s question.  So, you said broadly that the president, in your view, is not represented by what was on the debate stage.  Then you gave us an anecdote about a meeting today where he was engaged and so forth. 

Are you saying you have never encountered a situation where you thought that he was displaying any of those symptoms or affectations or, you know, something that would give pause?  Or are you just declining to answer one way or another?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I’m a little uncomfortable a- — answering these kinds of questions because, as a spokesman, my job is to be an adviser and counselor, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for a spokesman to —

Q    But you gave us a positive.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I did —

Q    You gave us a pos- —

MR. KIRBY:  — because I wanted to make it clear. 

So, for — yes, I’m uncomfortable with these kinds of questions.  But to answer your — to answer your specific question, in my experience the last two and a half years, I have not seen any reason whatsoever to question or doubt his lucidity, his grasp of context, his probing nature, and the degree to which he is completely in charge of facts and figures.

And if he isn’t, what I’ve seen is — because it happened to me this morning — wh- — when he isn’t and when I can’t be in command of those facts and figures, I — I have to fess up and go get the information that he’s asking for.  And he asked me some questions this morning I didn’t have answers for.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Nadia.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions on the Middle East.  Israel has conducted the largest seizure of land in the West Bank, which undermines the president’s vision for a two-state solution.  So, why the White House has been not — mum on that and will the president —

MR. KIRBY:  We have not — it’s not that we’ve been mum.  There — there was a — there was —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  We have — we — there was a statement put out by the State Department about this call for settlements.  We contin- — nothing has changed about our view that settlements continue to be counterproductive to peace and stability and — and the possibility of a two-state solution.  We don’t support that.

Q    Okay.  And second, you mentioned about the Ukraine and Russia, in terms of the civilian casualties.  The U.N. said today that actually half of the facilities of UNRWA has been hit and 520 people have been killed in addition to the aid workers.  So, do you still believe that Israel is doing what it takes to protect civilian lives, including women and children?

MR. KIRBY:  We certainly believe that they need to continue to do more to protect innocent civilian life. 

Q    Yeah, but they’re not doing much.  I mean, we’ve been — I’ve been asking this question for nine months.

MR. KIRBY:  Your question wasn’t about what they’re doing or not doing.  Your question was do we believe that they should do more.  My answer is yes, they need to do more to protect civilian life.  And we’re going to continue to have conversations with them about how they’re prosecuting these — these operations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, John.  Just sticking with the Middle East but connecting to the other big story.  At the — during the ABC News interview on Friday, George Stephanopoulos asked the president was he, quote, “the same man today that you were when you took office three and a half years ago?”  And the president’s reply began, “In terms of successes, yes.  I was also the guy who put together a peace plan for the Middle East that may be coming to fruition.” 

Now, it may or may not be coming to fruition; we don’t know.  We do know 38,000 people have been killed in Gaza, almost 2 million displaced.  And according to UNICEF, one in three children under the age of two is suffering from acute malnutrition.  Does the president consider his Gaza policy a success?

MR. KIRBY:  The president believes wholeheartedly that this ceasefire proposal that we are trying to get done will make a big difference in terms of not only temporarily ci- — ceasing hostilities but potentially giving us an opening to end this conflict. 

It’s important to remember how this started.  And you talked about our Gaza policy, our — I’ll — I’ll state it for you again.  We want to make sure Israel has a right to defend itself from the kinds of attacks it suffered on the 7th of October, which I know is easy for people to forget — 1,200 people slaughtered, most at a music festival

Number two, that Israel is doing everything they can to protect innocent civilian life.  Is it enough?  No, they need to continue to do more. 

And that we are doing everything we can to get humani- — humanitarian assistance in to the people of Gaza. 

That’s our Gaza policy.  And as the president has also said, we would be and will still continue to be willing to adjust the policies that we — that we are executing with respect to Gaza as we see things unfold on the ground.

Q    But the broader question was: Does he consider his policy to have been successful?

MR. KIRBY:  Israel is defending itself against a terrorist attack, so we can check that off. 

Humanitarian assistance continues to flow.  In fact, if it wasn’t for the United States, I daresay that not — not a fraction of the humanitarian assistance that ge- — is getting into Gaza would get in.  Is it enough?  No. 

And the Israelis have taken some steps to be more precise, more discriminant, and more careful in their operations.  Is it enough?  No. 

So, we’re going to keep at it.  We’re going to keep working on this.

Q    You keep saying “Is it enough?  No.”  The president described Israel as bombing — in- — indiscriminate bombing in December.  Seven months have passed, and you’ve paused one arm shipment, as I understand it.  Is that fair?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s right. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  What’s your — is there a question here? 

Q    Do you think that that’s an effective response to indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population? 

MR. KIRBY:  It’s never right to be conducting indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population.  That’s why we continue to work with the Israelis to be more precise, to be more careful. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Just a couple more.  Go ahead, Michael.  Go ahead.

Q    Sorry, Karine.  Sorry.

Hi, Admiral.  Can I just start with the Middle East as well?  Hamas has accused Netanyahu of putting obstacles in the way of the ceasefire deal that is being talked about now.  Does the U.S. think that Netanyahu’s government is doing everything it can to secure the ceasefire deal?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re working hard to get that ceasefire deal in place.  I’m not going to negotiate here from public — in public or talk about who’s saying what and who’s doing what. 

We have seen both sides now — as Andrea rightly asked in her question — we’ve seen both sides come out with some public statements with respect to the text.  The last thing I’m going to do is — is get into bartering here. 

We’re trying to close those gaps as best we can.  We wouldn’t have sent the CIA director or Brett McGurk to Cairo if we didn’t believe it was worth a shot and worth a chance. 

I would also add that on both sides, you see public comments that aren’t necessarily fully reflective of the conversations that we’re having with — privately with them or their interlocutors. 

Q    And secondly, just on Ukraine.  There was a bit of an information bustle over the weekend.  The Russians said that they’ve destroyed two Ukrainian Patriot missile systems.  The Ukrainians said that they were decoys.  Does the U.S. have its own independent evaluation of what happened during that strike?  And what is the state of Ukraine’s air defense system when it comes to Patriot missile systems?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, we do.  I’m not going to talk about it.  And I think you’re going to hear more here this week about what the Allies and the United States are going to do to continue to bolster Ukrainian air defense. 

Look, I know we get hung up on the Patriots.  And I get that.  There has been contributions of Patriot systems by other nations.  You talked — we talked about how we’re resequenc- — resequencing some of our — our deliveries of Patriot interceptors from some countries, now diverting them to Ukraine.  We’re doing that.  Other nations are also trying to contribute Patriots. 

But let’s not get caught up on just one system.  There’s short-range, there’s medium-range, and there’s long-range air defense, and Ukraine needs all of it.  And, again, I think you’re going to see this week the Allies really stepping up and showing that they’re willing to continue to provide those kinds of capabilities. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Thank you.  John, Viktor Orbán is visiting China right now on the heels of a visit to Russia.  I’m wondering whether the U.S. has any views on that and what impact it might have on the situation in Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, we’re concerned about it.  It certainly doesn’t seem to be productive in terms of trying to get things done in Ukraine and trying to move forward to an — to achieve this just peace that President Zelenskyy continues to work hard and we continue to try to — to operationalize. 

But, yeah, it’s — it’s concerning. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead —

Q    And was there any advanced notification given to the U.S. of either trip — Russia or (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  None that I’m aware of.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    And can I a- — can I try one more time on “irreversible”?  Does the U.S. have a position — 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, you can try.  (Laughs.)

Q    Hey, it’s worth a shot.  Does the U.S. have a position on the u- — on the inclusion of that word?

MR. KIRBY:  Our position is that NATO is going to be in Ukraine’s future.  There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to get to that point.  And the president is looking forward to talking to President Zelenskyy and our NATO Allies about that path — that bridge to NATO. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Anita.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  A question on Ukraine and one on Iran.  Starting with Ukraine and this Russian rocket attack that killed 30 people at the largest children’s hospital.  Does this shift the U.S.’s position on not allowing Ukraine to strike directly at Russian airfields that originated these attacks?

MR. KIRBY:  Shift the position?

Q    Yeah.  Does this make you change your mind about not allowing that?  And how do you justify not giving Ukraine permission to attack?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s been no change in our — our policy.  You saw that the president several weeks ago gave guidance to Ukraine that they can use U.S.-supplied weapons to strike targets just over the border.  That’s still the case. 

Q    On Iran.  We’ve heard the U.S. say that this election — this presidential election is not free and fair, that they have doubts that this is going to change anything meaningfully.  But we’ve also heard the U.S. say that they will negotiate or do diplomacy with Iran when it serves our national interests.  So, is the U.S. now ready to resume nuclear talks, other talks, or make any diplomatic moves with Iran in light of this new president?

MR. KIRBY:  No. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Aurelia —

Q    Wa- — I’m sorry.  “No”?  Can you —

MR. KIRBY:  Well —

Q    Can you elaborate, please?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, your — it seemed like a pretty easy question to answer.  No, we’re — we’re not in a position where we’re willing to get back to the negotiating table with Iran just based on the fact that they’ve elected a new president. 

They’re still supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.  They’re still supporting the Houthis as the Houthis attack ships in the Red Sea.  They’re still attacking shipping as well. 

And they’re still supplying drones and drone technology and drone expertise to the Russians so that the Russians can continue to kill innocent Ukrainians like they did over the weekend. 

So, no.  No. 

Q    This guy seems a bit more moderate.  Do you see any opening?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ll — look, we’ll see what “this guy” wants to get done —

Q    The president.

MR. KIRBY:  — but we are not expecting any changes in Iranian behavior, sadly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We got to wr- — Aurelia, go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you so much.  John, this morning, the president said that France rejected extremism during the latest parliamentary election and expressed his confidence that the United States would also do so.  So, France has a very different electoral system, as you know.  So, why this optimism from the president?

And more broadly, was there a sense of relief in the administration that the election turned out the way it did?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think it’s pretty clear from the election that the — the far right didn’t find the purchase that it wanted to find and that — that the compromise in a democracy is going to have to still be the watchword in France as it is here in the United States. 

And it’s not going to change our strong relationship with France.  It’s not going to change the fact that France is a valued NATO Ally.  And the president is looking forward to continuing to work with President Macron and the entire team.

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Admiral.  I was just wondering, with the renewed spotlight and scrutiny on President Biden in public settings this week, how he’s preparing for the NATO Summit —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — how you guys are deciding how many questions to take in the press conference, what — (laughter) —

MR. KIRBY:  You got to ask —

Q    — what his curfew is —

MR. KIRBY:  You got to ask the press secretary that one.

Q    But you’re the one — you’re the one who’s prepping him for a lot of this on matters of national security —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, so —

Q    — and foreign policy. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — so — so am I.  (Laughs.)  It’s a team —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, exactly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a team effort.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I — I will let Karine talk about the press conference — the “big boy” press conference —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

MR. KIRBY:  — I think you all are planning to have. 

But he has already had discussions with his national security team in the leadup to the summit, as you might expect that he would.  He’s reviewing material.  He’s — he’s doing his homework and getting ready.

He’s got the first major set of remarks tomorrow night at the Mellon Auditorium.  He’s working his way through those remarks, as you would expect him to do, and he’s getting ready for the — at least the two bilateral meetings that we know he’s going to have specifically with the new prime minister of the UK and with President Zelenskyy later in the week. 

So, what I have seen from my perch is the normal amount of preparatory work that he does before a major international conference and no different than how he prepared for the G7 or for the events in Normandy or — or previous international fora.  So, it’s pretty typical from what I’ve seen.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

Q    And do you expect Vice President Harris to play a role in the events this week or to take any meetings during the time that she’ll be in Washington?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for the vice president’s staff and team, but I can have them get back to you about what her schedule is going to look like.

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

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, guys.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY:  See you guys.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral. 

Okay.  Well, all the debate questions have been answered — (laughter) — press conference answers.  Let me close — let me close my book and get out of here. 

Hi, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  My first to you is on the credibility of this White House when it comes to talking about the president’s health. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When you were here last Tuesday, you were asked if the president had had any medical examinations —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — since his physical in February or — and that included the time period after the debate. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    You said flatly “no.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    Three days later, you admitted that the president had a, quote, “short check-in” with the medical team —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — thereafter.  I mean, those are — those are two very different answers.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, no, no, no.  I actually — actually, if you — if you were to listen to the — I think I did a 30-minute gaggle on Friday — 30 minutes with a — I think was an — with — with the pool.  And — and I said he did not have a medi- — I cleared it up.  You’re right.  You’re correct.  I said he didn’t — I still stand by he didn’t have a medical exam.  I said that in the gaggle.  And you’re right, I said that in the briefing.

He had a check-in with — and he had — he said this on — on Friday.  He had a check-in with his — with his medical doctor, which is something that he does a couple times a week, as you know, and I say — I stated this as well. 

He has — for — for those who don’t know — obviously, outside of the briefing room, outside of the White House, ma- — many Americans don’t actually understand this, so let’s take a step back.  They — they deal with their medical issues or physicals very, very differently.  They are very — you know, they are lucky if their — get to see their — their doctor once or twice a year, right?  They have to get in a car; they have to either take public transportation in order to make that happen.

The president’s medical unit is literally down on the other side of the Colonnade.  It’s just down the steps from the Residence.  And so, a couple times a week, he does a check-in — a verbal check-in with his doctor while he’s exercising.  That is something that happens often.

Matter of fact, he did a check-in today.  Because I know folks were going to ask about if he was tested for COVID, he was not.  We are following CDC guidance.  He was not tested for COVID, just to let you guys know about that one.  And if he has any symptoms, obviously, we would test him.  But —

Q    Is that in context of the second gentleman’s diagnosis or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, yes —

Q    — is he not feeling well? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which is why — no, no, no, it’s — it’s in context of the second gentleman. 

But to answer your point, he did not have me- — a medical exam.  He did not have a physical.  He did do, like, a verbal check-in with his doctor a couple days after the debate. 

And it was very quick.  It was a couple of words that were spoken to each other.  And that’s how we were able to — to — we were able to give you that answer.  But he did not have a medical exam.  He did not have a physical.

Q    But so, when you say no, though, last Tuesday —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — was — did you know about that verbal check-in, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  NO.

Q    — did we just don’t ask enough — a precise enough question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, the line of questions that I was getting that day was in — the way that I was hearing the question was about the medical exam.  I answered M.J.’s question when she asked me, “Medical exam?”  And I answered and said — I said, “No physical.”  And then somebody else asked me, “Was there a check-in?” 

I did not mean to steer anybody wrong.  I was still thinking about the medical exam.  I was still thinking about the physical.  That’s how I answered the question. 

And then when it became — when the president actually spoke to it, we actually — I went back, asked the — asked the — asked the — the medical doctor, and he said they had a verbal check-in.  That’s what he said.

But in answering the question, I was talking about the medical exam; I was talking about the physical.

Q    And then two quick ones.  There’s a lot of reporting in the last 24 hours —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — about a Parkinson’s expert who’s come to visit the White House almost a dozen times over the last year or so, including a mee- — at least one meeting with the president’s ph- — physician. 

Could you state, like, very clearly yes or no: Was that expert here to participate in anything surrounding the care of the president of the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple of things.  We have had a comprehensive — and I just want to take another step back — comprehensive physical examination.  The president has had that.  We’ve given a comprehensive report.  We’ve shared that the past three years.

Every year that he has — every year that he has had this — this exam, he sees a neurologist.  And just to give you a quote from that — from the report most recently in February: “An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebella- — cerebellar or other central neurological disorders such as a stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, or ascending lateral sclerosis,” end quote.  So, that came directly from — in February, in that comprehensive report that was provided by the president’s doctor to me that I shared with all of you.  So, anyone who is watching can certainly go to our website.

Q    That’s not an answer to the question, though, which was this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- —

Q    — was this expert’s visits to — were his multiple visits to the White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — pertaining at all to the president’s care?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, here’s the thing.  I have — I have said he’s — he has had three — he has thr- — had three — three physicals.  In those three physicals, that’s when he has seen a specialist — a neurolo- — a neurological specialist.

Q    Was this the specialist that the president saw?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have to be super mindful here.  And this is why — and I’ll — and I’ll explain this to you in a second.  There are thousands of military personnel who come onto this White House.  Many of them get the care from the White House Medical Unit.  And so, need to be super careful. 

There are — you know, the medical unit hosts a wide range of specialists, from dermatologist to a neurologist, and so I cannot speak to every person because there are act- — there’s actually a security reasons to protect their privacy.  We respect in protecting people’s privacy.  So, do not want to share — I’m not going to share people’s names from here. 

But the president, I can tell you, has seen a neurologist three times, as it’s connected to the — to the physical that he gets every year that we provide to all of you.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    But, Karine, you’re not answering the question.  It’s a very basic, direct question.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. 

Q    Did Dr. Kevin Cannard —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on, hold on.  Wait, wait.  

Q    — come to the White House to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Wait a second.

Q    — eight times —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.

Q    — or at least once, in regards to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just —

Q    — the president specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on a second.

Q    That much you should be answer by this point —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait — no, no, no, no, no, no.

Q    — after four days of reporting about it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, wait a minute.  Calm — Ed, please.  A little respect here, please.

So, every year, around the president’s physical examination, he sees a neurologist.  That’s three times.  Right? So, I am telling you that he has seen a neurologist three times while he has been in this presidency.  That’s what I’m saying.

Q    Here at the White House or at Walter Reed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I am telling you that he has seen them three times.  That is what I’m sharing with you.  Right?  So, every time he has a physical, he has had to see a neurologist.  So, that is answering that question. 

Q    No, it’s not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it is.  It is.

Q    Did —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re asking me —

Q    — Dr. Kevin Cannard come to the White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I cannot — but I just ans- —

Q    — specifically about the president’s conditions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I also said to you — Ed, I also said to you: For security reasons, we cannot share names.  We cannot share names.  We have to pro- — we have to —

Q    You cannot share names of others he would have met with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We cannot —

Q    — but you can share names in regards to —

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

Q    — if someone came here in regards to the president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, we cannot share — we cannot share names of specialists broadly.  From a dermatologist to a neurologist, we cannot share names.  There are security reasons we have to —

Q    They’re in the White House visitor log.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have to prot- —

Q    Yeah, it’s public.

Q    It’s public.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand that. 

Q    I looked it up before I came out here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I under- — I hear you.  I —

Q    It’s right there for anyone see.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Ed, I hear you.  I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy.  I think they would appreciate that too.  We have to give them —

Q    Who would?  The patient or the doctor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have to keep their privacy.

Q    It’s public.  It is public.

Q    It’s public information.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — I hear you.

Q    It is listed that he went to the Residence clinic.

Q    And you’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — going to allow this to fester longer, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Guys — guys —

Q    — unless the White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — guys — guys —

Q    — just answers the question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on a second.  There’s no reason to get back — go back and forth with me in this aggressive way.

Q    Well, we’re a little miffed around here about how information has been shared with the press corps about him.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What are you — what are you missed about?  What are you missed about?

Q    Oh, everything he just asked about.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What are you — and then every time I come back and I answer the question that you guys asked.

Q    And you answer it incorrectly and then have to come back and clean it up a few days later. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I never answered the question incorrectly.  That is not true.  I was asked about a medical exam.  I was asked about a physical.  That was in the line of question that I answered. 

And I said, “No, he did not have a medical exam.”  And I still stand th- — by that.  Matter of fact, the president still stands by that.  He had a verbal check-in.  That is something that the president has a couple times a week — a couple times a week.

Q    And now, in regards to Dr. Kevin Cannard?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I am telling you, right now, that I am not sharing, confirming names from here.  It is a security reason.  I am not going to do that, Ed.  It doesn’t matter how hard you push me.  It doesn’t matter how angry you get with me.  I am not going to confirm a name.  It doesn’t matter if it’s even in the log.  I am not going to do that from here.  That is not something I am going to do. 

What I can share with you is that the president has seen a neurologist for his physical three times — three times.  And it is in the reporting that we share — a comprehensive reporting.  Matter — matter of fact, it’s more than what the last guy shared, and it is in line with what George — George W. Bush did.  It’s in line with what Obama did. 

And so, it is comprehensive.  It is out there.  I just read a quote from it. 

But I am not — I am not going to devolve [divulge] somebody’s name and — or confirm someone.  I am not going to do that.  That is as a — privacy for that person.  I’m not going to do that.  It doesn’t matter how hard you push me; it doesn’t matter how angry you get with me from here.  I’m just not going to do that.  It is inappropriate.  It is not acceptable.  So, I’m not going to do it.

Q    Not about the name.

Q    Karine? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  No, go ahead.

Q    Karine, if you cannot confirm the name —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — can you confirm whether or not the president has seen this Parkinson’s specialist?  And you mentioned three times that the visitor logs show a duration of eight visits over eight months.  I think that is the crux of the question that we’re asking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I — but I also said — I also said there are thousands of military personnel that come to the White House, and they are under the care of the medical unit.  They are.

Q    So, can you confirm that the Parkinson’s visit —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — specialist visits were for the president or not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what I can tell you is that the president has seen a neurologist three times, and I read to you what the neurologist has said.  And I read to you the last — the last line.  I could say it again: “No findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurologic- — neurological disorders, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, or ascending lateral sclerosis.” 

That is from — that is from February.  That is coming from February.  That is what the medical unit — the m- — the president’s doctor shared.

And I shared — I said to you it’s happened three times.  Each time there is a physical that occurs, and we put out a comprehensive report.  That is when he has been able to see — to see a specialist. 

Q    Just one other follow-up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that’s what I can share. 

Q    — question on — on this.  Has the president — you mentioned Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, all of these things.  One diagnosis that we have heard — a potential diagnosis — is hydrocephalus, which is fluid buildup in the brain.  It’s something we’ve never heard in any of the medical reports.  Is that something that the president has been —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If it’s —

Q    — evaluated for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Le- — if it’s — if it’s not in the medical report, obviously, it’s not — it’s not something that the president is dealing with.   If —

Q    But has he been evaluated for hydrocephalus?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I can tell you this.  Just going back to Parkinson’s for a little bit.  So, to give you some answers here: Has the president been treated for Parkinson’s?  No.  Is he being treated for Parkinson’s?  No, he’s not.  Is he taking medication for Parkinson’s?  No. 

So, those are the things that I can give you full-blown answers on.  But I’m not going to dev- — I’m not going to confirm a specialist — a — any specialist that comes to — come — comes to the White House out of privacy.

Q    One other question.  Is — will the president go to the Hill today?  I know we saw his letter.  Is he intending to have this conversation face to face with Democratic lawmakers? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president — obviously, this is someone who was a senator for 36 years; who was the president of the Senate as — when he was vice president for eight years.  And he respects — truly respects the members of Congress and has always and will always do that, especially as a former senator. 

And I will say — and you heard — you’ve heard us say this before — or most recently is this is a president who’s won — won the primary — right? — by 14 million votes, 87 percent of those votes, certainly. 

And, look, I don’t have any engagements to read out, you know, outside of that.  But I will say that the president was in Pennsylvania.  I just mentioned at the top, he got — he got to see Senator Fetterman, Senator Casey.  He also got to see Cong- — Congresswoman Dean.  He spent some time with them.  They traveled across Pennsylvania. 

And I will say when the president gets knocked down, he gets back up.  This is quintessential Joe Biden.  And there are a long list of other congressional members who have shown their support for this president. 

I don’t have anything else to read out.  You saw the letter.  The p- — letter was — the letter was, I think, pretty, pretty clear on where the president stand.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You’ve noted that there are thousands within the Walter Reed system who may be treated by a specialist who visits —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — here at the White House.  But this neurologist had a meeting with the president’s physician — with his doctor.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand that.

Q    You’re refusing to say if he was here to evaluate the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.

Q    — or if he was consulting on the president’s health.  So, what, then, was that meeting about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I will say that Dr. O’Connor leads the medical unit.  He is literally —

Q    So, can he tell us?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — he’s literally the — he leads the medical unit. 

No, because we will not confirm or — or speak to names that are — you’re providing to me.  It is out of security reason.  It is out of protecting someone’s privacy.  We’re just not going to do that. 

But they are — the reason that I mentioned that is because there are a thousand military members that do indeed use the — use the White House Medical Unit.  They do.

Q    But we’re not talking about those other people.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They get care from that. 

Q    We’re talking about the president of the United States. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, but I’m try- — but I — guys, I’m trying to answer the question so you can connect the dot that there are multiple neurologists that come — not neurologists — specialists that come through here because there are a thou- — like, more than a thousand medical — medical — military personnel here — military personnel here.

Q    But you certainly could clear this all up just by saying what he was doing here and if it was connected to the president: yes or no?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I am not going to confirm the — a neur- — a particular nar- — neurologist, anybody.  It doesn’t matter if they’re a derm- — dermatologist or a neurologist.  I’m just not going to do that. 

I shared with all of you that the president has met — has been with a neurologist three times as it relates to his physical.  Three times. 

So, you know —

Q    But we don’t know if this neurologist.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not — I’m — guys, I’m just not going to do that out of security reasons, out of privacy.  It is — it is not something that I’m going to do.  A measure of privacy we have to be able to give people from here.

Q    One other question.  Again, the president — the president’s —

Q    We’re just looking for clarification. 

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.  Hold on, guys.  Come on.  Come on, Kelly O.  

Q    The president’s doctor, you say, has seen no reason to evaluate him for Parkinson’s since his physical in February.  Is that based on these verbal check-ins that you’ve been describing, based on his public appearances?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Will you say that one more time?

Q    That — you’ve said that the president’s doctor has seen no reason to evaluate him or reevaluate him for Parkinson’s since that physical in February.  What is that based on?  Is it these verbal check-ins?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I never — I never said that.

Q    That’s what the White House has said.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I have said is — what I have said is that he just had a physical just in February, and the physical was very clear.  It was a comprehensive physical.  It’s — we gave out a report on that. 

And — and, you know, as it relates to the check-ins, that is something that is common.  The — the president has a medical unit that is literally down the hall that he’s able to check in with when necessary.  They normally do it while he’s exercising.  That is not uncommon. 

It is very different — it is very different than any everyday American.  They do not have that option.  They do not have that access, because he’s president of the United States.  Every other president has had that access, and they are able to do that.

Q    So, wait.  Just to be clear: Yes or no, has he — has his physician seen a reason to reevaluate him for Parkinson’s since the February physical?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  The — the comprehensive report that you all have stands. 

There is — we — the president, obviously, will have another physical, and we’ll wait for that physical. 

Q    Karine —

Q    Karine —

Q    Is it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    So, the president has said twice that he’s had neurological evaluations as part of his physicals, you know, in these various interviews —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — today and then in — and also on ABC.  But there have been a number of people who have said, “Listen, you know, why don’t you have a cognitive test just to rule out that there are any issues?”  Would the president — you know, do you — you know, would you — would you counsel —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear you.

Q    — to do that just to sort of put an end to these questions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, Andrea, I hear you.  The neurologists have said it is not warranted.  The president himself — he said it today; he said it mu- — multiple times — and the doctor has said this — everything that he does day in and day out as it relates to delivering for the American people is a cognitive test.  And that is what the medical doctor has said.  That is what the specialist said.

I do want to — I just want to take a step back for a second, because I do take offense to what Ed alluded to.  You know, I come out here every day there’s a press briefing, and we do our best to give you the information that we have at the time.  That’s what we do.  And we understand that — the freedom of the press.  We respect the freedom of the press.  You heard me talk about this last week.  We — I appreciate the back-and-forth that we all have.  It is — I try to respect you, and I hope you try to respect me.  And we literally do everything that we can — my team does everything that we can to make sure we get the answers to you.  That’s what we do. 

And sometimes we disagree.  Sometimes we are not in agreement.  But you know what?  That’s democracy.  That is what is important to have that healthy back-and-forth.  And so, to say that I’m holding information or allude to anything else is not okay — it’s really, really unfair.  I think people who are watching and have been watching this briefing for this past week could say that we are doing our best in this briefing to provide the information that we have. 

And I will admit — I will be the first one to admit: Sometimes I get it wrong.  At least I admit that.  At least I admit that. 

And sometimes I don’t have the information.  And I will always, always admit that. 

But I do take offense to what was just happening at the beginning of this briefing.  It’s not okay.

Go ahead.

Q    We are seeking clarity.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand that.

Q    And I think what we’re trying to say is when a name is in a public record on a WAVES form —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that it is in the public domain.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    The president could authorize that his medical records or additional medical information could be made public, because he could waive HIPAA.  He could do those things.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And if he chooses to do that, we would like to know more. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Part of the reason we are pressing here is that we are not clear on what has happened. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And therefore, the American people who — to whom we report don’t have a sense of it.  So, that’s what we’re trying to do. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But the personal attacks is not okay.

Q    And — and we want to have positive —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just want to be very, very clear here.  (Laughs.)

Q    — professional exchange. 

So, the question is — one question is: After a debate that drew days and days and days of scrutiny, why hasn’t the president had an in-person physical check-in — maybe bloodwork, maybe other things?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Because when he said he was seen, I certainly thought he had been physically seen —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — not a phone check-in. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    So, as — and that’s part of what we’re saying about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — how information comes out in WAVES —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I totally understand.

Q    — and then we may have a different impression.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I totally understand that.

Q    — this has dominated his presidency —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — for 10 days.  And he could submit to another exam — a full exam, a partial exam, whatever.  He can waive his right to make things public.  None of us are asking about the military members who might be seeing a physician here — none of us.  We are only asking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about the president’s well-being.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Understood.

Q    And so, that’s why we want to understand.  When you see —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on the public records that a physician with his specialty has come to the White House, gone to the residence clinic, and met with the president’s physician, we feel like there is more to be said there.  And that’s what we’re asking. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I understand that, Kelly O.  And you know I respect you wholeheartedly and I’ve known you for some time. 

We want to be also — because we are sp- — particular — we are talking about someone who’s na- — who is out there.  And I understand; I get it.  It’s in the log.  I get that.  It’s in the log.

Q    What is the security concern?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We want to — we want to respect that person and give them the measure of privacy that they deserve.  The moment I say anything about any specialist, it becomes a thing from this podium. 

So, what I can share — and this is what I can share: He has seen a neurologist three times — three times — not more —

Q    Is that a Walter Reed or here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not — not more than that. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not more than that.  He has seen a neurologist three times, and that is connected to the physical — the comprehensive physical that we have been able to share with you. 

So, I think that gives you some information about how many times: three times. 

And the reason why I am sharing that — there are thousands of military personnel so you also have an understanding because there are thir- —  a thousand military personnel that comes here and that not just comes here but under the care of the medical unit.  Right?  They get — they get care from the White House Medical Unit.  They — there tends to be dermatologist from — or dermatologist to neurolog- — neurologists who come through here — who come through here because the White House Medical Unit is i- — indeed caring for folks. 

So, I have confirmed: three times.  Three times.  I just cannot get into details or confirm a name of a person.  I cannot do that.  There are security reasons.  We have to give people a measure —

Q    Would you ask the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — of privacy.

Q    — if he would waive some of his records and make those public?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I don’t know how all of that works.  I’m not going to pretend I — I know how that — that works.  And what I will do is — certainly, we’ll share that information with the — with the powers that be.  I just don’t want to get into a back-and-forth on that particular question.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I mean, to Kelly O’s point —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the president today, when he called into “Morning, Joe,” he said that he had released all of his medical records.  Should we take that as indication that he’s going to do so?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, what I can say is that we have shared a comprehensive medical report that is pretty detailed, that is in line with other presidents — certainly not the last one, but the ones — the two before — before the last president.  And we have been pretty much in line with what they have been — what they have done — what — to be more clear, George W. Bush and — and also President Obama.  So, we have been —

Q    The last one did let his doctors come to the briefing room to speak to us.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  And we know what that last president said from this briefing room.  Okay?  So — (laughs) —

Q    Also, during a call today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And only did three — I think three or four paragraphs.  Very different.

Q    During —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Very different approach.

Q    During the call today to MSNBC —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure.

Q    — was the president reading off of a script?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I was in the room when the president called in to “Morning Joe.”  The president spoke from his heart.  The president was very clear.  There was no script at all.  And he was very detailed.  You heard him say, actually, during the call that he was reading some quotes.  He said it.  He shared that information.  He was reading some quotes from — from the debate.  So, he shared that with you.

What you heard was a passionate interview.  It was about 18 minutes.  He talked about and laid out his vision for this country.  He talked about how he wants to make sure we move forward.  I want to be really careful because he also talked about the campaign, which I can’t do from here.  But he — he — you know, I think it was incredibly powerful.

Q    He was reading quotes but not from a script?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Nope.  It was not a script.

Q    And in a “big boy” press conference —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I was in the room.  It was not a script.

Q    — how many questions should we expect that he is going to take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, it is going to be a solo press conference.  It is going to be certainly more than a two-plus-two.  I’m not going to — we’re still working it out, so I’m not going to go into specifics from here.  But you can expect a solo press conference from this president at the end of — of the NATO Summit.  He’s looking forward to it.  And he will be taking your questions.  So, that’ll be a good thing.

Q    Karine —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Karine, something different.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, I know, I know.

Q    Karine — 

Q    Karine —

Q    Karine — (laughter) —

Q    Karine, I have two questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    One, a follow-up on Dr. Cannard.  And that is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — can you explain what the role of Megan Nasworthy is?  Does she oversee care for some of those military personnel that you were referencing as a group, or does she oversee care for the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I bel- — again, want to be careful here.  I know who you’re speaking of.  I don’t have her full portfolio in front of me, so I would have — my team and I will be happy to get back to you.

Q    Okay.  And then on the president’s and the White House’s engagement with House Democrats —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and Democrats more broadly.  There was an article a month ago in the Wall Street Journal that the White House universally panned because the on-the-record quotes criticizing the president’s age and acuity were largely from Republicans.  But I want to ask about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the graphs in that story about Democrats.  It said that the White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  From that same story?

Q    From that same story.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    It said that “the White House kept close tabs on the Journal’s interviews with Democratic lawmakers.  And after the offices of several Democrats shared with the White House either a recording of an interview or details about what was asked, some of those lawmakers spoke to the Journal a second time and once again emphasized Biden’s strength.”  They quote Congressman Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat, saying, “They just, you know, said that I should give you a call back.” 

I’m wondering if you could characterize what the White House told Democrats to tell reporters about the president’s age and acuity? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think the Dem- — Democrats spoke for themselves.  I think — you know, you know how stories work.  If there is — there’s a lot of back-and-forth.  When you all come with a story from us and we want to make sure you hear from other voices, we — we make that available to you all.  It is up to — to the reporter if they’re going to reach out or not to that particular person.

But we expect and we anticipate and we understand that it doesn’t matter who — if it’s a congressperson or a governor or any elected official, they’re going to speak for themselves.  They’re going to speak for themselves. 

And I would say that Representative Greg Meeks has also been very supportive.  If you fast-forward to where we are today, Representative Meeks has very — been very supportive of this president continuing, moving forward.  And we’ve heard from many others — many others.  CBC more — more broadly has been very supportive.  We heard from the chair, Chairman Hosford — Horsford from the CBC.  And so, that is the type of support that we continue to see.

Q    So, there hasn’t been outreach by the White House to Democrats who might have misgivings about the president’s age or acuity to have them say positive things about the president publicly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not really — I don’t quite understand where you’re going with the question.  I — I think I explained it.  Sometimes when you all are working on stories and we want to hear — you want to — we — and we were trying to provide supporters from the president, that is not unusual.  And it is up to the reporter to reach out or not.

And so, that is something that we certainly do.  That is something that — you know, that is not uncommon.  And — but what I would say more broadly: There are — there are congressional members, as we’re talking about what’s happening in Congress, as we’re talking about the president’s outreach, as we’re talking about, you know, how we move forward, there are congressional members out there who have been incredibly supportive. 

So, we have to remember there are hundreds of House members.  And — and so, you know, there are folks out there —

Q    Can you talk a little about the president’s outreach today and tomorrow —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, so —

Q    — ahead of these —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — all-conference and all-caucus meetings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is that, as you all know, the president — the president has done some outreach.  He’s tok- — spoke about it himself.  I can say, as of today, he has — he has engaged with dozens of members, whether in person or on calls.  We saw him engaging with congressional members over the weekend.  We saw him doing that on several of the trips that he has done over the past 10 days — have been about six states that he’s been able to — to stop over and — and do — and engage with supporters.  So, he’s been able to do that.

And there’s a long list — I’m trying to spare you the list here, but there is a long list: Senator Chris Coons, Senator John Fetterman, Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Row- — Raphael Warnock.  It goes on and on: Representative Clyburn; Al Green; Horsford, as I mentioned already.  There has been a long list of, we believe, incredibly supportive — supportive congressional — congressional members who have continued —

Q    We’ve seen many of those lists that have been provided to us —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — from the campaign too, but I’m wondering if the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — has spoken directly with Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, we shared — we shared that —

Q    — in the last 24 hours and whether the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think the president — we —

Q    — believes he has their support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear you.  We shared that just last week — that the president spoke to the leadership, I — obviously on the Democratic side.

Q    Has he spoken to them since yesterday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to read out to you as far as what we’ve shared with you last week.  But the president has been in regular touch.  And those conversations went very, very well.  

I think you mentioned, in particular, Leader Jeffries, that went almost for an hour.  The president said that himself.  He said how much they had a — a very, very good conversation.  The president saw Congresswoman Dean, as I mentioned.  He saw both senators of Pe- — of Pennsylvania, as well, yesterday, traveled across the state and — and had, really, two — two big events with supporters, with Americans who go- — got to hear directly from the president.  And I think that’s important.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  Were all three of President Biden’s neurol- — neurological exams that you’ve confirmed, were they all conducted at Walter Reed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I don’t have a — I don’t have anything to — to state as to location.  What I can say for sure: that he has seen a neurologist three times as it relates to the — the exam that he takes every year.  And I just don’t have a location to speak to.

Q    Well, let me just try —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — a different way.  I mean, has any neurologist — I’m not —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you know — and you also know —

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that the president does go to Walter Reed —

Q    Yeah.  So, I mean, it seemed like he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to do —

Q    — those were taken at —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to do — right —

Q    — at Walter Reed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to — to do — to do these — to do this — his physical exams.

Q    Well, has a neurologist — I’m not talking about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — anyone in particular — regardless of the identity, name of that person, has any neurologist came to the White House to visit President Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you during those exams that he — that we have been able to do every year for the past three years, and these are comprehensive exams that we share — a comprehensive report that we share with all of you — he has seen a neurologist.

Q    And that’s what I’m trying to clarify.  It seems like those were taken at Walter Reed.  And that’s — I — and so, it’s an important distinction on all of this, I feel. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You — you all know that he does indeed go to Walter Reed as part of his physical exam.  That is no secret.  That is something that he does. 

And I also confirmed that he sees a neurologist every time that he’s done this — these exams.  I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q    Okay.  Thanks.

Q    Karine —

Q    Karine —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead —

Q    Why would — why would a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Go ahead, April

Q    Karine, as you’re talking — as everyone is talking about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — neurological issues, this is different but kind of on that same page.  The president has had two aneurysms.  Okay?  And there are complications from aneurysms to include impaired short-term memory, inability to concentrate, as well as speech difficulties.  Have any neurologists worked with him or just tried to observe him, as he is a person who has suffered from two aneurysms that could have been fatal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, April, in the — in the comprehensive reporting that we share with all of you on a yearly basis, the neurological exam have been detailed — extremely detailed.  It is directly from the doctor.  They talk about the specifics of that neurological exam. 

And so, I would refer you to the six-page comprehensive memo, and that’s where I would refer you to.

Q    But that is something that we know about, that he had two aneurysms. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And — and that is part — all of those complications are part of a neurological exam.  Have they tested for that at all?  Do you know?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you is that the — the exams have been detailed, they have been extensive, and that’s what I can share with you.  I would refer you to the — to the —

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to the — to the document — to the report.

Q    And last question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    We’re just days away from the Republican convention.  How do you — as this White House, who stands behind this president, how do you work to do an image change or — an image change to revamp him to make him shinier and brighter, if you will?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to speak to the Republican convention.  That’s something that I’m not going to do.  But I am going to —

Q    But they will be attacking him.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Hold on.  Wait.  Hold on a second.  Hold on.  Give me a second. 

Look, in the past 10 days, the president has gone to six states.  He has.  He’s gone to North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania.  I know that’s a commonwealth, but he’s been to six. 

And in that time, he has engaged directly — directly with the American public.  And you’ve seen the enthusiasm.  You’ve seen the energy.  He’s been able to talk to them directly and talk about his goals for the future, talk about what he’s done in the past three and a half years. 

They have — and they have heard specifically from him on even his health, even the debate.  And I think that’s important too. 

So — and — and you just heard me lay out the next two weeks.  So, the president is going to continue to go out there.  He’s going to continue to be present in the communities.  He’s going to continue to hear directly from the American people. 

And that’s the best way to do this.  That’s the best way to get out there.  That’s the best way to make sure that you have your finger on the pulse and that the American gets — people get to see you for themselves.

Q    Since you won’t speak to the Republican convention, what about the Democratic convention in August?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t speak to the Democratic convention either.  I can’t speak to that.  That’s for the —

Q    But, I mean, how do you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — no, but you’re — you’re asking me to — to speak to two things that I can’t speak to from here.  That is something that the campaign and the convention can speak to very, very —

Q    But how do you make him shiny and bright at the NAACP?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — April, you may not like my answer, but I’m telling you the president is going to continue to go out there.  We just — I just shared with you at the top a robust plan that the president has to be out there, whether it is in Vegas, whether it’s in Texas.  And let’s not forget the other states that he’s visited in the last 10 days — in the last 10 days. 

There’s a stark difference from what we’ve been doing and what the other side is doing — a stark difference. 

And so, the president is committed.  He’s going to continue to do that.  He wants to engage — engage directly with the American people.  Six hundred people at the church yesterday; 600 people at the event in Harrisburg — that’s a pretty good start.  And that’s just a continuation.  That’s actually not a start; that’s a continuation.

Go ahead, Josh.

AIDE:  We need to wrap up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I — I’m getting there.

Q    Is it — is it still the administration’s policy that physicals are done annually?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, that is — that is — just like every other president has done before this president, we’re going to continue to — to uphold that.

Q    So, it would be fair to as- — to assume that, as of now, his next expected physical would be next year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It would be next year.  The last one was in February.

Q    Okay.  And can you clarify for us — forgive me, I might have missed it or by design. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    He will or he won’t go to the Hill tomorrow?

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

Q    He will or he won’t go to the Hill tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I don’t have any engagement to share.  As you know, NATO is front of mind. 

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s what he’s focused on.  You saw that letter that came out from the president.  He’s going to be focusing on the more than 30 world leaders that are coming — that are coming here for a 75th anniversary of NATO, continuing to show our — the strength of our Alliance. 

I think it is — I think it is something that the president is very much looking forward to.  And you’ll certainly hear from the president on Thursday when he gives his press conference — his “big boy” press conference —

Q    So, we —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — as your colleague Justin has — has stated now many times.

Q    I’ll — I’ll give him your regards.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.  (Laughs.)

Q    We shouldn’t expect, then, some sort of big outreach push to member- — Democratic members of the House and Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — we have shared — I just shared that he has done dozens of calls out — not just calls, but also face to face, as he did in Pennsylvania. 

His — his team — campaign side, they’re going to do their thing.  We’re going to do our thing on our side.  And he, you know, respects tremendously Congress.  And so, we’re — he’s in regular contact with them, and that’s what you’re going to continue to see. 

Q    Is he going to visit the storm site?

(Cross-talk.)

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

Q    Karine — Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everyone.

Q    You have time for one more, Karine.  (Laughs.)

Q    Thank you.

3:33 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor John Kirby, July 8, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

3:51 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good afternoon, and thank you all for joining us today for our NSC background call to preview the NATO Summit. 

As a reminder of the ground rules, this call is being held on background with the contents attributable to a senior administration official.

For your awareness, but not for your reporting, our speaker today is [senior administration official].

The contents of this call will be embargoed until the call concludes. 

With that, I’ll turn it over to our senior administration official for some opening remarks, followed by Q&A.  If you’d like to ask a question, would just ask you to please indicate so by raising your hand via the Zoom feature.

Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks.  And it’s good to be with all of you.

President Biden is looking forward to hosting the leaders of our 31 NATO Allies, as well as a number of our NATO partners, next week in Washington for a historic summit to mark the 75th anniversary of NATO’s founding. 

I’m going to go over the schedule in a minute, but I first want to take some time to discuss the context in which NATO leaders will be gathering at such an important moment in transatlantic security.

For 75 years, NATO has kept America and the world safer.  NATO is the strongest defensive alliance in history, and it’s been truly indispensable to Euro-Atlantic security, deterring threats to the United States and our allies. 

Today, our Alliance is larger, stronger, better resourced, and more united than ever before, and that’s in large part due to President Biden’s effort over these last three years. 

When President Biden assumed office, he made it his mission to restore America’s standing on the world stage and revitalize and rebuild our alliances and partnerships, most especially NATO.  He’s worked to expand the Alliance by welcoming two new members, Sweden and Finland.  And he rallied the Alliance to build a global coalition to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has shattered peace in Europe and shaken the rules-based international order, posing the greatest threat to transatlantic security in decades, if not longer. 

Under President Biden’s leadership, the United States and our NATO Allies provided critical support to Ukraine and enhanced our global partnerships.  NATO Allies are also making significant investments in our own defense and deterrence capabilities. 

When the Biden-Harris administration took office, only nine Allies were spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.  Today, a record 23 NATO Allies are at or above the minimum level of 2 percent of GDP for defense spending, more than twice as many as in 2021 and nearly eight times higher than when Allies first set the 2 percent benchmark a decade ago. 

Cumulative defense spending for European Allies is also collectively exceeding the 2 percent spending mark for the first time, and these numbers will continue to improve. 

Our Allies are not just spending more on their defense, they’re also spending more on American platforms and munitions.  This spending is helping to revitalize production lines across the country and securing jobs for American workers. 

We’re manufacturing weapons that improve our military readiness and make the United States and its allies more secure while at the same time strengthening our economy.  This is something you’re going to hear more about from us on Tuesday afternoon, when Jake Sullivan addresses the Defense Industry Forum ahead of the summit. 

Next week, you’ll also see a strong demonstration of U.S. and Allied support for Ukraine.  Allies will reaffirm that Ukraine’s future is in NATO; will make significant new announcements about how we’re increasing NATO’s military, political, and financial support for Ukraine.  This is part of Ukraine’s “bridge to NATO.” 

And on the sidelines of the summit, President Biden will host an event with President Zelenskyy and nearly two dozen other Alli- — excuse me, and nearly two dozen of our Allies and partners who’ve signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine, which, of course, President Biden did last month for the United States while at the G7 Summit in Italy. 

The United States will also announce new steps to strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses and military capabilities to help Ukraine continue to defend themselves today and to deter Russian aggression into the future. 

Together, the Washington Summit will send a strong signal to Putin that if he thinks he can outlast the coalition of countries supporting Ukraine, he’s dead wrong. 

We’re also going to send an important message to the rest of the world, including through our partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, as we stand together united and in support of democratic values. 

Now, turning to the schedule, quickly I’ll go through some of the topline highlights.  I know that many of you will be receiving a more detailed schedule for the week with the exact timing and logistics information, but let me just tick through a few items now. 

On Tuesday evening, President Biden will welcome NATO leaders, and he and Dr. Biden will host a 75th anniversary commemoration event at the Mellon Auditorium, which is the site of the original signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, which of course established NATO on April 4, 1949.  It’s also the site of the 1999 50th anniversary commemorative event hosted by President Clinton. 

On Wednesday, the President will welcome Sweden as the newest member of the Alliance at a meeting of NATO’s 32 Allies.  And that evening, he and Dr. Biden will host NATO leaders for a dinner at the White House. 

On Thursday morning, NATO will hold a meeting with the EU and with NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners — that’s Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand — to deepen our cooperation.

In the afternoon, also Thursday, there’ll be a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, after which the President will host an event with nearly two dozen Allies and partners who have negotiated and signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine, which is the event that I mentioned earlier. 

After that, the President will hold a press conference and take questions from the media. 

And while the President will have quite a busy schedule given his commitment as the host of the summit, we’re working to set up several bilats and meetings with various world leaders on the margins of the summit, including President Zelenskyy, again, as I mentioned earlier.  And we’ll have more information on those to share in the coming days. 

So with that, I’m happy to turn to your questions.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you so much.  For our first question we’ll go to Aamer Madhani with the Associated Press.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, Sean.  Thanks, [senior administration official].  Two things.  On the air defense announcement, what specifically will the President be announcing?  Will this be on Patriots?  And if so, where will those Patriots be coming?

And then secondly, more broadly, how will the President be addressing with the other leaders their concerns about, you know, the elephant in the room, about his performance at the debate and whether, you know, just more broadly, that he remains up to the job?

And then finally, you know, I know these summits are busy, but this one seems busier than usual.  A packed schedule for President Biden.  Is this extra packed because the President wants to show that he has the vigor and stamina to do these things?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay.  So, a three-part question. 

On air defenses: This is part of a number of historic and far-reaching deliverables for Ukraine that we’ll be announcing at the summit.  So we, together with some of our Allies, will be highlighting our support for Ukraine’s air defenses.  I have more — or we will have more to share with you in the coming days about how our Allies are continuing to work to strengthen Ukraine through various military, political, and economic support.  So, stay tuned on the specifics, but this is one of a number of areas where we’re going to be looking to announce significant enhancements for Ukraine’s defense capabilities. 

Look, on the second question you asked, I mean, here’s what I’ll say: Look, foreign leaders have seen Joe Biden up close and personal for the last three years.  They know who they’re dealing with, and, you know, they know how effective he’s been.  What the President has done over the last three years is to reinvigorate the NATO Alliance, including expanding it, making it more capable.  He has stood up to President Putin’s unprecedented aggression against Ukraine by mobilizing a coalition of — minimum of 50 Allies and partners to provide capabilities to Ukraine.  And he has worked to invigorate our partnerships around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific and in other regions.  So, I’m just going to leave it at that. 

And of course, the schedule has been planned for a long time in advance, and it is fairly characteristic of NATO Summit events.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go to Nick Schifrin from PBS.

Q    Can you talk about the efforts to help Ukraine in the long term?  Obviously, their defenses, weapons are designed both for defense, as you put it, and deterrence in the long term.  What are the priorities in terms of giving Ukraine structure with NATO that can outlast the U.S. election?  And to be even more blunt, are any of these efforts — how many of these efforts are to essentially Trump-proof Western support for Ukraine?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks for the question.  So, as you rightly said, a lot of the defense capabilities that we’re currently surging to Ukraine are designed to enhance Ukraine’s short-term efforts to defend itself.  But the longer-term effort is what we’re calling the “bridge to membership,” which includes the Ukraine deliverable that we’ll be announcing at the NATO Summit, which will help Ukraine with training coordination, equipment coordination, logistics, force development.  It will have a political overlay to it, which will focus on defense institution building and interoperability with NATO.  And it’ll have a financial pledge associated with it as well. 

And so, all of that is precisely designed to help NATO — or to help Ukraine, via NATO, to build its future force.  Right?   And so, in combination with the, we expect, over 20 eventually, maybe even 30, bilateral security agreements that NATO Allies and other partners around the world signed with Ukraine, this is part of the effort to institutionalize this longer-term trajectory for Ukraine’s armed forces but also for its larger defense enterprise to include its defense industry, to include the institutions that make up the Ministry of Defense so that when there is consensus among the 32 Allies for Ukraine to join the Alliance, Ukraine is ready — truly ready on day one to plug and play with the rest of the Alliance. 

So that is, in brief, how we’re looking at this bridge to membership that we’ll be unveiling at the summit.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Jenny Hansler from CNN.

Q    Hi.  Thank you so much for joining the call.  I appreciate it.  You keep referencing a bridge.  I assume that means that the irreversible language for Ukraine’s path to NATO is not going to be included in the leaders’ statement.  Is that correct?

And then, more broadly, on sort of future-proofing NATO, we saw Viktor Orban in Moscow today talking about peace plans with Putin.  How are the Allies going to confront this challenge from not only a potential future President of the United States, but also members of the Alliance that are already in power?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, sure.  So let me take your second question first. 

So we’re concerned that Prime Minister Orban would choose to take this trip to Moscow, which will neither advance the cause of peace nor will it promote Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. 

Look, at the end of the day, we believe that Russia could end this war today by ceasing its aggression against Ukraine.  So I’ll just stop there on that part of your question. 

On the question of the language: Look, I expect that the summit declaration, which is still being negotiated — or at least the final pieces of it are being negotiated — will include very strong signals of Allied support for Ukraine on its path to Euro-Atlantic integration.  And it’s going to also underscore the importance of Ukraine’s vital work on democratic, economic, and security reforms. 

The declaration will, as I already mentioned, also reference NATO’s efforts to support Ukraine as part of this bridge to membership. 

So, look, I don’t want to get ahead of what appears in the communiqué, but I think we’re going to have very strong language that testifies to what the President has said before, which is that — and I’m going to quote him now — quote, “I believe that Ukraine can get there.”  And, quote, “It’s not about whether or not they should or shouldn’t join.  It’s about when they can join.  And they will join NATO.”  End quote.  So that’s the President.  And I think the declaration will amplify that sentiment.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Alex Ward from Politico.

Q    Yeah, thanks.  Very quickly, just to put a fine point on it — and sorry for going into politics too much — but will the President be hosting any events that go beyond 8:00 p.m.?  That’s one question. 

And then, will there be any movement on commitments for F-16s? 

And also, what kind of conversations have you had with the Ukrainians to avoid a Vilnius-like dustup that we saw last year in terms of, you know, here’s what you’re getting, so, you know, there’s no anger about not seeing the irreversible language or anything like that?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  So, off the top of my head, I’m not familiar with when each of the various events and the dinners is ending.

On the F-16s, as you know, the United States has for more than a year now been training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 platform.  And we’ve been making good progress, and I expect that we’re going to have more to announce on this next week. 

And then, I’m sorry, what was the third part of your — oh, Vilnius. 

Look, we’ve been in constant communication with our Ukrainian partners as we have with all of our Allies.  And what I described in terms of the bridge to membership and the deliverable that NATO will be unveiling for Ukraine is quite substantial.  I mean, we’re not talking about some sort of plan for how they’re going to get from here to there.  We’re talking about standing up an entire command at Wiesbaden that will look at how we do these various pieces that I mentioned earlier of trading coordination, equipping coordination, logistics, force development.  This is a very serious effort to get Ukraine in a position, as I said earlier, where it will be ready to assume its roles and responsibilities within the Alliance on day one. 

And I think — you know, I’ll let the Ukrainians speak for themselves, but I think they understand the value of what NATO will be doing for them.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And, Alex, just on the logistics piece, we will have FPPO guidance going out to you all in the next couple of days, but the answer to your question about events going past 8:00 p.m. is yes.

Next, we’ll go to Michael Birnbaum with the Washington Post.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I wondered — you know, we’re having a summit of leaders who — many of whom are pretty weak at the moment.  Macron is going to be coming fresh off his second-round parliamentary results.  Scholz has a growing far-right in his country.  Keir Starmer is brand new.  And President Biden is, you know, whatever he’s dealing with. 

How does that impact the summit?  I mean, I know this is an emphasis on celebration and strength, but what kind of message does that general weakness send to NATO adversaries?

And I was wondering if there’s anything you could tell us about the negotiations right now or the communiqué.  It sounds as though they’re still in motion.  How close are you?  And what are the biggest sticking points right now that you’re still haggling over?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, Michael, first of all, I’m going to challenge your presupposition here, which is that leaders of the Alliance, or at least some that you referenced, are somehow weaker.  I think there are any number of leaders in the Alliance that are extremely popular, that are very strong, delivering for the Alliance, delivering for Ukraine, delivering for our transatlantic defense industrial base.  I think you see that in a range of countries.  So I just don’t buy it. 

I think, collectively, the Alliance is, of course, stronger, more capable of deterrence and defense, better postured with more precise planning that is aligned to its strategic vision and the strategic concept that was unveiled a few years ago. 

So I think the Alliance is in great shape.  I think the leadership of the Alliance — something I also forgot to mention at the top, which is that we have consensus on a new Secretary General, which is fantastic.  We’ve had a very, very strong leader in Jens Stoltenberg over these last 10 years.  But I just don’t see how leaders within the Alliance are somehow weakened.  So, just future premise there. 

On the communiqué, look, I’m not going to get into the details of diplomatic conversations behind closed doors.  I will say that I think we’re very close on almost all of it.  So just typical last-minute discussions of a few paragraphs in the communiqué, and we should be done soon.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We have time for a couple more.  We’ll go to Ed Wong with the New York Times. 

Q    Hi, thank you.  I have two questions.  One is: Obviously, a lot of NATO leaders are worried about the prospect of a Trump presidency.  We know what he said about cutting off aid to Ukraine as well as withdrawing the U.S. from NATO.  What will you do in this summit, in terms of actions, to try and reassure the NATO Allies?

The second thing is: You’re obviously having a meeting with the eight leaders of the Asia Pacific nations.  NATO has been more forceful in its language on China in some of its recent statements.  But what actions — concrete actions — will we take coming out of the summit on China, especially given the recent emphasis on the Russia-China nexus where China is helping rebuild Russia’s defense industrial base, in your assessment?  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All right, Ed.  Well, one of the benefits of my job is I don’t do politics, so I’m going to leave that aside. 

What I will say, while I have the mic, is that we have NATO Allies that are fully committed to the Alliance.  As I pointed out at the top, in my opening remarks, we’ve gone from having nine Allies spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, at the start of this administration, to 23 spending 2 percent of GDP on defense today.  That direction of travel is significant. 

And just since — to put a dollar figure on it — just since 2020, NATO collectively has spent an additional $180 billion, so — on a yearly basis.

So, look, I think there’s a lot that’s going on.  On your — that is positive, that shows positive trajectory for the Alliance, also reassurance for our eastern flank allies in terms of the capabilities that we’re positioning in the east. 

On the Indo-Pacific element of your question, I will say that the draft communiqué text on the PRC I think is very solid.  You’ll see that when it’s unveiled. 

And of course, we’ve got the North Atlantic Council meeting with the EU and Indo-Pacific partners, which will also take up this critical issue, which you rightly pointed to, of the PRC’s support for the Russian defense industrial base, with something like 90 percent of Russia’s semiconductors coming from the PRC; 70 percent of its nitrocellulose, which is used for propellants — and a lot of it’s optics, machine tools, et cetera — all of this not only fueling Russia’s war against Ukraine but also creating a long-term challenge for European security that, obviously, our Allies recognize.  And so we will have, I think, strong language on this to address.

But also, I will say that we’ve got some new projects that we’re going to be talking about at the summit with our Indo-Pacific partners on resilience.  So, resilience in the region; supporting Ukraine, as I mentioned; countering disinformation; cyber; and then also on tech cooperation, emerging technologies. 

So, yeah, I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  I think we have time for about two more questions.  I will go to Fraser Jackson with France 24.

Q    Thank you, Sean.  I read the readout of POTUS’s call with the new British Prime Minister, Starmer, earlier.  I just wanted to know whether there’s been a date confirmed for a bilateral meeting between them yet. 

And secondly, Mark Rutte takes over the Secretary General role on October 1st.  We’re not expecting any formal engagement from him in that role during the summit, but will he be meeting with President Biden to discuss his upcoming tenure?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so I don’t have any bilats to announce today.  But you’re right that the President had a very constructive and productive call with Prime Minister Starmer earlier today, in which they talked about the importance of the special relationship.  They talked about our cooperation on Ukraine, around the world, including on upholding the gains of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement.  So, very good, productive conversation there.  I fully expect that the leaders will interact at some point during the summit, but I don’t have anything to announce for you today. 

And on Mark Rutte — similarly, we welcome, of course, the consensus around Mark Rutte as the new Secretary General to take over on October 1st, but I don’t have anything to announce in terms of meetings with President Biden in the coming future.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll next go to Marek from Polskie Radio.

Q    Thank you, Sean.  Hello, [senior administration official].  Polish President Duda said that during the summit he would push NATO to increase the spending threshold from 2 percent to 3 percent GDP.  So, my question is: Is it going to be a topic of the discussion?  And can we expect any decision on that?

And also, are you concerned that this idea, this proposition may undermine the message of the NATO Summit, which is a success, and change the narrative from NATO members are stepping up, paying more and more, to a different narrative which is Europe doesn’t pay, which is former President Trump’s narrative?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, thanks, Marek.  Look, I’m not concerned about the narrative.  I think, obviously, any NATO Ally is welcome to come to the table and articulate whatever points they want to make.  And the reality is that some Allies are spending well upwards of 2 percent of GDP on defense; some are spending as much as 3, 4 percent, or even higher. 

Obviously, different Allies have different circumstances.  We’re going to continue to press for equitable burden sharing and for credible plans from all Allies that haven’t yet met the 2 percent commitment to be able to reach that commitment as soon as possible in the coming years.  And I think a number of Allies will come to the table with credible plans for achieving that benchmark in the near-term future. 

Look, it’s something that it’s natural and normal for Allies to have this conversation, to hold each other’s feet to the fire.  I expect that to continue, and I expect Allies to continue to resource the strongest alliance in history that is contributing so much to deterrence and defense in the Euro-Atlantic area.  Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And we have time for one final question.  We’ll go to Paris from VOA.  And, Paris, over to you.

Q    Thank you very much for doing this.  So, follow-up on the question on the Indo-Pacific.  Of course, you mentioned about there’s going to be strong language regarding that China is fueling Putin’s war machine.  But I’m also wondering, of course, the reason that you invited Indo-Pacific allies — Japan, Australia, South Korea — to join is President Biden is going to establish a coalition with NATO and those allies to counter China’s threat, not just its efforts to help Russia but also in the region, in the Indo Pacific region, including South China Sea, (inaudible) in Taiwan, and also China’s economic conduct that also trouble European and NATO Allies.

And can you also preview a little bit just what kind of strong message that is expected to be sending in the agreement, you know, what the language in the joint statement to China?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so let me just say that the events with the partner countries, with the Indo-Pacific partners specifically, that the North Atlantic Council meeting at the leaders’ level will also include the EU.  So, we’re bringing together our closest — or some of our closest non-NATO partners to have a discussion around issues like resilience and cyber disinformation, technology and the like. 

In terms of deterrence and defense, of course NATO is focused on the Euro-Atlantic area, and that’s where its capabilities are being deployed.  And so, not in the Indo-Pacific.

But the United States has a range of partnerships with countries around the world, which you might call variable geometry, with different partners including in the Indo-Pacific.  And this particular grouping of the IP4, as we call them in NATO lingo — Australia, Japan, New Zealand, ROK — these are some of our closest partners that we work with in the region. 

So I think I’ll leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you very much.  And thank you, everyone, for your questions.  That is all the time we have for today.

As a reminder of the ground rules, this call was held on background, with the contents attributable to a senior administration official.  The embargo on the call is now lifted.  Thank you so much, and hope everyone has a wonderful day.

    4:22 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call Previewing the NATO Summit appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

2:37 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Thanks so much for joining today’s call, especially on a holiday weekend.  As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official. 

The official we have on today, for your awareness, not for your reporting, is [senior administration official].  With that, I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] for some words at the top, and then we can take your questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, everybody.  Happy Fourth of July.  I thought we’d just give some background and color on the call that the President had today with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 

So, the President spoke today with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  The call lasted about 30 minutes and focused on the details of the hostage and ceasefire negotiations.  The President and the Prime Minister walked through the draft agreement and outstanding issues, most of which now relate specifically to the implementation of the agreement. 

The President, of course, has been personally engaged in this negotiation for months, including multiple calls with President Sisi of Egypt and the Emir of Qatar, as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu and other leaders around the world.

Over the last 24 hours or so, the President and his team — national security team — were involved in the hostage talks, studied the response received through Qatari mediators from Hamas earlier this week, a couple days ago.  It’s clear that this response moves the process forward and may provide the basis for closing a deal. 

This deal, as you know, would see hostages come home in the first phase — all women, men over 50, sick and wounded — together with a full ceasefire, relief for the civilians of Gaza, including a massive surge in humanitarian assistance that the ceasefire would enable, together with rehabilitation of essential services, including bakeries, (inaudible) water lines, medical facilities, and the entry of heavy equipment for the removal of rubble. 

The President and the Prime Minister discussed the additional steps and outstanding issues that need to be resolved to reach this first phase of the deal.  They also discussed elements related to the second phase of the deal, which, as the President laid out in his address in late May, would bring a permanent ceasefire, the release of all remaining living hostages, including Israeli soldiers.

The conversation was detailed, going through the text of the agreement; instructive; and, we think, encouraging, while also clear-eyed about the work ahead and steps that must be put in place to finalize this deal and then begin the implementation. 

The President noted he’s grateful once again for the mediation led by his team, as well as Qatar and Egypt.  And he’ll have the opportunity next week, during the NATO Summit, to discuss the deal with European partners as well, all of whom, as I noted — as we noted many times — have endorsed this framework following the President’s address in May that set forth many of the details of this agreement for the world.  This agreement, of course, has now been endorsed by the G7, by the U.N. Security Council, and countries around the world. 

The two leaders then discussed the situation on the border with Lebanon, as the President reaffirmed his support for Israel’s security against all threats from Iranian-backed terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hezbollah.  And they discussed the arrangements in the north that would allow Israeli families to return safely to their homes and, of course, Lebanese families to return safely to their homes, which is a shared priority of the United States and Israel.  This is something we remain very focused on; the President is, again, directly involved in.

The President, over the course of the call, (inaudible) the loss of the Prime Minister’s brother, as he commanded the Israeli unit that rescued Israeli hostages 48 years ago today in Entebbe, Uganda. 

He emphasized his lifelong commitment to Israel’s security, his unwavering commitment to see the hostages now held in Gaza released together with a ceasefire deal, as we’ve outlined. 

And the two leaders agreed to stay in close contact, including through their national security teams, which we’ve confirmed will meet in Washington in what is known as the Strategic Consultative Group format on July 15th. 

We’ve been involved in many of these calls on the hostage deal.  And I have to say, given the recent developments, we do believe there is a pretty significant opening here.  And we welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to try to seize that opening by empowering his negotiating team to engage directly in Doha over the coming days.

In the Oval Office with the President, again, as is standard protocol, we had the Vice President, Jake Sullivan.  We had Tony Blinken, Bill Burns, Job Finer, Brett McGurk, Steve Ricchetti, Jeff Zients, and Phil Gordon.  And they were able to get some other — obviously, some other national security work done over the course of about an hour and a half or so in the Oval Office today. 

So that is some, kind of, color on the call, but I’m happy to address any questions.  Again, we’re thankful for you joining here on a holiday.

Over.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our first question will go to Aamer.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey.  I just want to make sure I heard that right: The talks will happen in Doha in the coming days?  Can you say when? And is Doha — or did I hear that correctly?

And then, two, if you could just speak a little to what’s changed within the Hamas response that’s causing this cautious optimism.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  Likely — and of course, the platform for these talks is sometimes — they’ll have sometimes Cairo.  I think over the coming days, as early as tomorrow, we’re likely to see an Israeli delegation in Doha. 

I just want to emphasize this does not mean this deal is going to be closed in a period of days.  There is significant work to be done on some of the implementation steps.  But as negotiations go, until you get a framework in place and more or less agreed, getting to the implementation steps and the arrangement of sequencing issues, that’s hard to do.  I think it’s fair to say now the framework is very much in place, and that gets to your question. 

Some of the key issues on the transition of a phase one to phase two have really been a stumbling block.  I think we had a breakthrough in that area.  The text now is very consistent with the address of the President on May 27th and the U.N. Security Council resolution, and the fact that to get to phase one to phase two, you have to have other arrangements negotiated.  We’ve always agreed and known that.

And of course, as mediators, so long as those indirect negotiations are going on and negotiations are going on in good faith, the ceasefire would remain in place.

But I think what we got back from Hamas was a pretty significant adjustment to what had been their position, and we think that is encouraging.  We have heard the same from the Israelis.  And I think the framework is now in place, and we have to work out the implementation steps.

But I don’t — I just want to stress that this is not a deal that’s going to come together in a period of days.  There’s still work to do, and we’re prepared to do all we can to facilitate reaching an agreement as soon as possible — a final agreement.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Jeff Mason.

Q    Thanks very much.  Will the United States participate in these talks in Doha?  Will you have representatives there?  And can you give us a sense of whether — or how the two sides have bridged the Hamas demand that Israel enforce or agree to a permanent ceasefire?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks, Jeff.  So we will, of course, have representation in Doha.  We have had a team involved in talks here really since the beginning.  And that will continue. 

We don’t have any other travel to announce.  Obviously, Bill and myself and others who are directly engaged in this will engage at the right time.  But we are engaged on a daily basis, multiple times a day, with Egyptian counterparts, Qatari counterparts, and, of course, Israeli counterparts, and, I have to say, others around the world.

I think if you just kind of look at the sequence from the President’s speech on May 27, and then the diplomacy that he led with the endorsement from the G7 of this deal, first of all, getting the deal on the table, which the Israelis endorsed, that was a major effort and, I think, the product of probably half a dozen calls between the President and the Prime Minister, getting that deal on the table, and then the endorsement of the G7, and then working through the U.N. Security Council with Linda and her team, and then the endorsement from the President and his counterparts, who also have dual citizens held in Gaza. 

So we have had a drumbeat of international support for this agreement.  I think that has been quite important and quite effective. 

And the agreement — again, the President laid it out, and the onus was on Hamas to come back and accept this framework.  And, effectively, that’s now where we are. 

So if you were to go back to the U.N. Security Council resolution, it lays out very clearly the three phases.  It says, very clearly, subject to agreement between phase one and phase two.  That has to happen.  Because to get to phase two, which is the permanent ceasefire, you have to have conditions and arrangements in place.  I think that is something that is obvious.  That is something that Hamas has resisted.  I think we now have that framework there. 

But the immediate focus now is the implementation steps of phase one, to get into phase one.  And that has to do with some sequencing and the release of detainees and, kind of, how it goes.

We, of course, went through this in November.  This does feel similar to the kind of — the end game of that process in which how will the hostages be released, what is the sequencing, what has to happen.  And we were able to hammer that out.  So that’s what we’re going to be working on now. 

Again, I think as I characterize the call, it was detailed, constructive, encouraging, but very clear-eyed on the amount of work ahead.  And we’re going to do all we possibly can, through diplomacy, pressure, and other means, to get this deal closed.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Akayla Gardner. 

Q    Hey, I just wanted to ask if the President and Netanyahu talked about potentially meeting with (inaudible) in Washington later this month.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It was mentioned.  Obviously, the President is coming, and they have a lot to discuss face to face — not only issues that were discussed here on this call, but we have, on the 15th, the Strategic Consultative Group, which will be our full national security teams talking about the range of issues in our relationship and particularly the threats that Israel faces from Iran and some activities we’re seeing from Iran.  That’ll be a very detailed discussion between our national security teams on the 15th. 

And then the following week, the Prime Minister will be here, and I just don’t have anything to announce on that.  But it was discussed, and I think it was discussed in a spirit of cooperation just given that this is a really critical moment in trying to get the hostages home, get the ceasefire in place, and also reach a deal in the north, as I mentioned. 

So there’s a lot — a lot going on here.  And as you know, the President, he believes in face-to-face engagements, and I think he’ll try to find that opportunity.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Michael Shear.

Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  Happy Fourth of July.  Two questions.  One on the — you mentioned significant adjustments that you feel like Hamas has made that has led to this sort of optimism here.  Can you be a little bit more specific about what those adjustments have been?  What did they change from — I can’t even keep track — but whatever the last time was where they seemed to reject the President’s proposal? 

And then I have one more after that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, without getting into the actual text, because I don’t want to negotiate this in public, I think the Hamas position of kind of a one-phase deal that you do have a permanent ceasefire and, effectively, that means Hamas basically recovers in Gaza and retains power in Gaza and everything else, no matter what, that obviously was something that Israelis were never going to accept.

The three-phase deal with agreements having to be reached to get from phase one to phase two and phase three — of course, it’ll be hard.  The U.S. — we hope that this deal will be implemented in full, and we’ll do everything we possibly can as a mediator and a guarantor to help ensure that. 

But it’s now clearly stated that you have to have, as was consistent with the U.N. Security Council resolution — if you go back to that, it lays it all out — it’s subject to agreement; there has to be an agreement of the parties to reach from phase one to phase two.  And there are arrangements that have to be worked out.  I’m not going to get into details of all those arrangements, but I think there’s a decent understanding now of what would have to happen. 

And it is our hope and expectation that this deal would lead to a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages, alive and remains, and the beginning of a three- to five-year reconstruction plan, which begins in phase three. 

But we have to have a framework in place to get to some of the implementation steps.  I think as I mentioned, I think we believe that framework now is in place, but there’s still more work to do.

Q    Thank you.  And then, the other question really goes off of what you just said at the end.  Do you envision that at some point in the days ahead, that there will be some announcement that you guys have reached an agreement — you guys, Israel and Hamas and whoever all the parties, have reached an agreement and then you continue to work on this implementation stuff?  Or is today that announcement?  In other words, is it — in other words, is there a two-step process here, or will we not know that, sort of, you’ve reached a deal here until, whatever, weeks later when the implementation stuff has been worked out?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, I think that this deal is not done until everything is done.  So, I don’t think we announce, you know — what I’m saying is that we’ve had a breakthrough on a critical impasse, what has been a critical impasse in the deal. 

The framework of the deal is now fully consistent with the President’s speech and the U.N. Security Council resolution.  The implementation sequencing still needs to be worked out.  So we literally have, you know, kind of columns of different issues in the sequencing of the implementation, because it’s a complicated deal.  This is a complicated arrangement.  And as was the November deal — of course, which was just a smaller deal — this is a — no pun intended, this is a big deal and in every respect, and so we want to get it right. 

There are some gaps in that implementation and the sequencing and things, which we always knew had to be worked out, and I think both sides agree that has to be worked out.  And that is why the Israelis will be sending their team. 

I would anticipate over the coming days you will have problems and issues overcome, and hurdles — that’ll happen.  But the process is moving now.  And we consider what happened to be a breakthrough because it broke through what had been an impasse.  And so, now we’re on to the implementation steps.  It will be tough and difficult, no question, but we’re going to do everything we can to close this out.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Hiba Nasr.

Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Thank you, [senior administration official].  And Happy Fourth. 

I want to ask about Lebanon.  Can you elaborate a little bit about the progress you were mentioning regarding — not you on the call, but some leaks regarding the negotiations with Hezbollah and Lebanon?  What kind of program?  And how do you assess the likelihood of a broadening war now?

And my second question: Everyone knows that you are trying to avoid a second front, but you are in direct talks — in indirect talks with Hezbollah.  Strategically speaking, should you be able to break a deal with Hezbollah?  Is it fair to say that you are now ready to deal with them as the ruler in Lebanon?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, there’s a lot there.  I will say what I think we’ve said on these calls in the past.  I think it’s worth stepping back — and Hezbollah started this on October 8th.  They decided, after October 7th, that was a good opportunity to start launching missiles and rockets and UAVs at Israel. 

And so, this is something they started, and Israel was defending itself, and Israel will continue to defend itself and continue to strike back so long as that’s going on. 

As this has gone on, you’ve had 80,000 Israelis leave their homes in those northern villages, and you’ve had a significant number of Lebanese families leave their areas in southern Lebanon. 

So this is a war nobody wants, and we want to find a way diplomatically — which, again, was confirmed again on the call today — and the Israelis also want to find a diplomatic arrangement which allows families to return safely to their homes.  So this is just something that is a first principle of ours, and we fundamentally reject the logic that somehow what Hezbollah is doing is related to Gaza. 

Now, if we do get a ceasefire in Gaza, as we saw in the November ceasefire, I think that opens up a real opportunity for de-escalation and reaching an enduring arrangement.

On your final question — look, we want an agreement that provides security and assurances to civilians to return to their homes and believe that they will be safe.  And we have worked for months on this.  And, of course, Amos Hochstein has traveled to the region, had direct negotiations in Lebanon and in Israel. 

But to your question, no, we’re going to negotiate this as we’ve done the maritime boundary deal.  Of course, as we did in, I think 2022 with a significant agreement, the first agreement ever between Lebanon and Israel, with our facilitation and mediation, two countries still technically in a state of war. 

But to your question on whether we recognize Hezbollah: No, obviously we’re not going to say that.  We are working this out through the Lebanese, through the Israelis.  But obviously, Hezbollah has to agree to the arrangements.  And Amos and our team are working on this directly.  We all have full confidence in them, as do the Israelis.  And we’re going to try to find an arrangement diplomatically, negotiated, that allows families to return to their homes. 

If we can’t, Israel will continue to defend itself against these attacks.  And as we have said, we will stand by Israel on that, no question about it.  And the President affirmed again today to the Prime Minister that when it comes to Israel’s security against attacks by these Iranian-backed terrorist groups, you know, we got Israel’s back.

MODERATOR:  Last question will go to Barak Ravid.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Thank you for doing this.  Two things.  First, can you tell us what was the main message that the President gave Netanyahu during the call about the hostage deal?  What was, like, the one-liner that was important for the President to convey during this call?

And the second thing: Are you concerned, like many in Israel, that Netanyahu is just playing a game here and we’ve tried to sabotage this deal for political survival reasons at last minute?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think the mess- — it was a review of where we have been, Barak.  And the message being that it’s time to bring this deal to closure.  That’s the message.  And I have to say, same message received from the Israeli side. 

But these are two leaders who understand the contours of the deal, who understand where the gaps are and recognize that there’s a lot of work to get done.  So, the President was encouraged.  The Prime Minister is authorizing his team to reengage, because they have not been directly engaged in some time as we’ve been trying to work out a couple of the impasses in the framework I mentioned, but now we’ve overcome that.  And we’re going to do all we can to close this out.  It’s time to close this out because the lives of the hostages are on the line. 

And of course, this deal, we think it is structured in a way that fully protects Israel’s interests, is structured in a way that brings significant relief to the civilians of Gaza, as I outlined.  And it’s a well-crafted deal, and it’s time to bring it to closure.  And we believe there is an opportunity to do that.  That is not entirely in the hands of the Israelis; that is also in the hands of the mediators — Qatar, Egypt — but also, of course, Hamas.  And at the end of the day, as we’ve said repeatedly and consistently, if Hamas would release hostages, we have a way out of this crisis through a ceasefire and a three-phase deal. 

And we think now there’s a path open.  And I thought the call today was quite constructive about what we want to do in the path forward.  And we’re going to do everything we can here over the coming period to bring this to close.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thanks, everyone, for joining.  The embargo is now lifted.  Thanks again for joining on a holiday.  Talk to everyone soon.

3:00 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on President Biden’s Call with Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared first on The White House.

1:50 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Hello.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, I have a couple of things at the top.

So, I want to begin by sharing that Biden-Harris administration is announcing a signifi- — a significant new security assistance package for Ukraine as the United States continues to support Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion. 

This announcement is the seventh security assistance package that President Biden has authorized to help Ukraine since he signed the national security supplemental in April. 

It includes missiles for Ukraine’s air defense systems, ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, artillery rounds, and other critical capabilities that are being drawn down from U.S. stocks using presidential drawdown authorities. 

It also includes new funding that the Department of Defense will use to purchase interceptors for Patriot and NASAM air defense systems to help Ukraine defend its troops and its cities against Russia’s aerial attacks. 

The United States’ support over the last few months has been critical in helping Ukraine defend their territory against Russia’s advances.

Thanks to the bravery of the Ukrainian forces and weapons deliv- — deliveries from the United States and our allies and partners, it is increasingly clear the Russian offensive around Kharkiv has been a failure. 

And as President Biden has been clear, we are committed to continuing to stand with Ukraine until they prevail against Russian aggression.   

So, I want to share a bit of additional updates before — for all of you before we start.  I know some of all — some of you have been trying to confirm some of this information that I’m about to share, so I’ll do it — it right now at the podium.

The president has connected with Leader Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Schumer, Representative Clyburn, former Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Coons. 

Today, President Biden taped two Black radio interviews that will air tomorrow morning.  One is with Earl Ingram on Civic Media Network, which airs across Wisconsin, and one with Andrea Lawful-Sanders on WURD’s The Source in Philadelphia. 

And, as Governor Walz of Minnesota announced today, the president will meet with more than 20 Democratic governors.  Now, as you know, these governors are some of our closest partners when it comes to creating jobs, building new roads and building bridges, and so much more.  And so, the president certainly looks forward to meeting with them.

And with that, I am happy to take your questions.

Seung Min.

Q    Thank you.  Last night at the fundraiser, the president blamed jet lag for his debate performance, but he was back stateside for well over a week.  So, does he really need more than a week and a half to recover from — from traveling in Europe?  And did he really — is that really what he thinks caused his poor debate performance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, yeah, just a couple of things.  And I do appreciate the question because you — you know, the president has certainly spoken to this many, many times about the debate.  And so, he had an opportunity to do that in front of supporters. 

And I jus- — as you just stated, he did that.  He — he talked about, he owned that the debate was not his best night.  And it — and he said himself, it’s not an excuse, but it’s an explanation.  I was standing here yesterday, and many people were asking why and what’s the explanation.  And that’s what you heard from him.

Look, the two — I think, in addition to the two major trips, he was also doing — continued to do his presidential duties.  He worked late in doing that, and he also prepared for the debate.  And on top of that, there was, obviously, the jet lag, as you just asked — asked about, and also, he had a cold.  And you all heard directly — you heard — you heard from him during the debate.  He had a hoarse voice. 

Many of you reached out to me and my team and some other members of the White House asking what was going on.  We confirmed that he had a cold.  And so, I think those two things — continuing, obviously, to do his duties as commander in chief, as the president.

And so, I think some of you here in this room can certainly relate to, you know, what — what could happen when you’re having an important moment and you’re not feeling well.  And, yeah — and also you wish you could have done better.  And so, he took ownership.  I think that’s important. 

And he’s going to continue to make a strong case for his agenda, and that’s what you’re going to see.

And he was giving an explanation.  And that’s what he wanted to do.  He wanted to get that out there and for people to hear directly from him, as he has been doing since — since Friday of last week.

Q    It just seems like there — I know you’re calling it an explanation, not an excuse.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But it does seem like there are new excuses since the debate of what —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    — went wrong there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I would say, I don’t think it’s a new excuse.

I think some of you, some of your colleagues reached out to us about the schedule.  They — some of your colleagues asked if the — if the schedule was too strenuous or was it because of the jet lag.  And so — and so, we — we are laying out and explaining exactly what happened.  You heard from the president. You’ve heard from me. 

And it was, you know, indeed, a — a schedule where, you know, the president traveled six time zones forward to G7 and Italy, nine time zones back to L.A., and three time zones forward again to — to D.C.  That’s something that when — the print pooler on that day laid out for — for all of you and — and those who — who rea- — who read the pool notes.  And — and on top of that, he did have a cold. 

So, it is an explanation.  I don’t think it is an addition.  I don’t think it’s — we — we certainly don’t want to explain this away. 

But you all asked me for an explanation yesterday; the president gave that directly yesterday to his supporters.  He wanted to make sure, knowing that all of you would get that information as he’s speaking to his support- — his supporters last night.

Q    And one more quick one, if I may.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    You mentioned all the calls that he has made in your topper.  Why wasn’t he doing that on Friday?  And why wasn’t he doing this sort of damage control?  Why was he waiting on doing that — waiting to do that until middle of this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I was asked a similar question by one of your colleagues yesterday.  And — and, look, you know, the president obviously — right after the debate, he visited four states in two and a half days, gave a couple of remarks.  He met with supporters, whether at the Waffle House or in Atlanta at watch party or in North Carolina where there were hundreds of supporters there in — in Raleigh.  And so, he was busy dealing with — you know, dealing with his schedule and also speaking directly and engaging with his supporters. And then, spend time with his family. 

I think what’s important is that he has done this outreach, he’s having these conversations.  It is important to him to do so. 

And the folks that I laid out that he spoke to are — or some of them have been his colleagues.  Some of them have been elected officials that he’s known for some time.  Obviously, you know, Leader Jeffries is a new relationship that he has — someone that he obviously respects.

And — and so, you know, it is — I think it is important to note that they were strong conversations.  That’s something that the president told me and my team directly moments ago.  He’s — he was walking around, and we happened to see the president, and he said they were strong conversation. 

And, by the way, he looks great.  The vice president is great.  And they are ready to continue working on beh- — on behalf of the American people. 

Go ahead.  S- —

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Hi.  Is President Biden considering stepping down —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolut- —

Q    — from the race?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not.  And you heard, I thi- — I believe, directly from the campaign as well. 

Q    Given the groundswell of concern from fellow Democrats, from donors, from supporters, doesn’t he owe it to the American public to reflect on whether he should step down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, i- — very much — and to Seung Min’s question and my answer to her question where he had an opportunity to talk to supporters — he’s done it a couple times at this point — and laid out what happened on that night — talked about how he understands and it was not his best night.  He understands that it is fair for people to ask that question. 

But we cannot forget his record and what he’s been able to do.  We cannot forget how he’s been able to deliver for the American people for almost four years.  That matters too.

And he has the most historic record administration — the most in modern politics, and that should matter.  And he wants to continue to do that work. 

And, you know, a lot of his — what’s on his agenda is very much popular with majority of the American people, whether it’s continuing to build a strong rec- — economic — economic — kind of economic policies, he’s done that.  Creating new jobs, he’s done that — 15 million jobs.  He wants to work on that and continue to do that. 

And so, he wants to continue to deliver — expanding health care, all of these things he believes is important.  The majority of Americans believe it’s important.  And his record — he wants to make sure that people do not forget about the record that he’s been able to lay out on behalf of the American people. 

Q    Is there anything, Karine, that would change his mind?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I cannot lay out something that would change the president’s mind.  He has been very clear.  And he’s going to continue to build on the unprecedented record that he’s been able to lay out for the American people.  That’s his focus right now. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  What does the president do outside the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you heard him speak to supporters yesterday outside of 4:00 — 4:00 p.m.  You’ve hear- — you saw the president land in North Carolina in the middle of the night at two o’clock.  What was he doing?  He was greeting supporters — hundreds of supporters that showed up to — to cheer him on after the debate. 

You saw him speaking at nine o’clock or — at night in New York in front of supporters. 

So, he’s been pretty — pretty much out there after the hours of 4:00 p.m.  And before — before 10:00 a.m., for sure.  And so, that has been something he has consistently done over the past couple of days, for sure, for certain.

Q    Does he have an afternoon nap every day? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me be very clear about this.  This is a president that wakes up every morning and puts the American people first.  That’s what he does.  He does that every single day.  That is his focus. 

I am not going to speak to sources out there — unnamed sources out there.  That’s not what I’m going to speak to.  I’m going to speak to what I know: what this president does and how he is committed to the work of the president, of the commander in chief.  And his record clearly lays that that — lays that out and speaks to it. 

And that’s what he’s going to continue to do: the American people first — the American people first and delivering for them. 

Q    Can you also clarify Seung Min’s question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    I mean, how — how is it that the president was still tired 12 days after returning from Europe, had a cold but then went to the Waffle House, and then the following day stage such a huge comeback that he gave those North Carolina remarks?  Like, help us understand —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Have you had a cold before?

Q    Of course I’ve had a cold before. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, so you probably —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Come on.  Come on, Jacqui.  Let’s be very —

Q    It was 12 days after he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — returned, though —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you also —

Q    — and he claimed jet lag yesterday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on a second.  There is a cold, there is a jet lag — you combine that.  He continues to work on the — with — for the American people day in and day out around the clock. 

Things happen.  Things happen. 

And the cold thing is something that you all pointed out during his debate.  We didn’t even point that out.  You all pointed to that when you heard his — his voice being hoarse, because he knew he had to push through.  He knew he has to power through.  That’s what presidents do. 

If you care about this country and you don’t care about yourself, you care about the American people, you care about delivering for this country, you care about how you’re going to continue to work ev- — day in and day out, you push through. 

Q    He just got better overnight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve all — we’ve all —

Q    The reason I ask is because —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — do that.

Q    — all these Democrats —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We all do that.

Q    — who are saying they want to see him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — okay, but —

Q    — it speaks to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But we’re not — we’re not — we didn’t share that information ahead of time.  You all asked what was going on, and then we shared that information.  We didn’t use that — we didn’t use that before the debate.  You all asked, “Hey, is he under the weather?”  And we confirmed that he was under the weather. 

He pushed through.  That’s what this president does.  He is going to continue to fight for the American people.  So, he pushed through it. 

I think — I think anybody who does that, not just the president, should be commended. 

And he also said — you heard him say this on Friday, “When you get knocked down, you get back up.”  That’s what you saw.

Q    Is there any discussion that if the president were to suspend his campaign that he would also resign?  Is — are there any discussions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No.

Q    — about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not.

Q    — the vice president assuming his duties?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not.

Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q    Does the president have a duty to review data, like polling information that’s coming in, donor information, the fears and concerns or anxieties expressed by Democrats?  Does he have a duty to review what’s happening now?  And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  When you say “a duty,” ca- — can you say more about the “duty” piece?

Q    You’re saying that he’s absolutely running.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Well, he’s saying that, and I’m sharing — I’m sharing with you his — his view. 

Q    And we would invite the president to come here and tell us —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Noted.  (Laughter.)

Q    — that directly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Noted.  Noted, Kelly.

Q    But —

Q    If he’s awake.

Q    That’s inappropriate. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you heard from your colleague, the president of the WHCA, that’s inappropriate.

Thank you, Kelly. 

Q    The — my question is, information is coming in, an assessment is happening within the party, does he have a duty to review that?  Has he closed the door on reviewing the data?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really mindful that, obviously, you’re asking me about campaign numbers and data that’s coming in.  And, look, what I will — what I will note is that this is a president that looks at everything, takes in all the information.  It’s important to him to do so.

I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here.  That’s not what I’m here to do.  What I can say is: In this moment, we move forward on building on this unprecedented record that the president has been able to lay out for the American people.  And that’s going to be ou- — our focus.  I — I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.  I don’t want to get ahead — into any- — anything else.

Q    That doesn’t sound like closing the door to reviewing this over a period of time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is the president is moving forward.  He’s moving forward as being president.  He’s moving forward with his campaign, as his campaign has been very, very clear about that.  That’s what I can — that’s what I can speak to, and that’s what I can say.

And that is the president’s focus.  The president’s focus is how does he continue to do that work.  And anything else that we’re hearing or that’s being reported is absolutely false.

Q    Is the president telling people he’s evaluating the — the race?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely false.  That is absolutely false.  I saw that reporting.  We were not given enough time to get back to that reporting — just a couple of minutes.  And we asked the president.  The president responded directly when asked about this question, because we said that we would, and the president said it is no.  It is absolutely false.

Q    What steps —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s coming directly from him.

Q    What steps would the president be taking or would you as a team plan to try to prevent another episode in public that would be deemed worrisome?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would not call it an episode.  I would call it we had a — a bad night.  Right?  It was not his best night.  He had a cold.  He was jet lagged.  You heard directly from the president about this.  And when we get back — when we get knocked down, when he gets knocked down, he gets right back up.  And that’s what I would — I — that’s what I would focus on: the president continuing to be very steady and continuing to work on — for the American people.

Go ahead.

Q    Just a follow-up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Kelly O’s question.  Do you think the president feels like these coming days are very critical for him, as he — you know, you laid out all these events that he’s going to be doing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Did — are these — are these events very important for him to show to the American people that he still has the ability to be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    — the nominee?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I would say that this moment is critical, regardless of the debate or not.  We are living in an important moment right now.  Everything is at stake.  And I got to be mindful because this is all connected to what’s happening in November. 

And I think any — any leader would say they always have to prove to themselves to — you know, to their constituents, right?  It’s — it is a day-in and day-out work.

And, yes, the president is going to have engagement.  He’s going to be out there speaking to the American people.  Obviously, we mentioned Wisconsin.  He’s going to do an interview in Wisconsin as well.  We talked about Pennsylvania.  But the president was also out last week — Atlanta, North Carolina, New York — where he saw supporters. 

This is a president that has been consistently out there talking directly to the American people.  He understands — as you all ask me about the economy and what people are feeling — he understands that they have to hear directly from him and he has to continue to do that so that he can lay out his agenda, he can lay out what he wants to continue to do.

It’s always going to be part of, you know, the calculation — right? — to continue to prove to the American people that he can continue to do the work and deliver for the — for him on behalf — on — on — deliver on behalf of the American people.

Q    And — and Jeff had the — the staff meeting today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Can you just give us a rundown of, really, what he tried to get across?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And is there a morale issue in the White House right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  It’s a fair question.  And I do have a couple of things I want to say. 

As you just said, the chief of staff, Jeff Zients, did have an all-staff call.  He wanted to gather the team across the building and acknowledge what the president has said himself — right? — that the last few days have been challenging.  We’ve been very, very clear in acknowledging — acknowledging that.

But we have had an extraordinary record to be proud of.  And we know we have more work to do.  The president says that all the time.  He confey- — conveyed the importance of executing on our mission.  He talked about the importance of coming together as a team and also having each other’s backs. 

And so, look, he also said — which I think was really important and I think every staff wants to hear — that the chief of staff door is open and is open to hearing directly from them any questions or any concerns.  And, you know, I think that’s what you do as a leader.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  If there are so many questions right now about whether President Biden can do this job, why are we not seeing the president out there every single day in an unscripted way without teleprompters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you’re go- — you’re go- — you’re going to see him today certainly.  And I know you’re asking about the teleprompter.  You’re going to see him tomorrow — right? — Fourth of July.  He’ll have an opportunity to welcome active-du- — -duty military and their families and certainly their loved ones here on the South Lawn, as he does every year.  And I think that’s going to be important.  He’ll be able to engage with them and thank them directly.

And you’ll see him in Wisconsin.  And you’re continue to see him, obviously, in the upcoming weeks.

Look, it is not unusual for a president to use a teleprompter.  It isn’t.  It is not unusual.  That is something that presidents have done in the past. 

I think what we also have to remember — and I’ll keep saying this, because I think it’s important to not forget — that he has the strongest economic recovery in modern — in modern history.  He has led a historic midterm win when everybody was talking about a red wave, and he was — been able to defy that and deliver by leading — by being a leader — right? — obviously, do- — during the midterms as a Democratic leader. 

And he’s going to continue to work to get lower — lower costs.  And I think that matters.  I think his record certainly matters.

And you are going to see him — continue to see him, you know, having interviews.  He’s going to do ABC, as you know, with George Stephanopoulos — one of your colleagues.  That’s not scripted.  And he has done more than 40 interviews that have not been scripted — interviews do not have a script — this year alone.

So, you’ll see him out there connecting with the — engaging with the American people.  And I think that’s important.

Q    But, again, we’re now almost a week after the debate.  Why doesn’t the president just come here right now and answer for himself in this briefing room all of the questions that we have?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well — well, you — you asked me a couple of things.  You asked when — when is he going to be unscripted.  He has been.  When he went to visit a — a diner in — a couple of days ago, at the Waffle House, when he met with — met with some of the supporters in Atlanta; North Carolina, where hundreds of supporters showed up.  He’s certainly had an opportunity to engage. 

On Friday, he’s going to be taking some questions from one of your colleagues.  I think that’s going to be important.  And we’re going to continue to engage with all of you.  We’re going to — certainly, looking forward to doing that. 

He’ll have a press conference next week at NATO — press conference, a “big boy” press conference, as Justin from Bloomberg stated yesterday.  And so, we’ll — we’ll do that.  And he’s looking forward to it.

Q    And, Karine, President Biden —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    — has always promised to tell the American people the truth.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, can you be straight with us —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and the American people: Is the President clear-eyed about what it takes to stay in the race and what it would take for him to drop out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President is clear-eyed, and he is staying in the race.  I don’t have anything else beyond that. 

He is staying — he is staying in the race.  That is what the president has promised to do.  That is what he wants: to continue to work on the successes that he’s had, his record, his unpre- — unprecedented record.  And that is what the president is focused on: continuing to deliver for the American people.  And he looks forward to doing that.

Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    The NATO Summit is coming up next week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    Is the president frustrated that this debate over the presidential election could cast a shadow over your goals for the NATO Summit?  Has he made any effort to reach out to the NATO leaders that will be coming to sort of assure them that this isn’t going to derail that agenda?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you stated, next week, the president is going to host the NATO Summit here in Washington, D.C.  It is also the 70- — 75th year anniversary of NATO.  And let’s not forget NATO has become stronger and has gained to more countries because of this president’s leadership.  And all very much important.  And — and doing so was very much important in stopping and in helping to stop Putin’s aggression as Ukraine continues to fight, certainly, for their freedom and democracy. 

Look, foreign leaders have seen the president close up.  They have.  And — and, you know — and close up and in — and personally for the past three years, and I think that’s important to know.  They know who they are dealing with and how effective he has been. 

I just talked about how NATO has expanded because of his leadership, how NATO is stronger because of his leadership.  And I think that’s important to note as well. 

And so, look, you’re going to see the president, you know, being a leader in front of the — in front of these world leaders.  You’re going to see the president continue to bring these world leaders together. 

And as it relates to what’s happening currently, you heard directly from this president.  He understands the criticism.  He gets the criticism.  He has owned up to it.  But he also wants to move forward in continuing to deliver on really critical, important issues that the American people care about. 

When you think about NATO, you think about foreign policy, it is important to continue our world leadership on that, being leaders and strengthening our national security as well.  And that is how the president thinks about this day in — day in and day out.

Q    I just want to follow up on the — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — kind of questions about the outreach from the White House. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the president intend to make any other calls other than the ones that he’s made to today to the congressional leadership? 

And then, you know, Representative Doggett said he reached out to the White House before he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — made his comments and did not hear back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    He said he wanted to speak to President Biden personally about his concerns. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — look, I — I can’t speak to the outreach that he made.  I have not spoken to the Office of Leg Affairs, so I can’t speak to that. 

What I can say is the president has — certainly has looked forward to working with Democratic leaders and congressional members over the past three years.  I keep talking about his record — certainly, his record when it comes to legislation and getting things done.  He couldn’t have done it without Democrats like Doggett and appreciates his — obviously, his support and his partnership. 

I can’t speak to outreach.  It’s not something that I’ve talk — spoken to the Office of Leg Affairs about. 

And look, the president —

(A cellphone rings.)

Q    Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s okay.  You want to take that? 

Q    Might be — it might be Doggett.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, maybe.  He’s like, “You just brought me up in the briefing room.  I have something to say.”

I would also note that — you know, look, I don’t have any additional calls to read out or to lay out.  One of the reasons that I mentioned it at the top is I knew some of you were trying to confirm and wanted to make sure that we — we got to you — got back to you — all of you about that. 

And as you know, he’s going to meet with Democratic governors, as I just stated at the top.  So, he’s going to continue to do engagement.  It is important.  Some of — again, some of these leaders, he could not have delivered on this record — on this record accomplishment that he’s been able to — to get done without them. 

And so, I’ll just leave it there for now.

Q    I think the — I think the question that we’re all asking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in different ways, from different — is: Has the president and has the White House, have you sort of missed the boat in terms of responding quickly enough?  I mean, I spoke to someone today who said it was “too little, too late.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Quickly enough on — on what specifically?

Q    Just in — in explaining and discussing what happened at the debate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — and — and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — reassuring donors and — and other people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — that, you know, he intends —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — to keep running.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, as it relates to donors or anything political like that, obviously, that’s something that the campaign should — should respond to. 

But I — I would remind you that the day after, in North Carolina, the president spoke to his debate performance.  He did.  He talked about it.  He gave, you know, his thoughts.  He also stated that, “Look, I’m not as young.  I’m not a young man.”  He said that.  “I’m not as — a smooth talker as I — as I used to be.  I don’t walk easily as I used to be.  And I don’t — I don’t debate as well as I used to.”  He said this.  And so, he owned up to it in — on Friday, the day after the debate, that afternoon.  And so, we didn’t wait. 

Now, as far as engagement, look, that is something certainly the campaign can speak to more.  But the president, in front of hundreds of supporters in North Carolina, talked about his debate performance.  So —

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just wanted to clarify one thing.  I know you got a lot of questions about this issue —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Sure.

Q    — yesterday.  Has the president had any medical exams since his last annual physical in February?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And got — and we were able to talk to the — to his doctor about that, and that is a no.

Q    He hasn’t had any kind of medical exam?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    So, the White House has said no to releasing the full results of that annual, said no to making Dr. O’Connor available for questions from us, no to releasing any other information that would shed some more light on the president’s health.  I guess I’m just wondering: If now is not the time for full transparency, when is?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would say, M.J., to your question, that what we have released over the past three years, every year since he’s been in office, has been transparent and it has been comprehensive.  It has been one of the most transparent — we have been one of the most transparent administration when it comes to medical records.  That is — that is what — what we’ve been able to do. 

And I would add that it is not — it is not the norm to bring the doctor to the podium.  That — that is not the norm.

And we have owned up.  This president directly has owned up to what happened at the debate last Thursday.  He’s talked about it multiple times, and — and directly to supporters, directly to the American people.  And what we want to do is continue to certainly deliver on the — you know, the record accomplishments that’s we’ve been able to do.

Q    I understand that you feel like the White House has been thorough in the medical rec- — records that you all have released.  But obviously you’re getting these questions in large part because of what we saw for 90 minutes on Thursday night and people’s responses to what they saw — right? — a lot of people expressing shock.  So, why not release more information?  What would be the downside?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can tell you is that we have been transparent.  We’ll continue to be transparent.  And that’s what I can — that’s what I can share with all of you at this time. 

Q    And I did want to follow up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — what Seung Min brought up and, I think, others as well.  You did get numerous questions yesterday —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about the president’s debate performance.  You didn’t mention the travel, the jet lag, the foreign trip.  So, I think you can understand why it was a little bit puzzling to hear the president mentioning that as his explanation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — for the first time last night.  I’m just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Can you clarify whether — when you took the podium yesterday —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — did you not know that that was a major factor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I — and I want to say that is my bad.  That is part of — that is part of — definitely part of the explanation of what had occurred.  I ju- — I did know that.  I did know that. 

Q    You did — did know that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I did.  I did know that. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But we were so focused — I was so focused on the col- — on the cold.  And that’s what I kind of leaned into and talked about. 

But, yes, his schedule did have something to do with it.  It was the schedule and the cold.  And I did — I was aware of that yesterday. 

Q    Can I just ask —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure. 

Q    — one other broader question.  The president — and I know you will remember this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — back in 2020 referred to himself as a “transition candidate.”  He also said back then that he would be a “bridge to the next generation” of Democratic leaders.  Does he still believe that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.  I mean, I think his statement stands.  I mean, one of the reasons why he picked the vice president — president, Kamala Harris, is because she is indeed the future of the party.  And he’s very proud to have partnered with her and continue to partner with her in delivering an unprecedented record for the American people. 

And I think he’s going to continue, certainly, to do that.  They’re going to do that as partners. 

Like I said, I just saw them before walking into the briefing room.  We — they stopped by to talk to me and my team, and they’re ready to go.  They’re ready to — to continue. 

Q    So the transition would happen in eight years —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’m not going to —

Q    — in his mind, not four? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not going to get into speculation from here.  But you asked me if that — his remarks and statements still stands.  Yes, it still does. 

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  If President Biden was fatigued during the de- — debate because of overseas travel that was 12 days beforehand, like he said he was last night, doesn’t that raise questions about his ability to effectively serve another — a second term until he’s 86 years old?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I mean — look, I think there’s multiple factors here to consider.  There was the travel, the travel led to a cold.  And I think that matters as well.  And I think we’ve all been there.  We’ve all been there.  It is not unusual. 

And what the President did is he pushed through.  He did.  He pushed forward, and he pushed through.  And that’s what you saw him do. 

And, look, you know, you heard me say this yesterday, and I’ll — and you heard directly from the president say this multiple times, “When you get knocked down, you get back up.” 

Joe Biden is someone who has faced, you know, tragedies, and he’s taken them on.  And when he does that, he gets right back up.  And that’s how we see that day. 

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s how we see that night. 

Q    And what was his message to congressional leaders today?  I mean, is he trying to instill confidence in them that — in them that he can run effectively for — for his reelection bid?  Is that — was that the purpose of the call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into, certainly, private conversations.  He had — he shared with me those conversations were strong.  And I think that’s important to note.  I’m not going to go into details. 

But the president is going to, you know, continue to have those direct conversations with — with leaders, with supporters, and he believes that’s important to do.

Q    Were they united with him in the call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They continue to be united.  And some of them have spoken to this.  They’ve been very clear — have spoken, have gone on television, spoken to some of you in your reporting and said that very clearly. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Karine.  Can you share any details on President Biden’s and Vice President Harris’s lunch today?  Do you know if they discussed Vice President Harris potentially taking over?  Do you know if that came up today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I just stated that the president has — is not dropping out.  That’s something that the ca- — the campaign has shared.  So, I’m just repeating what the campaign has shared. 

They regularly have lunch.  And I’m not going to get into private — private conversation. 

And I would also say that the vice president spoke — spoke to CBS just yesterday, and you — you could see what she said herself.  And I think that’s important to note as well. 

Q    And I just want to also ask — you mentioned that President Biden got the cold because of traveling.  So, this cold is directly tied to him traveling or is it just he got the cold regularly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you is he traveled, then he got a cold.  That’s what happened. 

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    And went to Waffle House.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You mentioned a few times that the president is proud of his record.  He wants to continue his work and building on that record. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’m trying to understand how — how that’s relevant to an assessment of self-reflection by him on whether or not he’s physically capable of continuing. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s — it is an assessment.  I think the fact that he’s able to work across the aisle, get really big bipartisan legislation done.  He’s been able to get us out of the pandemic, able to get the economy back on its feet.  I think that shows leadership.  And I think that’s important, right?

He — he is making these decisions on behalf of the American people.  And he’s able to do that because of his experience, because of his wisdom.  And I think that all — that’s all connected as well.  We can’t forget that.

Q    Just building on, you know, with Kelly and Ken’s question on — on self-reflection by the president.  You’ve mentioned as well that — that he understands the stakes in the election and that the data is showing that he may be leading the party toward, you know, electoral disaster.  Is there not going to be reflection on — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look — look, right now I’ve got to be really mindful.  You’re asking about a campaign.  You’re asking about data that’s connected to the campaign.  I can- — I — I want to be really mindful here. 

And it’s also a hypothetical.  And so, I also want to be really mindful here. 

What I can say is right now and where the president is, he is continu- — he is continuing to fight for the American people, continue to build an economy that works for all, continue to create good-paying jobs, expand health care.  That is the president’s focus.  That is the president’s focus. 

Anything else related to the campaign, I would refer you to the campaign to speak to that directly.

As it relates to data, I — that is not something that I can — I can’t be a pundit from here. 

Go ahead, sir. 

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, sir.  Yeah. 

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  I have two questions from Bolivia.  First, former president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, and also Argentinian President Javier Milei have accused President Luis Arce of staging a self-coup last week.  Does the administration believe (inaudible) any evidence if this was the case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I want to be really mindful here.  We have seen the false allegations of U.S. involvement in the events of Bolivia on June 26th.  And I know that’s something that has come up a couple of times.  And so, want to make sure that it is clear that the U.S. had no involvement in that. 

Look, we certainly condemn — strongly condemn the deployment of army units in Bolivia in any attempt to subvert a constitutional order.  And we are going to continue — and I said this last week — we’re going to continue — or the week before — stand by democracy and the people of Bolivia.  And that is — that is where we’re going to continue to stand. 

Q    Great.  And can I have another one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    With the U.S. government and the Venezuelan government resuming negotiations today, I wanted to get — if you can give us, like, a clearer picture of what entails and how far the U.S. government is willing to go. 

So, two questions on that.  Would the U.S. government be willing to alleviate sanctions?  And is there any plan for Maduro to step down from power without fear of continuing legal prosecution?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, to your com- — your question about the dialogue that’s happening, we certainly welcome that.  And if — in good faith — right? — the dialogue in good faith.  So, we welcome that.

We are clear-eyed that democratic change will not be easy and requires serious — serious commitment.  So, we remain committed to supporting the will of the people of Venezuela and a path toward democratic governance via competitive and also inclusive elections.

Any specific details about that, I — I don’t have any share — to share about the diplomatic engagement.  But we certainly welcome it in good faith.  And that’s what we want to see.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  I just also wanted to follow up on the remarks the president made yesterday —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — at a fundraiser.  He said that he didn’t listen to his staff.  So, what kind of advice did he get?  Because it gives the impression that his staff is asking him to, you know, slow down or maybe cancel some trips or have a lighter schedule. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I didn’t get into the president specifically about what he meant by that.  So, I want to be really mindful.  I don’t want to get into that.

But I think what the president was trying to say is that he had a schedule that was rigorous — you know, the travel that he had to do — crossing multiple, obviously, you know — going — going — (laughs) — going from Italy, all the way to the West Coast.  And I think, as you know, that — that can be — that could — that could have a toll on anyone.  Whether you’re 20 or 80, that could have a toll on you.

And so, I think that’s what he was alluding to, speaking to.  I don’t want to go beyond that because I haven’t spoken to him on — on the other component of when he was speaking about his staff.  But as it relates to, certainly, the travel, it was rigorous.  He had a rigorous travel.

We talk about it sometimes — I think I’ve mentioned this to some of your — with some of your colleagues — that he has a — especially, when he travels abroad, it’s a pretty rigorous travel.  We get tired looking at him doing his meetings and traveling.  And so, I think that’s what he was speaking to.

And I don’t think it — it has a toll on if — regardless of what age you are, it has a toll on you, that type of travel.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Did — there’s no question that international travel can be rigorous.  I think the confusion is that he’s still suffering from the effects of that nearly two weeks later.  So, I — I — can you articulate a little bit about, like, do you guys usually have accommodations for him after he does a trip that he’s going to have jet lag for that long a period of time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, can you — can you — when you say “two weeks later,” what do you mean?

Q    Well, the debate — he arrives back in the United States —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — 12 or 13 days before the debate.  So, his explanation for a poor debate performance is jet lag.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I want to say is it’s — it’s the jet lag and also the cold, right?  It is the two things.  And that occurred. 

And you all heard it in his voice when he did the debate, right?  And it is not even something that we shared ahead of time.  You heard it in his voice, and we confirmed it.  And I think that’s important to note as well.  Like, it is the jet lag and the cold.

But I want to be really — I want to be really clear here.  This is not an excuse, right?  This is not an excuse.  You all ask for an explanation, and we get — we’re giving it an explanation.  It is not an excuse.  I don’t want that to be the leading piece of this. 

As for — the only reason we’re sharing this: because it was asked of me here and the president certainly wanted to give an explanation himself.  And that’s what he did yesterday.

We want to — we understand that it wasn’t his best night.  It wasn’t a great debate.  We understand that.  And we understand what supporters saw, what the American people saw, and what you all saw.  And so, we wanted to give an explanation.

So, I don’t want to get into this, “Oh, are you giving this excuse, not an excuse?”  We’re giving you what our explanation was.  We want to continue to make sure that we do everything that we can to deliver for the American people.  That’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Q    I also wanted to ask just about the schedule again.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    Because a lo- — a lot of high-level Democrats, I think, were concerned with the debate performance, but they’ve also been almost just as or more concerned about the response since then, that he hasn’t done more.  He spoke for four minutes in public on Monday evening on the Supreme Court decision, and he spoke for about 10 minutes in public yesterday with the emergency weather situation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.  And he’s going to speak today.

Q    I know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s going to go to Wisconsin.  He’s going to go Pennsylvania.  But — but —

Q    But if this truly is an emergency situation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But —

Q    — it’s taking almost a week for him to sort of address it.  When there’s natural disasters, when there’s other things happening —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he wants to get in front of the cameras and speak to it.  In this case, there seems to be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, but I — I —

Q    — multiple days —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Matt, I would —

Q    — before that happens.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — disagree with you.  He did address it.  He addressed it on Friday in North Carolina in front of hundreds of supporters.  He addressed it.  And — and he talked about an issue that you all ask me about all the time: his age.  Like, he took it head-on — literally head-on.  He didn’t run away from it.  He didn’t hide from it.

He said, “I am not a young man, obviously.  I’m not as a good debater as I used to be.  I don’t talk as smooth — I don’t talk as — I don’t walk as easily as I used to.”  He said it himself to hundreds of supporters in North Carolina.

So, I would disagree that he didn’t take this head on.  He did.  He did.  He — he talked about it in front of supporters —

Q    From one —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which — which, by the way, that —

Q    He’s had one instance with that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — but that — but —

Q    — and he’s called six people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — but —

Q    — by your count.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But, by the way, that matters.  Right?  Engaging with the American people and standing in front of them and being honest about that and talking about age — again, something that you all ask me about all the time.  He took that right on.

Now, he is talking and engaging with leaders.  That is something that he’s doing.  He’s having good conversations with them.  He’s going to meet with Democratic governors, people who — governors who he believes have been really strong partners with him in delivering on some of these historic accomplishments.

But, you know, I — I would s- — I would, you know, disagree on him not taking this head on — I mean, talking, going, being in North Carolina and taking that head on.  Obviously, that’s not the speech that he was going to give on Thursday — right? — before the debate.  So, he understood — right? — when he got to North Carolina that he needed to address it.  And he decided to do it in front of supporters.  And he talked about it. 

I’m going to go to the back.

Q    Can you come to the back —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to come —

Q    — for a question, please, Karine? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed. 

Q    Thanks.  Thanks, Karine.  I want to go back to the NATO meeting, if I could.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Polling this week shows the president losing more ground in the American eyes over immigration, over economy, and foreign policy.  So, does that, with everything else, diminish the position of the president as these NATO leaders are coming in for those meetings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I don’t think so.  I don’t think so.  And I said this moments ago when I was answering a question of one of your colleagues.  These foreign leaders have seen the president personally, up close for the past three years.  They have talked about his leadership.  They have commended his leadership.  They have been proud to see him as the president of the United States after what they experienced in the last administration.  They have — some of them have been even quoted about what the president has been able to do during his past three years. 

German Chancellor Scholz: “I think that the — that Joe Biden is someone who is very clear, who knows exactly what he is doing and who is one of the most experienced politicians in the world, especially when it comes to international politics.”

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu: “I have had more than a dozen phone conversation — extended phone conversations with President Biden.”  He has also came — he “also came on a visit to Israel during wartime, which is an historic first.”  “I found him very clear and very focused.”

I mean, these are — these are leaders that he has had extensive engagement with over the past three years.  They have seen him up close and personal.  The president looks very — very much looks forward to — to hosting — hosting NATO next week — the NATO Summit.

Q    If I could ask you about the Supreme Court quickly.  So, the comments that the President made on Monday.  Does the president respect the authority of the Supreme Court?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I will say: The president has spoken often, very powerfully about the events on — of January 6th — he has — and his views on what happened on that day. 

And what you heard from the president Monday night — he wasn’t supposed to speak; he came back, he saw — he — he felt so strongly about the decision from the Supreme Court that he came back early and wanted to speak directly to the American people.  And that’s what he did. 

It was that significant.  He believed, as president of the United States, to speak directly to the American people, and he said this is a “dangerous precedent.”  It is.  It’s a dangerous precedent. 

He also said and laid out that the Supreme Court has continued to take away long-established freedoms and norms, including a woman’s right to choose, and now threatening the fundamental American principle that no one is above the law.  And so, this is why the President came back.  And that’s what he spoke out about.  And he fears for our democracy.  And he knows we must do everything that we can to fight.

Q    But he can disagree with a ruling.  Does he respect the authority?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He respects the authority of the Supreme Court.  And like you just said in your question, he disagrees with the ruling.  Absolutely.  It is unprecedented.  It is dangerous.  And that’s why the President wanted to make sure that the American people heard directly from him.

Q    In the back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Raquel. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I wanted to do a follow-up about the lines that you were just reading on foreign leaders, because it seems like this perception has changed after the debate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You mean the quotes that I was — that I was laying out for all of you —

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — from chancellor and —

Q    Yeah, exactly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — the prime minister?

Q    Because talking to diplomats here in D.C, they’re telling me that they’re worried —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Diplomats or — or leaders of countries?

Q    Dip- — diplomats who work for these leaders.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    Because they were saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I know.  I just wanted to make sure.

Q    Yeah, I mean, they’re representing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I was talking about the leaders.

Q    — their countries here. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear you, but I’m talking about the leaders who have been on the record. 

Q    Yeah, but after the debate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — what they are saying that after the debate, allied countries are worried about the future of the U.S. and that it is a “scary, embarrassing time for the country” and that “the U.S. leadership is at stake.”  And one said, “Imagine the watch party in Beijing and Moscow.”  So, are they — are they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — right to be worried?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, there’s a lot at stake.  There is a lot of stake right now.  There is.  And I think that’s why the president fights day in and day out on behalf of the American people. 

I got to be careful, because you’re kind of — they’re — they’re worried about, I’m assuming, the election and what’s going to happen.  So, I don’t want to speak to that. 

But what I can say more broadly, there is a lot at stake.  And we see that.  We see that with Roe — Roe being overturned, the Dobbs decision.  We see that with what happened on January 6th.  Our democracy and freedoms are at stake. 

And not only do diplomats and world leaders care about that; Americans here at home care about that.  That is something that they worry about.  And that is something that the president is going to continue to fight for. 

Going to be careful.  I can’t, you know, get into hypotheticals — what will happen.  There’s an, obviously, and election going on. 

But there is indeed a lot of stake, and we talk about this all the time: democracy, freedoms, a woman’s right to choose.  That is important.  That is important to fight for.  And what Republicans are trying to do — extreme Republicans in Congress are trying to do, put three national bans on abortion.  That’s what — the type of legislation that they want to push forward. 

So, we disagree with that.  We’re going to stand with the majority of Americans. 

Go ahead, Paris.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions, one on NATO.  So, on next week’s summit, does the president schedule any important bilats with the — bilaterals with the leaders, especially including Turkish president, Erdoğan? 

And second question is: We know China has been causing a lot of conflicts in South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and East Sea.  Yesterday, we saw the Chinese Coast Guard ship arrest Japanese ship near Senkaku Islands, also detained a Taiwanese fish boat in the Taiwan Strait.  What is White House reaction to those conflicts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, on the fish boat, we’re obviously closely monitoring the — the incident.  So, we’re going to continue to do that. 

And as for any bilateral meetings, I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time.  I believe NSC is going to do a call on Friday to talk through what next week is going to look like with the NATO Summit being here in D.C.  So, I would say, you know, stay tuned, look out for that, and — and we’ll have more to share.  And obviously, when there is a bilateral meeting, we — we certainly will share that with all of you.  Just don’t have anything to preview at this time.

Q    Can I follow up?  Has the U.S. reached out to Japan and Taiwan to offer support over those incidents —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    — with China?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I don’t have any calls, obviously, to — to speak to at this time, but we encourage both sides to maintain open lines of communication so they can get to a resolution here.  And that’s what we call — we call for. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    In the back? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I just wanted to get to your answer to Raquel a few moments ago.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You talked about there being a lot at stake, you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Yeah —

Q    — which I think —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I’m trying to be mindful — 

Q    I know.  And I’m also —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — so — but —

Q    — trying to phrase the question the way that you can —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I appreciate that.  Thank you.

Q    But I think millions and millions of Americans would agree with that assessment that there’s a lot at stake. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.  And I — and I agree.  I agree.  That’s what I said.  It’s not just diplomats, but it’s also Americans here. 

Q    Right.  And — and the president and you and others in the administration have acknowledged he didn’t have a good night at the debate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is — within his reaction to his own performance, does he think he let people down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is certainly a president that I will say — and if you know Joe Biden, you know him as a senator and as — and as vice president — he’s very sensitive to how people feel.  Right?  And he’s very aware of that. 

I think he has that IQ that is certainly incredibly important as a president to be able to feel people’s pains, feel people’s concern, and be able to listen to them directly.  And you see that.  You see him do that on a da- — on a — anytime you see him engage with everyday people, Americans. 

And I think that’s what makes this president so unique.  And I think also, because he’s dealt with so much tragedy and knows what that feels like. 

And, you know, I have not asked him specifically that question, but he understands the concerns.  He understands what people saw.  And that’s why he’s spoken to it multiple times. 

And he’s spoken about his age, for example, multiple times, not just this past Friday.  And he gets it.  He gets it.  We get it. 

And so, what we’re going to do is continue — to continue to look forward, continue to work on behalf of the American people. 

And there is a record here.  There is a record here that we can speak to.  There is a record here that matters to majority of Americans.  We were able to turn some things around, whether it’s the pandemic, the economy, expanding health care — all of those things matter to the American people. 

And so, that’s going to be certainly our focus.  But, you know, the president gets it, guys.  He does.  He gets what people saw and how people felt. 

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I get it.  I get it. 

I can’t —

Q    But — I know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but I can’t.

Q    I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I really, really can’t.  I can’t — I got to — I got to continue taking questions from the back. 

And I’m already being — I’m already being pulled — go ahead, Phil — already being pulled.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about some of the things the president said last week. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last week or —

Q    Yes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Obviously, the 13 U.S. service members died at Abbey Gate during the Afghanistan withdrawal.  And then, this year, three U.S. service members died in a drone attack in Jordan.  And yet, the President said, quote, he’s the “only president this century, this decade that doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world like he did.”  End quote. 

I get having a bad night.  But how did the president get that so wrong?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I appreciate the question.  I really do.  And I was asked about this, I believe, in the gaggle on Friday, I believe.  And I said this, and I’ll just reiterate this now.  And, again, I appreciate the opportunity. 

Look, the president cares deeply about our service members — he does — and their families, their immense sacrifices that they’ve made to take on the pr- — and — and he takes on his responsibility as the commander in chief.  And that is something that certainly he will continue to do. 

I mentioned moments ago that tomorrow, on July 4th, he’s going to have active military members here and their families to thank them personally.  And obviously, they make sacri- — their families make sacrifices as well. 

And as you know, he attended the dignified transfer of the 13, as you just mentioned, brave service members who lost their lives in Afghanistan on August 26th, in 2021, and as well as the 3 who lost their lives in Jordan earlier this year.

I was there with the president.  And you can see how much it — it — how important he — he understood it was for him to be there for that moment, to be there for the families. 

And so, just want to — want to be really clear about that, because he has so much gratitude.  We know that as a country we can never repay them for their courage. 

But to your question, the president was making a comparison between how many service members have died under his leadership versus in previous years.  That’s what — the comparison that he was making.  And he is doing — doing — he was doing that because he cares so deeply — cares so deeply about them and their families and wants to keep troops safe.  And that’s what he certainly wants to continue to do. 

Let’s not forget that for some time he carried a — a card in his pocket about how many service members were wounded and killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  That’s how much — it was a reminder to him, you know, the times that we live in.

Q    I mean, this president said, “this century, this decade.”  But setting that aside, maybe on a different front here, what was the president trying to say when he said that he “beat Medicare”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He meant to say he beat Big Pharma.  I mean, that’s what he meant to say. 

Q    And then, finally, you have more interaction with the president than most folks.  You know him better than most anyone else.  Can you say — you know, do you believe that the president is as sharp today as he was when he took this job? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I —

Q    Have you seen any —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — slowdowns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is this is a president who is strong and resolute in delivering for the American people.  That’s what I see.  I see a president — when I’m in — sitting in front of him, you know, going through the day or talking about what he’s doing next, he is someone that engages with us.  He wants to know — he pushes us.  He pro- — he, you know, probes us wanting to figure out, like, the bigger picture of whatever we’re trying to explain to him or even granular details. 

Q    So he’s as sharp as ever?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He is as sharp as — as ever, as I have known him to be in my engagement, in my experience with him. 

And I know when I walk into the Oval Office or — or see him on Air Force One, I have to be on top of my game.  I do. 

Q    Thank you, ma’am.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, and that’s just kind of my engagement with him and how it’s been for the past couple of years. 

I know I have to wrap it up.  I know. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Emily.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I just wanted to ask how is the president’s health today?  Does he still have his cold or is he feeling better?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — yeah.

Q    And then, to clarify on the medical exam, because you said he hasn’t had one since his last physical.  He was on the way to the debate, the doctor was with him, he had a cold, he’s 81.  Does he not get checked out by the doctor?  I’m just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you —

Q    — curious how that works.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — he did not have — he did not get checked out by the doctor.  It’s a cold, guys.  It’s a cold. 

And I know that it affects everybody differently.  We have all had colds.  And so, no, he was not checked by the doctor.

What was your other question?

Q    How is his health today?  Does he still have the cold?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I saw him today.  My team and I saw him today.  He looked great.  And he was with the vice president.  They both look great.

I know I was asked yesterday if he still had a cold.  I think that he still has a lingering cold.  And — but he — he’s ready to go.  He’s ready to go.

I kind of have to wrap it up, but go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Sources have told ABC that the president recognizes how difficult his political predicament is.  So, how has his mood been as of late?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has he been down? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    Has he been frustrated?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just saw — I just — I’ve mentioned, I think, multiple times at this point that I got to see him.  My team and I got to see him and the vice president.  He — he’s great.  He’s, like, in a great mood, ready to get things going.  He’s going to do the Medal of Honor later today.  He’s going to meet with Democratic governors.  And that’s kind of what you want to see — right? — from your leader.

Q    Has he shared any frustrations with you all after the debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — what I can say —

Q    Is there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that he wants to move forward.  That’s what he wants to do.  He wants to move forward.  Acknowledge — right? — acknowledge what happened, be very clear-eyed about it and very forthcoming and honest about what he’s — what — what you all saw.  But he also knows that he’s the president of the United States.  He has to continue to work and deliver on behalf of the American people.  That’s what he has to continue to do.  And that’s what he’s — that’s ho- — that’s how he’s going to move forward.

All right, everybody.  Thanks, everyone.

Q    (Inaudible) from the East Room today?

(Cross-talk.)

Q    K- — Karine, we just got some news that Hamas has given the proposal — that the Hamas answer has gone to mediator?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Did that just happen?

Q    Just happened.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I can’t —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything for you if it just happened.

Q    Okay.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But certainly, reach out to us and we’ll — we’ll get you an answer.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, guys.

2:50 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, July 3, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

2:45 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, full house.

Q    Hello.

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.

Steve, you’re such a ladies’ man.  (Laughter.)

Q    Look at that.

Q    This is a good group.

Q    He knows.  (Laughter.) 

Q    That’s right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  It’s good to see everybody.  Welcome back.  Going to have a couple things at the top.  I know it’s been a while since we’ve done this, so please bear with me.

So, I want to begin by discussing the devastation caused by Hurricane Beryl, which President Biden just addressed directly.

This already deadly storm was upgraded to a Category 5 storm as it heads towards Jamaica.

The president has been briefed on Hurricane Beryl and our administration is in close touch with territory and local officials.

USAID and FEMA has resources and supplies pre-staged in the region, with staff and partners ready to assist.

We urge residents to stay vigilant and h- — and heed the warnings of local officials.  You heard that from the president as well.

Next, I want to express our disappointment in yesterday’s District [Court] ruling, which blocked our temporary pause on pending approvals of liquified natural gas exports.

While congressional Republicans and their allies continue to deny the very existence of climate change, President Biden is committed to combating the climate crisis with every resource available.

That is why we will continue taking action to transition to a clean energy future and reduce emissions, creating good-paying clean energy jobs, and bolster the resilience to — to bolster resilience to the impacts of extreme weather.

I’ll now turn to sharing how we are delivering for American workers and lowering costs for them.

Yesterday, the Biden-Harris administration began expanding overtime protections to millions of American workers.

The Department of Labor’s overtime rule extended overtime protections to 1 million workers making less than $43,888 a year.  And next year, it will extend protections to another 3 million workers by increasing the overtime threshold to $58,656.

That means higher paychecks or more time with family for — for millions of workers.

While elected Republicans side with big corporations and special interests to try to deny workers these protections, President Biden is fighting for families.

As a record Americans travel for the Fourth of July, President Biden is taking action to lower gas prices.

Today, we announced the sale of 1 million barrels of gasoline, which will lower gas prices, particularly in northeast states such as Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

While President Biden has unleashed record energy production, including affordable clean energy, congressional Republicans are siding with Big Oil to give out tax cuts while keeping prices high for families.

Now, this week, the president and — the president and his administration is marking the 60th anniversary of President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and serves as the legacy of generations of courageous and extraordinary Americans who fought to fulfill the promise of our nation.

Despite this critical step forward, securing our civil rights remains the unfinished fight of our time.

That’s why President Biden is fighting actively to protect the civil rights of every — every American.

He signed a landmark executive order to protect voting rights and continues to urge Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and Freedom to Vote Act.

President Biden appointed Justice Ketanja [Ketanji] Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to be on the Supreme Court, and has appointed more Black women to the federal appellate court than every other president in history combined.

He’s also creating opportunities for every American to thrive, investing historic amounts into HBCUs, and changing our country’s failed approach to marijuana, which disproportionately impacts communities of color.

You’ll continue to hear more from this administration to mark this major, major anniversary.

And finally — thank you for your patience.  And finally, we have a few schedule updates.  So, wanted to share the following with all of you.

This week, the president will speak with Hill leaders and Democratic governors.

He will travel to Wisconsin on Friday.  He will conduct a sit-down interview with George Stephanopoulos from ABC News while on the campaign trail.

He will travel to Philadelphia on Sunday.

And next week — I know you guys are going to be really excited about this — he will host a press conference during NATO.

This is in addition to the previously announced events this week.  And I will be happy to take your questions.

All right.  Colleen, go for it.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, there are growing calls from Democrats, including members of Congress, for the president to step aside for the 2024 election because he’s not capable of serving another four years.  What is his response to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just step back for a minute and, I guess, deal with the questions that have come in about the debate.  And honestly, this is something that the president has addressed himself multiple times since this past Thursday.

And first of all, I want to say we understand the concerns.  We get it.  The president did not have a great night.  As you all know — and many of you reached out during the ca- — the — the debate — the president had a cold.  He had a hoarse voice.  You all heard it.  That’s why you reached out. 

But I will say this, and the president said this over the past couple of days — certainly, right after the debate: He knows how to do the job.  And he knows how to do the job not because he says it, because his record proves it.  Because for three and a half years, almost four years, the rec- — the president’s record has been unprecedented, delivering for the American people.

Another thing that he said that I would add is he knows right from wrong.  He knows how to tell the truth.  And, again, he knows how to deliver for the American people.

Joe Biden is a person — take away his title — he is someone who has dealt with tragedy.  He is someone who has confronted that head on.  He is someone who knows how to get back u- — up once you’ve been knocked down.  That is something that he understands very, very well.  And I think and we believe that’s something that many of Americans across the country understand as well. 

And he knows how to come back.  He knows how to come back.  And so, the president is going to continue to focus on what he’s been doing the past three and a half years.  He’s going to focus — continue to focus on the American people. 

And, you know, to your question, just to add a little bit more to your question.  Look, you heard from Speaker Pelosi.  You heard from Representative Clyburn.  And let me just share — paraphrase a little bit of what they said. 

Speaker Pelosi, who is very close to the president, said it is not about performance in terms of a debate; it’s about performance in a presidency.  And this is a president — you’ve heard me say this; we’ve talked about this — he’s been able to give us an economic recovery — the strongest economic cov- — recovery in modern history. 

Let’s not forget, during the midterms of 2022, many people — many of you all, some of you in this room — said that it was going to be a red wave, and that didn’t happen.  He defeated Big Pharma.  We have seen historic low in crime in more than — down to 50-year low. 

And then you had Representative Clyburn, who said, “The president has done a great job leading for the last three and a half years.  The best predictor of future behavior is past performance.”  This is from Clyburn: And when you look at the record of President Biden versus former President Trump, you see President Biden, who has delivered the strongest recovery in modern history, versus the previous administration, whose plans hurts the middle class; and President Biden, who is committed to protecting our fundamental freedoms versus the former — the former president, the previous administration doing everything that they could, and they did, to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they are responsible for that. 

And those are — that’s coming from two people who are not just leaders in Congress but also close to the president.

Q    I think part of the problem that Democrats are articulating is that it wasn’t just that he had a cold, but rather he had, you know, answers — he was trailing off.  He — he didn’t answer some questions in — in a, sort of, fulsome way.  And speaking of Nancy Pelosi, one of the things that she recently said was that it was a legitimate question whether his performance was an “episode” or a “condition.”

So, I guess I’m wondering —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if there’s been any consideration given to, like, releasing a more robust set of medical records or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — or something to show his mental acuity.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I will say this.  Look — and, again, I — I get the question.  It is a fair question to ask.  We are not taking that away.  And that’s why the president certainly has spoken to this.

As it relates to his medical records, we have been transparent.  We have released thorough reports from his medical team every year since he’s been in office.  That is something that we have been pretty consistent about. 

As it relates to, you know, something like a cognitive test, to the question that you’re asking me about what the speaker — former speaker said — obviously, she can speak for herself.  His team, who has said — the medical team said it is not warranted in this case.  We have put forward a thorough, transparent annual report on his health.  So, they have said that is not warranted.  It is not necessary. 

Again, we understand.  We understand.  We’re not taking away from what you all saw or what the American people saw.  We understand it was a bad night.  It is not uncommon for incumbents to have a bad night on their first debate.

And we are going to continue to do the work that we have been doing on behalf of the American people.  I think the president rec- — record certainly speaks for itself.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You just reminded us that President Biden had a cold on Thursday.  What medications was he taking in the days or hours leading up to the debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I can — I know that question has come in a couple of times to us.  He was not taking any cold medication.

Q    Was he taking any medication that would have interfered with his performance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was not taking any cold medication.  That is what I can speak to.  I’ve asked the doc- — his doctor, and that’s what he stated to us.

Q    After the debate, did the president get exam-ed by a doctor, or did he get a neurological scan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A neurological scan?  Look, what I can say is that — just to take a step back, it was a bad night.  We understand that it was a bad night.  And the president has spoken to this, and he understands that.

And so, I cannot speak to anything beyond what I just shared.  The president has regular annual physicals that we release in a thorough report.  We’re going to continue to do that.  I don’t have anything else beyond that.

Q    So, was the last time he was seen by a doctor, then, in February?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything beyond that — beyond the question of a neurological exam.

Q    Okay.  Well, you continue to say it was just a bad night.  But is there an explanation, then, for why it was so bad?  If it’s not his stamina, if he prepared, as you guys say, for — for so long —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if it’s not a problem with his mental fitness, what happened that night?  What did we see?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will also add that the president also spoke to this as well.  He said, “I’m not as smooth as I used to be.  I don’t debate as well as I used to.  I don’t walk as easily as I used to.”  But one thing that he knows is how to deliver for the American people.  He understands that.  He understands that he’s not a young man, obviously.  He said this. 

And — but his focus is going to continue to deliver for the American people on — on the — on the issues that they care about: the economy; expanding health care; fighting for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security; making sure that we continue to be leaders on the world stage, which is something that this president has been able to do. 

And turn — you know, turn around the mess — the mess that this last administration created — that’s certainly on — on — not just domestically but on the world stage. 

Go ahead.

Q    Is anyone in the White House hiding information about the president’s health or his ability to do the job day to day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely not.

Q    Given the fact that it’s more than a bad night when his political future is threatened, would he be willing to provide more medical information?  Would he be willing to have Dr. O’Connor provide more to answer these questions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, Kelly O, certainly understand the question, appreciate the question.  But what we have provided has been very transparent —

Q    But it’s not recent.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — has been — has been —

Q    And the country watched —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But February — February was this year.  It wasn’t too long ago.  It was indeed this year.  And we were — we were — we provided a transparent report, a thorough report —

Q    But you recognize there are many Americans who were concerned about his capacity — was he okay?  What happened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean —

Q    And we’ve now gone several days where he has only done teleprompter comments. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    He has not taken questions.  I know you’ve announced a press conference. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    We appreciate that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    An interview, we appreciate that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    But there is a period of time here where the public is trying to understand what happened.  And the president could help to answer that by engaging with us in an unscripted way right now. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple of things.  There’s a couple of things that you said that I do want to address. 

Number one, hours — I don’t know — less than an hour after the debate, he went and he engaged directly with the American people.  Right?  He went to a watch party.  He was in a room with hundreds of supporters who watched the debate. 

And when he walked in, they cheered him on.  And he did a photoline with them for some time.  Some — some of your colleagues had an opportunity to speak to these supporters.  He did that.  And that was something that he was able t- — that he was able to do right after. 

And then, we stopped at a Waffle House, as some of you all know, and spoke to a — a full — a packed — a packed restaurant.  So, he spent some time there. 

Then the next day, he went to North Carolina.  He spoke in front of hundreds of supporters there who said, “We support you, Joe.  We love you, Joe.”  And so, he was able to do that.

In those two and a half days or so after the debate, he went to four states and engaged with supporters, engaged with American people, everyday people, heard directly from them. 

And let’s not forget, when we landed in North Carolina — I think it was, like, 2:00 a.m. in the morning — he engaged with supporters there as well. 

So, the president has been out there.  He’s been listening to supporters.  It’s something that he loves to do — not just supporters but American people out there — everyday people who appreciate what he does, who wants to hear more from him, as you just stated, and got that opportunity to do just that. 

I think it matters that he’s going to do an interview on Friday.  I think it matters that he’s going to go to Wisconsin and do that — right? — engage with everyday people.  We’re going to continue to do that.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  We’re going to continue to be out there.  He’s going to be in Pennsylvania as well this weekend, as I just stated.

Q    And one more. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    We’re reporting that Hunter Biden has been in some meetings with senior advisers.  Why is the president’s son involved?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  I do — I saw that reporting as I was coming out.  So, a couple of things there. 

Look, the president, as you know, is very close to his family.  This is a holiday week, Fourth of July.  He spent time with his family, as you all know and reported, at Camp David.  Hunter came back with him and walked with him into — into — into that meeting — that prep — that speech prep. 

And, you know — and he ended up spending time with his dad and his family that night.  That is basically what happened.  It is a week where there’s going to be more family members who are going to come to the — to the White House.  I’m sure you’ll see some of them on Fourth of July.  Many more are expected to be here —

Q    No issue with family being in the White House. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    The question, though, would be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — is he participating in meetings with senior advisers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that he came back with his dad from Camp David, he walked him into the speech prep, and he was in the room.  That, I can tell you: He was in the room. 

Anything else coming out of that reporting, I can’t speak to.  But I can say that, you know, he’s close to his family, which is not unusual.  They were together at Camp David.  They came back together.  You’re going to see a lot more family this week. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I want to go back to that question that Pelosi raised earlier today. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Pelosi asked — it is — Pelosi said, “It’s a legitimate question to ask if this is an episode or is — this is a condition.”  Which one is it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I can tell you is that he had a cold and a bad night.  I would not see this as an episode.  I would see this as what it was and what we believe it to be, which is: It was a bad night.  And he did — on top of that, he had a cold.  And that is the reality of the situation.  That is the reality of what happened that night. 

Q    You’ve certainly seen the reporting out there that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — this is not just a standalone instance, that other people are saying that this has happened before.

One, do you see these as legitimate questions?  And also, are you being straight with the American people on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it — I see it as a — I’m — I see it as a legitimate question.  I do.  And I — and I have said it is a fair question to ask.  The president sees it as a legitimate question. 

And I — I think, also, the president saying, “I am not a young man.  I’m not as a smooth — a smooth talker as I used to be.  I don’t walk as easily as I used to be — I used to.  I don’t debate as well as I used to.”  I mean, the president is admitting and saying — and this is not the first time, right?  He’s talked about his age.  He’s joked about his age many times before. 

And so, you heard that directly fr- — and we are acknowledging what — what people are seeing.  But we do believe this was a — in — in this instance, it was a bad night. 

Q    Is he disabled?  Is the president disabled?

Q    One more — just — just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No.  And — let me — let me finish with your colleague, please.

Q    Okay.  You can come back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, but shouting out — come on.  You know better.  You know better.  Come on. 

Q    Just — just one final question.  Immediately after the debate, we started to hear the concern from Democrats on Capitol Hill, calling it just flat out a disaster.  Why didn’t the president immediately personally reach out to leaders on Capitol Hill like Leader Jeffries and Leader Schumer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can say this.  Right after the debate, we were on a two-and-a-half-day swing, four states.  The president was out there hearing directly from the American people, engaging directly from the Amr- — American people. 

Obviously, he respects the Democratic leadership.  It is leadership there that has helped him deliver for the American people an unprecedented record on behalf of Americans across the country.  So, we appreciate them for — obviously. 

But he was out there.  He was out there directly with supporters, engaging with them, whether it was a tarmac, whether it was at a rally, whether it was at a watch party or a fundraiser.  And I think that’s important to note, too.  And he was hearing from them. 

But, at the same time, those leaders — Democratic leadership was hearing from members of his team — high-level senior members of his team.  It’s not like we were silent.  It’s not like we were quiet.  It’s not like we were not engaging with them.  We were. 

And now that the president is back at the White House, he’s going to have some time to talk to these Democratic leadership — the Democratic leadership on the phone.  I mentioned Democratic governors.  He’s going to do it with leaders o- — on the Hill as well.  And that’s important.

And then, he’s going to go back out — out into the states, obviously, and talk to — and talk to Americans there. 

So, he’s — he can — he’s going to do both. 

Q    What’s his message going to be to the Democratic governors and Hill leaders when he talks to them? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get into a private conversation.  We — we wanted to share these meetings.  I know it was getting out there.  It was floating out there.  And I know it was — and we just wanted to confirm that w- — that we were indeed having these conversations. 

But we normally — as you know, our posture is not to dive into — dive into private conversations.  He’ll have these conversations.  I think they’ll be important.  They’ll hear from him.  He’ll hear from them. 

But I also want to note that there is a regular engagement with — whether it’s Inte- — Intergovernmental Affairs or the Office of Leg Affairs — regular engagement from my colleagues here with governors, with mayors, and also, obviously, with congressional — congressional leaders.  That is something that is a regular engagement. 

Obviously, the president himself will — will engage with them this week. 

Q    Karine, does he still have a cold?  He seemed to be clearing his throat a bit at the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He still has a cold.

Q    — last event.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I asked — he still has a cold.

Q    Okay.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You’ve said a couple of times now that the White House has provided thorough medical records for the president.  The White House released a six-page summary back in February.  I don’t think that was a full accounting, necessarily.  And Dr. O’Connor, in that memo, described the president as quote, “a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.” 

I think that is clearly not what the majority of Americans are seeing.  And we have a new poll from CBS News that says 72 percent of registered voters say the president does not have the mental and cognitive health to serve as president. 

So, are you saying that the majority of Americans are misguided and that they just need to trust Dr. O’Connor and take him at his word?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things — and I want to say the president is feeling better.  And you saw him last night.  You saw him today.  But he does indeed still have a cold.

Look, you know, I — I want to be very sensitive here, and I think it is important to be sensitive here.  We understand how the American people are feeling.  We get it.  We do.  And w- — I do not want to take away from that. 

I’m not going to speak — I — I know that there was — you all did a poll — CNN do — did a poll.  I’m not going to speak to every poll.  I’m just not going to do that. 

And also, I’m — you know, constraints in — in doing that as we’re heading into — header- — heading into an election in November, as you know.

What I will say is majority of Americans also support the work that the president has doing in a sense of the — his agenda and what he stands for and what he’s been fighting for, whether it’s reproductive rights, whether it’s an economy that works for all.  And that is something that the president is going to continue to do. 

And this is why we have said — and I have said this multiple times from here — is that’s why the president acknowledges — we get it.  We get what Americans are feeling.  That’s why he’s acknowledging he’s not a young man.  That’s why he’s acknowledging he’s a little slower than he used to be in — in walking and not as smooth at speaking.  We get that. 

But we also want to make sure that we point to the successes that he’s had, his record, and we want to continue to build on his unprecedented record.  And I’m not going to discount what the American people see or feel. 

What I can say is what we know from our side of things.  We could speak to his record, and we could speak to what the president has been able to acknowledge.  And I think that’s important too.  And that’s basically acknowledging what Americans are seeing and feeling.

Q    Well, if you get it, why not release more about his medical — his physical and mental health?  Why not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — what we have released has been very comprehensive.  It has been.  It has been transparent.  And if you compare it — right? — it has.  We have put that out there.  And — you know, and we’ll continue to do so: put that information out there.

You know — and, M.J., I want to be very clear.  I get the question that you’re asking me.  But this is also a president who has had a historic administration — he has — in delivering on legislation, key policies.  That is because with age comes wisdom and comes experience.  And I think that matters as well.

Go ahead.

Q    Did — did Dr. O’Connor watch the debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe Dr. O’Connor traveled with us to the debate, so —

Q    So, did he have any concerns after seeing the president’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.

Q    — debate perform- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   Not at all.

Q    I have one more question, actually, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure, sure.

Q    The — the campaign’s theory of the case for the president staying in the race has been that the president has a better shot of defeating Donald Trump than any other Democrat.  We have a new CNN poll that shows the vice president actually has a slightly stronger showing against Donald Trump than the president.  So, how does the president explain not passing the baton to his own 59-year-old vice president, given that kind of data?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as you know, I’m constrained to speaking directly to your poll.  And I get it, and I — I hear the question.  I got to be mindful.  That is something for the campaign, as you started saying — the — the — what the campaign has laid out, their argument of the case, that is something for them to take up, and that is something for them to answer.

What I can speak to is the president’s record.  What I can speak to: what he’s been able to accomplish.  And the things that he’s been able to do and get done is be- — is actually in line with majority of Americans.  And I think that’s important, too, to note.

And, again, I will say: with age, comes wisdom and experience, and that certainly — it’s something that the president brings.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve seen some real anger expressed by donors and democratic officials — sort of how you guys have handled the president, shielding him away from impromptu settings and denying — excuse me — until last week that there had really been any age-related slippage. 

So, I’m wondering if you guys have had a moment to reflect on that strategy.  Any regret over it?  And if — you know, what you would say to folks who — who think it’s arrogant for there not to be either changes towards that strategy or with some of the personnel that are around the president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you — you’re talking about the strategy specifically about who’s around the president?  Is that what you’re —

Q    Well, I think it’s — it’s two parts, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Mm-hmm.

Q    One is a kind of a small, concentrated group of aides that have been with the president for a very long time, and the other is sort of systematic decisions to shield the president from the impromptu moments that we would see — that we’ve seen in previous administrations, whether it’s press conferences or interviews or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, just being out in public more frequently.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, a couple things there too.  Look, I — this year, the president has done more than 40 interviews.  And unscripted — right? — those interviews are unscripted.  He has done more than 500 gaggles — right? — of course, unscripted, talking directly to many of you.

Q    I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, let — let me just finish.

And so, he enjoys doing that.  He enjoys engaging with all of you, and we’re going to continue making sure that happens. 

I will say this.  This is a — obviously, this is a president that was a senator for 36 years.  He was a vice president, as you all know — I’m just repeating things that you all know — for eight years.  And so, he has longtime, you know, advisers that have been here with him for a long time.  I don’t think that’s unusual.

He also has people who have — who are new to — new to the administration that also advise him.  Look, I’ve been in meetings with the president where it’s been a diverse group of people, and he sees us and he — he knows the reason why we’re sitting in front of him is that we have something to share.  And he wants to hear from all of us.

I’ve heard him say, “Hey, what is it that — what do you gu- — what do you think?  What do you think?”  And so, my experience has been that that — that world is indeed open and that he does get to hear from a diverse group of people.  That has been my experience.

And — but it is not unusual for someone who has been around for that long of time to have a group of people that he — that’s been around him for some — for — for a minute.  Right?  And I think that makes sense.  There’s nothing about that that is nonsensical.  That actually makes sense.

And we’re going to continue to get him out in front of all of you to take your — to take your questions at a steady — a steady — steady drumbeat.

Q    You mentioned NATO, and I have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — two — two questions.  One is just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — a logistical one, which is you mentioned the press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is that going to be kind of a real, big boy press conference that we’re used to, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Did you say “big boy press conference”?  (Laughter.)  

Q    Yeah, like one of these two-and-twos tha- — that might be a little more limited.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I believe — and I know you guys are holding me to it — it is a — I believe it’s a solo press conference.  We’ll certainly have more to share with all of you as we get closer —

Q    And then more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to next week. 

Q    More thematically —

Q    We should call it the big boy (inaudible).  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I was about to say “big boy” Justin over here —

Q    Yeah, yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — is asking some big boy questions.  Okay.  

Q    What do you — you know, the president is not the only leader —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that’s entering that NATO conference.  A little bit on the backfoot: Emmanuel Macron has had some electoral losses.  The UK is obviously going through a big election right now.

With all these leaders kind of coming in to D.C. a little bit diminished, is it’s — how are you guys — how is that changing how you’re looking at — at the summit and what is possible to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No. 

Q    — to accomplish with it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it’s — it’s a good question.  Look, I think one thing, as I talk about the president’s record and what he’s been able to do — right? — he’s been able to strengthen our — our worldview, the way that people see us across the globe — other leaders, our partners and allies — because of that experience.

Again, with experience brings — yes, with age brings experience and wisdom.  And I think because of that, the president has been able to build a coalition. 

If you think about Ukraine and the aggression from Russia and what Russia has done to Ukraine as they continue — as Ukraine take — continues to — to fight that aggression, to fight for their freedom and democracy, the president was able to bring 50-plus countries to support Ukraine, to support their fight. 

And so — so, look, I will say that the president is looking forward, certainly, to hosting the leaders of our 31 NATO Allies.  As you know, there’s two additional — two additional countries have done — have joined NATO.  And that’s because, again, of the president’s leadership.

And next week, in Washington, D.C., as you know, the historic summit is to mark the 75th anniversary of NATO’s founding.  So, for 75 years, NATO has kept us and the world safer.  And under the president’s leadership — this president’s leadership, our Alliance is stronger, it’s — it’s larger, it’s more united than ever. 

And so, I think what you’re going to see is that displayed next week right here in Washington, D.C.  And I think I — I — I would — I think you all would agree that the president played a very, very, very big role in where NATO is today. 

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  The administration strongly criticized the media for clips showing the president appearing to be confused, freezing at times.  And you called it “cheap fakes,” “misinformation,” “disinformation” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in one case, even implied that it was the product of artificial intelligence, calling it “deep fakes.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you have any regret over —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    — using that language?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not at all.  Not at all.  And let me be clear, it was a certain part of the media — I mean, you can speak to this better than I can — a certain part of the media which was doing this.

And, look, independent, mainstream fact-checkers in the press and misinformation experts have been calling out cheap fakes.  And at the end of the day, they’re fakes — that’s what they were — targeting the president. 

They had said — the reporters and these misinformation experts said that this president was being targeted.  And what we did was echo that.  That’s what we did.  And, look, we’ll de- — certainly de- — continue to call that out. 

And the “cheap fakes” didn’t come from me.  I didn’t — I didn’t coin that.  That didn’t come from this White House or this podium.  That came from the media.  They called it “cheap fakes.” 

And they said, this president, President Biden, was being targeted on misinformation.  It was purposefully being done to this president.  And what we did is we echoed that.  So, I don’t regret it at all. 

Q    Well, the administration also —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was just the facts.

Q    — used that sort of approach to counter The Wall Street Journal report, for instance, that interviewed 45 people over several months who criticized, you know, the president’s handling of himself in meetings.  And broadly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which approach?  I — I’m — I’m not — I’m not following the question.

Q    Talking about the president’s age being a factor and a concern —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  How — how was cheap fakes — I don’t understand —

Q    The approach from the White House to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — where cheap fakes was —

Q    — to criticize the reporting —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — was relating —

Q    — to — to — to basically cast the reporting as not true. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    And — and broadly, this has been — the reason I ask is, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the administration’s response to our questions often seems to be: Don’t believe your lying eyes.  The border is secure, Afghanistan withdrawal was a success, inflation is transitory. 

So, is that going to change?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you just laid out — Jacqui, you just laid out a bunch of things.  So, just give me a second here. 

First of all, I think this is a give-and-take.  Right?  Even in this briefing room, we go back and forth.  I go back and forth with you, with your colleagues, that — everyone here.  And I think we have a right to say if something we don’t think is true or something we think we want to push back on.  That is a right for us to do, just like you have a right to push me and say, “Actually, our sources, our reporting share — say this.”

I think it’s a give-and-take.  This is what makes — what we do in this room almost every day.  This is an exercise of democracy.  This is an exercise of freedom of the press.  That’s what we’re doing here. 

And I think if there is some reporting that we don’t believe to be true, I think it’s okay if we go back and forth and say, “Actually, we don’t think that reporting is true.”  Right? 

And so, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  That’s how — that is what this is.  That is what this is.  This is what we actually do on a — on a daily basis.  This is how we lead the world on making sure that journalism exists and you all have the right to do your jobs. 

But, you know, we also have our right, as the press office here in the administration, if we don’t believe something is true or we want to share our side of things, that we do so. 

You know, look, on the other things that you just listed, you know — you know, I’ve talked about this president’s record a lot — often here in this just — however minutes I’ve been at this podium.  And, look, when it comes to the economy, the data shows it.  When it comes to health care, the data shows it. 

Afghanistan, obviously, it is a — it is a — an important conversation to have.  And that is something that the president wanted to do and end a year — a war — a forever war.  He wanted to make sure that we stopped putting our young women and men in harm’s way. 

And that is a difficult decision to make.  It is not an easy decision to make.  But he’s the president and commander in chief, and he wanted to make sure that we got our armed troops out of harm’s way. 

And so, I — I honor and respect our back-and-forth.  And I — it is always an honor and privilege for me to do this job, and I will continue to do that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, Michael.

Q    Okay.

Q    Oh —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mic- — go ahead, Michael.

Q    Okay.

Q    Come back to me?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I’ll get you. 

Q    I — I have two big boy questions.  (Laughter.)  Medium boy.  I don’t know.  Whatever.

First, does the president intend to spend most of his days in July on vacation in Rehoboth and Wilmington?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We certainly will have more to share on what his schedule is going to look like for the rest of the month.  I don’t have anything to share at this time.

I can assure you the president will be out and about talking directly to the American people.  I just laid out the next couple of days.  I — I don’t have anything to share beyond —

Q    I g- — I guess the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — beyond Sun- — Sun- — well, actually, beyond NATO.  Right?  As you know, there’s going to be the NATO Summit next week.  So, I can’t — don’t have anything to share beyond that. 

But the president will be out there talking directly to the American people.  I have to be mindful.  Obviously, we’re in campaign season.  The campaign could speak more to what — what his schedule is going to look like specifically. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And then the second question.  We just posted a story, which prob- — I’m sure you’ve seen —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — because we just posted it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — in the middle of briefing.  But in which many people that we’ve talked to describe an accelerating series of episodes, moments when, over the course of the last several weeks, the president appeared confused or listless or would lose the thread of a conversation in private meetings in — at the G7, in Normandy, at the White House — not all the time, not — not saying that that’s the way he is all the time and that there’s clearly moments people say that he’s forceful and with it and all of that. 

But these people suggest that the — that what happened, what Americans saw at the debate has a precursor.  What do you say to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be mindful and respect your reporting.  I have not read it.  I have not seen it.  So, it’s hard for me to respond to it directly. 

But what I can speak to more broadly is that I have — have engagement with the president pretty regularly.  What I see is a strong, resolute president who’s always willing and — and able to work on behalf of the American people. 

I do not know who these folks are that you speak of, so it’s hard for me to — to talk about that and to — and to speak to that.  I can just speak to my experience and go back, again, on the president’s record and what he’s been able to deliver on behalf of the American people.  So, I just do wa- — I do want to be mindful.

Q    And — and, I guess, just one follow-up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.  Sure, sure. 

Q    — is, you know — you know, 50-million-plus Americans —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — saw the debate last Thursday.  They get a very different story from you.  You just described a very different-sounding president.  Obviously, other administration officials describe him very differently than what people saw. 

How do you reconcile those two versions of — of a president: one who appeared the way they did to millions of people and the other who appears always to be, you know, sort of very forceful and — and not have any of those episodes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the president spoke to this.  You heard me speak to this.  We believe — and others have said this, not just me — other folks who have been on networks and also, obviously, has talked — spoken to all of you is — it was a 90-minute debate.  It was a bad night.  That’s what we believe it to be. 

We’re not taking away what people saw.  We’re just not.  That is — want to be very clear about that.  And, you know, we want to — to also make sure people understand that the president realizes. 

You know, I keep saying this over and over again.  He said he’s not as young as he used to be.  And he has —

Q    I think it’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He has addressed this over and over and over again.  But you saw him last night.  Right?  You saw him last night.  You saw him at these — at the rally.  You saw him at the w- — watch parties.

There’s been many instances.  State of the Union, you saw him take on — take on Republicans by himself and what was happening back and forth in the State of the Union. 

There has been, also, many instances where the president has really showed his strength and resolute that all of you have seen and commented about it.  You know? 

And so, I think we cannot — we cannot forget that as well. 

And we also heard from, you know, President Obama, who — who himself has said, you know, his first debate wasn’t great.  He talked about that.  And most incumbents, their first debates aren’t great. 

And so, look, we’re going to continue to build on the unprecedented record by continuing to fight for the American people.  That is our commitment, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thanks, Michael.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I have two questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    But to follow up on that, you talk about how you’ve spent time with the president.  You know, when you’re looking at the time you’ve spent with him, have you ever seen the president have a bad night like we saw on the debate stage —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — during your time here at the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    So, were you surprised by what you saw on the debate stage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I know that he had a cold.  Many of you were reaching out to — to us, to my team and myself directly.  You heard the hoarse voice.  We — we were able to confirm he had a cold.  He was under the weather, obviously. 

And, look, you know, we all have bad — bad nights — right? — or bad moments.  It is not — it is not unusual.  I just said there have been incumbents — most incumbents, for their first debate, you know, it doesn’t go well.  So, it’s not also unusual in that regard as well. 

So, look, you know, we’re going to move forward.  That’s what we want to do.  We want to look forward.  And we just announced some engagement that the president is going to have.  We announced, obviously, the interview with ABC and George Stephanopoulos.  He’s going to go to Wisconsin.  He’s going to go to Pennsylvania.   We’re going to have a press conference next week. 

We want to turn the page on this.  And we want to turn the page for the American people as well, because we know that they need to see him out there.  He’s going to continue to be out there.  He has been.  And we understand how important that is. 

And so, we’re going to turn the page.  We’re going to get out — get out there across the country.  Americans are going to see him for themselves.  And I think that’s going to be very important as well. 

Q    And has the president had a chance to speak one on one with Vice President Harris since the debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t speak to any conversations that they’ve had.  And so, I’ll just — I’ll just leave it at that.  I don’t have any readout of a conversation between the two of them.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, I’ve spoken to a lot of donors since the debate.  And, you know, they want to know what exactly happened that night.  So, just to follow up on M.J.’s question, I know you said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he hadn’t taken any cold medication.  Was there any other medication he had taken?  That’s — that’s what many of them are asking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand.  I was asked about the — I — I was asked about the cold medicine.  I asked about the cold medicine.  He was not taking any cold medicine.  And I don’t have anything beyond that.  I — I don’t have anything beyond that to share. 

And, look, I’ve — I’ve answered this question multiple times at this point.  I don’t have anything else to add beyond what I have shared with your colleagues here in the room. 

We really, truly want to turn the page on this.  We really want to be able to get out there and, you know, speak directly to the American people, you know, speak directly to you all — the president will.  And I think that’s important too.

Look — and not forget what this president has been able to do the last three and a half years, how he’s been able to deliver.  And there is a stark contrast in what this presi- — president has done and what Republicans in Congress are doing.  Right? 

He’s trying to protect our rights, as president.  He’s trying to protect our freedoms.  He’s trying to protect, really, important programs that matter to the American people.  He wants to protect women’s rights, Roe v. Wade.  He wants to continue to build an economy that works for all.  That’s what we’re going to focus on.  And that’s what Americans are going to hear con- — continue to hear from this president. 

Anything else, I — I think I’ve litigated this a lot already in this briefing room.  I just don’t have anything else to add. 

Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    You — you have repeatedly referred to the president’s outing after the debate, the watch party; his remarks the next day in North Carolina; his appearances at fundraisers; his appearances this morning at the D.C. Emergency Operation Center. 

All those appearances were scripted events where he spoke —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not all.

Q    — from a tel- — most spoke from a teleprompter.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  But you said “all.”  And not all.

Q    Okay. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s just be —

Q    Well, if you’re correcting me, then “most.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s be —

Q    They’re scripted, spoken from a teleprompter.  How are Americans supposed to get the sense that the president is fully engaged and capable and thinking off the cuff when he’s reading from prepared remarks so often?  And why can’t he just come down here?  The briefing room is 30 seconds away.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Why can’t he come down here and assure us and the American people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that he’s okay? 

And — and I have a follow-up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  First of all, it wasn’t all.  It was — it was, you know, when he was speaking in front of the audience.  But it wasn’t all.  When you think about the tarmac, when you think about — when you think about engaging at the Waffle House, when you think about engaging at the watch party and doing a very long rope line. 

And when he was at the tarmac, it was the middle of the night — literally, 2:00 o’clock at night.  We w- — we all wanted to go to bed, but the president — (laughs) — was certainly very focused and zeroed in on the American people who were out there wanting to — cheering him on and wanting to see him and take selfies and get a hug from this president.  That’s what you saw. 

And I don’t know if you missed this, but I also shared that he has done more than 40 interviews this year alone, and we’re going to continue that.  He’s going to do an interview with ABC, George Stephanopoulos, this week.  Those were unscripted.  Those were unscripted.  He’s done more than 500 gaggles.  Those are unscripted. 

And we want to continue to do that.  We do.  We want to continue to do that.  There’s going to be a — a press conference next week, a NATO — a “big boy” press conference, as Justin has reminded us — next week.  And so, that’s going to be important as well. 

Q    And I have a follow-up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. 

Q    One of — one of my colleagues behind me shouted a similar question to what I’m going to be asking you.  But I think, given —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t remember the question, but okay.

Q    Given what happened on Thursday, given the reporting in the New York Times and other outlets about the president’s more frequent lapses, losing his train of thought — all of us saw what happened on Thursday where he simply could not form coherent answers to many or — or some, if you will, of — of the questions and appeared to lapse into nonsensical answers at the end.  “We beat Medicare,” for — for instance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’m going to ask something delicate, and you — you may not like it; the president may not like to hear, if he’s watching.  But I think the American people need to get a yes or no answer on this. 

Does President Biden, at 81 years old, have Alzheimer’s, any form of dementia, or degenerative illness that would cause these sorts of lapses?  And it’s a yes or no question.  And if you don’t know, why don’t you, as one of his senior staff members, know the — the yes or no answer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have an answer for you.  Are you ready for it?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a no.  And I hope you’re asking the other guy the same exact question. 

Okay.  Go ahead. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    On the — the statement that Congressman Doggett put out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Does the President feel like members, the Democratic Congressman should be able to speak their minds on this?  Or does he think, you know, calling for him to withdraw was hurting the party writ large?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, this is — that’s something about the Democratic Party that we — we really respect.  It is a big-tent party.  Many people are going to have their opinions.  And we are going to have our disagreements.  And that is what is important. 

And we really respect other people’s opinions and thoughts.  I think that’s what makes, you know, this party, different — right? — than the other side.  Certainly, we see that with how it’s playing out in Congress or how it tends to play out in Congress. 

So, the congressman is going to have his opinion.  He’s going to have his thoughts.  That’s for him to speak to.  We are not — this is not a president that’s about his personal politics.  That is not — this president is all about.  He doesn’t care only about himself.  That is not what this president is all about. 

And I also read — read out some su- — some supportive statements that we have heard from leaders of — of Congress.  Former Speaker Pelosi, I read out what she s- — she laid out.  I read out what — what Congressman Clyburn has said.  And I think that matters as well. 

And you all have heard from multiple supporters over the past couple of days since — since Thursday.  And I think that’s important as well. 

Q    And just to be clear —

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

Q    Sorry.  Just to be clear, the — the president has not spoken to either Senator Schumer or Leader Jeffries? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that the president plans to speak to them this week.  I don’t have anything beyond —

Q    Is there a reason, though?  It’s been five days.  I mean, you’d think —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I — I ki- — I —

Q    — they would have spoken.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I hear you.  I hear — I addressed this moments ago.  The president was on the road for two and a half days, did four states.  His — his advisers, his high-level White House officials were talking to congressional members, as some of you have reported, over the past couple of days.  I think that’s important.  They have regularly engaged not just with congressional members, with governors, with — with mayors. 

And so — and then there’s the campaign that does it on a political level.  Right?  They’ve had regular calls.  I think some of you have — have reported on — on that as well. 

Now, this week, the president is going to take some time and talk to those congressional members.  And as you — as I stated, also to Democratic governors tomorrow. 

Go ahead.

Q    You’ve mentioned that — sometimes that candidates have a bad first debate.  There’s been a lot of discussion going around — and, of course, no decision yet — but that maybe there isn’t a second debate. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be super careful.  That’s something for the campaign to respond to.  But I do believe they did respond to this.  And I — I — it’s not — I do believe they have responded to this, and they said that there is going to be another debate.  But I — that’s something for them to speak to. 

And I will just quote what President Obama has stressed.  Right?  “Bad debate nights happen.  Trust me, I know.”  And then he praised President Biden’s leadership and his agenda of fighting for the middle class, our freedoms, and the rule of law.  And you heard the president speak to the rule of law just last night. 

And so, certainly, that will continue.  But you’ve heard from a former president about this — this particular issue.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Obama was 51 during that first —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I kind of knew he would say that.

Q    — debate.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I knew you would say that.  But it ha- — but it’s — he’s not the only one.  He’s not — it — it has happened in the past.  First debates for incumbents, it — you know, it sometimes is not their best. 

Q    I know you’ve said a couple of times that you want to turn the page. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The issue — I think the core issue here is that you can’t turn the page on age. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And —

Q    Age and decline is a one-way street. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    So — so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.

Q    — at the end of the day —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.

Q    — you know, if these are the questions you’re getting now, what are the questions you’re going to be getting in two years or three years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have thoughts about that — (laughs) — about two or three years from now.  But — (laughs).  Look, I —

Q    How — how can you or anyone —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — say that you have confidence that he can be in this job at that time? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, here’s — here’s what I would say to that.  We are not turning the page on age.  That’s not what we’re doing.  We understand.  We get that.  Right?  The president said, “I am not a young man.”  He said that.  We get that.  We understand how the American people feel.

What we want to continue to do is deliver for the American people.  That’s what — that’s what we want to see.  That’s what the president wants to do.  And that’s the turning of page.  Let’s continue on the successes — on the unprecedented successes that this president has had and on — and on issues that majority of Americans care about: health care, economy — those are things that they care about — democracy, freedom, fighting for the rights for women to make decisions on their bodies.  That’s what the president wants to continue to — that’s the turning of the page.

But we get it.  Look, I — I — I’m not taking away from — from that.  I don’t want to do that.  That is not — I do not want to walk off this podium and that’s what you all think.  We’re not doing that.  And the president doesn’t want you all to — to do that. 

But he can do the job.  He can.

Q    But what’s the answer to the question about can — what gives you confidence about two years from now or three years now or five years from now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We believe — look, we believe that this is a president that is able to continue to deliver and build on the unprecedented success that he’s been able to do.  That’s what we believe.  We believe and he believes it.  And he is determined and committed to doing that. 

And — and, Michael — and I think the thing, too, that’s important is we have been able to do things that most modern — modern presidents haven’t been able to do.  And that matters as well. 

I know you guys are trying to get me to look into the future.  But what I can say to you is this is a president that is committed to doing that.

Q    I’m not sure anybody —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — anybody doubts that commitment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I think the question is given the performance — and I apologize — 

Q    No.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, Michael is like, “No, no, no, you take this.”  (Laughter.)

Q    I mean, I — I — I just think the question, you know, it’s — it’s about — it’s the way we look at our elderly parents and grandparents. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    It’s, you know — you know, you — you — you maybe visit them once a year and you see troubling signs because you don’t live in the same city, perhaps.  And the first question that you go to is, “Hmm, I wonder if other — you know, I wonder if this is, like, a one-time thing, or if it’s something that has been happening for a — you know, a longer time that we need to deal with?”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And the second question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, what —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, you’re getting — you’re going — you’re going —

Q    — where are they going to be in —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — multiple times here.  (Laughs.)

Q    Well — but where — where are they going to be in a year?  Where are they going to be in two years? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah —

Q    Do we need to put them in a ho- — like, you know, all of the questions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — that go through that.  And this is sort of the American ver- — people’s version of that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I hear — and — and I — and I hear you.  And that’s what I’m saying.

Look, this is why the president goes through, you know, medical examinations — right? — and we release those medical examinations.  Right?  We’ve done that the past couple of years.  We’re going to continue to do that.  This is why we’re going to go out there and continue to be out there and do interviews and talk to the American people. 

And at the end of the day — I got to be careful — right? — because we are in a campaign season.  But the American — that’s — you know, the American people will see for themselves, right?  And I just want to be super — super careful. 

But, look, this is a president that has worked incredibly hard for the American people.  And not just as president, as vice president, as a senator.  And he is committed.  And we cannot — we cannot take away from the fact of his three and a half years of leadership — what that has been able to do, what he’s been able to get done. 

And that doesn’t — that — that doesn’t come from, you know — that doesn’t come easily.  And he did it in historic fashion.  He did.  And the data proves that. 

And so, look, he’s committed to getting — continuing to — to make that progress, continuing to work — whether it’s climate change, whether it’s the economy, whether it’s health care, that is what he is committed to doing. 

And n- — he had a bad night.  He did.  And we are admitting that, owning up to that.  You heard the president speak to that.  And I think that’s imp- — important for the American people to hear from us and from him as well. 

I know I have to go.  I’ll be back tomorrow. 

But go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I just wanted to go back to the Representative Doggett statement.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You know, part of his statement, he said that Biden staying in the race could kind of work against helping to save democracy.  So, I know you said it was a — a big-tent party, people have their opinions.  But how do you corral Democrats when there are members of the party who — who believe that about the president staying in the race?  And do you have a response to that specifically?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Look, this — this is a president — he jumped into this election — this, I can talk about, obviously — in — in 2020.  And I — and I remind you all that he beat the other guy in 2020.  He won in 2020.  That’s why he’s president. 

But he jumped in because our democracy, right?  He jumped in because of what was happening; because he believed he needed to do everything that he can to protect our democracy and to — and now protect our freedoms because of what happened with Roe v. Wade. 

Obviously, that’s not — we don’t agree with that.  What we believe is that this is a president that has had — that is going to continue to fight for democracy and that is going to continue to focus on making sure that, you know, we get Roe v. Wade into law — right? — make sure that IVF is not taken away from families, make sure that contraception is not taken away from families, make sure that we fight for our voting rights.  Right? 

There are so many things that we need to continue to fight for.  And at the end of the day, this is a president that has delivered, working closely with Congress and doing some of these things in a bipartisan way. 

And I think the reason why — that he’s been able to get some of these legislation done — whether it’s the CHIPS and Science Act, the veterans act, the bipartisan infrastructure legislation — is because of who he is and because of how he has that experience to work across the aisle. 

That doesn’t happen with everybody.  And this president has been able to do that.  So, we’re going to continue to do that work.

Guys, I’ll see you tomorrow. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

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

Q    Thank you.

3:42 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, July 2, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

5:03 P.M. EDT
 
MR. EDWARDS:  All right.  Thank you all for joining us.  My name is Jeremy Edwards, and I am with the White House Press Office. 
 
Today we’ll be discussing new actions the Biden-Harris administration is taking to deal with the impacts of extreme weather events and an operational briefing tomorrow on extreme weather that the president will receive.
 
As a reminder, this call will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”  But for your situational awareness, I want to let you know who you’ll be hearing from today, and this is the order in which they will speak.  So, first up, we’ll have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official] is going to close us out.
 
When [senior administration official] is done speaking, we’ll go into a Q&A that will also be on background also attributable to senior administration officials.  You can use the “raise hand” function during that portion of the call.
And we’ll try to get through as many questions as we are able to.
 
And with that, I am going to turn it over to [senior administration official].  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you very much, Jeremy.  Confirming that you can hear me.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Loud and clear.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay.  Great.
 
Good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for joining us today.  Across the country, tens of millions of Americans are experiencing the effects of extreme weather events.  You all are well aware of the record-breaking heat we had last month across the country.  The Fourth of July holiday week is expected to feature dangerously hot conditions again for multiple regions across the country, and above-normal temperatures are also expected for much of the country later in July, especially the central and eastern United States.
 
We have seen devastating fires in New Mexico, Oregon, and California; historic flooding in Iowa and Minnesota; and we are all tracking Hurricane Beryl, a major hurricane that formed exceedingly quickly and early in the Atlantic. 
 
In addition to posing direct threats to lives and livelihoods, major weather events have significant economic impacts.  Last year’s record 28 individual billion-dollar extreme weather caused — and climate disasters caused more than $90 billion in aggregate damage. 
 
Climate change is fueling more frequent and more severe weather events.  And as these impacts intensify, President Biden is delivering on the most ambitious climate agenda in American history — an agenda that is not only strengthening climate resilience and lowering energy costs for hardworking families but is also protecting our communities and workers from its impacts.
 
Tomorrow, the President will receive an operational briefing at the D.C. Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Emergency Operations Center, from the National Weather Service and officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Labor.  

Our local partners are on the front lines of dealing with these climate events, and we — our work in support of them to both help anticipate and manage them. 
 
The president is going to hear from Ken Graham, the director of the National Weather Service, who will provide an extreme weather forecast for the summer and outlook on the 2024 hurricane seasons and wildfire season.  Director Graham is also going to highlight the National Weather Service’s new heat risk tool that is helping communities forecast extreme heat and its impacts.
 
The president will hear from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell about preparations that are underway to rapidly respond and support our state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments when they are dealing with catastrophic impacts that often exceed their own ability to respond.  This includes response personnel and direct federal assistance. 
 
I will say that, because of COVID, we’ve strengthened how we support communities.  We have federal personnel — in particular, FEMA — response experts who are embedded in our emergency operation centers around the country.  This means that FEMA and the team here are in constant communication with our state, local, Tribal, and territorial officials to understand what assistance is needed as an extreme weather event is unfolding.
 
The president will also announce new actions we are taking, which you will hear about shortly from OSHA and FEMA.
 
Just a bit about the federal response.  This past month, we’ve already responded to dozens of major disasters this year.  In fact, we’re tracking 10 more open major disaster declarations compared to last.  These include the devastating wildfires in New Mexico, where 8,000 people in the town of Ruidoso were told to drop everything and evacuate because the fire spread so fast. 
 
We’ve seen historic flooding in Iowa and Minnesota.  Southern Minnesota received two months’ worth of rain in nine days, causing entire communities to become submerged and the partial failure of the Rapidan Dam. 
 
We are tracking Hurricane Beryl closely as it continues to march across the Atlantic.  Although it is not projected to significantly impact U.S. interests — mainly, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands — the storm rapidly escalated from a tropical storm level to a major Category 4 in only 48 hours.  And it’s the first time we’ve ever seen a Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean in June.  And we are prepared to stand by and support the impacted countries in the region, to include Jamaica and potentially Belize and Mexico.
 
Since day one, this administration has been committed to protecting communities across the country.  It does not matter whether they are a blue state or a red state or a blue state — or a blue county or red county.  And we will continue to work with our state, local, and Tribal and territorial governments to keep people safe from the impacts of extreme weather.
 
The president and his administration, because of investments in forecasting and in technology, are continuing to help communities prepare for extreme weather disasters before they happen and will, as I said, continue to support communities during and after they strike.  The historic funding and investments are helping to bolster resilience and mitigate the impacts of extreme — of the extreme weather.
 
His $50 billion in climate-related investments represent his commitment to addressing what he has called the existential crisis of our lifetime. 
 
Now I am pleased to be able to turn it over to [senior administration official], who is going to talk about one of the announcements.  [Senior administration official], good afternoon and over to you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you so much, [senior administration official].  Today, I am here to let you know that tomorrow, we will be sending to the Federal Register our proposed rule: heat injury and illness prevention in indoor and outdoor work settings.  And we’ll also be making that proposal available to the public on our website.
 
The purpose of this rule is simple.  It is to significantly reduce the number of worker-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses suffered by workers who are exposed to se- — excessive heat and exposed to these risks while simply doing their jobs.  This proposal will cover an estimated 35 million workers.
 
I’ll explain who it covers by first explaining who it doesn’t cover.  It doesn’t cover workers who are working indoors in air-conditioning consistently below a heat index of 80 degrees.  It doesn’t cover short-duration exposures, like people who are taking short trips outside.  It doesn’t cover indoor sedentary workers.  So, workers with lower risk.  It also doesn’t cover certain workers where coverage would be infeasible, like emergency responders.  And then, finally, it doesn’t cover teleworkers.
 
The rule instead focuses on workers who are both working in heat and are engaged in activities that could lead to increased tor- — core body temperatures due to their work assignments and requirements.  In this aspect — it’s this aspect of their work, whether they are making deliveries, carrying mail all day, working construction, picking vegetables, repairing powerlines, doing landscaping, it’s — these are the — these things that put workers at risk, and these are the populations that the rule is targeting for protection.
 
For employers of indoor and outdoor workers who are engaged in physical activity and can expect to be exposed to a 80-degree or more heat index, they are within the scope of the rule.
 
Let me explain just the nuts and bolts of the rule.  These are the requirements for employers that fall within the scope of the rule, so they are the ones who have workers who they can expect to be exposed to that 80-degree heat index.
 
First, they have to establish a heat injury and illness prevention plan.  So, they have to make an assessment of the workplace, they have to establish policies to comply with our rule, they have to establish a heat safety coordinator at the workplace, they have to have certain procedures for responding both to symptoms of heat illness as well as heat illness emergencies, and then they have to evaluate their plan at least annually or when there’s — certain events occur that indicate there’s a need for refresher training or a need to change the plan.
 
The next thing that they have to do is monitoring.  And so, monitoring involves checking the heat exposure to workers to determine if there are elevated risks.  So, for outdoor workplaces, they would use a measure of heat index, they could use a forecast of heat index, or they could use a more complex form of measurement called wet-bulb globe temperature.  But the triggering — the triggering temperature or the triggering heat index is 80 degrees. 
 
For indoor settings, they evaluate high-heat work areas and have to make determinations about how they do monitoring indoors to make sure that they are adequately measuring the heat in the places where workers are likely to be exposed.  So, they have to have a monitoring plan.  And, again, they are either measuring the heat index, or they are using wet-bulb globe temperature.  Of course, forecasting is limited — doesn’t really have much use indoors.  They also have to have employee input on that monitoring and how that monitoring system will be put into place.
 
And then, finally, all of these employers have to have training and re- — meet certain training and recordkeeping requirements.
 
So, I talked about the initial heat trigger of 80 degrees.  There is also a high-heat trigger: a heat index of 90 degrees or — or a wet-bulb globe temperature that is equal to the NIOSH RECA exposure limit, or REL, which is a more complex way of measuring the impact of heat on workers.  We expect most employers will use the heat index, but we are making this more scientifically precise method available to workers as an option under the proposed rule.
 
Under the initial heat trigger, again, that’s 80 degrees — a 80-degree heat index or the wet-bulb globe temperature equal to the NIOSH recommended alert limit, or the RAL.
 
So, if an employer — if an employer’s workers are exposed at that initial trigger of an 80-degree heat index, there’s a set of commonsense requirements.  They’re well established, and they’re based, in part, on rules that have successfully been implemented in some other states that have done their own rulemaking. 
 
These are — you know, there are five basic elements.  One is access to drinking water. 
 
The second is to create a break area so workers can cool down.  So, outdoors, that would be in shade or an indoor air-conditioning space.  And for indoor workers, that would be a cooler area using controls such as air-conditioning or fans, ventilation, or dehumidification. 
 
The third element is worker access to those rest breaks when needed. 
 
The fourth element is an acclimatization plan.  So, this is — this is focused on new employees or those returning to work whose bodies are not adjusted to the heat.  And so, acclimatization can be addressed either through a gradual increased load or by giving them 15-minute rest breaks every two hours with monitoring for symptoms to make sure that they are adjusting appropriately.
 
Notably, acclimatization is the leading killer
among the different factors related to heat illness.  So, three out of four workers who die on the job due to heat-related — heat illness die on that first week in — on the job. 
 
And then, finally, that fifth element at the initial trigger, they have to have regular — the employer has to have regular and effective communication with employees to ensure compliance with the requirements of the rule.
 
At the high-heat trigger — this is the 90-degree heat index — there are four additional elements that have to be in place under the proposal.  One is mandatory rest breaks for all employees — 15 minutes every two hours.  These need to be paid unless it coincides with a break time that is not required to be paid, like an unpaid meal break. 
 
Second, there have to be observation of employees by managers for symptoms. 
 
Third, there have to be — there has to be check-in with isolated workers, so workers who are working alone.  And that has to happen every two hours via two-way communication. 
 
And then, fourth, there has to be a hazard alert that is triggered at the initial trigger that reminds workers about drinking water, taking the rest breaks, and then on emergency response procedures.
 
Again, these are commonsense, time-tested methods of protecting workers.  We believe that these will be achievable for employle- — employers and protective of workers and that they will save a significant number of lives and prevent a significant number of worker injuries and illnesses each year from heat.
 
Thank you.  And I will — I will pass it over to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you so much. 
 
Good afternoon, everyone.  [Senior administration official] here at FEMA.  I lead resilience at FEMA.  And tomorrow, we are excited to announce the selection of $1 billion in funding made available for the fiscal year 2023 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. 

FEMA is also announcing the selection of 93 communities and Tribal nations that will be receiving nonfinancial direct technical assistance through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.  We also received the largest number of subapplications this year since the launch of the program, including the most numbers of requests for BRIC Direct Technical Assistance. 
 
For those of you less familiar with the program, the BRIC grant program provides proactive investment and resilience for communities so that they are better prepared and remain resilient prior to a natural disaster.  BRIC also provides funds annually for hazard mitigation planning and projects to reduce the risk of damage before a disaster.
 
We also offer communities the — support with nonfinancial direct technical assistance — the BRIC DTA that I mentioned before. 

Through this type of technical assistance, communities get access to subject matter experts that they may not have on staff; they have support for building collaborative partnerships that really help them design and develop better projects that we’re seeing getting funded not just through FEMA but other programs as well.  And so, a whole range of support through the Direct Technical Assistance program.
 
This year, we are thrilled to announce that we have 656 projects being selected for the $1 billion in climate resilience funding as part of the Invest in America agenda.  And what’s really exciting is that we’re seeing these selections from across the nation. 
 
But as the — we — we’ve seen that this year, we have 80 percent of our subapplications being selected for — from subapplicants that have applied to the program for the first time.  And so, a whole range of — of new types of communities accessing — potentially accessing these dollars.
 
Many of these programs and projects that are being recommended for selection have many nature-based solutions in them.  Seventy percent of the dollars are for disadvantaged communities.  And so, we see both geographic diversity, underserved communities being selected for projects, and a whole range of types of hazards being addressed through the selections in the BRIC program.
 
These selections will really help states, Tribes, local governments, territorial governments address current and future risks from natural disasters, including extreme heat, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, and increased flooding.  This also helps communities tackle both their current and their future risk to additional things as — additional challenges that they’re facing as well.
 
And so, with the — with these selections, I wanted to highlight that the selections also further underscore the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to equity and environmental justice.  These awards will assist the most disadvantaged communities in building resilience both to climate change and extreme weather events. 
 
This is a Justice40-covered program.  And so, at minimum, the overall benefits are intended to flow to — 40 percent of the benefits are intended to flow to disadvantaged communities.  But what we have found in these — this year’s selections is that not only have we exceeded our Justice40 goals, we will be delivering 67 percent of total funding in — in our FY23 BRIC grant cycle to Justice40 communities.
 
We are also implementing the Community Disaster Resilience Zone legislation that President Biden signed into law that calls on FEMA to make sure that we are creating a program to really direct funding and support to the most high-risk, in-need communities.  And this grant cycle, 127 million of the total federal cost share will be benefiting communities with census tracts that have been designated as Community Disaster Resilience Zones, and they will be receiving a 90 percent federal cost share, as articulated in the law.
 
We also have been very much — we have ver- — we have been focused on outreach to many different types of communities, including urban and rural disadvantaged communities.  And this year, we saw 20 out of our 56 competitive projects are in economically disadvantaged rural communities. 
 
We also live in a nation where only one in three jurisdictions have adopted the latest building codes, and building codes save lives.  And so, this year, we had piloted for the first time a set-aside for building code adoption and enforcement.  This was part of FEMA’s approach to implementing the National Initiative to Adopt — to Advance Building Codes.  And so, this dedicated funding was the — it was the first time that FEMA was providing this dedicated funding for building codes.
 
We’ve selected 129 subapplications totaling $55.7 million in support of this priority.  And these funds are going to be helping recipients adopt and enforce hazard-resistant building codes.  This is a huge increase from prior years, where even in the la- — from 2020 to 2022, we only saw 49 subapplications focused on building code activities.  This year, it’s 137 building code subapplications.  That’s 180 percent increase in communities asking for support with adoption and enforcement of gil- — building codes.
 
I’d mentioned the focus on nature-based solutions.  And for those of you who may not be as familiar, nature-based solutions are sustainable planning, design — and design approaches to really ensuring projects support adaptation and resilience. 
 
Eighty-four percent of our projects in economically disadvantaged rural communities have some form of nature-based solutions included in them.  And overall, 57 percent of the national competition has projects with nature-based solutions.  They’re — so, very exciting to see very well-rounded disaster resilience projects being selected. 
 
In closing, the BRIC Direct Technical Assistance part of our program that I’d mentioned also saw a historic increase.  Four years ago, when this program, BRIC, first got started, there was only eight communities selected for BRIC Direct Technical Assistance.  Th– this administration has had a commitment to doubling it each year. 
 
And this year, we are thrilled to announce that 93 communities and Tribal Nations have been par- — selected to participate in this 36-month opportunity.  That’s — more than doubles the goal of our 2022 BRIC DTA selections, which was 40. 
 
And so, very exciting to see this program really meet communities where they’re at and provide a range of support — from engineers to planners to project scoping — to really ensure that resilience needs are getting met at the ground level.
 
So, happy to answer any questions during Q&A.  But the — the top-line message here is that it’s been a thrilling and exciting year to see how many more communities and range of needs are being addressed through the BRIC program, both through our — our grant side as well as the direct technical assistance, across the nation. 
 
Thank you.  And over to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [senior administration official], and grateful to my colleagues’ just incredible effort across the government to make sure we are standing with communities and workers as they face down the impacts of a changing climate.
 
One of the things I think you’ve heard from everybody is that this has been a priority and area of focus for the president from day one.  Not only are we seeing the impacts of climate change in our communities all across America, thanks to Joe Biden’s leadership, we are seeing the solutions take root across the country as well. 
 
You think about the drought that’s been plaguing the West — this year, as we went into the summer, we saw elevation at Lake Mead 1,075 feet.  That is visibly different than what you saw in years past.  That is because of the conservation activities and the historic leadership that the president has exercised in bringing the states together around water conservation, taking on that impact of climate change.
 
Around the country, utilities are stepping up in a big way to make sure that climate change does not disrupt power systems.  You’ve got folks in Colorado, thanks to President Biden’s infrastructure law, that are putting in thousands of fire-resistant coatings on wood poles so that they don’t burn down the next time a fire sweeps through.  In Louisiana, thanks to the president’s infrastructure law, hundreds of structures are being upgraded. 
 
And together, just that one grant will avoid 564 million customer minutes of power interruption.  That’s lives saved, livelihoods saved, improved public health outcomes.
 
When you think about the scrouge of wildfire — and [senior administration official] has talked about some of what we’re already seeing in this season intensified, exacerbated by a changing climate — think about this: Thanks to the president’s leadership — Joe Biden’s leadership — the Forest Service, in 2023, was able to improve the forest management, clear out hazardous fuels in over 4 million acres of forestlands across the United States.  That means when the fire comes, as we know it will, it will have less fuel, and less damage and destruction will follow.
 
You think about what our Housing and Urban Development Agency is doing: helping renters be able to access support as they cool in these summer months.  And just a couple of weeks ago, our secretary was in Chicago announcing hundreds of millions of dollars in resources to put in things like heat-resistant roofs and energy efficiency measures, resiliency measures that help people stay safe in the face of a changing climate.
 
In our transportation system, a massive investment, a generational one, to modernize our infrastructure — and not just to move it to lower emissions but also to adapt to the new reality in which we live.  One city receiving $24 million thanks to the president’s infrastructure law to help replace roadways in a way that combats the urban heat island effect by putting in pavement that actually helps cool. 
 
And, you know, one of the things that’s so obvious — and [senior administration official] talked about the emphasis on Justice40, the emphasis on meeting not just all communities but, in particular, the most vulnerable ones — that’s so important.  We know that because of historic pla- — practices like redlining, there’s more pavement and fewer trees in communities that were historically redlined — the legacy of racist policies.
 
So, that’s why we are taking action — bold action, historic action, and action that’s delivering real, meaningful, visible difference on the ground.  And we do that even as there are folks in Washington who deny the very fact that climate change exists; as folks in Congress mark up appropriations bills designed to gut our agencies’ capacity and capability to measure what is going on, to inform the public and decision-makers of what we need to do to take on this risk, to invent and manufacture the solutions here in the United States of America to combat this crisis.
 
The president, under his watch, has made sure we do not waver in taking on this crisis.  And that’s why he’s been able to create over 300,000 jobs, building clean energy across America.  That’s why he’s been able to double our pace of decarbonization.  And that’s why in every vector of risk in which climate change shows up in our communities, he has helped us step up in a big way to build resilience, build adaptation, and protect communities and workers.
 
Today’s announcements show him leading yet again in — in historic fashion. 
 
Back to you.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you for that, [senior administration official].  And thank you to all of our speakers. 
 
We’re going to try to jump into the Q&A now.  Get through as many as we can for the next about 10 minutes. 
 
As a reminder, this will be on background, attribution to “senior administration officials.”  The contents of this call, as a reminder, and the associated factsheet you should have got just before are on embargo until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
 
With that, we’re going to jump into the queue and go to Ariel Wittenberg from E&E News.  Ariel, you should be able to unmute now.
 
Q    Hey there.  Thanks for hosting the call.  I have two questions for [senior administration official] on the worker protection rule for heat. 

The first was: I’m curious about restaurant workers.  It wasn’t clear to me from your description of if they would be, like, covered or if employers of restaurants would — would cover that. 

And also, I just wanted to ask: I know you guys just sent this rule to OMB for review like — I think it was three weeks ago.  That seems like a rather fast review.  And I’m just curious — I assume that might show the administration’s priorities here but was hoping you could address that.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Certainly.  As to your first question, it would depend on the worksite.  But in general, it would seem likely that, under this proposal, restaurant workers in the — in the back of a restaurant would be covered and service would also be — you know, around people who were cooking, working with dishwashers that were hot, they would be covered.  Restaurant workers who are servers would — it would depend on whether the temperature was consistently kept below an 80-degree heat index through air-conditioning.
 
As to your second question, we put an incredible amount of work into this rule on the front end, getting a lot of stakeholder input, put a lot of resources into it and really worked hard to craft a rule that would move quickly through — through the process.  I think that the — the fact that we’re here today is a good reflection of the importance of the rule to the administration and the priority that it — that it has.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, [senior administration official].
 
Our next question is going to come from Ella Nilsen from CNN.  Ella, you should be able to unmute now.
 
Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks so much for holding this call.  I was curious if whoever is on from FEMA could provide an update on the major disasters fund and just how it is holding up with all of the billion-dollar disasters that have happened so far in the year, if there is any concern it will slip into the red before, you know, the end of the summer, if there’s any updates on that.  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], do you want to take that?  I’m also prepared to address that.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can speak to it high level.  And then, [senior administration official], feel free to jump in.
 
So, what you’re referring to is our Disaster Relief Fund.  And last year, we were in Immediate Needs Funding.  And, again — so, as we head into the summer months with the forecast that we have, the administration, I think, is supportive of additional dollars to the Disaster Relief Fund to help meet all the immediate lifesaving needs. 
 
But, [senior administration official], feel free to add here.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That’s — that’s spot on.  And, in fact, in the updated supplemental request that we sent to the Hill last week, we are requesting $9 billion for FEMA to further replenish the Disaster Relief Fund to support just what we’ve talked about today but our communities across America that face severe flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, and other hazards.
 
The answer to your question about whether it will be in the red: It just all depends on the scope, scale, and number of disasters that we have.  But it is just — it’s imp- — it’s why it’s imperative that we get that replenishment as part of the supplemental package.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you both. 

Our next question will come from Astrid Galván from Axios.  Astrid, you should be able to unmute now.
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Was just wondering, going back to the heat-protecting workers rules, is — I know that you all worked with some of the trading — trade industry groups who have pushed back against some of these proposals.  Can you talk about some of — what pushback you saw and that you’re expecting, especially legally — you know, any lawsuits?  But also, what are some of the most important provisions in this new rule that are going to have the most impact for workers?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you. 
 
So, there’s certainly associations who have expressed opposition or misgivings about the rule.  However, I’d say over the last 10 years, there’s been a growing recognition of the importance of doing something to protect workers.  As an example, we had a national adviser committee of construction representatives to advise us on health and safety.  And it’s comprised of management, labor, and public stakeholders.  And that group voted unanimously that we proceed expeditiously with rulemaking.
 
And so, while we — while we may not agree on the contents of the proposal, there are a fair number of employer groups out there that recognize the importance of a level playing field when it comes to a heat rule.
 
With respect to your — with respect to the most important provisions, I would say the basics of rest, water, shade, and acclimatization and then making sure that the employer has taken a proactive approach in planning around those.  But those are four basic elements that we’re looking to — that are most critical. 
 
But it does require a workplace-specific assessment because there are going to be different hazards in a — in a foundry than there are on a farm.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, sir. 

We have time for a couple more questions, so we’re going to go to Kellie Meyer from Nexstar.  Kellie, you should be able to unmute.
 
Q    Thank you so much.  Thank you for doing this.
 
I wanted to ask specifically about concerns about Hurricane Beryl.  It looks like it will miss the USVI and Puerto Rico this time, but as you said, this is incredibly early for Category 4.  And people in the USVI and Puerto Rico are already experiencing power outages without there even being a storm.  How is FEMA working to ensure that these territories can withstand another — a storm this summer?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you so much for that question. 
 
So, FEMA is — works very closely with all the states and territories to make sure that thing- — that communities are ready in advance.  And should there be an event where the state’s capacities or the territory’s capacities are exceeded, there’s the process to really push forward that support. 
 
And so, we have pre-positioned supplies in Puerto Rico and in a number of other places across the nation.  And also, that’s one of the reasons that today is so important and this announcement with the Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities is so important, because it’s actually what we do in advance that is going to make the most difference in people’s lives.
 
And so, FEMA very much is ready for — to support response and recovery.  But we are also the nation’s resilience agency, helping communities invest in disaster risk reduction and resilience so that we’re able to recover more quickly when these events happen. 
 
And to your point about — your question about Puerto Rico and the V.I.s in particular, that’s an area that we’ve been very focused in energy projects and microgrids and helping retrofit el- — power poles.  And so, a lot of work has been going into these places to help them weather the next storm.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 

Our next question is going to come from Lisa Friedman at the New York Times.  Lisa, you should be able to unmute.
 
Q    Thank you.  Question for [senior administration official].  A couple of people (inaudible) at this, but there were — there were, you know, obviously, two very important Supreme Court decisions this week affecting federal regulations.  Can you talk about, you know, if there were discussions in rolling out this regulation about — you know, I mean, is there anything that you’ve done that you think will make it legally stronger to industry and others that are expected to — to challenge the rule?
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Unfortunately, I believe [senior administration official] had to jump off early.  But I don’t know if [senior administration official] or [senior administration official] wants to jump in there.  Otherwise, we can get back to you offline, Lisa.
 
Q    Okay.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  [Senior administration official], you want to take that?  And if not, we’ll get back offline.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I could just — I would say this is — keep in mind, this is a proposed rule.  We feel very confident in our statutory authority to address hazards in the workplace.  So, I don’t — I don’t believe the most recent rules are going to have a direct impact.  But, you know, we’ll certainly be mindful of our explanation of our authority when we get to the final rulemaking process.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you for that. 

And our last question is going to come from Stephanie Ebbs at ABC.  Stephanie, you’re good to go.
 
Q    Thanks, everyone.  I just wanted to follow up also about the rule.  Can you address how this rule would impact protections in states that have passed state laws blocking cities or employers from implementing these kinds of mandatory break?  And also, can you address what the penalty will be — would be under the proposed rule for employers that don’t fulfill their requirements?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Certainly.  So, this rule, if finalized, would — would apply to all states under federal jurisdiction.  So, that would include Texas and Florida.  If — if you look at the Florida statute, it expressly notes that this — this is within OSHA’s authority, whether — regardless of your opinion on that law.
 
In state plan states — so these are states that run their own OSHA programs, are approved by us and monitored by us — they would have to have a rule in place that was as least as effective.  So, they would either implement ours or we would review theirs to make sure that it was as least as protective as — as the rule that we finalize.
 
And then on penalties, this would fall within the normal penalty structure.  So, this would significantly increase penalties for heat-related violations.  Right now, we have to use our general duty clause to protect workers from — from hazards that they’re exposed to by employer inaction, and the maximum penalty is around $16,000.  This would provide significantly more.  And it would depend on the facts to give you a number.
 
MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you for that, and thank you to all of the speakers.  That does conclude our call.  I know there’s a lot of interest in these announcements and we weren’t able to get to everybody, so please do not hesitate to reach out to the White House Press Office or me directly, and we will try to route those questions and answers for you as quickly as possible.
 
Again, as a reminder, this call is embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., and that applies to the factsheet that we sent around as well.  Also, as a reminder, attribution for any remarks and the Q&A portion of the call is for a “senior administration official.”
 
Again, reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns or just need some help getting some more answers.  And we thank you for your time.  Have a good one.
 
   5:45 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials to Preview New Actions on the Impacts of Extreme Weather Events appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Queens, New York

3:02 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody.

Q    Hello.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have Michael Tyler with me as well.  I just have one thing at the top, and then we’ll get going. 

So, today, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the state’s extreme and dangerous abortion ban can go into effect.  This latest abortion ban and the 21 other abortion bans across the country were made entirely possible by the previous administration when three Supreme Court justices were handpicked with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

In Iowa, abortion will now be banned before a lot — before a lot of women even know they’re pregnant. 

These bans put women’s health and lives in jeopardy.  They’re scary, they’re dangerous, and they infringe on our fundamental freedoms. 

And it’s not stopping at the state level.  Republican elected officials in Congress have proposed four national abortion bans while refusing to protect nationwide access to IVF and contraception. 

President Biden believes that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health care.  And — and he will continue to call on Congress to restore the protections or Roe v. Wade in federal law once — once and for all. 

And with that, I have our communica- — well, the president’s campaign communications director, to be clear, Michael Tyler, who is going to take any campaign questions that you have.  I — I think you had something at the top, right?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, I’ll just start and open up too.  Good to see everybody. 

Everybody was obviously at the speech today in North Carolina.  You know, the president came, gave a very forceful, powerful speech today in North Carolina talking about the stakes of this election, calling Trump to task not just for the lies that he spewed on the debate stage last night but for the fundamental contrasts that we have in this race moving forward, the things that Donald Trump talked about on the debate stage — him celebrating the role that he played in overturning Roe v. Wade — right?; him denying or refusing to commit to accept the results of the election if he’s — loses it again this time; and, of course, the extreme economic approach he wants to return us to.  The president spoke about all of that again today. 

Obviously, I think the president said himself he’s not as good as a debater as he used to be.  He doesn’t walk or talk as smoothly as he used to.  But he knows how to fight like hell.  And I think he showed that today in North Carolina. 

And so, that’s what the American people are going to continue to see day in and day out for the remainder of this campaign: a president in Joe Biden who understands he’s never going to stop fighting for the American people and he’s never going to stop contrasting that against Donald Trump, who every single day is clearly fighting for himself. 

I think what you saw last night after the debate was the president leave the debate stage; go rally supporters — grassroot supporters in Atlanta; went and got some food at Waffle House — excuse me; hopped on the plane here to Raleigh; touched down in Raleigh at nearly 2:00 a.m. to a b- — meet a bunch of supporters on the tarmac, shook every single hand; then got back up this morning, gave the speech that we all just saw, made a forceful demonstration of what the choice and what the stakes are in this election; and he’s going to continue to do that day in and day out for the remainder of this campaign. 

So, we’re excited coming off of today.  He understands that sometimes you get knocked down, but you get back up and you keep fighting.  And that’s exactly why the American people elected him in the first place, and it’s why they’re going to reelect him again in November.  So, with that, I’ll take a few questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Darlene.

Q    Given the president’s appearance in Raleigh, was it a mistake to insist on no audience for the debate?

And secondly, what kind of outreach is the campaign doing to Democrats and others who are concerned about winning in November based on his performance last night?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, so, I think one of the things that the American people got to see last night on the debate stage was Donald Trump in prime time as well.  They got to see the Donald Trump that has been speaking at the MAGA rallies since he launched his campaign, where he has, every single day, been talking about ruling as a dictator on day one, where he’s been calling for a bloodbath, where he’s been celebrating January 6th, promising to pardon the insurrectionists of January 6th. 

The vast majority of the American people had not heard that at all until last night.  And so, last night was one of the first times that the American people are going to begin to see the extremism that Donald Trump represents and just how harmful a second Trump term would be moving forward. 

So, I think the President is honest about his own performance.  But as far as what last night’s debate actually provided for the American people, it — it crystallized the threat — it begins to crystallize the threat that Donald Trump poses. 

And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on as we head into the summer months, as more and more people begin to tune into this election and Donald Trump, who’s no longer in the — on the sidelines of American politics, returns to the

limelight.

Q    And not having an audience?

MR. TYLER:  No, listen, I th- — again, I think it forced Donald Trump — you — what you saw Donald Trump do throughout the course of that debate as it went on was — obviously, he spent the entire night lying.  But as the debate went on in prime time, without an audience for him to feed off of, he became more unhinged, he started to spew more and more lies, and he reminded the American people of exactly why they fired him in the first place.

When he said that the overturning of Roe was a great thing; again, when he refused to commit to accept the results of an election; when he, again, said that his corporate ta- — giveaways were the right thing to do — that’s what the American people have rejected already.  They have not necessarily heard him say that in prime time, but that’s what they got to see last night.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay —

MR. TYLER:  I think he’ll —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’m so sorry. 

MR. TYLER:  Go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m so sorry. 

MR. TYLER:  No, no.  Go.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, no. 

MR. TYLER:  Go ahead.


Q    Michael, can you explain the president’s performance last night?  I know you’re focused on Trump and what he said, but the president himself, by all — he was unable to answer some questions, meandered, was clearly very different last night than he was this morning.  Can you just explain what happened and why — why he performed like that?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, I think the president said it himself today.  You know, he didn’t have the best night on the debate stage.  But we’d rather have one bad night than a candidate with a bad vision for where he wants to take the country. 

And, again, I think that’s what the American people saw in Donald Trump last night.  It’s certainly what they’re going to see with him as he returns to a MAGA rally in Virginia today.  They’re going to see exactly why they fired him in the first place as the — as he continues to be more and more in the limelight moving forward.

Q    And do you firmly reject any calls for the president to consider stepping aside or not running again?  Are there any conversations about that?

MR. TYLER:  There are no conversations about that whatsoever.  The Democratic voters elected — nominated Joe Biden.  Joe Biden is the nominee.  Joe Biden — and a couple of things I would point to about this too. 

If you look at the actual — what we actually saw since the debate last night, we have seen, again, the president go to North Carolina, touch down, had thousands of supporters in the state of North Carolina rally around him. 

But we also raised $14 million yesterday.  In fact, the 11:00  hour was our most successful grassroots fundraising hour of the entirety of the campaign.  That is Democratic voters tuning in, telling Joe Biden that they’ve got his back for the fight ahead because they understand that he’s fighting for them.

Q    And just a quick one.  Does the president commit to appearing at the debate in September?

MR. TYLER:  Oh, absolutely.  That’s what we laid out when we challenged Donald Trump to two debates.  Joe Biden will be there on September 10th.  We’ll see what Donald Trump does.

(Cross-talk.)

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

Q    Michael, what’s your assessment of all this criticism from fellow Democrats about his performance?

MR. TYLER:  Listen, I’ve also seen people — like Governor Shapiro, Governor Walz, Governor Whitmer, Speaker — Speaker-to-be Jeffries as well, who talked about the president who was on that debate stage, obviously, fighting for the American people and on the stage today in North Carolina demonstrating that he’s always going to get back up and continue to fight for the American people every single day and lay out the fundamental stakes of this election. 

Are we going to have a president who fights for the American people, protects their freedoms, stands up for our democracy, fights for an economy that grows from the middle out and the bottom up? 

Or are you going to have somebody like Donald Trump, who made it very clear on the debate stage last night, makes it very clear every single day on the stump that he is fighting for himself as a convicted felon?

He does not care about the harm that he causes, the chaos that he causes, the division or the violence that he sows so long as Donald Trump comes out on top.  That’s what the President called out today in North Carolina.  And that’s the choice that we’re going to continue to present to the American people going forward.

Q    Has the — has the president made any phone calls to fellow Democratic leaders trying to calm people down?

MR. TYLER:  I can’t — I can’t speak to that.

Yeah. 

Q    And — and how is he —

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

Q    First, is the president sick?  And did that affect his preparation for the campaign?

MR. TYLER:  I know that the president did have a sore throat. 

Q    But is he sick?  Does he have a cold?

MR. TYLER:  I think you saw the president today on the stage in North Carolina forcefully deliver remarks today.  So, it’s certainly not — the president would not cite his sore throat as an excuse for the debate performance.  He had a bad night.  He said that, right?  And it’s about how you get back up.  And that’s what we saw in North Carolina today.

Q    And — and would you — would you change the format for the next debate?  Or are you comfortable with — with the way C- — CNN conducted the debate?

MR. TYLER:  Listen, I — I think what you saw was Donald Trump get up there and lie to the American people.  And I think the American people, as we move forward, are going to see that as they see him in prime time over and over and over again. 

So, what this campaign is focused on right now, on June 28th and as we move forward, is communicating directly with the American people not just what the president’s vision is for where — where he wants to take the country over the course of the next four years but, again, as people begin to understand the stakes and see Donald Trump back in the limelight, once again, reminding them of the lies, of the chaos that he sowed, of the division that he sowed, of the violence that he sowed. 

That’s what they saw on the debate stage last night.  And that’s why they fired him four years ago.  So, we’re going to make sure that people continue to see that as we move into the summer months.

(Cross-talk.)

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

Q    Is th- — is the strategy going to change at all now after this debate?  I mean, President Biden today said that he’s not as good — as good a debater as he once was.  He says he has a cold.  So, kind of, which is it?  And is — how is the strategy going to change going forward?

MR. TYLER:  Well, the strategy doesn’t change at all.  Our strategy, as I just said, moving forward is to relentlessly communicate directly with the American people between June 28th and November. 

We are going to — the president right now — what did he do after he got off the debate stage?  He went straight to North Carolina to rally the troops here in the Tar Heel State, where the vice president is touching down in — out west in Nevada, doing the exact same thing right now.

We’re going to relentlessly communicate across the airwaves, on the ground.  We have 300 field offices that are opened up.  We’re going to relentlessly work to reach the voters that are going to decide the pathway to 270 electoral votes. 

We have the candidate that beat Donald Trump in 2020.  We have the team that beat Donald Trump in 2020.  And we are confident that if we keep our heads down and do the work, the American people are once again going to side with Joe Biden.

Q    But age continues to be an issue for this campaign.  So, after last night, how — how could you not rethink some of the strategy here?

MR. TYLER:  Well, listen, age — the president himself has said it’s fair for the American people to consider age.  But what’s clear is that age is not going to be the contrast in this race.  Joe Biden is 81 years old.  Donald Trump is 78 years old. 

Joe Biden, every single day, is fighting for an economy that actually works for working people.  That’s fundamentally what they’re going to vote on.  They’re going to vote about — on the issues.  They’re going to vote for the candidate who is actually fighting for them. 

And it is very clear on all the issues that matter — from people’s economic weel- — well-being to which candidate is actually going to respect and restore a woman’s fundamental right to make her own choices about her body to defending and protecting our democracy — the only candidate fighting for them is Joe Biden.

Donald Trump, clearly fighting for himself and fighting against the American people on all those issues. 

That’s what — that’s how the voters are going to fundamentally make their decision. 

Q    Did you feel like the president performed differently in the debate prep?  Did you see any kind of difference?

MR. TYLER:  Listen, the president himself said he, you know, didn’t have the best night.  I think everybody understands that.  And what you saw him do today was to get right back up and carry on the fight.  That’s exactly what people in North Carolina saw.  That’s what people across America are going to see.  And that’s what we’re going to see in the days to come. 

This — this is a president who understands that he’s never going to stop fighting for the American people, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Tyler.  We’re going to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Tyler.

Q    (Inaudible) million people watched the debate last night.  A lot fewer will have seen the president’s performance in North Carolina today.  So, how do you make up for that gap of the people who just saw the image last night and did not see the rally that you guys are excited about today?

MR. TYLER:  Yeah, that’s why you have a campaign: to relentlessly communicate the president, his vision, his message.  It’s not just the travel on the ground.  It’s not just on television.  It’s how we package and disseminate content.

I would actually look at a lot of the work that we did with content creators — not just last night but continuing to today.  We’re going to continue to — to communicate relentlessly and use all channels of communication to make sure that people actually see the fighter in Joe Biden who got up on that stage today and will do so in the weeks to come.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    A rally — a rally is vastly different than a debate.  So, back to, sort of, the strategy angle.  If they are going to have a second matchup in September, what is the actual strategic difference in preparation so that you have more of what happened today at the rally and less of what happened last night at the debate?

MR. TYLER:  Listen, we’ll talk more about the second debate as we get closer to the second debate.  What we’re focused on right now in — on June 28th is doing what we’re doing today: getting back out on the stump, communicating directly with the voters that are going to decide the election in the battleground states. 

You have the president here in North Carolina — again, the vice president in Nevada — on the ground talking with the voters in those states that are going to decide this election.  I think you saw how North Carolinians responded to the president’s message and his vision today in North Carolina.  You’re going to see the same thing out west, where people get a chance to see Kamala Harris. 

And that’s what our focus is going to be on — right? — directly engaging the voters, making sure that all of our organizers — we have over a thousand organizers across all the battleground states who are relentlessly doing the work on the ground.  Our paid advertisements continue to be aggressive.  They continue to — to outpace the work that Donald Trump is doing, who’s still — the vast majority of the money that his campaign is raising is still doing things like paying legal fees for somebody who’s now a convicted felon.  Right?  I think it’s in stark contrast.

Given the polarized electorate that we’re in, given the fact that both of these candidates are so well known, the work that the candidates and the campaigns are doing to turn out and organize their voters matters that much more.  And so, that’s what this campaign is going to be focused on as we head into the summer.

Q    One la- —

Q    Can you —

Q    One last thing.  Will you review how you do the debate preparation for — you know, m- — examine whether you need to do some things, need to do more things?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He just — he just —

MR. TYLER:  Again, I think I just answered that question.  I said we’d —

Q    I didn’t hear it.

MR. TYLER:  — think more — that’s okay.  We’d — we’ll — we’ll approach the second debate when we get closer to the second debate.  Our focus right now is on communicating directly with the voters.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Darlene.  Last question.  Last question.

Q    Can you give us some details about the event tonight in New York City?

MR. TYLER:  I got nothing for you yet. 

Q    Nothing?

MR. TYLER:  You’ll have to tune in.

Q    How is that possible?  (Laughter.)

MR. TYLER:  I got — you all will just have to wait.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Lauren, you have last question.

Q    Are you considering any staffing changes on the campaign after last night?

MR. TYLER:  Absolutely not.  This is the team that beat Donald Trump in 2020.  It’s the candidate to beat Jon- — Donald Trump in 2020.  And we’re going to beat him in 2024. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Tyler.  Really, really, really the last question.

Q    But there was an all-staff meeting today with the campaign.  What was the message that was sent to the —

MR. TYLER:  There was, but I was on the plane when it happened, so I have nothing to read out for you.

Q    Will the campaign focus on Virginia at all anymore?  I know Trump is in Southern Virginia.  Is that going to become a focus point —

MR. TYLER:  Yeah.

Q    — for the campaign?

MR. TYLER:  This campaign is focused on the path to 270 electoral votes and the tru- — and the battleground states.  I think that’s reflected in everything that we’re doing.  Today, we’re in North Carolina, we’re in Nevada.  I think that you’ve seen our path to victory, the states that we’re focused on that are actually going to decide the pathway to 270 electoral votes. 

Donald Trump can do — I know he talks about rallies in New York City, for example.  But h- — we’re not going to allow him and his nonsense to distract us from what we know the task at hand needs to be.  We’re going to remain disciplined and do the work to get to 270 electoral votes. 

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

MR. TYLER:  All right, y’all.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Michael.

Q    Thank you.

MR. TYLER:  Thank you so much.  We will be doing this more often. 

Q    Really appreciate it.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Michael.  Bye.

MR. TYLER:  Thanks, y’all.

Q    Appreciate it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

All right —

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, that’s it.  Thanks, everybody.  (Laughter.)

I don’t know what to say.  What else can I say?  (Inaudible.)

Q    Can you tell us more about his cold?  When did he contract it?  What — did it affect his performance last night?

Q    Was he tested for COVID?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — okay, step back for a second.  So, yes, and I think we shared this with many people yesterday.  The president had a cold; he had a sore throat.  That happens.  And — and that’s what you heard last night.  And, you know, I’ll — I’ll leave it there.  I don’t have anything else to add.  I think Michael covered a lot of this just moments ago. 

But, yes, he had a cold.  He had a sore throat.  Once he knew that he — he had a cold and a sore throat, he tested — he certainly tested for COVID.  It was negative.  And then we moved on from there.

Q    Why did the White House wait until the middle of the debate to release that information?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ll tell you this.  Look, he had a strong debate-prep week.  And — and he got a cold, which happens.  It happens.  It’s not unusual.  It’s not something — you know — I mean, you don’t share every time, you know, the president has a cold.  It happened.  And once — once he had the cold and had a sore throat, again, he tested negative for COVID.  And then we moved on.

Q    But just curious about the disclosure of that information.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he got a — I mean, Tyler, he got a cold.  It — it happens.

Q    But just in terms of when — the sequencing, like instead of before the debate, in the middle of the debate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    — how you decided —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, well —

Q    — when to announce —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — obviously, during the debate, we were asked if the president has a cold.  We — we said — well, they would — we were asked about his hoarse voice.  We shared that he had a cold, we shared that he tested negative, and then we moved on.  That’s it.  It was from his — his voice as he was speaking during the debate, obviously.

Q    Were there plans to let the public know if you weren’t received — if you weren’t, you know, asked from —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, he —

Q    — asked about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — had a cold.  It happens.  He had a cold.

Q    Right.  But you were — you were — during the debate, that was the blame for why he wasn’t doing well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He had a hoarse voice, so people asked why he had a hoarse voice — because he had a cold.  And we also shared — we went a- — we went a step — we took a step further and shared that he tested for COVID and was negative. 

I mean, he had a cold.  (Laughs.)  That’s what it was.

Q    Have you talked to the president?  How is he feeling w- — did you talk to him last night?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He —

Q    How he’s feeling —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m not going to — I’m not going to disclose my private conversations with the president.  Obviously — obviously, I — I speak to him often. 

You saw him today.  You saw him — and I’m going to be super mindful.  Obviously, it was a camp- — it was a campaign event today.  But you saw him.  He — he spoke directly to the — to the American people.  You saw the crowd.  You saw what he laid out.  He li- — he laid out his vision for the future, what he’s done in the past three and a half years.  And that’s what I’ll stick to.

The other part, you can actually — obviously, you can speak — you can see for yourself.  But the president is a fighter.  He’s going to continue to fight for the American people, as he’s done the last three and a half years.  That doesn’t end.  That doesn’t stop.  And that’s what you’re h- — you’ll continue to hear from this president, as you saw today.

Q    Any reaction from him to the reaction to his performance last night?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think the president — and I said this yesterday — the president always took — takes an opportunity — when he’s in front of an audience, when he knows that millions of Americans are going to tune in to hear directly from him, he’s going to take that opportunity to lay that out. 

Yes, did he have a — a bit of a slow start?  You heard from the vice president last night, yes.  But as the time went on, he certainly made up some of that — right? — and mo- — mo- — probably faster than most would have and laid out his vision and was very clear about certain — certain parts of issues that the American people care about, whether it’s abortion, immigration, the things that you hear us talk about all the time, the contrast that we make with extreme Republicans and congressional members and what they’re trying to do on the other side. 

And so — and you certainly heard that from him today.  And so, look, the president is going to always take the opportunity, again, to be very clear, to be very concise about what he’s doing on behalf of the American people.  There’ll be many, many opportunities.  We move on.  And you’ll hear more from the president, obviously, later today.

Q    What — was it ins- — personally insulting to him to have all these fellow Democrats come out and say, “You need to step aside”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m not — you know, look, people are going to have their opinion.  I’m going to be very careful — right? — because this was a debate — the Hatch Act piece of that. 

We respect — we respect, you know, our fellow — our fellow Democrats — obviously, part of our party — and their opinion.  But you heard — you heard Michael talk about the folks who were on — on TV today and earlier — earlier this morning talk about the president and his performance and how he’s a president that we need today.  He’s a president that’s going to continue to lead the way on really critical, important issues that Americans care about, that — truly, that Americans care about.

This week alone, we — we marked the Dobbs anniversary — right? — two years of when the former president put three extreme — extreme members on the court — individuals on the court, and they overturned Roe v. Wade.  And look what it’s caused.  It caused chaos with IVS [IVF], contraception. 

And you have heard us — the president and the vice president continue to speak to that.  And we are with the majority of Americans, while, you know, extreme Republicans want to put national bans.

That’s what you’re going to continue to hear us fighting for: everyday Americans.  The economy — we understand how Americans are still feeling the pinch. 

But what the president has done this last three and a half years is work to get the economy back on its feet.  And we see that with unemployment under 4 percent.  We see the — the amount of — record amount of jobs that this president has — able to be created — more than 15 million jobs. 

And so, we’re going to — that’s going to be our focus.  Our focus is going to be how do we create, continue to provide that breathing room that you hear the president talk about for American people, fight for our freedom, fight for democracy.

And so, that’s — that is, I think, the contrast that you saw last night and what the president is going to do moving forward.

Q    Do you think the president does better or is more comfortable in moments that are scripted, like the rally earlier today, as opposed to the debate, when he has to think on his feet a bit more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you — I’m just going to repeat what the president said today.  He understands. 

Look, he’s not as smooth as he used to be on the debate stage.  He doesn’t speak as smoothly as he used to be.  I mean, you heard him say and acknowledge — acknowledge where he is today.  And — and — but the thing that he ended with, which I think is so important, which I keep saying over and over to all of you, is he’s — he knows he’s going to fight for democracy.  He’s going to fight for freedom.  And he knows exactly how to do that. 

And you see it with his record in the last three and a half years.  I think the record that he has been able to do — whether it’s legislation — historic pieces of legislation to get things done — I think that speaks for itself.  And so, this is a president that’s going to continue to do that — continue to do that.

Q    Karine —

Q    The Supreme Court Chevron ruling that came out today.

So much of the administration, you know, agenda is on — is around climate change. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    How big of a setback do you think this might be for some of the policies that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you may have seen I issued a — a statement —

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — on this earlier, a respon- —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

So, I’ll just say a little bit.  This is yet another troubling decision that takes our country backwards.  Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to block common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers. 

The president has directed his legal team to work with Department of Justice and other agency counsel to review today’s decision carefully and ensure that our administration is doing everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workers to keep Americans safe and ensure our communities thrive and prosper.

Q    And what about the Supreme Court ruling about the Justice Department overstepping on charging hundreds of people for the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, that one, I’m going to be super mindful — I’m going to refer you to Department of Justice.  As you know, they’re ongoing cases.  So, I just got to be super careful on that.  That litigation continues.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, the — three U.S. troops died in Jordan this year and more in Afghanistan in 2021.  How can the president say none have died during his administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously, the president, as you know, is the commander in chief.  And you hear him even when he ends every — ev- — all of his remarks, he talks about respecting — respecting our — our troops who are serving today.  And he con- — he will always do that and continues to do that.  And he obviously had — his son was — was — obviously served, as well.  So, this is something that he respects.  And so, I don’t think — I don’t think that will ever change. 

Obviously, our hearts and our thoughts go out to the family who are pro- — clearly still suffering and thinking about their loved ones.  And so, we’ll continue to do that. 

And I — you know, I refer you to the campaign about specifics about fact-checking and all of those pieces.  But I can speak to a president that has been incredibly respectful of the military and what they do for us day in and day out and how they continue to serve our country. 

You saw th- — you saw that on display, obviously, on D-Day when he was in Normandy — he did that twice — and honoring those who have fallen.  And so, he’ll continue to do that. 

Any particular fact-check, I would certainly refer you to the campaign.

Q    Well, I understand that that was said during debate, so that we can — can refer to the campaign.  But he is the president.  This — these weren’t off-the-cuff remarks.  They felt prepared.  And it was clearly a mistake.  Does he not consider these to be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I will say is the president respects our military force.  He respects the families who have lost members of the military.  He will continue to do that.  He has been very consistent about that — not just as president but as vice president, as senator.  You hear him talk about the service and how they put their lives on the — on the line every single day to protect us.  He t- — he always ends his remarks mentioning that, mentioning and lifting up our service members.  And that’s what I will speak to at this time. 

All right, guys.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you in New York.  All right.

3:28 P.M.  EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Campaign Communications Director Michael Tyler En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Marietta, Georgia

2:15 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, all. 

Q    Hey.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, I got a — two things at the top. 

So, today’s Supreme Court order ensures that women in Idaho can access the emergency medical care they need while this case returns to the lower courts.  But our fight is not over.  The Biden-Harris administration will continue to defend our long-standing fundamental belief that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need. 

No woman should be denied care or wait until she’s near death or forced to flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs, yet this is exactly what is happening in states across the country since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

It’s all part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide, put women’s health and lives at risk, and threaten doctors with jail time.  The stakes should not be higher, and the — I’m sorry, the stakes could not be higher, and the contrast could not be clearer.

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight for a woman’s right to make deeply personal health care decisions and to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state across the country. 

Second, the president has repeatedly said that we must secure our border.  That’s why, about three weeks ago, he announced actions to bar migrants who cross our border unlawfully from receiving asylum. 

Since then, unlawful crossings between ports of entry have dropped more than 40 percent.  We’re still early in implementing the president’s actions, and we understand that migration flows are dynamic.  That is why we continue to call on Congress to provide our immigration officials and Border Patrol the resources they need to do their jobs.

Republicans in Congress have proven that they would rather have a political football than actually fix the problem.  We will continue calling on congressional Republicans to do their jobs and give border officials the resources only Congress can provide.

With that, Darlene, you want to kick us off?

Q    Yes, thank you.  To follow up on your topper on the Supreme Court case out of Idaho, given the outcome of that case, is the administration considering suing any other states, you know, like Texas, with similar — that have similar circumstances?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to announce or to lay out.  That’s certainly going to be up to the Department of Justice as it relates to any litigation.  They’re — something that they can speak to.

What I can say is our fight is not over.  So, we’re going to continue to defend what I said at the top — the administration long view of making sure that a woman has the right to access emergency medical care.  That’s — continues to be our — our stance. 

And so, we will continue to investigate complaints; take enforcement actions as appropriate; and ensure that doctors, hospitals, patients understand that rights and obligations under — the rights and obligations under EMTALA.

Anything further beyond that, I just don’t have anything to add.

Q    What —

Q    And one to the president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    He’s been at Camp David for more than a week.  Can you tell us anything about his mindset going into tonight, his mood?  Have you seen him since we’ve been airborne?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple of things — and I’m going to be really mindful, follow the law — Hatch Act, all of the things.  And I’ll say this.  Look, the president is president wherever he is. 

Obviously, we — we — there was the Dobbs decision.  You heard from the president then.  You heard from the vice president.  You — you heard us lay out — I just star- — stated this at the top about what the — what we have seen at the border and the 40 percent drop, which I think is also important.  So, he’s able to do the job wherever he is.  There’s the infrastructure to do just that. 

And I’ll say this.  You know, whenever there’s an opportunity for the president to speak directly to American public — in this instance, it’ll be millions of Americans watching — he takes that opportunity very seriously.  And he understands that Americans are going to be watching, wanting to hear from their president, wanting to hear what he’s been able to accomplish this last three and a — three and a half years. 

This is something that he does regularly, obviously, and to lay that out — to lay out the contrast on what we’ve been trying to do and what Republicans have been trying to do — extreme Republicans at that.  I just talked about the Dobbs decision.  I just talked about EMTALA. 

All of these things that we’re seeing, as it relates to reproductive freedom and — and contraception, you know, being — being on the line and IVF and what we’re seeing with 27 million women in 21 states that have abortion restrictions, what they’ve had to be going through — it is happening because of what the last administration did, because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

So, these are the things that you’re going to continue to hear the president talk about, the contrast, whether it’s the economy, whether it’s expanding health care, giving — making sure we’re giving Americans a little bit of breathing room and not giving tax cuts to billionaires and corporations.  That’s not where we are.  We want to protect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.  Republicans want to continue to try to gut that.

So, you’ll — you’ll continue to hear the president lay out what he’s done in three and a half years and, obviously, as we do regularly, give that stark contrast and lay out what’s at stake. 

Q    Are you — are you happy with the debate rules, the fact that there’s no audience, the mic will be turned off?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for — for the campaign to speak to.  As you know, that was a discussion that they had.  And so, I’m going to leave that to them.

Q    And — and what’s the president’s feeling about standing toe to toe with his — his main adversary tonight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I’m not going to speak directly to tonight and directly to his main adversary this evening. 

But, look, you know this president.  He likes to fight.  He likes to fight for the American people.  He believes on standing up for the American people.  You see him do that over and over again. 

And so, look, I would — I would refer you to the State of the Union — not just this year but also last year — and how he was able to take — to take extreme Republicans in the room on.  I — I’m just going to leave that there.

Q    Sticking with the — with the Supreme Court in another decision today.  Does the administration have any concerns on the Supreme Court’s decision and the SEC case to curb in-house judges?  Just any comment or reaction to that case and if it could potentially limit enforcement on financial rules and regulations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to speak to that.  We’ve been always very, very mindful on that.  So, I’m j- — I just don’t have anything to add to the — to the Supreme Court ruling.

Q    Karine, could you give us few details about what these past few days have looked like for the president at Camp David?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I don’t have anything more to add to answering Darlene’s question. 

Look, the president is the president wherever he is.  He, you know — obviously, he continues to do the work of the American people.  The last couple of days, we’ve made some important announcement on things, on matters that the majority of Americans care about, whether it’s the Dobbs decision, marking the two-year anniversary.  I just talked about immigration, what’s happening at the border, securing the border, and the actions that the president took — the executive actions that the president took not too long ago.  We laid that out for all of you yesterday — the 40-percent decrease at the border. 

I don’t have anything else to add.  I’m sure the campaign will have more specifics on that.  But I’m just going to stick to what the president — how the president delivers every day for the American people.  That’s — that’s my — that’s my lane.  That’s my role.  And that’s what I’ll stick to.

Anything else?

Q    Is — is — sorry.  Is the president concerned that the Kenyan government caved to violence and overturned their new tax laws?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things on that.  Give me one second.  Guys, I can’t see. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Kenya, yeah.

So — so, obviously, we’re deeply concerned about — about what — what is occurring there and obviously condemn the reported violence in all forms.  We offer our deepest condolences to the families who have been impacted and continue to urge restraint so that no further Kenyans are put in harm’s way while exercising their constitutional, protected right to peacefully, publicly assemble. 

We are encouraged by recent — by President Ruto’s openness to dialogue and will continue to push for calm to prevail. 

So, answering that question, I think it’s important to have that open dialogue and wh- — we are — I think we are encouraged by that open dialogue that the president of Kenya is currently having with — with folks on the ground.

Q    Does the president have confidence in the effectiveness of the Gaza pier is — that the Pentagon has opened up a Inspector General look into it.  Does he — does he think it’s money well spent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll say — I’m not going to speak to the IG investigation.  That’s something that I won’t get into. 

Look, we have always said one of the things that this president wanted to do is get that increased humanitarian aid into Gaza.  We’ve — we’ve been very clear about that.  And we’ve said — and you’ve heard Jake Sullivan talk about air, land, and sea.  Right?  And so, this is part of that effort. 

We’re confident in that effort, in making sure that we’re getting those really important goods and aid that the people of — of Gaza, Pal- — innocent Palestinians need into — obviously into Gaza. 

So, that’s always going to be our focus.  And anything more specifically about the process and how that’s moving forward with the pier, certainly, I would refer you to the — to the Department of Defense.  

But again, that is the president’s commitment: to increase

— to increase that aid.  And so, that is something that the president — that — that we’ve been incredibly focused on. 

And I do want to share some total figures here.  Since the beginning of the conflict, President Biden has been leading the effort to get humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And it was a result of the president’s effort that assistance was allowed into Gaza after October 7th.  Overall, total of nearly 16,000 trucks since April 5th and a daily average of 190 trucks have been going in a day.  And that is, again, because of the president’s leadership.  And we’re going to do everything that we can to increase that aid.

Q    Julian Assange’s lawyer says he deserves a pardon and that President Biden should give him one.  Is that under consideration or even discu- — being discussed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s not. 

Q    And what is the response to former President Trump’s claims that President Biden may be taking something tonight to boost his performance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t think that I should dignify that with an answer.

Q    Did — did Jake — when Jake spoke to the Israeli Defense Minister yesterday, did they talk about post-conflict Gaza, the plan for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They di- — yes, they did.  They did talk about that. 

Let me see if I can find it.  Yikes.  Let me lay that out for you.

So, one of the things — like I said, they — yes, they did discuss that — Jake Sullivan and obviously the Defense Minister.  They also discussed, obviously, a wide range of issues.  And we issued out a readout of the conversation yesterday that they had.

Go ahead.

Q    And on the what appeared to have been a failed coup in Bolivia. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re glad that — that calm has been restored.  And I’ll just leave it there.

Q    I had a question about tomorrow.  Can we go to tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Tomorrow?

Q    There’s an official event on his schedule.  Do you have any details about what he’s going to be doing in New York City after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, they’re — they will be campaign events.  So, I would refer you to the campaign.

Q    But it says “official” on the guidance. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you’re talking about — not tomorrow.  You’re talking about — oh, you’re talking about the New York pieces of it.  We’ll have —

Q    The first one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The first —

Q    It said “official.”  The second one — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ll have more to share later today.  We’ll have more details to share for sure.

Q    What about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, are you guys just coming up with things at this point?  (Laughter.)

Q    No.

Q    Thank you.

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

Q    Thank you.  Appreciate it.

 END  2:28 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Marietta, GA appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council
Via Teleconference

10:34 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey.  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s News of the Day Gaggle with White House National Security Comms Advisor John Kirby.  I’ll turn it over to him for a topper, and then we’ll take some of your questions.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  So, just right off the top, since I know many of you are closely tracking the events out of Nairobi, we hope you can understand that this is an evolving situation and we’re working to obtain and to help you get as much information as quickly as possible. 

We’ve all seen the reporting, and I just want to stress again that the United States is deeply concerned about and we condemn the reported violence in all its forms.  We offer our deepest condolences, of course, to the families who have been impacted by this violence.  And we continue to urge restraint so that no further Kenyans are put in harm’s way while exercising their right to peaceful public assembly.  That right is protected by the Kenyan constitution, and we believe it must be respected. 

The United States has been in touch with the Kenyan government to urge appropriate use of force by the police, to respect human rights, and quite frankly, to respect due process for those that have been detained.  And we will continue to push for calm to prevail. 

And now, yesterday — switching to Haiti — the Multinational Security Support Mission, that will grow eventually to 2,500 multinational personnel, arrived in Haiti.  As you know, this effort is being led by Kenya and with strong support from the United States.  The mission includes personnel, financial support from over a dozen countries that will support the Haitian National Police as they increase their anti-gang operations, build their capacity to maintain public safety, and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches everybody in need.

The United States is this particular mission’s largest financial contributor and the largest donor to Haiti in general, providing more than $300 million and up to $60 million in equipment.  And we’re going to continue our diplomatic outreach to encourage others to join that effort as well. 

We’ve also worked with Kenya and other partners to integrate critically important accountability and oversight measures into the mission. 

Now, I want to be clear right at the top here: This mission is not going to solve all of Haiti’s problems, but it is a good, positive first step and to provide the best chance for Haiti to get on a path toward democratic governance and rule of law.  It is about making the Haitian National Police better — better resourced, better led, better trained, better capable.  That’s what this is about, and we’re going into it with that in mind. 

Shifting topics, if I could: Today, we also welcomed the announcement that Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte will serve as the next Secretary General of NATO.  President Biden and Prime Minister Rutte have worked very closely together over the past decade when Joe Biden was Vice President and, of course, now that he’s Commander-in-Chief.  And they work together on a variety of issues, including our shared strong support for Ukraine, on safeguarding advanced technologies, and strengthening the transatlantic alliance.  President Biden strongly believes that Mark Rutte will make an excellent Secretary General.  And he’s grateful for his willingness to serve in that capacity. 

We’d also like to thank, of course, Jens Stoltenberg for a decade of service to the Alliance during the most consequential period of European security since World War Two.  Under his leadership, the NATO Alliance has become larger and stronger, and Allied unity is at an all-time high, which has been an important priority for President Biden. 

And that takes us right — I mean, his leadership has really guided us right toward next month’s 75th anniversary summit for NATO, here in Washington, D.C., which will be followed by the leadership transition, of course, in the fall when President — I’m sorry, when Secretary General Stoltenberg steps down and the new Secretary General, Mark Rutte, steps into the job. 

Finally, as you all know, Evan Gershkovich appeared in court today for the start of what we view as nothing more than a sham trial.  I’ll state it again: Evan has never been employed by the United States government.  Evan is not a spy.  Journalism is not a crime.  And Evan should never have been detained in the first place. 

Russia has failed to justify Evan’s continued detention.  He, like fellow American Paul Whelan, is simply being used as a bargaining chip.  Embassy Moscow was granted brief access to the courtroom before the proceedings began today.  They were not permitted to speak with Evan.  So, obviously, we’re going to follow this closely.  And of course, our embassy in Moscow will continue to seek to attend any and all future hearings. 

Now, look, I think this goes without saying too, but all of us — all of us admire Evan’s resilience.  I’ve seen a reporting that his friends say he continues to be in good spirits, which is just incredible given what he’s going through.  While he shouldn’t be going through these proceedings at all, it’s always reassuring to see his smile and to hear reports of his morale. 

We want both Evan and Paul to know that we all care deeply about their wellbeing and that this administration will continue to do everything it can to bring them home, and that includes, right now, the effort to try to find a way to get these guys released back to their families, where they belong, is ongoing.  It’s alive, and we’re keeping at it. 

And with that, I can start taking some questions. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  First up, we’ll go to Aamer Madhani.

Q    Hey there, John.  Is Israel’s launch — is an Israeli launch, cross-border offensive, Lebanon (inaudible) Hezbollah — if that were to happen, will the U.S. back Israel militarily?

And then secondly, on the Assange case, was the White House involved in helping forge the agreement that led to Assange’s release?  And has the President discussed the matter with the prime minister or any other Australian government officials ahead of the announcement?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, the White House was not involved in any way whatsoever in Julian Assange’s case, and the decisions pursuant to that, to his sentencing and his repatriation back to Israel.  That was a DOJ matter, and they’re the only ones that can speak to it. 

I don’t have any conversations to read out to you from the President with respect to this.  The White House was not involved in any way. 

On your first question — look, first and foremost, we don’t want to see a second front opened up, period.  And that’s why we’ve been working so hard on diplomacy and trying to find a way diplomatically to prevent that from happening.  We don’t believe that it’s going to be in anybody’s interest, quite frankly, least of all the Israeli people.  So we’re working diplomatically to prevent that outcome from happening.  That’s where our focus is on. 

But as we have said repeatedly, and as we will continue to say: We stand with Israel.  We’re going to continue to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself.  And as the President has proven in the past, if there’s a way we can prevent further attacks on Israel, we’ll do that.  And certainly, we’re going to continue to help Israel defend itself; that’s not going to change. 

But as for a hypothetical, specifically with respect to the northern border line, the Blue Line there with Lebanon, again, we want to see no second front opened, and we want to see if we can’t resolve the tensions out there through diplomatic processes. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Jeff Mason.

Q    Thank you very much.  John, Jake Sullivan has a meeting today with Mr. Gallant of Israel.  Could you give us a sense of what you expect the two of them to discuss and also what time that is and whether or not we should expect a readout?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Jeff.  You broke up a little bit, but I think I got the gist of the question.  This was about Jake’s meeting with Defense Minister Gallant. 

Q    Yes.

MR. KIRBY:  He’s meeting with him as we speak, Jeff.  That meeting started a little bit after nine o’clock.  And as far as I know, sitting here, it’s still ongoing.  And we absolutely will have a readout of it. 

Broadly speaking, I don’t think you should expect any major surprises coming out of this discussion.  I mean, Jake is looking forward to sitting down with Defense Minister Gallant to talk about what’s going on in Gaza; to talk about — to get a sense of Israeli operations, not only what they look like now, but what they’re going to look like in the future; to talk about how we’re going to continue to defend Israel and make sure that they have what they need. 

And obviously, they will talk about the — what Aamer just asked me about — the tensions up near Lebanon and that border, and what the path forward could look like for a diplomatic solution to this, to prevent a second front from opening up. 

I have every expectation that they will talk about the broader concerns of Iran in the region and their destabilizing behavior and the manner in which they, Iran, continue to resource, to fund, to support, to train groups that are now attacking Israel but also are supporting such attacks. 

So I think the full range of topics will be discussed.  I think, also, I would have every expectation that the humanitarian situation will be front and center for Jake, for sure.  He’ll want to talk to the Israelis about what more we can do to get more trucks in and not only get them in, but get them to the people that most need that aid and assistance. 

As you know, though Kerem Shalom is open and trucks are queued up outside, not a lot of them are getting in, and it’s not because of the Israelis; it’s largely because just criminal gangs now are looting these trucks.  And the World Food Program and the U.N. drivers are obviously concerned about getting attacked.  And so, we’re going have to continue to work with the Israelis to try to address that problem as well. 

So, again, I think a broad, big agenda, lots to talk about, but we’ll have a readout when it’s over.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Kellie Meyer.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi, John.  Thanks for doing this.  A couple quick questions just on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs warning of a threat to U.S. troops in the region — as we’ve been discussing, the tensions between Hezbollah and Israel.  Any more precautions that are being taken that you can speak to right now?

MR. KIRBY:  One of the things I’m very careful to do is not talk about the specifics on force protection and what we do to ensure force protection.  I would refer you to the Chairman to speak to that more.  I don’t know how much more he’d get into that. 

We’re certainly mindful of the risk to our troops and our facilities throughout the region.  And that risk has certainly not mitigated in recent months, obviously, with what’s going on.  So it’s something we’re watching very closely.  We continue to monitor it.  We also modify force protection procedures and protocols as the threat changes, and it does change.  But I think I need to leave it there. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Aurelia.

Q    Hi.  Thanks so much for taking my question.  A follow-up on Kenya.  Not that long ago, President Ruto was at the White House, and President Biden said Kenya and the United States share democratic values.  Would you say that this is maybe — this is still the case after the response to the protests?  And more generally, does the administration condemn the use of force against the protesters?  Otherwise, how would you qualify what Kenyan police did in Nairobi?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll tell you, you know, as a democracy, the Kenyan constitution does allow for the use of defense forces to augment police, particularly like in protecting critical infrastructure.  At the same time, that same constitution includes freedom of assembly and the right to protest peacefully, and calls for the government of Kenya to respect the rights of all its citizens. 

So, again, we remain deeply concerned about the violence that we’ve seen, and we absolutely condemn the violence.  We don’t want to see anybody hurt.  And that includes violence that’s perpetrated on innocent, peaceful protesters. 

So we’re going to be in touch.  We have been in touch.  We’re going to stay in touch with our Kenyan colleagues as appropriate.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Alex Ward.

Q    John, I know — thanks for doing this.  I know, you know, the administration has responded a thousand times to the stuff about, you know, the weapons delays or — reported weapons delays, et cetera.  But there’s been reporting today that, basically, it seems like there’s been a — because the U.S. has sent so many weapons ahead of time, there’s just been sort of a lower amount headed now, and wondering if you think that might be the issue. 

And then, sort of number two here, relatedly is: Is Netanyahu someone the administration really feels they can work with now?  Obviously, he is the prime minister, and he is — but he is the interlocutor, but is he someone you guys feel you can have good-faith conversations with about this conflict now?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Alex, on your first question, I just want to make a couple of points, because I’m not going to — I can’t speak to the State Department process here.  They run this process by which foreign military sales and provisions of weapons and assistance, you know, get to Israel.  So I’ll let them speak to sequencing and timing.  You know, we don’t have perfect visibility on that here to speak to that reporting and that process. 

I would just tell you, number one: Aid and assistance, military assistance, continues to flow to Israel; that we are in constant touch with our Israeli counterparts about what they need and doing everything we can to get them what they need.  I mean, my goodness, you have the defense minister here today.  Actually, you know, this week he’s been here having meetings; met with Blinken, met with Austin, and now he’s meeting with Jake today.  I mean, nobody can say that we’re not attune to and staying in touch with the Israelis about what they need. 

Number two, as you and I speak here, Alex, there remains only one shipment of high-density, low-precision munitions that has been paused.  Everything else continues to flow.  Again, on the timeline, you know, I’d have to — and the sequencing — I’d have to refer you to State.  But Israel continues to get arms and ammunition.  It continues to flow.  We want to make sure that they have what they need.  And that will — that commitment will not waver. 

On your second question, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I would just tell you that these are two leaders who have known each other a long, long time — decades.  And they come from different political traditions.  They have differing views on a number of issues that are germane not only to the region, but certainly specific to Israel.  And they are absolutely competent and capable of being honest with one another.  He is the elected prime minister of the State of Israel, and he, therefore, is the leader that we will work with and we have worked with him. 

I’m not saying that it’s all been smooth in every single instance, including in recent days, but we are not going to get into — we’re not going to respond to every one of the Prime Minister’s political statements and his public pronouncements.  What we’re focused on is making sure, again, that they have what they need.  And we believe we’re fully capable of doing that with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with this government. 

And that’s what we’re focused on.  It’s head down — it’s making sure that Israel can defend itself, but just as critically, as I said earlier, that we continue to get humanitarian assistance in to the people who are in need and that we get this ceasefire deal in place. 

It’s one of the things that — we haven’t talked about it this morning, but we’re still working with the Prime Minister and his team to try to get the ceasefire deal in place so that we can potentially end this conflict.  And that’s what we’re focused on.  And that means we’re going to stay focused on that effort with the Prime Minister and his team because he’s the government in place. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Brad Dress.

Q    Yeah, thank you.  Just one question.  So, despite U.S. efforts, the Houthis are continuing to attack merchant ships.  And now they appear to be getting more successful.  Why are efforts not working?  And do you think the U.S. needs a new strategy to deter that?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I think a couple of things are germane here.  There’s a religious fervor that the Houthi leadership have instilled into this effort.  As I went to the podium a while ago — a week or so ago — and laid out for everybody, this isn’t about standing up for the people of Gaza.  It’s not about — it’s not some popular movement to assist people in the region, because the ships that they’re hitting, sometimes, in one case in particular, was meant to go to a Yemeni port to bring in grain to hungry people in Yemen.  They have instilled this sort of religious fervor to this and made it some sort of cause célèbre here.  And when you do that, it becomes even more difficult to, as you put it, deter and dissuade.  We’re mindful of that. 

So what we’re focused on is taking away their capability to conduct the attacks.  And that is why we continue to hit targets inside Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen where we think an attack is imminent and about to occur.  We’re going to continue to do that.  That’s why we still have a coalition of 20-some-odd nations operating in the Red Sea and beyond to try to defend against these attacks. 

And while, yes, they have had a couple of successful strikes in most recent days — and I know one vessel in particular sank as a result of the attack — by and large, most of their attacks are not successful.  You don’t see press releases about it; you don’t necessarily see video of it.  But they miss a whole hell of a lot more than they hit, and that’s because we’re out there working hard to make sure that that’s the outcome, at the same time making sure that we’re doing everything we can to try to degrade their capabilities. 

But they’re still getting supplied; they’re still getting resourced by Iran.  And as I said earlier, I have no doubt that that will be a topic of discussion when Jake and Defense Minister Gallant speak today, about what we can do together to try to take away some of those capabilities.  And that’s what we’re focused on. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Nadia Charters.

Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Hi, John.  A couple of questions.  Canada has called its citizens to leave Lebanon.  What is the U.S. assessment regarding a similar call?  I know you have not done something similar to that.  Do you believe that the situation is safe for U.S. citizens to stay in Lebanon?

And second, any update — I know you mentioned the negotiation with Hamas.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Hamas is insisting that they will accept the deal if phase three clearly calls for the end of the war.  And this is the sticking point with the Israelis.  Israelis said we’re happy to go along, but phase three does not mean end of the war.  Can you just give us your perspective on that?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, I’m going to refer you to the State Department.  Obviously, we want all Americans in Lebanon who are still there, either on business or other travel, to be as careful as possible to make sure that they have registered with the State Department system so that the State Department can stay in regular touch with them and that they do everything they can to be — to watch out for their own safety. 

But as for any announcements or pronouncements, that’s really a State Department call, and I’d have to refer you to them. 

Clearly, nothing is more important to President Biden than the safety and security of Americans wherever they are.  And that includes overseas, and that certainly includes a place like Lebanon.

What we’re trying to do is prevent a second front from opening up.  We’re trying to prevent an escalation of this conflict that certainly would put the people of Israel and of Lebanon at greater physical risk than the risk that is already being incurred by them, particularly those that live near the Blue Line.  We want to prevent that outcome, which is why we have been working so hard diplomatically and intensely, thus so, to prevent a second front from opening up and an expansion of this conflict. 

But we will, as appropriate, of course, stay in touch with all Americans in Lebanon.  Those that sign up to be informed, we’ll make sure that they have the latest and greatest information. 

But as for any particular pronouncements, that would be a State Department call. 

On your second question, the President laid this out really, really well at the end of May.  He laid out the entire, sort of, phasing of this process.  And it is advancing that phasing and that process that we’re focused on, where you want to get to phase one.  Phase one gives you six weeks of a ceasefire; it gives you more humanitarian assistance, up to 600 trucks a day; and obviously, critically, it gets a first rendering of hostages — women, children, the elderly, sick — out quickly, back to their families. 

And then as the President laid out, Nadia, while phase one is ongoing, the two sides then begin to negotiate phase two.  So, I understand.  I’ve seen public pronouncements and comments of people, you know, on either side, where they want to sort of leapfrog over the process.  But the process as we’ve laid out, the process that Israel itself proposed and has endorsed calls for phase two negotiations to begin when phase one is agreed to and underway, that’s the process that we still believe is the right one and the appropriate one.  And that’s the one that we’re going to continue to talk to both sides about. 

And we still believe that discussions about it are valuable and warranted.  And we’re going to do everything we can to see if we can’t get phase one implemented and started so that the rest of the process can take place. 

Then last thing I’ll say is, as the President said in his speech on the 31st of May, that you get to phase two — if you can get phase two negotiated and complete, well, that potentially — you know, that gives you a potential cessation to the hostilities itself.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Marek.

Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Hi, John.  One question.  According to Reuters, two close advisors to Donald Trump have presented him with a plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, in essence by forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table and the ceasefire based on so-called prevailing battle lines.  From what we know about the plan right now, which side would this plan benefit if it’s implemented?  And does it make sense, this framework?  Does it make sense to you?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think you all know — I think I missed the beginning of your question.  But is this a proposal put forth by folks on the Trump team?  Is that what you were saying?

Q    Yes.  General Kellogg and — they say that they have positive feedback from former president.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  Yeah, yeah.  Okay.  I thought that’s what you said. 

Look, I would just — I would just say a couple of things here.  First of all, in our view, I’m not going to comment about the 2024 election.  I’m not going to get, you know, into a public debate here with respect to what former President Trump’s advisors may or may not be talking to him about it. 

So, with that as a caveat, the President’s commitment to supporting Ukraine has been manifestly steady and strident and consistent.  We built a global coalition now — more than 50 countries that are supporting Ukraine as they defend themselves.  He just signed at the G7 in Italy, a week or so ago, a historic bilateral security agreement with Ukraine.  And he understands — he understands that the stronger Ukraine’s position is on the battlefield, the stronger they will be at the negotiating table when that time comes, Marek.  And you know who gets to decide when that time comes?  President Zelenskyy.  And nobody else. 

And what we’ve said is: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  And we’re standing strong to make sure that President Zelenskyy has everything he needs so that if and when he’s ready to go to the table, he can do it from a position of strength and that he knows he’s got our backing and the backing of those some 50-some-odd countries. 

Unlike some folks, President Biden believes that any decisions about negotiations, quite frankly, have got to be up to President Zelenskyy and Ukraine.  We’re not going to force Ukraine to surrender any of its territory, because we understand that if Putin is allowed to conquer Ukraine and subjugate its people, any of its people, the consequences would be severe.  He and dictators all around the world would just be emboldened, and we think the world would be a much more dangerous place. 

I think that pretty much sums up our views.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Laura Kelly.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for taking my question.  Just going back to the distribution of aid in Gaza, what is the White House position on where responsibility for distribution rests?  There’s this blame game going on between Israel and the international aid organizations with security inside Gaza for distribution being seen — I think is one of the major impediments.  So who’s responsible for security at this point?  What does the White House want to see happen?

MR. KIRBY:  We want to see the ceasefire deal in place.  We want to get that ceasefire deal in place — 

Q    But, like, while you’re working on the ceasefire deal.

MR. KIRBY:  No, but — let me finish.

We want to see the ceasefire deal in place.  Because if you get that ceasefire deal in place, you get six weeks of calm; you get six weeks of calm, you can maybe get up to several hundred trucks a day.  And the goal of phase one is 600 trucks a day.  So you ask me what we want to see.  We want to see this deal put in place, which is why we —

Q    So the challenge of getting — the challenge of not distributing humanitarian aid is pressure on Hamas to go to the ceasefire deal?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  Look, there’s a lot of reasons why aid and assistance is being held up.  One of the principal reasons right now is criminal gangs that are operating particularly at Kerem Shalom.  That’s not the Israelis’ fault.  And as far as we know, these gangs have no connection to Hamas specifically. 

So we’re going to continue to work with the U.N.  We’ve been talking to the U.N. about seeing if we can’t help get them personal protective gear and equipment, communications, radio communication, so that their truck drivers can feel a little bit more safe, which you can’t very well blame these guys for being a little bit nervous about driving a truck into Gaza when their convoys and their trucks could be attacked by these criminal gangs and thugs.  And we — so we’re going to obviously work with them and the IDF to see what can be done about that. 

But, yes, look, security of these convoys is a live issue.  And I’m not trying to pull — take Hamas off the hook here, because Hamas has, in fact, allowed some of this activity to go on and don’t have the best interests of the people of Gaza forefront in their minds.  In fact, we’ve all seen Sinwar’s comments about how civilian casualties and civilian suffering actually works — he believes works to his advantage.  So, Hamas is absolutely partly responsible here for this as well. 

But there’s — you know, it’s a combat zone.  And combat operations and combat areas certainly make the delivery of humanitarian assistance a lot more challenging.  So we’re going to continue to talk to the U.N., we’re going to talk to the IDF about what we can do to make it safer and to make it more palatable for these drivers to take this aid in.  But the way to get to that, the real answer to this is to get to phase one of this ceasefire deal.  You get hostages home to their families.  You get six weeks of a sustainable calm that will allow the comfort level for aid organizations to increase to a degree where they can move freely about Gaza.  If you have a six-week ceasefire in place, then nobody is shooting at anybody, and it should be a lot easier to move humanitarian assistance.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Paris Wong.

Q    Hello.  Thank you, John.  I’m going to focus to Indo-Pacific region.  So, in an interview on Tuesday, Philippines ambassador to the U.S. said if there’s a conflict between Taiwan and China that would affect the Philippines, that it would most likely agree to the U.S. using its military bases in the defense of Taiwan.  So does the Biden administration welcome Philippines’ willingness to work with the U.S. on Taiwan safety? And also, does this mean the United States has successfully mobilized from North Asia to Southeast Asia, from Japan to Philippines, to form a security network in the Indo-Pacific?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I think you know I’m not going to get into hypotheticals or speculate about the conflict across the Taiwan Strait.  Nothing has changed about our One China policy.  We don’t want to see the status quo changed or altered unilaterally.  We certainly don’t want to see it changed or altered by force. 

And everything the President has been doing — in our conversations with the PRC, in our work with allies like South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines — has been designed to prevent that outcome from happening.  And that’s what we’re focused on. 

The Philippines is a treaty ally.  We take our alliance commitments seriously with the Philippines, as we have demonstrated certainly in recent weeks and months.  And it was terrific to have President Marcos here to participate in the first-ever trilat between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines when we were hosting Prime Minister Kishida for the state visit as well.

So, an awful lot of work has been done by President Biden and this team in terms of shoring up our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.  And the reason you do that is to make it clear that we don’t want to see a conflict, that we do have the capabilities in place to defend ourselves and defend our allies, and that there should be no reason for any of these tensions to erupt into conflict whatsoever.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to reach out to our team.  Thanks again.

    11:09 A.M. EDT

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