Press Briefings

11:53 A.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey.  Hey, guys.  We sadly don’t have a lot of time.  So, let me just do this at the top really quickly, and then I’ll turn it off — turn it over.

So, we do have some news for you at the top.  On Monday, April 22nd, the President will travel to Virginia to celebrate Earth Day.  We will have more details, obviously, to share in the upcoming days.  But the President is looking forward to celebrating Earth Day next week.

I do want to give a qu- — a statement about what we saw in Arizona yesterday.

For the second time, Republican elected officials in Arizona have — have blocked efforts to repeal the state’s extreme and dangerous abortion ban from 1864.

This law, which includes no exceptions when a woman’s health is at risk or in tragic cases of rape or incest, threatens doctors with jail time and will put the health and lives of women in Arizona at risk.  It is outrageous.

After the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling paved the way for this Civil War-era ban to go into effect, Republican elected officials tried to dance — to distance themselves from their own extreme agenda to rip away women’s freedom.  But when Democratic elected officials in Arizona offered a bill to repeal this arcane law, Republicans said no twice.

The President and the Vice President stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.  And the administration will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade for women in — in every state.

I know the Admiral doesn’t have a topper, but he’s happy —

MR. KIRBY:  No topper.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to take any of your questions on the Middle East.

Q    So, John, we saw the Iran sanctions this morning.  Why were these targets not already sanctioned?  They were involved in Iran’s UAV industry, which has been helping Russia fight its war in Ukraine.  Why are there any targets that ha- — that —

MR. KIRBY:  Look, sanctions — sanctions — the whole sanctions process is an iterative process, and they can be cumulative too.

I would remind you that, over the last three years, we’ve done 600 sanctions across a wide range of entities and individuals and organizations and businesses across Iran.  These are specifically targeted at their drone capability.  And — and we’ll keep the option open for, you know, anymore that we need.

Q    Quickly, about the meeting today over Rafah — the virtual meeting. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    Who is leading the talks from the U.S. side and —

MR. KIRBY:  Jake.

Q    And — and are you planning to discuss Israel’s plan to attack Iran?  I mean, to what extent is that getting discussed?

MR. KIRBY:  The meeting is going on right now, so we’ll give you a readout when it’s over.  I’m not going to get ahead of it.  The main purpose really is to talk about Rafah and to continue to have a conversation with the Israelis about their intentions and to also share our — our continued concerns over a major ground offensive there.

Q    And — and a quick one on — on, you know, the President’s decision to impose tariffs on China.  I mean, di- — had he mentioned that to President Xi when he spoke to him a few days ago on, you know, the decision to impose higher tariffs on steel?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll just say that, broadly speaking, the President did talk to President Xi about unfair trade practices and — and the flooding in the global market of certain commodities that make it hard for American workers and families and businesses. 

Q    John —

Q    What was his response?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll leave it at that.

Q    John, can you give an update on discussions regarding hostage negotiations — those Israeli hostage and American hostages that are being held in Israel? 

And also, as part of that, is there proof of life for — that’s been given to the Israelis as it relates to those who were abducted on October the 7th of last year?

MR. KIRBY:  Proof of life for all of them?  I wish we had more information, Jon.  We don’t.  That’s been the case since October 7th.  We just don’t have the ability to know the individual condition of any one hostage.  So, we’re — we’re obviously doing the best we can to try to g- — gain as much information as we can.  But we don’t.

As for the status of negotiations, as I said earlier, I mean, for us, this is still an active effort.  There’s still a proposal on the table.  We urge Hamas to take that proposal.  And we’re waiting to see what they do about it.

Q    Can I — can I just ask a follow-up?  If — if you don’t have any information regarding proof of life, how can the Israelis negotiate, you know, in — in fairness with —

MR. KIRBY:  They know who has been taken. 

Q    Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  They know who has been taken. 

Q    Right.

MR. KIRBY:  And — and we want them all back.

Sadly, if that means that not all of them come back alive, then they still need to be with their families.  We just don’t know the condition of each and every one of them.  You can’t count on Hamas to be perfectly honest about — about all their conditions.  But we want them all back regardless. 

Q    The U.N. Security Council vote tomorrow on recognizing statehood for the Palestinian territory.  What’s the U.S. thinking on that?  And are you prepared to use your veto?

MR. KIRBY:  We completely believe in the two-state solution and a state for the Palestinian people.  We believe the best and the most sustainable way to do that is through direct negotiations between the parties. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry, guys.  We’re going to have to sit.  Thanks, everybody. 

(Cross-talk.)

Q    We didn’t address the cannibals.

Q    A couple of questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    Can we see the “cannibal” tab in your book?  (Laughter.) 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There is no “cannibal” tab.  What are you talking about?  (Laughter.)  Is that what you — is that what you’re asking me about?

Q    I mean —

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Look, I’ll just — and I think we shared this with some of you, so I’m just going to kind of repeat.

Look, you saw the President.  He was incredibly proud of his uncle’s service in uniform.  You saw him at the war memorial.  It was incredibly emotional and important to him. 

You saw him respond to all of you when asked about the moment, yesterday, and his uncle who lost his life when the military aircraft he was on crashed in the Pacific after taking off near in New Guinea.  The President highlighted his uncle’s story as he made the case for honoring our sacred commitment to — to equip those we send to war and to take care of them and their families when they come home. 

And as he reiterated that the last thing American veterans are are “suckers” or “losers,” and he wanted to make that clear.  He wanted to make —

Q    By embellishing the story? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I don’t have anything beyond — but what I just laid out.  But it was a really proud moment for him.  It was incredibly emotional.  I think some of your colleagues, as — as you know, Zeke, were there, and they got to witness the President pray at the — at the war memo- — war memorial, look for his uncle’s name, honor him. 

And I think we can’t — we can’t forget that moment.  And we cannot also forget what it means to be a commander-in-chief, what it means to lift up our service members, what it means to make sure that we respect their service.  And he made that contrast very clear as to what we saw from the former — former President. 

(Cross-talk.)

Sorry, guys.  Thank you. 

12:00 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby En Route Philadelphia, PA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

5:06 P.M. EDT

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  And thank you for joining our call previewing President Biden’s remarks tomorrow at the United Steelworkers headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

This ca- — call will feature on-the-record remarks from National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard and background questions and answers with senior administration officials. 

For your awareness and not for reporting, those administration officials are [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official].

The content of this call and accompanying materials are embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. Eastern time.  If you did not receive the materials, please email me.

With that, I’ll turn it over to Lael to kick us off.

MS. BRAINARD:  Well, thank you, and thanks to everyone for joining us this afternoon. 

As you know, President Biden grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  President Biden understands that American steel built our nation and steel mills helped to build the American middle class with good-paying union jobs in communities in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The President is committed to ensuring that American infrastructure and industies — industries of the future, like clean energy and electric vehicles, will be made here in America using American steel made by American workers.  The President understands we must invest in American manufacturing, but we also have to protect those investments and those workers from unfair exports associated with China’s industrial overcapacity.

Our Investing in America Agenda is working.  Spending on manufacturing facility construction has more than doubled since President Biden took office.  Manufacturing employment is up almost 800,000 on his watch, higher than at any point under the previous administration. 

While the previous administration failed to secure an infrastructure law, President Biden delivered more than 50,000 infrastructure projects so far: roads, bridges, rail, and ports.  And he committed that those projects would be made with American steel by — made by American steelworkers.

However, China’s policy-driven overcapacity poses a serious risk to the future of the American steel and aluminum industry.  China cannot export its way to recovery.  China is simply too big to play by its own rules.

In manufacturing sectors like steel, China is already producing more than China or the world can easily absorb.  China’s subsidies and other forms of support lead to exports flooding global markets at artificially low prices, undercutting American steel that is cleaner.

Tomorrow, the President will travel to Pittsburgh, to the United Steelworkers headquarters, to talk about actions that he will take to help protect American steel and American steelworkers. 

The President’s approach is strategic, balanced, and targeted, and it has been developed in close partnership with industry stakeholders and unions who have directly lived through the impacts of China’s unfair trade practices for years.

It is also an approach where we are working with our partners and allies who also are feeling the effects of China’s overcapacity and artificially low-priced exports.

President Biden has made it clear that his vision for the future is one that doesn’t leave American workers and communities behind.  And today he continues to deliver on that promise. 

And with that, I’m going to turn it over to my colleagues to talk in greater detail about the actions he will discuss.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Thanks so much, Lael.  We’ll now take some questions.  If you have a question, please raise your hand using the “raise hand” function, and we will call on you.

The first hand I see is from Trevor Hunnicutt.  You are now able to unmute.

Q    Thanks so much for taking the question.  Could you talk a little bit about why these tariffs are necessary given the Section 232 tariffs that already exist and — and triple-digit tariffs on, you know, product-specific categories? 

And then also curious if you could give an update on — on what’s happening with the U.S. Steel deal and whether the President is going to use his authorities under CFIUS or DOJ to — to block that deal now that he’s come out in opposition to it.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks for that question.  I think I can take the first part. 

I think you rightly note that we’ve had 232 tariffs already in place, but I think as Director Brainard noted, President Biden has passed landmark legislations that together are driving greater investments in the manufacturing industry, and we are seeing tremendous job growth as well as investments across the board.

So, you know, we also know, at the same time as our economy is experiencing this relative strength, China’s economy is increasingly dependent upon export-led growth to essentially support their growth.  So, there is growing concern against, you know, a new export surge that may be impacting global markets.   Secretary Yellen has also spoken about this.  So, it’s critical that we get ahead of this surge to protect our workers.

I think you already know that China alone accounts for almost 50 percent of global steel production.  China is producing more steel than it can utilize domestically.  And as they think about expanding their export-led growth, of course, steel is an important channel through which it is likely to take place.  And if you look at prices, China’s export steel prices are 40 percent lower than U.S. steel prices.  And, therefore, it’s important that, you know, these new tariffs, if acted, provide a more level playing field against China’s unfair trade practices in steel and aluminum.

And I think as to your second question, which was about U.S. Steel, I think nothing new to add.  I think the President has already spoken and said that, you know, it’s important that U.S. Steel remains a domestically owned and operated company.  And, you know, I think the President will make that clear again. He has told the steelworkers he will have his [their] backs, and he means it.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Great.  We’ll now turn it over to Josh Wingrove.

Q    Hi there.  Thank you.  Can you talk a little bit about the Mexico provisions here?  Did you consider actual tariffs on Mexico or on Chinese steel from Mexico?  Is this more of a warning?  Just wo- — wondering if you can walk us through that decision process.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can take that question.  Look, we’ve got a senior team in Mexico today, and I want to emphasize our desire to cooperate and partner with Mexico on addressing imports coming into the North American market as a way of circumventing tariffs. 

So, I’m not going to get ahead of the diplomatic conversations that have happened today and that will be happening in the days and weeks to come.  But I think we’re hoping to come to a mutually acceptable solution with Mexico because this is a problem that affects both of our economies.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  But I just want to just also jump in here and just say that the — the President’s calling on USTR to consider tripling the 301 tariffs specifically for Chinese imports on steel and aluminum.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Great.  We’ll now turn it over to Doug Palmer.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking my question.  So, just on the recommendation that USTR consider urging — consider tripling the tariffs, I mean, how does that — how does that work?  Is that a foregone conclusion that the 301 tariffs would go to 25 percent? 

And in terms of the shipbuilding probe, one of the things that the steelworkers have asked for is a port fee.  They talked about, like, a hypothetical million-dollar port fee on a 20,000 TEU ship that visits the United States.  Would you expect the 301 investigation to — to lead to a finding like that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi.  This is [senior administration official].  Happy to jump in on these questions.  And, colleagues, please feel free to supplement. 

With respect to the first part of your question, so the President is calling on the Trade Representative to consider raising and up to tripling the steel and aluminum tariffs under the four-year review. 

The first step would be conclusion of the four-year review.  And, as you know, that statutory review is ongoing.  We hope to see results on that review soon.

And based on the findings of that review, then further responsive action and enhancing the effectiveness of the tariffs could be taken into account, consistent with the President’s call.

With respect to your question on the ships investigation, so the Trade Representative will be initiating the investigation on ships tomorrow.  That will launch an investigation into China’s acts, policies, or practices and their burden of restriction on U.S. commerce. 

So, it’s a little premature to talk about potential responsive actions now.  It’s only if there are affirmative findings, affirmative determinations that the acts, policies, or practices exist and burden or restrict U.S. commerce that the Trade Representative would then turn to consider responsive action.  Thanks.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Thanks, Doug.  We’ll now turn it over to Andy Duehren.

Q    Hi.  Thanks for taking my question.  I just wanted to ask on these concerns about Chinese overcapacity and production — if that is limited to steel?  I mean, obviously, you’re seeing that in a few different sectors in China or people are seeing that in a few different sectors in China, but obviously you’re only singling out steel.  And so, I’m curious if the administration’s concerns are limited to that sector or if they go beyond that.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that question.  I think, as you know, Secretary Yellen, returning from her trip from China, has also outlined serious overcapacity concerns in, for example, solar.  This is not a one-sector export surge or policy-driven industrial overcapacity issue; it’s a multisectoral challenge, of course.  But today’s actions that the President is proposing are focused on steel and aluminum.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Great.  Now we’ll turn it over to Demetri.

Q    Thank you.  I’ve got two questions.  The first is on the tariffs.  How much leeway does USTR have to not accept the recommendation from the President? 

And then on shipbuilding.  Given that the U.S. is really, frankly, just to — kind of a bit player globally now — when you look at all the ships being built in China, South Korea, and Japan — is this investigation intended to try and bring shipbuilding back to the U.S. or just come to an outcome where, as someone said earlier, you impose port fees to try and get some money out of the Chinese for what they’re doing?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hi.  This is [senior administration official] again.

Well, with respect to the first question, the tariffs, I can just say: So, the President is calling on the Trade Representative to consider tripling tariffs consistent with the findings and the outcome of the statutory review, which is akin to an investigation.  And so, the Trade Representative would consider that as part of the — the next step after making findings, which is, you know, review of the effectiveness and looking to enhance the effectiveness of the tariffs that are in place under the — the Section 301 — existing Section 301 action.

With respect to the new Section 301 investigation, we think that the labor unions — five national labor unions — have raised very serious concerns with respect to China’s pursuit of dominance in the maritime logistics and shipbuilding sector.  So, the petition is extensive.  It raises a number of very significant concerns and presents a lot of evidence in relation to China’s nonmarket policies and practices through which it pursues its dominance with significant impacts on U.S. workers and on the U.S. industry.

So, we take those allegations very seriously and intend to conduct a thorough investigation into them.  Thanks.

Q    Can I just quickly follow up and ask: If — if nothing is going to be decided until after the 301 review, why is the President coming out now with a recommendation?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it’s appropriate as part of the President’s consideration with respect to actions on steel and aluminum to consider, you know, the application of Section 301 tariffs to this sector.  This is a sector that was targeted by China with respect to some of its force technology transfer policies and practices. 

And as part of re- — our review, we consider the tariffs’ impact on the U.S. economy and how they can be made more effective in seeking to address China’s policies and practices.  And so, that’s why there is a focus on the use of Section 301 tariffs for this sector at this time. 

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  Thank you.  We will now turn it over to Gabe Gutierrez. 

Q    Hi.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I guess, what would you say to critics who say these tariffs will raise consumer prices, heat up inflation, or those, you know, who say it’s only — it’s only happening in an election year?  And that’s one question. 

Then, secondly, is this a continuation of the trade war started by the prior administration?  How would you respond to that?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, thank you for that — thank you for that question.  If taken, these actions will not increase inflation, but they will protect American jobs and steel industry. 

Let me just lay out why we see no impact on inflation at all.  First is inflation has come down more than 60 percent.  Right now, residual inflation is not coming from goods.  These actions will not change that.

Second, as you know, the President’s approach has been to invest in key sectors and expand the supply side of our economy, which has contributed to lowering inflation.  And as we are seeing manufacturing rebound, it’s important to protect those gains.

Third, our trade actions are actually strategic and balanced.  President Biden will not impose ineffective, across-the-board tariffs that would increase costs and harm hundreds of thousands of jobs.  In fact, the imports of steel from China account for about 0.6 percent of total U.S. steel demand.  So, it’s quite small, and we see no inflationary passthrough. 

But it is important for us to get ahead of China’s new export surge and their continued pressure on prices that I made — that makes it hard for American steel companies to compete.  Because, if left unaddressed, it can be quite costly to workers, as we have learned from previous cycles of overcapacity and surges. 

And that’s why we’re proposing these actions.  It has nothing to do with elections.  I think it has to do with the fact that we’re actually acting from a place of self-confidence and strength because our economy is growing and manufacturing is rebounding thanks to all the investments the President has made.  And it’s important to safeguard and shield those investments from unfair competition from abroad.

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIKUKAWA:  All right.  With that, we, I think, have run out of time.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to email them to me.

Again, this call is embargoed until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow.  The remarks from NEC Director Lael Brainard were on the record, and the Q&A was on background as “senior administration officials.”

Thank you.

  5:24 P.M. EDT

# # #

The post Press Call by National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard and Senior Administration Officials Previewing President Biden’s Remarks on Steel appeared first on The White House.

12:55 P.M. EDT
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just have one thing at the top, and then I’ll turn it over to the Admiral.
 
Starting today, the President will kick off his three-day swing through Pennsylvania.  As you know, we’re on our way to his hometown of Scranton, where he will deliver remarks at a campaign event.  I’ll refer you to the campaign for more details on the event.
 
Tomorrow, the President will travel to Pittsburgh, where he will participate in two campaign events.  I’ll refer you to the campaign for more details.
 
President Biden is investing in Pennsylvania, and it’s working.  The unemployment rate in the state is near a record low of 3.4 percent, down from 7.4 percent when he took office. 
 
Four hundred and eighty thousand applications have been filed to start new businesses.  That’s up 36 percent. 
 
He invested $16 billion in roads, bridges, public transit, replacing lead pipes, and other infrastructure.
 
Thanks to the President — to the President’s Inflation Reduction Act, 2.9 million seniors are saving money on Medicare from the 35 bucks cap of insulin to free vaccines to lower drug prices.  And 420,000 Pennsylvanians have health insurance — health — health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
 
On Thursday, the President will travel to Philadelphia for campaign events, as I mentioned.  The President will remain focused on the historic economic progress from the last three years.  And this week, you’ll hear directly from him in stops across the state on how his administration is doing exactly that.
 
With that, as you can see, the Admiral is here to take any questions you may have on the Middle East and anything else.
 
Go ahead.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  I can just go right into questions.
 
Q    As Israel — as Israel considers whether to attack Iran, what advice has the U.S. given the Israelis?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, these are going to be Israeli decisions to make and for them to speak to one way or the other. 
 
In the President’s call with the Prime Minister on Saturday night, he lauded the commendable effort to successfully knock down the vast, vast majority of missiles and drones that Iran threw at them.  And — and, again, our view was it was an incredible success, and that success alone sends a lot of strong messages to Iran and to our partners in the region, as well as to Israel, about how strong they are and how — how utterly Iran failed.
 
The President does not want to see — and he said this before: He does not want to see a war with Iran.  Don’t want to see the conflict widen or deepen.
 
Q    John, yesterday, I believe you said that you would — that the President would not support a standalone bill.  We see that Speaker Johnson is suggesting four standalone bills, I believe.  Would you all be opposed to a series of standalone bills?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We — we do not — we don’t support a standalone bill that only funds Israel, because Ukraine needs munitions too.
 
Now, look, I think we still have to see the Speaker’s proposal in more detail.  The important thing is that the House moves this week to help us get security assistance for Israel, Ukraine, and also for the Indo-Pacific.  They need to move this week. 
 
And as for the details, we’ll wait and see what the Speaker comes up with.
 
Q    So, you’re okay with four bills?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re going to wait and pass judgment after we’ve had a chance to take a look closer at the Speaker’s proposal.
 
The important thing is that our allies, like Ukraine and Israel, who are under the gun — literally, under the gun — get the security assistance they need as quickly as possible.  So, we want them to move this week.
 
Q    And, right now, you’re not sure of the details of the bills — if they’re something the White House can support at this point?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think we just need to see more right now than we do — I think we need to see more than we have right now to be able to — it does appear, at first blush, that the Speaker’s proposals will, in fact, help us get aid to Ukraine, aid to Israel, and needed resources to the Indo-Pacific for a wide range of contingency — contingencies there.  At first blush, it looks like that.  We just want to get more detail.
 
Q    So, whether it’s all together or separate is not a deal-breaker per se?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, at first blush, it looks like the Speaker’s proposal does cover those immediate needs, and they are immediate needs, but we’re waiting to get a little bit more detail before we — we say one way or the other.
 
Q    John, the Speaker said that it would include loans to Ukraine and other, I think, accountability measures that the White House before has said that, you know, would complicate the — the distribution of aid. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, yeah.
 
Q    Have you had a chance to evaluate those at all?  And — and can you talk about what the President said to the Speaker in their phone conversation yesterday?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Same answer as I gave before.  I think, again, it appears at first blush that these proposals do get the necessary security assistance to Ukraine and Israel at a critical time right now.  We want to learn a little bit more. 
 
I won’t go into more detail about the conversation with the Speaker.  I think Karine has already talked to you guys about that.  And I’ll leave it at that. 
 
Except that — the only thing I would say is that the President stressed very strongly that we’ve got to move this national security supplemental funding as quickly as possible.  We need to see the House move this week.
 
Q    And I know —
 
Q    Is — is the President watching or being briefed on former President Trump’s trial in Manhattan?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President is going to Pennsylvania today, and he’s going to do a three-stop tour.  He’s going to focus on how he’s continuing to help the American people.  And you’ll hear directly from him today.  That’s his focus.  His focus is on the American people.
 
I don’t have anything else.
 
Q    It’s been 11 days since the World Central Kitchen’s — the investigation into the World Central Kitchen strike was released.  Why is the U.S. review of that report taking so long?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re — we’re still taking a look at that.  I don’t think we’ve — haven’t come to any conclusions one way or another about it.  I think you can expect we want to — want to do this in a thoughtful way.
 
Q    I heard what you said earlier that, you know, Israel’s response will be its own.  But has Israel told the U.S. what it’s planning to do at this point?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I will refer you to the Israelis to speak to their decision-making process.  That’s really for them to speak to, not us.
 
Q    Going back to Ukraine for a second, John.  What’s the situation on the ground?  How under stress is the Ukrainian military?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s incredible the — the stress that they’re under, particularly in the Donbas area where the Russians continue to push west out of Avdiivka.  They keep making — it’s not a lot of progress every day, but it’s a little bit of progress every day.  They’re pushing back against the deeper defensive lines of the Ukrainians. 
 
And it’s not just in the east.  There is some movement down in the south as well.  But just as critically, the se- — you know, Saturday night when we were watching 300 missiles and drones getting launched from Iran into Israeli, Mr. Putin was still firing those same Iranian drones and missiles into Ukraine at various sites, knocking out their energy infrastructure, going after the defense industrial base. 
 
So, it’s a very active scene in Ukraine and the need is acute there as well, which is why we said earlier we wouldn’t support a standalone Israel bill that — because it wouldn’t account for what Ukraine needs.
 
Now, again, the Speaker has put forward a proposal that would factor in Ukraine, so we’ll have to see what that looks like.
 
Q    Yesterday, Ukraine’s president gave an interview to PBS News in which he wondered why, essentially, allies could not shoot down missiles over Ukraine — similar he gave the example to Iran — and he raised that in the interview.
 
MR. KIRBY:  And I mentioned this yesterday, I think.  I mean, it’s a different fight altogether.  The President has been very clear that there won’t be U.S. boots on the ground.  The United States will not get involved in a combat role in the war in Ukraine.  It’s a different fight.  It’s a different —
 
Q    (Inaudible.)
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s a different — we — we have long said we’re not going to be involved in a combat role in Ukraine.  The President has been very — very, very consistent on that.
 
Q    Is it different just because Russia has nukes?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It’s — we’ve been very consistent on that.  It’s a different fight altogether, a different set of circumstances.
 
Q    Because of the nuclear issue or because of like, different —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Different set of circumstances.
 
Q    Any update on the Rafah meeting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No update on the meeting to speak to today, Steve.  We’re still hoping to have another round. 
 
I will add that after the virtual meeting, there were — I’m sorry — there were technical talks at a lower level on the staff.  Those talks continued between the Israelis and the United States.  And we’re hoping to get another meeting on — for Rafah here in coming days.  But I don’t have anything on the schedule.
 
Q    Has there been any communications with Iran since the attack that happened over the weekend —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not that I’m aware of.
 
Q    — through the — through those indirect channels?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not that I’m aware of.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay?
 
Q    What was the — oh, sorry.  Last thing.  What was the President’s reaction to the protests about Gaza yesterday that shut down major thoroughfares in big cities?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I haven’t had a chance to speak to the President about his personal reaction to — to that.  You know, and I think Karine has already talked very much about the protest activity.  And I’ll — I’ll leave it to her.
 
Thank you.
 
Q    Karine, will the President talk about the U.S. Steel-Nippon merger at all when he’s in Pennsylvania?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t have anything to share about that.  But obviously, the President’s commitment to steel workers continues and stand.  He’s a union guy.  But I don’t have anything to share about tomorrow’s event.
 
We’ll certainly have more later today.  We’ll have a press call.  So, I would urge you and your colleagues to certainly join the press call later today.
 
Q    Do you know when the last time was the President spent the night in his hometown?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The last time he’s been to Scranton?
 
Q    For the night.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The night?  Oh, that’s a good question.  I do not know.  I can find out for you.
 
Q    To what extent is this sort of a homecoming for him going back to his hometown?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think you’ll hear directly from the President.  This is going to be — this is a homecoming for sure.  I had an opportunity to talk to him about it this morning.
 
Going back to Scranton is always — it always feels good to go see where he spent a lot of his childhood.  And so, you all will be able to see that directly.
 
I got to be careful because it is a — that portion is a campaign portion.  So, I would — we’ll certainly refer you to the campaign.  But it al- — always feels good to be back in S- — Pennsylvania.  Always feels good to be back to Scranton for this President.
 
Q    Inflation has been a stubborn concern for a lot of Americans.  You know, do — does the President think that his tax plans will, you know, help alleviate some of those concerns by, you know, pulling more taxes from the — from the wealthy?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President’s tax cuts for working families and the middle class are fully paid for by making billionaires and big corporation pay for their share — fair share.  His tax plan would lower costs for families with lower taxes, lower healthcare costs, and lower utility bills.  That’s the President’s focus. 
 
And unfortunately, what we’re seeing from congressional Republicans, they want to give big tax breaks for mil- — billionaires and — and corporations.  They see a total opposite way of giving Americans breathing room.  They are not doing that, and we’re trying to do that.
 
Q    So, I guess what I’m trying to say is: Americans are concerned about inflation.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.  How is that addressing their concerns about the economy?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think our focus when it comes to the economy — we say this all the time — is building an economy from the bottom up, middle out and making sure that we’re continuing to lower costs.  That’s the thing — right? — that is the thing that Americans care about when we talk about the economy: How do we lower costs? 
 
And this is something that the President has continued to do over the last three years — right? — whether it’s healthcare from — you know, beating Big Pharma; whether it’s doing everything that we can to lower the cost at the pump — at the gas pumps because of Ukraine, because of COVID.  And so, he’s going to stay really focused on that.  You hear us talk about junk fees.  And so, look, that’s going to be his focus, is continuing to do that. 
 
I do want to say, I think we had confirmed that the President spoke to Speaker Johnson, and Speaker Johnson shared the plan with him.  Obviously, we’re going to look at the details of — of that plan.  But you heard from the Admiral, you heard from National Security Council, you heard from the President over the weekend how important it is to move forward with that — that — for getting aid to Ukraine and, obviously —
 
Q    Was it accurate that — was it accurate that Speaker Johnson initiated the call?  I believe he told Fox News he called the President. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, I can confirm that.  I just don’t want to go into details of the — of the call.  And the Speaker did share the plan with the President.
 
Q    Splitting it in four pieces seems kind of risky, right?  I mean —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, want to be super mindful.  We’re going to see the details of — of what he is planning.  But we’ve been really clear: We want to see all of the parts that the President has talked about, getting that really important funding for Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, obviously that humanitarian aid that’s needed right now — dire situation in Gaza, as we talked about.  We do not want to see a standalone.  We want to see all of these components move forward. 
 
But we want to be super mindful here.  We’re going to see the details — what’s — what’s in writing — the details of the — of the plan.  But, obviously, we want to see what — what the Speaker has to share.
 
Q    Karine, a — a second Republican — House Republican endorsed the motion to vacate against Speaker Johnson over the Ukraine funding.  If the Speaker does push forward with this, you know, effort to get the Ukraine aid, would the President recommend Democrats come to his aid if there’s a challenge to his leadership?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, again, as you know, Justin, I get this question often, and — and we’ve been very consistent.  We don’t get involved when it comes to congressional leadership, how they choose their leadership.  That is something for Congress to decide on. 
 
And, obviously, you know, Leader — Leader Jeffries, who is the Democratic Leader in the House, that’s something for he and his caucus to — to decide.  I just don’t want to get involved — we’ve been very — or speak to it.  We’ve been very, very clear about that.
 
I think we’re going to have to sit.  All right? 
 
Q    Okay.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks guys.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you so much.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re very welcome.
 
1:07 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby En Route Avoca, PA appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:39 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just have a — just something really quick at the top. 

Is the — the mics are always funky.  Is it funky?

Q    It’s normal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No?

Q    You sound good.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  (Laughter.)  Let’s get going.

With all seriousness, though, it was obviously a very busy weekend at the White House.

The President spent hours in the Situation Room, closely monitoring the latest developments in the Middle East with his national security team.  He was engaged in extensive diplo- — diplomacy, speaking with the Israeli Prime Minister on Saturday night and convening a call with G7 leaders on Sunday morning.

The President also organized a joint statement with the G7 that strongly condemned Iran’s brazen and unprecedented attack.

Today, the President received an updated briefing from his national security team and, as you all know, met with the leaders of Iraq and will meet with the leaders of the Czech Republic later this afternoon.

With that, we have my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who’s here to do a much deeper dive and also take your questions on the Middle East.

(A laptop computer chimes.)

MR. KIRBY:  Somebody is due soon.  (Laughter.)

Good afternoon.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  As you all know and certainly Karine restated it, Iran and its proxies operating in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq also conducted an unprecedented attack on the State of Israel with over 300 weapons, including more than 100 ballistic missiles, as well as land-attack cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles or drones. 

President Biden instructed the United States to defend Israel to the maximum extent possible and defeat that attack, and we did.

With the support of our partners, the United States enabled Israel to spectacular- — spectacularly defeat it. 

Despite launching more than those 300 weapons from Iran and the region, Israel and a coalition of partners were able to defeat 99 percent of the attacks.  There is virtually no infrastructure damage to Israel. 

But their attack requires an unequivocal condemnation from the international community.  And so, as Karine said, the President convened the G7 yesterday, and they have forcefully condemned that attack and urged for calm and de-escalation. 

And I’d like to take just a few minutes to correct the record on a few points that have come out in the last several hours.

I’ve seen reporting that the Iranians meant to fail, that this spectacular and embarrassing failure was all by design.  I’ve also seen Iran say that they provided early warning to help Israel prepare its defenses and limit any potential damage.

All of this is categorically false.  To coin the phrase from the President — or steal a phrase from the President, it’s “malarkey.”

This attack failed because it was defeated by Israel, by the United States, and by a coalition of other partners committed to Israel’s defense.

So, let’s be straight.  Given the scale of this attack, Iran’s intent was clearly to cause significant destruction and casualties.

Iranian leaders launched so many missiles and other munitions because they knew that many were going to be defeated, but the aim was to get as many as of them through Israeli — Israel’s defenses as possible.  

Now, I’ve also seen this speculation about messages passed forth and warnings.  We did receive messages from Iran, and they received messages from us too.  But there was never any message to us or to anyone else on the timeframe, the targets, or the type of response. 

In fact, before yesterday, it was presumed that 100 ballistic missiles might overwhelm even the best defensive systems.  That was Iran’s intent.  And as you all saw for yourself, it didn’t work. 

This attack was defeated thanks to our preparations, to a coalition of committed partners, and to Israel’s remarkable defensive systems.

And I want to focus on that last point for just a moment.  Israel today is in a far stronger strategic position than it was only a few days ago. 

Iran’s vaunted missile program –- something it has used to threaten Israel and the region –- proved to be far less effective. 

Israel’s defenses, on the other hand, proved even better than many had long assumed.  Israel’s defense was strengthened by a coalition of countries led by the United States and working together. 

The United States has never before so extensively and so directly defended Israel from attack.

To ensure that that continues to be the case, the House of Representatives must urgently pass the national security supplemental, which has already passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.  That supplemental includes funding that the President requested for the Iron Dome and David’s Sling system — systems that saved countless lives this weekend and have saved many lives from Hamas and from Hezbollah rockets over the past six months.

Passing that bill is the fastest and surest way to get Israel the aid it needs.  And we must act urgently to replenish Israel’s air defenses, just as Congress must act urgently to replenish — replenish Ukraine’s air defenses, which also continue to be attacked every single day, with the same Irania- — Iranian-made drones.

Now, finally, much of the world today is standing with Israel. 

When the President spoke to G7 leaders yesterday, they were unified in their condemnation of Iran and their determination to hold Iran accountable. 

At the President’s direction, our teams are now following up with G7 capitals on new multilateral sanctions to target Iran’s missile and other nefarious programs.  G7 countries that had yet to designate the IRGC a terrorist organization are now considering doing so.

And going forward, we will be working to further isolate Iran internationally and increase economic and other forms of pressure.

So, that’s the upshot here: a stronger Israel, a weaker Iran, a more unified alliance of partners.  That was not Iran’s intent when it launched this attack on Saturday night — not even close.  And again, they failed.  They failed utterly.

Now, as you also know, President Biden is welcoming both the Iraqi Prime Minister and Prime Minister Petr Fiala of the Czech Republic to the White House. 

The President and Prime Minister al-Sudani from Iraq will discuss the U.S. and Iraq’s shared vision for our broad, multifaceted relationship.  During the meeting, these leaders will reaffirm their commitment to advancing regional stability, to expanding opportunities for Iraq’s people, and reinforcing Iraq’s sovereignty, security, and stability. 

The Iraqi Prime Minister will be here for almost a week.  And in that time, he will meet a range of administration officials, including both Secretary Blinken at the State Department and Secretary Austin at the Defense Department.  He will have opportunities to share his priorities and vision for Iraq with a variety of audiences here in Washington and in other parts of the United States.  

Now, of course, the President will be taking the opportunity to discuss how we will continue to work with Prime Minister Sudani to defuse regional tensions and to prevent Iraq from being drawn into conflict.  Iraq, the President firmly believes, is central to the region’s stability. 

And then, later, as Karine previewed, he’ll have a chance to meet with President — I’m sorry — Prime Minister Fiala to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Czech Republic as a NATO Ally. 

Over the past 25 years, our alliance has grown stronger and the relationship between our two countries have grown even closer as we’ve deepened defense cooperation, including through the Czech Republic’s purchase of 24 F-35 fighters earlier this year.

The President will congratulate the Prime Minister on legislation that Czechia recently passed requiring it to spend at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense, which, as you know, is the NATO goal.

Lead- — the leaders will also discuss their strong support for Ukraine, and the President will thank the Prime Minister for leading an effort to help secure nearly 1 million rounds of ammunition for Ukraine.

And one more thing, if you’ll just bear with me.  I’m almost done.  Today marks the one-year conflict in Sudan.  Since fighting erupted a year ago, civilians have been forced to bear the brunt of this senseless conflict: thousands have been killed and wounded; women and girls have been kidnapped and assaulted; hundreds of thousands of families have been displaced; communities and livelihoods have been utterly destroyed; and famine, now, is threatening to take hold.

That’s why the United States continues to commit resources to create conditions for a potential peace process, to hold accountable actors who are seeking to sow more violence, and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches the civilians who urgently need it. 

We reiterate our calls for all parties in this conflict to lay down their weapons and put an end to this intolerable violence for the future of Sudan but, most of all, for the future of the Sudanese people.

Thank you.  Appreciate your patience.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Seung Min.

Q    Israel’s military chief just said, quote, “There will be a response to the attack from Iran.”  So, does the U.S. have any indication of what those next steps are from Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  We would let the Israelis speak to that.

Q    Does the U.S. expect to be consulted in advance of them taking any next steps?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I won’t get into our diplomatic conversations or expectations.  The Israeli government will determine for themselves if there’s going to be a response and what that response is going to look like. 

Q    And are you able to discuss the specific roles played by other members of the regional coalition from over the weekend, specifically Jordan and Saudi Arabia, whether they helped shoot down missiles or what other actions they may have done over the weekend?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I think we’ll let other members of the coalition speak for themselves.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    John, Israel is reportedly looking at options that would send a message to Iran but not cause casualties.  Is the administration presenting alternatives to Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  This is a — these — this is an Israeli decision to make, whether and how they’ll respond to what Iran did on Saturday.  And we’re going to leave it squarely with them.

Q    Their decision to make, but are you making suggestions?

MR. KIRBY:  We are not involved in their decision-making process about a potential response.

Q    And just — is the President — does he have any plans to speak to Netanyahu again?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything on the calendar to speak to.  But, look, I mean, they’ve — they’ve spoken frequently over the last six months.  They’ll absolutely speak again at the appropriate time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, just one day before the attack, President Biden issued a warning to Iran: “Don’t.”  And now the U.S. is not taking any part in an Israeli reprisal.  So, does that signal to Iran that it can defy the U.S. without facing any consequences?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know, man.  If I’m sitting in Tehran and I’m taking a look at what just happened on Saturday night, I don’t think I’d be betting that the United States is not willing to get engaged here and help defend Israel.  I mean, you had American fighter pilots in the air, in combat operation, shooting down drones and missiles that were heading towards — towards Israel, as well as U.S. Navy destroyers at sea, knocking them down from there.

So, the message should be very clear to anybody: When the President says we’re going to take our commitments to the region seriously, when we’re going to help Israel defend itself.  We got skin in the game, and we proved that.

Q    I understand what you’re saying about deterrence.  But what about the consequences? 

MR. KIRBY:  As I just said and Karine also lead in, he had a conversation with G7 leaders.  He’ll be engaging with other allies and partners.  We have achiev- — we have seen swift condemnations about what Iran did from the international community.  And we’re going to be working with international partners to — to work up options to hold Iran appropriately accountable.

Q    And then just on the logistics of this.  With roughly 300 drones and missiles shot down, can you talk about how you will assess the debris fields and the shrapnel and how much that impacted people on the ground? 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re not going to be doing any kind of an assessment of the impact on the ground.  The Israeli Defense Forces and Israeli officials have already been out and about looking at the impact on the ground.  There were very few missiles that got through, and the only damage that was done — it was very minor damage to one airbase in — in Israel that did not even put that airbase out of commission.

The Israelis have already spoken to this.  I believe they’ve already released imagery of some of the things they found on the ground. 

Sadly, a young girl — an innocent civilian, less than 10 years old — was severely wounded.  That was the only casualty that we’re aware of.

Q    Thank you, John.

Q    Thank you.  John, a couple of questions on Iran and then on Iraq, on the Prime Minister visit.  You just said that the White House were not informed of the timing of the Iranian attack on Israel, but the President told us that he — the attack is going to be sooner than later, and almost a day after, the attack happened.  So, just can you explain this one?

MR. KIRBY:  I never said we didn’t have an idea.  I never said we didn’t have information that — that we could — that we could act on and speak to our Israeli counterparts about. 

What I said was: Iran never delivered a message giving us the time and the targets.

Q    The exact timing, you mean?

MR. KIRBY:  No, no.  No, no, no.  No timing.  I mean, I want to be clear: This whole narrative out there that Iran passed us a message with what they were going to do is ridiculous.

Q    Okay.  Do you believe that Iranian nuclear sites is a legitimate target?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re — I’m not going to get into targeting discussions here from the podium. 

Q    Okay.  Let me ask you about the Prime Minister.  Is the White House satisfied with the way that the Iraqi government is reining in the militias in Iraq, considering they are one of the proxies of the Iranian regime?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re going to — we’re going to have an in-depth discussion with the Prime Minister and his team about the continued activities of militia groups in Iraq.  And — and we’ll reinforce our views about how seriously we take the force protection of our — our troops and our facilities there. 

And we’ll also expect — I fully expect that — that we’ll talk with the Prime Minister about the counter-ISIS mission in Iraq and its — and its potential future. 

Q    And finally, just when he said, “in the spirit of partnership, we disagree with the United States,” and he mentioned something like “we need a new system for international law — to respect international law, international humanitarian law, protection of civilians, and diplomatic missions.”

So, he’s hinting at the Israeli attack in Damascus.  He’s also hinting about not doing enough to respect international law.  Is this a point of disagreement between you and the Iraqi government? 

MR. KIRBY:  You’ll have to talk to the Prime Minister about what he meant by those comments.  Iraq is a — a key partner, one we really value.  We wouldn’t be having this meeting today, he wouldn’t be having meetings this week if it wasn’t an important relationship.

As I said, the President believe — believes that Iraq is critical to regional stability.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.   You said just now that this — that Iran’s attack was a spectacular and embarrassing failure.  Do you and does the President believe that Israel should now take this as a win and show restraint? 

MR. KIRBY:  I — I know where the context of the question is coming in.  During his conversation with the Prime Minister on Saturday night, first of all, he congratulated the Prime Minister for the exceptional effort by the Israeli Defense Forces and, of course, commended, as you would expect the Commander-In-Chief to do, the participation of U.S. forces in this coalition and the great work that was done. 

I mean, it’s easy to — you know, I was looking some — looking at some of the video before I came out here that’s running on some of your networks, and, you know, it’s easy to look at that like it’s some kind of a computer game, right?  It looks so simple — things getting knocked out of sky.

Let me tell you something: It’s not simple.  It’s hard.  And a lot of planning and preparation had to go into that and a lot of coordination.  And the President talked to the Prime Minister about that. 

He also noted that this was an extraordinary success, a military success.  And that that success alone, just for itself, speaks volumes about Israel’s standing in the region — that they — they don’t stand alone, that a coalition came to help them defend themselves.  It also says a lot about Israel’s military superiority, and it says just as much about Iran’s military inferiority when it came to this particular set of attacks.

And the President urged the Prime Minister to think about what that success says all by itself to the rest of the region.  He — he —

Q    You mean in terms of thinking about — I mean, but — think about the restraint about, you know, the — maybe this should not go further than — you know, further escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  All I’ll — all I’ll say is: The President, from the beginning of this conflict on October 7th, has been steadfast and consistent.  We don’t want to see a war with Iran.  We don’t want to see a broader regional conflict.  We will do what we have to do to defend Israel.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Asma.

Q    Yeah, does the — this administration believe Israel will indeed strike Iran?  I mean, is it your assessment that that is inevitable at this point? 

MR. KIRBY:  That’s going to be up to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet to speak to.

Q    But your assessment or the administration’s assessment?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to provide intelligence assessments from here.  As I — as far as I know, the War Cabinet is still debating and talking about their next steps.  I think I’m going to let them speak to whatever their next steps might be. 

Q    And if I may also ask one question on Gaza.  What is the administration’s assessment of the timeline for a Rafah invasion, given the conversations that you all have been having?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, you’re asking me a question that really should be asked to the Israeli Defense Forces and the Prime Minister, not —

Q    No, but I know —

MR. KIRBY:  — not to the United States. 

Q    — you guys have been having conversations.  I just want to get a sense of are these, like, ongoing conversations still?  Are you (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)  I — I — yes, of course we’re talking to the Israelis all the time.  Now, obviously, in the last 48 hours particularly, the conversation has been about what Iran did.  But yes, we have — continue to talk to them about what’s going on down in Rafah.  And we expect — hope in coming days to be able to have yet another round of discussions with them about what their intentions are with respect to Rafah, but the focus, rightly, right now is on what Iran just did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  J.J.

Q    On the U.S. military.  Given whatever the White House and President Biden know about what’s going to happen next in the Middle East, are there any fresh U.S. military preparations?

MR. KIRBY:  Fresh — fresh military preparations for?

Q    Whatever.  (Laughter.)

Q    Wide open. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes.  I mean — (laughter) — we — we’re always looking at force protection in the region.  We’re always looking at our force posture.  We’re always evaluating it based on the threats and the challenges.  You can expect that Secretary Austin and the entire team over there at the Department of Defense is going to stay vigilant to whatever the threat might be.

Q    Thanks.  You said a moment ago that it’s ridiculous –this narrative that Iran provide — provided some advanced notice about specifics here.  But where we’re hearing that from, you know, specifically is U.S. Ally, Turkey; U.S. partner, Iraq.  That’s where that information is coming from.  So, what is the discrepancy exactly that’s happening there?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t possibly answer that question, Trevor.  All I’m telling you is it’s nonsense.  I — I mean, it — think about this for a minute.  Can you imagine a world in which Iran would pick up the phone and say, “Hey, we’re about to try to swack Israel with 300 cruise missiles and drones.  We just wanted to let you know it’s coming.  And oh, by the way, here’s what we’re going to hit.”  I’m sorry.  It just didn’t happen. 

I can’t account for what sources might be telling you all about what they heard.  I’m telling you what we heard. 

And while we did get a message from Iran and we passed messages to Iran as well, which I won’t get into the details of, none of it was, “Here’s the targets.  Here’s the timeframe.  Here’s the munitions we’re going to put on target.” 

Q    And on that subject of communications with Iran generally, you’ve said, without preconditions, you’re willing to sit down with North Korea.  Does the same apply to Iran and to reopening some diplomatic discussions —

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    — with them?

No.  And do you want to elaborate on —

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    — why that is?  (Laughter.)  Okay. 

As far as sanctions in response to Iran, Iranian oil production is now higher than it was two years ago.  Is there a reason that you aren’t taking more steps against Iranian oil exports?  And does it have to do with domestic political pressures around gas prices?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any — as you know, we don’t preview sanctions.  And I’m not going to start doing that today, except to note what I said in my opening statement, that part of the discussion with the G7 leaders was the possibility of additional sanctions on Iran unilaterally and — and hopefully multilaterally, but we’ll see where that goes. 

Q    And anything on — on where the oil prices or oil — oil experts are coming from Iran and — and whether you want to stop that?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I won’t get ahead of economic pressure tools that we might be applying in the future.  We’re working our way through that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    A U.S. official told CNN over the weekend that the Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, asked his Israeli counterpart to notify the U.S. ahead of any potential response to the Iran attack.  Is there a confidence that Israel will provide that advanced certification to the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll just tell you that we are and will remain in very close contact with our Israeli counterparts. 

Q    So, do you expect to get an advance notification?

MR. KIRBY:  We will stay in close contact with our Israeli counterparts.

Q    On the hostage talks.  Hamas rejected the latest proposal.  The U.S. has said that Hamas rejecting it — has rejected the deal.  But do you think Israel needs to allow Gazans to return home unrestricted, and should the IDF pull back so they can do that, that being a sticking point?  

MR. KIRBY:  First of all, we don’t consider it a dead letter.  As far as we’re concerned, there’s a viable proposal on the table and Hamas ought to take it.  And we’re not letting up on the idea of negotiating for a hostage deal so we can get a ceasefire, so we can get more aid in, but that’s still very much an active football in our — in our heads.

And as for movement north, we — what we’ve talked to the Israelis about is you got a million and a half people that are seeking refuge down in Rafah.  It’s by far the largest concentration of Palestinians in Gaza.  They need to be accounted for.  Whatever kind of military operation they’re thinking about doing in Rafah or anywhere else, to your point about moving north, they have to provide safe venues for them to do that.  They have to provide food, water, medicine, shelter.  All that has to be baked in to whatever future military operations happen on the ground in Gaza.

Q    That does sound, though, like you’re saying that Israel should consider allowing Gazans to move up north, which has been a sticking point in those hostage talks.

MR. KIRBY:  We want to see them — we want to see them account for the future safety and security of the more than a million refugees that are now taking refuge down near Rafah with whatever — baked in to whatever military plans they might have for operations on the ground.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Francesca.

Q    On the ceasefire negotiations.  A U.S. official said yesterday that the latest proposal included almost everything that Hamas had asked for.  And so, how is it that the negotiations are at a standstill at this point?  Is the U.S. planning another counterproposal?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know of a new proposal.  There is a very good proposal on the table that CIA Director Bill Burns helped negotiate in Cairo a week or so ago that the Israelis were able to get behind.  And now it’s time for Hamas to step up and take that deal.  It will allow for dozens of the hostages — the most at-risk pool of them — to get out, and it’ll allow for about six weeks of a ceasefire so we can get some calm and we can increase humanitarian assistance.

There’s a deal on the table.  That’s what Hamas needs to take.

Q    And when the President spoke yesterday to congressional leaders, did he receive any sort of a commitment from House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring the bipartisan national security supplemental bill to the House floor this week?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Speaker speak to whatever his plans might be.  Certainly, we heard from Leader McConnell and from — and from Leader Jeffries about the importance of — of mak- — of passing this supplemental and getting it — and getting it on — on its way.

And as I said in my opening statement, the fastest way — I mean, you’ve got — you got two good friends here — Israel and Ukraine — that — very different fights, to be sure, but active fights for their sovereignty and for their safety and security.  And time is not on anyone’s side here in either case.

So, they need to move quickly on this.  And the best way to get that aid into the hands of the IDF and into the hands of the Ukrainian soldiers is to pass that bipartisan bill that the Senate passed. 

Q    I understand that that’s the — your pref- –preference, the bipartisan bill that the Senate passed.  But is the White House opposed to an approach that takes the issues separately — Israel only or —

MR. KIRBY:  We are opposed to a standalone bill that would just work on Israel.  As we’ve seen proposed, we would — we would oppose a standalone bill, yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    Admiral, I know you said it was Israel’s decision.  But ask it bluntly: If Israel retaliates against Iran, would the U.S. support that?

MR. KIRBY:  To answer bluntly: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  We don’t want to see a war with Ukraine [Iran].  We don’t want to see a wider conflict.  As the President said to the Prime Minister on Saturday night, we will continue to do what we have to do to help Israel defend itself.

But you’re asking me to get ahead of, as far as I know, a decision that the War Cabinet hasn’t even made.

Q    But if it were to happen, does —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, it’s a — it’s a terrific hypothetical, Gabe, that I’m just not going to entertain.

Q    Thanks.  John, has President Biden considered maybe beefing up the public Iran posture to be more than just one word?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re — you’re referring to “Don’t”?

Q    Yeah.  Because he said, “Don’t” —

MR. KIRBY:  And so, let’s talk about —

Q    — and they did it anyway.

MR. KIRBY:  And let’s talk about —

Q    So, now what?

MR. KIRBY:  — what we did, Peter.  Let’s talk about “don’t” and “did.”  Let’s talk about Saturday night.  He made it clear that he didn’t want to see escalation in the region.  And —

Q    And then there was —

MR. KIRBY:  Let me finish.  He added military resources to the region right after October 7th.  And then, when we had an inkling that this kind of thing was coming, he added even more military resources to the region: more destroyers that were capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, fighter s- — a fighter squadron that was able to shoot down drones.  And that’s what we did.

So, you can talk about the “don’t” word all you want.  But let’s talk about what did happen.  And what did happen was Iran utterly failed.  And if I’m sitting in Tehran right now, I’m betting that President Biden takes it pretty seriously.  When he says “don’t escalate,” he’s going to act to make sure that you can’t.  And they didn’t.

Yes, they fired an unprecedented amount of munitions.  But how much of a success did they have, Peter?  None, zero, very little infrastructure.  It was an embarrassing failure for the Supreme Leader, for the IRGC.

Q    Now that we know that the Iranians do not listen to President Biden’s public warnings, is there any regret here about unfreezing billions of dollars for Iranian leaders during the President’s administration?

MR. KIRBY:  What unfreezing are you talking about?

Q    He unfroze billions of dollars.  There was a —

MR. KIRBY:  For Iranian leaders?

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  Really?  I don’t think so.

Q    Okay.  You guys say —

MR. KIRBY:   So, first of all —

Q    — it’s for humanitarian purposes.  But doesn’t that —

MR. KIRBY:  But you don’t believe me.

Q    On — well, doesn’t that free up money for them to spend on other stuff?  Where do you get the money for an unprecedented number of munitions to — to fire at Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  So, first of all, I’m betting if they’re sitting in Tehran, they’re taking it seriously when President Biden says he’s going to defend Israel.  We put skin in the game — a whole heck of a lot of it — and knocked almost everything out of the sky.  So, I’m betting they’re taking it pretty seriously.

And as for this — this unfreezing, that — none of that fund — none of those funds — funds set up in an account, by the way, by the previous administration — goes directly to the Supreme Leader of the IRGC.  It can only be used for humanitarian purposes.  And we’re watching that account very, very closely to make sure that that’s what happens.

Q    And you guys often defend all the trips to Delaware by saying, “The President is not on vacation.  He’s working.  He can be the President from anywhere.”  So, why did he have to come back on Saturday?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we got indications — shortly after arriving, we got better, firmer intelligence and information about the specific timing of what we expected to be this Iranian attack, and the President didn’t bat an eye before getting back on that helicopter and coming back.

And he was here all Saturday night in the Situation Room, from mid-afternoon until late at night, getting real-time updates from General Kurilla and from his defense team all throughout the night, including calling Prime Minister Netanyahu right from the Situation Room.

And as Karine mentioned, on Sunday, he was right back at it again, working the G7, calling King Abdullah.  I don’t know what else to tell you.  He had a very busy, full weekend.

Q    John, on Iran.  What is the current thinking on whether Iran’s Revolutionary Guard should be designated as a terrorist organization?

MR. KIRBY:  We already have. 

Q    And then, just do you have any update on getting additional humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza?  You had said —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — last week that you added 300 trucks on Wednesday.  Within where — where the weekend (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  Forgive me. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know if Karine might have already briefed this out to you guys.  But, you know, over the last week or so, more than 2,000 trucks have gotten in.  And even throughout the course of the weekend, as Israel was dealing with a quite daunting attack by Iran, they were still able to get some trucks into Gaza.

So, in these early days, after the previous phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu where the President talked about the need to increase humanitarian assistance, we have seen Israel take steps to in- — to — to do exactly that. 

Now, as we’ve also said, it’s still not enough.  The — the need is dire.  And what we’re going to be doing is watching for a sustained commitment to doing that over time.  But — but thus far, there has been an increase in humanitarian assistance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just one on the timing of the wa- — of any type of warning.  So, are you saying Iran never told a U.S. partner — Switzerland, Oman, any of them — Turkey, Iraq — never gave them any information about the attack they were preparing to launch and that that information never reached the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  The United States had no messages from Iran or from anybody else, as I said in my opening statement, that — that offered a specific timeframe or a specific set of targets or the types of weapons that they were going to fire.

Q    So, just concretely, why would U.S. partners in Turkey, Jordan, Iraq lie about passing along Iranian messages about any forthcoming attack to the U.S.?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I’m not — I’m not calling anybody a liar here.  I’m telling you, from our perspective, what we knew and what we didn’t know.  And we were able to help with Israel’s defenses because we had information that we had received and Israel had received through our own — our own efforts, but it never came as some sort of message from Iran with, I mean, the — the timing and the target.

I — it’s — it’s — it kind of boggles my mind that anybody would believe that Iran would pick up the phone and tell the United States, who — who they know —

Q    (Inaudible) the United States.

MR. KIRBY:  — who — who they know has been very, very directly involved with helping Israel defend itself and very public about doing that, and detail the times and the targets.

Look, this to me seems like a lot of, you know, Monday morning quarterbacking kind of stuff — would have, could have, should have.  And — and maybe they want to make it appear like, you know, this was some sort of small pinprick of an attack that they never meant to succeed. 

You can’t throw that much metal in the air, which they did, in the timeframe in which they did it and convince anybody, realistically, that you weren’t trying to cause casualties and you weren’t calling — trying to cause damage.  They absolutely were.

Q    And just one more.  Is the meeting with Israli — Israeli officials on Rafah still — is that happening this week?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a date for you.  We’re still trying to get that nailed down.  As I said earlier, we’d like to continue those conversations.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Hi, Admiral.  House Majority Leader Scalise said on Friday that Speaker Johnson was negotiating with the White House modifications to the Ukraine aid package.  Are you — what is being negotiated?  And you just categorically said that the White House opposes a standalone Israel bill —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s right.

Q    — supplemental.  Are you also opposed to changes to the supplemental?  For example, changing —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  I —

Q    — aid to alone —

MR. KIRBY:  I know it would make your jobs a lot easier if I negotiated this thing up here in public.

Q    (Laughs.)  No, I just —

MR. KIRBY:  But I’m not going to do that.  You’re right.  The President did have an opportunity to speak with Speaker Johnson and other congressional leaders, including — including McConnell and Jeffries.  And he made it clear that the best and the fastest way to stand by our allies and partners is for the House of Representatives to take up the bipartisan bill that the Senate passed.

Q    But are you also opposed to the modifications and changes, as you oppose the standalone?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve answered the question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  First of all, thank you for your dedication this weekend in keeping us all informed.  I think we all saw more of us than our own families, which was really cool.  I got —

MR. KIRBY:  You certainly saw more of me than my family did.  (Laughter.)

Q    I got two questions.  First of all, administration officials told us on Sunday that they had help from India, China, and Iraq.  Can you just detail, you know, some — give us some of the details on that?  And does that represent a move forward in U.S.-China relations, that you were able to cooperate on (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, as I said earlier, I think I’ll let other countries speak to their participation and cooperation and the degree that the — that they’re comfortable doing that.  I can only speak for the United States and what we did.

Q    Does this represent a step forward for the U.S.-China —

MR. KIRBY:  I think it — what it — I think what it says is — without getting into the specific contributions of other countries, as I said in my opening statement, it shows that Israel is not standing alone, that — I mean, that, unlike Iran, which is increasingly isolated on the world stage, Israel has friends.  Israel has great skill, great professionalism, great military capability.  And that’s not by accident.  All of that comes from the support that they get, particularly from the United States, but other countries as well.

Q    And then, if the U.S. can — and allies can help shoot down Iranian drones over Israel, why can’t they do the same over Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I knew this question was coming too.  Look, different conflicts.  Different conflicts, different airspace, different threat picture.  And the President has been clear since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the United States is not going to be involved in that — that conflict in a combat role.  And we haven’t. 

We have been providing Ukraine the tools that they need to help defend their airspace.  And, unfortunately, we can’t do that right now because we don’t have that national security supplemental funding that — that they so desperately need.

Q    The Assyrian Christians are the indigenous people of Iraq.  And before liberation, they had about two and a half million, and they’re down to nearly 200,000.  And just last month, the Iraqi Supreme Court removed all of their — had five seats in the Kurdish parliament for many decades, and those were renewed — were removed.  Have you — has that come up in any of the discussions?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll take the question.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  And thank you, John, for all you did over the weekend.  I have two questions.  First, you mentioned the shipping of aid to Gaza from Israel.  Do we have a U.S. consular official at the border who is confirming that the aid actually gets there?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of a consular presence at the border.  But we’re in, as I said, constant touch with our Israeli counterparts.  We — you know, we also have David Satterfield, who is the President’s Special Envoy, for that exact purpose.  And, I mean, he’s — he’s like Waldo.  I mean, he’s all over the place — (laughter) — constantly up and down, I mean, making sure that that stuff is getting in and keeping the President and the whole team fully informed.

Q    My other question is that: Given the recent developments with Iran, is the U.S. going to step up its contacts with the opposition to the current regime in Tehran?  And I mean, specifically, exile groups in the United States, plus, on the ground, the Baluchi, Azeri, the Kurds, and the Sunni, who are in opposition to the regime.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know of any such efforts in the wake of the — the attacks. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  A couple more.  Way in the back, go ahead.

Q    Thank you, John.  Why is the U.S. not going to participate in a counteroffensive?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I think I’ve answered this question.  The President had a good chat with the Prime Minister.  We talked about the incredible success that the — that we and they achieved on Saturday night and the message that success sends not only to the region but also to Iran as well. 

And as I’ve also said and as the President has certainly said, we’re not looking for a war with Iran.  We’re not looking to broaden and deepen this conflict in the region.

Q    How exactly is he trying to de-escalate this situation?

MR. KIRBY:  Everything the President has been doing since the 7th of October has been designed to try to de-escalate and to try to keep the conflict from widening and deepening.  And that includes the moves that he made in the last 10, 12 days to add resources to the region so that we could help Israel better defend itself. 

And, my goodness, it all paid off.  I mean, instead of having a hundred ballistic missiles land inside of Israel and cause untold damage to infrastructure and to human lives, none of that occurred.  And the reason none of it occurred was because the President was ahead of the problem set.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Brian.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, just a couple of follow-ups.  The coalition to put together limiting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, is that still solid in the face of what’s going on?

MR. KIRBY:  As the President has said, we’d love nothing better than to be able to solve Iranian nuclear progress — nuclear weapons progress through diplomacy.  Unfortunately, that’s not an option right now because the — the Iranians, well before any of this, just weren’t negotiating in good faith.  None of the diplomatic efforts were — were paying off.

And so, that effort kind of fell moribund as we look for other ways to increase pressure on Iran. 

The President has also said that while he would prefer to deal with this threat diplomatically, he also will make sure that he’s got options and choices available to him —

Q    But —

MR. KIRBY:  — to ensure that Iran never achieves a nuclear weapons capability.

Q    But the countries that were backing that coalition — still a member?  They’re all — China, Russia —

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, you’re talking about a process that’s just moribund right now, Brian. 

Q    Okay.  And —

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, it —

Q    And so, the other follow-up: the container ship.  Was there — there have been rumors.  Is there any — the container ship that was seized by Iran, was there anything of a sensitive nature on it?  Do we know what was on it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’d refer you to the Pentagon on that.  I don’t have an update on the cargo.

Q    I — finally, I — well, I want to thank you for using which “swack” and — and, of course, “Where’s Waldo?” 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to hear about that one from my wife.  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

Q    But the — but at the end, you understand the reason why the question about advanced knowledge, because the President did come back early.  And I think you spoke to it —

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say — I never said we didn’t have an advanced sense of what the — I —

What I said was: We didn’t get that sense from the Iranians sending us a telegram.

Q    Right.  But — but, as Peter asked, I believe, there was — we were told not specifics, but that something was going to occur.

MR. KIRBY:  No.  I don’t — 

Q    Clear that one up for me.

MR. KIRBY:  It’s not about being told.  I think you all understand: We have lots of tools and vehicles, through intelligence and other information methods, to glean in- — to glean a picture of what an adversary may or may not do.  Now, sometimes it’s right.  Sometimes it’s not 100 percent right.

We had a good sense of what Iran was planning to do, and we achieved that level of situational awareness on our own and working with our Israeli counterparts.  The notion — the idea that Iran sent us an email or picked up the phone and told us what they were planning to do is just ludicrous.  It didn’t happen.  I don’t know how else to be more clear about it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrew.   And then we’ll wrap it up.

Q    Thank you, John.  And Happy Tax Day.  (Inaudible) here.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  (Inaudible.) 

Q    There’s been reporting — there’s been reporting that — (laughter).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  She’s right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right?

MR. KIRBY:  You’re right.

Q    Okay.  So, there’s been reporting that the President suggested to the Prime Minister that Israel take the win and not go further with an offensive response. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve seen that report, yeah.

Q    I — I have colleagues who are reporting that Israel is very much in the process of planning an offensive response to — to these — to this weekend’s attacks.  Given the political situation in Israel — Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition, some of which is a bit extreme, and his own situation — does the President have faith that the Prime Minister will not escalate the situation out of his own political interests, as opposed to genuine Israeli security interests?  And then I have an unrelated one for you.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to be able to get into Prime Minister Netanyahu’s psychology or his political calculations or what’s going into his decision-making process.

Q    I’m asking if the President is concerned about this, though.

MR. KIRBY:  What I would tell you is that the President and the Prime Minister speak frequently, certainly as appropriate.  And the President has been consistent publicly and privately that he doesn’t want to see the war between Israel and Hamas escalate any more than it — than it already has and he doesn’t want to see a broader regional conflict.  And he’s certainly not looking for a war with Iran.  And I am confident that the Prime Minister is aware of the President’s concerns.

Q    Okay.  And on — on Gaza.  This morning, you said that Israel has been doing things the President asked them to do, but we really need to see it sustained over time.

MR. KIRBY:  And you want to know how long is that time.

Q    No, sir.

MR. KIRBY:  Okay.  (Laughter.)

Q    That would — that would imply that — you didn’t want to call it an ultimatum, but the — the conditions that the President laid out in his prior phone call with the Prime Minister, that — about the aid workers, the conditions on the ground for humanitarian workers, and aid getting into Gaza — that that needed to change or there could be changes in U.S. policy towards Gaza. 

Can you just lay out here whether the President is considering that — you know, that set of circumstances and Israel’s defense against future attacks from nation-states such as Iran to be — to be separate things?  That that — that when you say we need to see it sustained over time, that that — the possibility of policy changes is still a reality separate and apart from the President’s, as he calls it, “ironclad” commitment to Israeli security?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve said many times that both things are and can be true.  You can be a staunch defender of Israel’s defense.  And we are — and I think he proved that to a fare-thee-well Saturday night — and still be able to have some tough, candid conversations with the way in which they are fighting Hamas inside Gaza. 

And those conversations are continuing, and, as I said, hopefully, we’ll get to be able to sit down again with our Israeli counterparts about the — whatever their thinking are — whatever the thinking is about — about Rafah.

So, both things are true; both things can be true.  And — and those are the discussions that we’re having.  You can — you can be a good friend of — of Israel.  In fact, I would argue that only a good friend can do what we did Saturday night and yet still be willing to have tough conversations with the Israeli government about the prosecution of the — of the operations they’re conducting inside Gaza.

Q    So, they’re being considered separate matters?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ve answered the question. 

Q    Okay. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you for your patience.  Appreciate it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No worries.

Q    Thanks, John. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Oh, I don’t know.  Seung Min.  I feel like you guys got all the news of the day.  (Laughs.)

Q    Yeah, well, Happy — Happy Tax Day to you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Tax Day.  I did take care of my taxes.  (Laughter.)  I don’t — I don’t have a wife to take care of my taxes.  (Laughter.)

Q    Ouch.

Q    Can you — just on the other sort of big news of the day.  Is the — is the President going to be paying any sort of attention or will be briefed on — on the criminal proceedings of former President Trump in New York?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, the President is pretty busy today.  He has two bilats, as you know, with the — as you just saw, with the Iraqi Prime Minister and one with the Czech Republic.  So, it’s a busy day focusing on, obviously, our national security priorities and continuing the strong alliances that we have with these two leaders — obviously, two separate meetings — and continuing to — you know, continue to deliver for the American people.

I — I’m sure he’ll — he’ll, you know, get an update at some point today, but his focus right now are the meetings that he have — he has and what he continues to do every day.

Q    Right.  And setting aside the fact that the former President is the — is the current President’s general election candidate or challenger for this year, what is the Pre- — what is President Biden, the White House’s reaction to this moment in time? 

I mean, it is a historic occasion — “occasion” is an odd word to say — but it — you have a former President going on criminal trial for the first time in history.  So, what is the White House’s reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do want to be super mindful, even me commenting on that.  It is an ongoing case.  I just want to be super, super mindful and not comment on an ongoing case, even if it’s asking an opinion about the, you know — the historic nature of what’s happening and what’s going to occur over the next couple of weeks.  So, do want to be mindful.  And he happens to be, as you just said, a candidate — a presidential candidate for 2024, so going to be mindful.

The President is going to continue to focus on — on the week ahead.  He’s going to be traveling, as you all know, to Pennsylvania.  He has two important bilats today.  And it’s always about the American people for this President, and that’s going to be his focus.

Go ahead, Mary.

Q    As you just mentioned, the President is heading to Pennsylvania again this week.  He’s making multiple visits to the state.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Can you just give us a sense of what we can expect in the coming days?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it’s a three — coming day or coming —

Q    Days.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, days.  I didn’t know if you said “weeks.”  I’m like, “Wow, weeks.” 

Coming days — it’s a three-day swing to Pennsylvania.  He starts it off tomorrow.  He’s going to start his trip in his hometown of Scranton, where he’ll deliver remarks at — at a campaign event.  So, that’s obviously a campaign event, so they will provide more details.

On Wednesday, he’s going to travel to Pittsburgh, where he’ll deliver remarks again on other pieces of the economic agenda.  So, you can foc- — you can imagine a very strong focus on the economy this week.  And so, we’ll have more on that from us tomorrow on what Wednesday is going to look like. 

And then on Thursday, which is, he’ll — obviously, he’ll continue his swing.  He’ll travel to Philadelphia for more campaign events, and certainly the campaign will provide any details on that particular day.

So, it’s Tuesday and Thursday are the campaign priorities, obviously, and they’ll speak to that.  And then there’s an economic focus on Wednesday, and so we’ll have more to share tomorrow on that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, first of all, with the Iraqi leader here, lawmakers in that country are set to vote on a bill that includes a death penalty or life in prison for same-sex relations.  Would passing such a bill harm U.S. ties?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you saw the Iraqi Prime Minister and the President have a bilat today, and I think it shows the importance of that alliance and the continued diplomacy engagement that we’ve done — the President continues to do just across the globe, obviously.

The President has been very, very — I think, very vocal about any type of — well, supporting the LGBTQ+ community and has spoken out about any type of humanitarian — or human rights, I should say — any — you know, any human rights violations that we see from here.  And they — we always have those honest conversations with — with leaders, and the President always has, again, those honest conversations. 

I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to get ahead of what’s happening currently in Iraq, but we’ve been pretty — we’ve been pretty clear about making sure that human rights — human rights — any human rights violations or if we see anything that is — you know, that — that we think needs — we need to speak to, we do, but I’m just going to be —

Q    And the President will raise that issue today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, the President always raises human rights issues if it warrants with a — with a leader.  I’m going to be really mindful.  We’ll have a readout, obviously, of these two bilats. 

I’m — I can’t say for sure that that’s going to come up, but the President has never backed down from having these types of frank, honest conversation and where he stands, and we know where he stands with that community — with LGBTQ+ community.

Q    And then one other topic.  Tesla is laying off more than 10 percent of its global workforce — falling sales and intensive price war for EVs.  Does the ongoing turmoil in the EV market and the very slow consumer transition away from internal combustion engine vehicles make you doubt your full-throated commitment to this space?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — and I think I’ve talked about this before.  You — look, when it comes to EV, we’ve saw an E- — we’ve seen EV sales, obviously, rise — a record high.  And EVs are more affordable than ever, and I think that’s important. 

Last year, EV sales surpassed 1 million for the first time ever, a 50 percent increase.  And under this President, EV sales have more than quadrupled.  Sales of hybrids and EVs are now record high of 18 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales.  Average price of EV is down 20 percent a year ago.

And so, look, the President has always talked about — one of his priorities, as it relates to the economy, is lowering costs.  And we see that with — with these EV sales, obviously, and also creating a — manufacturing jobs in order — if you’re seeing the EV sales go up — right? — you’re going to see a continuation of manufacturing jobs that are needed.  And so, that is important.  We can — we believe it’s going to create jobs. 

I can’t speak to Tesla’s decision.  They are a private — obviously, a private company.  

But we believe what we’re trying to do and what we’ve been trying — trying to do in last couple of years — whether it’s manufacturing, whether it’s dealing with the climate crisis by making sure EVs are — are available and creating EVs — more EVs and lowering those costs — is working. 

And so, that’s what’s going to be the President’s priority.

Go ahead.

Q    House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that he’ll move forward with the vote on additional Israel aid.  If Congress were to pass additional aid for Israel and only that, will President Biden reject it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve been very clear — my colleagues from here just moments ago — that we will not accept a standalone.  A standalone would — would actually not help Israel and Ukraine.  It would actually delay the needs that they — the — the needs that — the needed aid that they obviously need to fight. 

When you see what was happening in Ukraine — obviously, the brave people of Ukrainian [Ukraine] are fighting against a tyrant.  We need to make sure that they have the assistance that they need. 

We saw what happened in Israel just over — over the weekend and the leadership that this President has shown.  It would — it would actually — it would actually not help them if we do a standalone, and we do not support a standalone. 

What we want to see is that bipartisan national security supplemental that passed overwhelmingly, 70-29, in the Senate.  And we believe if the — if the Speaker were to put that on the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. 

And so, that’s what we want to see.  The President made clear to the — in that conversation that he had just yesterday with Leader — Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, and the Speaker, he was very clear about that.  We need — the Speaker needs to move forward on the bipartis- — on the national security supplemental, which we believe would get a bipartisan — overwhelming bipartisan support. 

That’s what we want.  That’s what we have to see.  A standalone, we do not support.

Q    Did the President think that that conversation moved the needle at all?  I mean, this supplemental has been at a standstill in Congress.  So, in that conversation with House Speaker Mike Johnson, did he receive any sort of commitment that these two would move together?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you s- — you heard from Leader — Leader Schumer.  You heard from Leader Jeffries.  They called on the Speaker to move forward.  We saw what happened over the weekend.  We see what happens every day in Ukraine — every day.  And if they want to move qui- — quickly, if they want to do this in an easy way — if the Speaker wants to do this the easiest way pas- — possible, the fastest way possible, there is a — there is a national security supplemental that is waiting, that is ready to be put on the floor. 

We know it would get bipartisan support.  We know this.  We’ve heard from Republicans.  We know where Democrats stand. 

And so, they have to put this on the — put this on — you know, they’ve got to put this on the floor.  The Speaker has to move quickly — has to move quickly.

Q    On another topic.  The Baltimore bridge crash is now under federal criminal investigation.  Has the President been briefed on that?  And has he been in touch with anyone in the Maryland delegation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is the President is regularly updated on what’s happening in Baltimore.  Obviously, the port, moving forward with that is really important, getting the bridge back up.  As you know, the Department of Transportation, in the early days, announced $60 million to help in that effort.  We’re going to continue to talk with the Maryland delegation of what they need and how much this is going to cost to get that going. 

But the President does get regularly updated.  There’s investigation happening, as you just stated.  I’m not going to get in — you know, I’m not going to comment to that.  I’m going to let that independent investigation move forward.

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Earlier this month, did President Biden tell Xi Jinping to stop supporting Russia’s assault on Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into diplomatic conversations.  We had a readout of that call that he had about 10 days ago with President Xi.  It was an important call.  It talked — it was a continuation of their summit that they had in San Francisco a couple of months ago.  And so, I’m just not going to get ahead of or go into details about private conversation.  I think the President and we have been very clear.

Q    Okay.  So, the U.S. has announced some sanctions and an executive order to address the support that China has given Russia in those months between the summit and now but also said we are prepared to take further steps.  So, is the administration going to do more to deter Beijing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, the President certainly is — is — he’s going to underscore — he’s going to continue to underscore the concerns — right? — that he has to China, while also reiterating our readiness to conduct diplo- — diplomacy with North Korea — right?  That’s a part of this too — in our determination to take steps to deter further provocations by the DPRK, obviously. 

And also, you know — so, we’re always going to be very clear about that.  You spoke about the executive action.  I’m just going to be super careful about what — what was said between the two leaders.  We did a readout, and we’ve been always very clear — always very clear to speak — to speak very directly about our concerns and underscore our concerns to China. 

Q    But just to be clear —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — it came up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m just going to be really careful.  You have the readout.  I’m going to leave the readout to speak for itself. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jared.

Q    Is the White House satisfied with the FISA renewal bill that passed the House and is headed to the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think it’s important that it moved out of the House, and now it’s going to go to the Senate.  And we’ve talked about that.  There was a deadline, as you know, and it needs to — we’ve got to get going with the FISA.  It’s really important to get that done.

Q    Some of the changes that the White House is okay with — the reforms —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re — we’re — I think we’re — we’re satisfied that it has gone — it is moving.  It’s going to go to the Senate.  We’ll see what happens there.  But it is — we — you’ve heard from us.  You heard from even National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who talked about that the last time he was at the podium.  It’s — it’s important to our national security that we move forward with FISA.  Now it’s in the Senate.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  I want to ask about gas prices.  They’ve been going up: over the last month, 20 cents a gallon.  Is the President considering any new actions, like releasing more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Res- — Reserve?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have — I don’t have any new actions to read out. 

I will say — I will note that gas prices remain well below their peak back in 2022.  I think that’s important.  And the — the average gas price right now is cheaper than this time last year.  And that’s because of what this President has been doing over the last three years, including the SPR. 

And, look, let’s not forget: Jobs are up, wages are up, clean energy manufacturing is up — all of these things are incredibly important — because of this President’s historic investment that he has made. 

And so — but I would — I think it’s important to note that it remains well below the 2020 peak — 

Q    But —

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  — 2022 peak, pardon me. 

Q    But it’s only three cents lower than a year ago.  It’s up 52 percent from when President Biden came into office.  Any, then, talk about changes in policies that — to encourage the future investment in oil and gas (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President is committed to lowering costs.  He is.  That is something that you see at the center of every economic policy.  When he’s here giving remarks, he’s talking about lowering costs.  He understands how the American people are still being squeezed. 

And so, the reason that it remains below 2022 — the gas prices, as you’re asking me — is because of the historic investment that this President has made. 

So, of course, we’re going to continue to monitor and do everything that we can to answer those questions by the American people: What else can we do to lower costs?  But it is important that it is cheaper — it is cheaper to get gas than it was a year ago.  And that’s because of the — of what this President has been doing, because of historic investment that he’s taken. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is there — to follow up on that, is there any indication that when the President asked for the richest Americans to pay their fair share, that inflation and the rise in gas prices are linked to that request?

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

Q    Do you think that it — the rise in prices of gas and inflation, which is still rising, is linked to the President’s request that the richest Americans pay their fair share?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I — here’s what I will say: The way we see the economy is very different than the way Republicans see the economy and how we make sure we have an economy that works for all.  Making sure that the we- — the wealthiest among us — the billionaires and corporations — pay their fair share we believe is the way to go here, not putting that burden on everyday Americans. 

That’s an economic policy that we believe in and a policy that br- — builds the economy from the bottom up, middle out, not trickle-down. 

And so, we’re going to continue to lower costs.  And we’re going to ask those billionaires and corporations to actually pay their fair share.  That’s something Americans want to see.  That’s something Americans want to see. 

As — as it relates to inflation, we look at a trend here, and we have seen inflation moderate over the past several months.  And that’s important, as well, to note.  But, look, we see it very differently.  We want to make sure we’re protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, lowering costs.  Republicans don’t want to protect that, and they want to give billionaires and corporations a tax break.  That’s not how we see this. 

Q    And to fo- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure.

Q    Quick follow-up.  Earlier, there was reports that the administration released that the Department of Justice — and they haven’t commented on it — may have reached — the courts are reaching out to Julian Assange for a plea deal.  Any update from you guys here as to whether or not there would be a pardon or you would support a plea deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s a Department of Justice question. 

Q    But — but the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That — that is a Department of Justice question.  I ca- — I’m not going to get into it.

Q    And they’re not responding to it, so would you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer to Department of Justice. 

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  So, this week, a ton of people will be here for the National Cannabis Policy Summit, and there’s currently still a patchwork of state marijuana laws to regulate the drug safety, including whether there are traces of lead in products.  Since marijuana is still illegal at the federal level but becoming more common at the state level, is the administration doing anything to try to improve safety regulations of products or any consideration of legalizing marijuana moving forward at the federal level?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I will give you a little bit of an update.  So, as you all know, the President asked — asked Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review how marijuana is scheduled.  HHS has concluded their independent review, guided by the evidence.  The scheduling review is now with DOJ.  And any input should be certainly directed to them at a time and in a manner they say is appropriate. 

So, this is a matter, at this point, once — now that HHS has do- — has completed their review, it’s in Department of Justice, and they can speak to where — where marijuana rescheduling is at this point. 

All right.  Oh, go ahead.  Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I’m just wondering, looking backwards, the 2020 election cycle — so, you’re not impacting the upcoming election cycle. 

Q    No, no, no.  (Laughter.)

Q    Looking backwards —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Let’s see where this is going.

Q    No, you don’t — actually don’t know where it’s going.   (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I didn’t say that.  I said, “Let’s see where this is going.”  I have no idea where this is going.  (Laughter.)  I have no clue. 

Q    I’m going to help you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — yeah, I know you will. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know you will.

Q    In — in 2020, do you think that the American electorate was helped by seeing Donald Trump and Joe Biden on the same stage —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.

Q    — at the same time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I knew this was — now I know where this is going.  (Laughter.)

Q    — at a presidential debate?  Was that helpful, do you think, in terms of people making that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, that — that’s a question for the American people.  I can’t speak to that from here.  I can’t. 

Q    Yeah.  And the — now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And 2020 was a different time. 

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It was a different time. 

Q    And looking ahead to this upcom- — upcoming election cycle.  Do you think it would be helpful to see these two — (laughter) — candidates who are in a rematch —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So slick.

Q    — on the same stage —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So slick. 

Q    — at the same time also competing against each other in a presidential debate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As the President would say, you can’t kid a kidder.  (Laughter.)

What I will say is that is a question for the campaign.  They will gladly, I’m sure — gladly take — take that question. 

All right, everybody.  Thank you so much. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks for your patience.  I know it was a long one.

 2:41 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.

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

(April 14, 2024)

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Sorry for the delayed start, and thanks for joining the call. 

As a reminder, this call is on background and it’s embargoed until the completion of the call.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official].  He will be a “senior administration official” on the call.  We have [senior Defense official], who will be our “senior Defense official.”  And [senior military official], who will be our “senior military official.” 

Our speakers will have a few words at the top, and we’ll turn it over to Q&A. 

With that, [senior administration official], I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  So, I’m going to go through just kind of an opening and talk a little bit about not only what happened last night, but also really over the last 10 days of preparation and try to give a little bit of color, then turn it over to my DOD colleagues.  Then, I’m happy to take some Q&A. 

So, last night, as you know, Iran conducted an unprecedented attack on the state of Israel with over 300 munitions, including, remarkably, over 100 ballistic missiles, as well as land-attack cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

President Biden, probably about 10 days ago now, had instructed all of us — the United States to defend Israel to the maximum extent possible and defeat the attack, ensuring all authorities were in place, all assets were in place.  And now that the attack has concluded, that’s exactly what we did as a country.  

With the support of a number of partners, including the UK and France, the United States enabled Israel to spectacularly defeat this unprecedented attack. 

Despite launching over 300 munitions from Iran and other points in the region, Israel and a coalition of partners were able to defeat 99 percent of these munitions.  There’s virtually no infrastructure damage to Israel at all. 

And just for context, President Biden is the first American president to directly defend Israel.  He followed and directed, really, every detail of this response, starting nearly two weeks ago as we began to receive word and indications that Iran was preparing for a large-scale attack. 

Iran’s intent clearly was to cause significant damage and deaths in Israel.  We believe this requires an unequivocal condemnation from the international community.  The President this morning convened the G7, and they have forcefully condemned the attack.  I think that statement is now out. 

And all the leaders on that call were totally united in the condemnation of Iran and the need to hold Iran to account for this unprecedented and defeated assault, and also the support for the defense of Israel was very much unanimously stated by all the leaders on that call, which I was on here earlier this morning. 

We’ve been mindful in the preparations that led to last night that if successful, this attack could have caused an uncontrollable escalation of broad regional conflict — something we have worked day and night to avoid since October 7th, over the past six months. 

I mentioned in the last 10 days of preparations.  And just to provide some examples: In addition to the forced posture adjustments, which we can discuss, administration officials have been in constant, ongoing, continuous contact with Israelis, with other partners in the region, as well as Iran with a series of direct communications through the Swiss channel and other relevant players in anticipation of the events that transpired last night.  

Secretary Austin — and I think my colleague can talk more about this — had regular consultations, obviously, with his Israeli counterparts — other counterparts throughout the region; Secretary Blinken, counterparts throughout the region, as well as Turkey and China; the chairman with his Israeli counterpart and others; Jake Sullivan, myself with Israelis up and down the system almost constantly.

Even last night, just as the attack was underway before we went to join the President, Ambassador Mike Herzog and the Israeli Defense Attaché visited me here at the White House to kind of walk through where we were, even as the attack was underway.

Constant engagements with G7, Quad, Gulf counterparts and, again, Chinese, Indians, Iraqis.  This was an ongoing effort over the last 10 days. 

And, of course, General Kurilla, our CENTCOM commander, was in the region, able to provide real-time updates and, of course, in very close coordination with the Israelis and all of our other partners.  

So, all along, President Biden was kept updated by his national security team — multiple times a day, really, over the last 10 days or so — behind the scenes of other events.

For example, preparations for what we believe was coming were continuous and ongoing.  Just one example: On the margins of the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit, Secretary Austin and Jake briefed the President on the possibility for additional military deployments, including an additional missile destroyer, which the President immediately authorized. 

Yesterday, of course, the President returned from Delaware and then gathered with his team throughout the evening in the Situation Room as events unfolded in real time.  So, he was in the Situation Room getting real-time updates as this unfolded, including at the time of missile launches. 

And just to kind of set the scene, I mean, at one point, we knew there were over 100 ballistic missiles in the sky — a very short period of travel time to Israel — a period of, really, minutes.  And the results of the defenses, of course, were unclear until all was said and done. 

As the results of the defenses came in, which is when we knew the preparations and planning had succeeded, there was a bit of — a bit of relief.  But you can imagine those tense moments. 

And at nine — nine o’clock p.m., the President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And, again, just to set this scene, he, of course — the Prime Minister is with his — his War Cabinet in the war room as this was also unfolding in real time for them.  So, you know, the context for that call — it was shortly after we believed the attack was largely defeated.  The President reaffirmed our unwavering support for Israel’s defense. 

But, again, the context for the call, I think, keep in mind, both leaders had just gone through the 10 days of preparations and then the results, which were just becoming to be known, and we were feeling pretty good about where we were. 

But he told — the President told the Prime Minister that Israel really came out far ahead in this exchange.  Israel took out the IRGC’s — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ leadership in the Levant.  Iran tried to respond, and Israel had clearly demonstrated its military superiority, defeating this attack, particularly in coordination with — with partners — first and foremost, the United States and others. 

This morning, we met the President here early in the Situation Room — Jake Sullivan, Secretary Blinken, Jon Finer, myself, and others — again, to review the results of the attack.  The President spoke with the G7 leaders, as I mentioned, followed by a call with King Abdullah. 

The President and King Abdullah obviously go back many, many years, and the President values his wisdom and counsel.  And they talked about kind of broader regional situation and a number of broader issues.  

The President then spoke with [redacted], the commander of the 494th Fighter Squadron, a unit based in the UK, and [redacted], commander of the 335th Fighter Squadron unit from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina.  These two squadrons had dozens of aerial takedowns last night, saving lives, reducing the risk of a broad regional conflict. 

The President expressed his thanks as their Commander-in-Chief for, really, their extraordinary airmanship and skill that was displayed throughout this multi-hour engagement over the course of last night. 

As for Iran, the President has been cleared — clear that their actions end here, and the same applies to Iran’s proxies.  If they take action against us, we are fully prepared to defend our people, our interests, and to hold Iran accountable, as we have shown a number of times over the last six months of this crisis.  

And just to conclude, I think the events of the last 10 days have demonstrated that while we may have some disagreements, the United States of America stands with Israel, and there’s no question that we will come to their defense when they are attacked.  Last night demonstrated that fact.  And when the President — what the President calls an ironclad commitment for the United States is just that.  And I think we showed that last night in real time in a truly unprecedented manner. 

So, with that, I think I will end the opening, turn it over to my DOD colleagues.  Then I’m happy to take questions.  

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Good afternoon.  This is [senior Defense official] as the senior defense official. 

So, just to add a couple of notes to [senior administration official]’s opening: Over the last 48 hours, Secretary Austin has been receiving regular updates from his senior commanders and staff concerning Iran’s attack against Israel.  Throughout the weekend, the Secretary was in close communication with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of Israel.  In addition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been in touch with the IDF Chief of Staff, General Halevi.  And, of course, CENTCOM Commander, General Kurilla, is in the region and has been in continued contact with his Israeli counterparts as well. 

I think [senior administration official] cited the unprecedented nature of this attack against Israel.  Over 300 munitions, including over 100 ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles and UAVs.  These attacks were launched from locations in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen against Israeli territory.  And it was the first-ever direct attack on Israel from Iran — from Iranian soil. 

So, the Secretary, the Chairman, and other senior leaders from the Department joined the National Security Council from the White House in — in monitoring events in real time, as — as [senior administration official] described. 

Following the end of the attack, the Secretary again spoke with Minister Gallant and reinforced the U.S. ironclad commitment to Israel’s defense.

In coordination with the Israeli government, U.S. forces in the Middle East successfully intercepted many of these missiles and UAVs targeting Israel.  My colleague will detail some of the — the numbers. 

We are incredibly grateful here in the Department of Defense for the professionalism and skill of the brave U.S. troops who took part in these actions and who continue to stand guard to prevent further conflict or escalation.  

Iran’s attack is completely unacceptable and reckless and risks dragging the region into broader conflict.  These attacks also violated the airspace of neighboring Arab countries. 

So, let me be clear: Iran intended to cause significant damage in Israel, and they failed in their mission to do so, which is a testament to Israel’s military superiority and our collective defense. 

It’s undoubtedly a team effort, and with the support of our partners, we — together with the Israelis — were able to defeat this egregious attack.  And that was also made possible by decades’ worth of cooperation and investment in defense technologies. 

Our goal remains to de-escalate immediately and halt any further attacks.  We do not seek conflict with Iran, but we will not hesitate to act to protect our forces and support the defense of Israel.  And the President and the Secretary have been very clear that our support for Israel’s defense is ironclad and our forces remain postured to provide further support for Israel’s defense and to protect U.S. troops in the region.  

I’ll now turn it over to the joint staff for further operational updates. 

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Hey, good afternoon, and thanks for joining this call.  This is [senior military official]. 

As mentioned earlier, we currently assess Iran launched more than 300 air threats to include more than 100 medium-range ballistic missiles, more than 30 land-attack cruise missiles, and more than 150 one-way attack drones towards Israel. 

Also, as mentioned earlier, we currently assess there is no significant damage within Israel itself.

At the direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense, U.S. forces assigned to U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command actively engaged a number of the threats. 

The USS Arleigh Burke and USS Carney, operating in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, engaged and destroyed between four and six Iranian ballistic missiles during the attack.  U.S. alert aircraft in the region shot down more than 70 Iranian one-way UAVs headed toward Israel. 

A U.S. Army Patriot missile battery shot down one ballistic missile in the vicinity of Erbil, Iraq, assessed to be en route to Israel.  It is assessed that that missile was not targeting U.S. or coalition forces. 

There were no U.S. casualties or damage, and our forces remain postured to provide additional defensive support to protect U.S. forces in the region. 

And I’ll be happy to take your questions.  

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  [Operator], if you could remind folks on how to queue up for questions, we’ll take your questions now. 

[Operator provides instructions.]

OPERATOR:  First person in our queue is Zeke Miller from the AP.  Please, go ahead.  

Q    Good afternoon.  Thank you for doing the call.  I was hoping you could give us a sense of what you were expecting next from the Israelis?  What has been the U.S. messaging to the Israelis about taking their own retaliation against Iran? 

And then in terms of the G7, was there any agreement on any sort of specific sanctions or other consequences that the international community, that the U.S. wants to emplace on Iran in the days ahead? 

And any additional messaging since this attack between the U.S. and Tehran, either through the Swiss channel or any — any others?  What would the nature of that messaging be?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me try to — try to break those down.  On the G7, there was a discussion — a fairly detailed — a fairly detailed and, I think, constructive discussion about Iran.  And I don’t want to speak for, obviously, the other capitals, but a discussion of some of those countries designate — designating the IRGC as a terrorist group — things like that — but also a coordinated effort on some sanctions measures that we had been discussing.  Some of the things that had hit some hurdles that I think we’re going to look to — look to move forward on, but I don’t want to get ahead of that process. 

It was discussed in some detail, and I think we have a decent way forward.  And I think the statement that the — I believe, the Italians have — have it out — speaks to some of that.  But so, that’ll be coming. 

You know, on the Israelis, look, we are committed to defending Israel.  We would not be a part of any — of any response they do.  That’s very consistent policy. 

The discussion between the leaders last night, again, was in the context of just having come through this incredibly intense period of hours and, I thought, a pretty good discussion about kind of where you go from here and different — kind of calculating appropriately. 

But I think John Kirby spoke to this as well today, and I think I’ll leave it at that. 

Our aim is to de-escalate regional tensions.  We do not want a broader regional conflict, but our focus has been to contain this crisis to Gaza.  That’s been a focus since October 7th.  That remains the focus. 

And part of our efforts, of course, in helping Israel — in the defense of Israel is just about that.  Helping to defend Israel — that is something that remains — I know it’s overstated, but it’s actually true — ironclad.  I mean, that is a true statement.  And I think what you — what you saw last night is what that means in practice.  We were ready for that.  We’re prepared.  And we’ll do it again if we have to. 

The Iranians did send us a message, but I don’t want to characterize it one way or the other.  We have decent ways to communicate with them, but I think we are speaking very publicly and openly about what happened last night and that there needs to be some consequences here.  And I think that was a — that was a good subject of discussion with our G7 counterparts.

OPERATOR:  Our next question is Jennifer Jacobs from Bloomberg.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, everybody.  Two things.  Hello, this is J.J., Jennifer Jacobs, from Bloomberg News.  On the 100 ballistic missiles that were in the air at the same time, if you guys could offer any more details on that — on how you went about countering that, just any inside details would be appreciated. 

And then also, as you push for de-escalation, what options is the U.S. steering Israel towards?  Can you say like, you know, are you making, you know, suggestions for alternative routes for them?  Thanks very much.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  This is senior military official.  With regard to the ballistic missile attack, it was a substantial number — as pointed out, more than 100 at one single time.  It was a, you know, extremely phenomenal display of the defensive capability of Israel in this regime. 

They were of course supported by U.S. forces, in particular our two destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean.  The targeting and ultimate shots that are taken are deconflicted between the U.S. and Israel in these sorts of engagements, but the overwhelming majority of those intercepts of ballistic missiles was by Israeli systems.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, just on Israel, Jennifer, I don’t think I’m going to go much deeper than I’ve — than I’ve said.  I mean, look, we — we were — when the Israelis were here, we had a meeting on the Rafah process that we kicked off about two weeks ago, and it was shortly after — shortly before that meeting began that we actually had a VTC with the Israelis on their side, but we had the Israeli Ambassador here and their Defense Attaché here in the White House. 

When we learned of their — of their strike in Damascus against the IRGC Levant leadership corps — and, of course, that leadership corps is focused on organizing regular and ongoing attacks against Israel.  But we — Jon Finer, myself, and Jake — were pulled aside to be informed specifically about details of that strike.  We were not a part of that strike, obviously. 

But we didn’t — we knew that that would have repercussions, and that kind of has played out here over the last — over the last two weeks. 

I think Israel has made clear to us they’re not looking for a significant escalation with Iran.  That’s not what they’re looking for.  They’re looking to protect themselves and defend themselves.  And so, that’s an ongoing discussion we’re having with the Israelis, but I don’t want to talk about specific pathways or anything else. 

I just think the President was very clear that we’re going to help defend Israel.  And he made very clear to the Prime Minister last night that we do have to think carefully and strategically about, you know, the risks of escalation.  And that’s something I think has been an ongoing conversation here with the Israeli side and others even throughout the — throughout today.

OPERATOR:  We have Andrea Mitchell from NBC News.

Q    Hi.  [Senior administration official], this is Andrea Mitchell from NBC News.  [Senior administration official] and [senior Defense official] and [senior military official] —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Andrea.  How are you?

Q    Hi.  First of all, could you tell us whether you think that they decided not to strike back, as has been reported by the New York Times, after the President’s call?  Do you think that there was a cause and effect? 

And participating in the call as you did, did you think — from hearing the call, did you — did you think after that call that they were going to strike back?  If you — even if it weren’t — if it wasn’t cause and effect, but did you think that they made that decision partly influenced by the President’s call?

And how much of a risk do you think it would be if they do take such steps now, given some of the regional partners with whom you’ve dealt and obviously had some quiet cooperation?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think, Andrea — I mean, I have not seen that report.  Again, Israel here will make its — make its own decisions.  But we made our views known.  And I think the President — again, this call came at a moment in which we had just gone through this incredibly intense period of time.  And from the Israeli side, I mean, they were living through the same thing in real time, knowing that there are 100 ballistic missiles on their way to Israel. 

So, it’s a — it’s a period of kind of heightened emotion.  And I think the President, you know, had a discussion about trying to slow things down, think through things; given what we just went through, let’s assess kind of where we are. 

And in the light of day, as the sun came up this morning in Israel — and Jack Lew actually visited one of the Arrow counter- — counter-missile batteries with Israel’s Minister of Defense to kind of review the aftermath.  And I think the kind of spectacular success — I don’t use that word lightly — really — really became known in the light of day.  I mean, when you could really see that there was almost no damage at all, took down almost all of these things, it’s extraordinary. 

And I think when a call was — took place last night, when the President was in the Situation Room and we had been there for a period of hours, we knew we had largely defeated the attack, but the full extent of the — of how successful it was was not fully known.  And I think it was a very useful call just to kind of talk through where we are and next steps.  And, you know, nobody wants to run up the escalation ladder here. 

So, on the one hand, this is an unprecedented Iranian attack, as we’ve said a number of times.  It was also an extraordinary feat of military prowess and cooperation with partners in defeating it.  And I think Israel has to think through carefully what it does next, but as I said in my opening, I think, you know, they’ve kind of gotten the best of it here.  That’s very much our — our view.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  This is the senior defense official.  I’ll just add one thought to that.  You know, as I mentioned in my opening, the success that was achieved was, in part, the product of years of investment and cooperation in developing these missile defense technologies, including the ones that Ambassador Lew visited. 

And one of the great advantages of these technologies is not only, of course, the lives they save and the damage they prevent in defeating attacks, but in the flexibility they give leaders in how to respond to these situations. 

And so, that’s — that’s been borne out by the success of — of their missile defenses and ours that — that were additive.  And, of course, all the work that all the participants in the defense of Israel did last night is that it creates space and flexibility for decisions on next steps.

OPERATOR:  Our next question is from Jeff Mason from Reuters.

Q    Hi.  Thanks very much.  Can you gentlemen confirm that

Iran gave a 72-hour heads-up to other countries in the region about its attack?  And did it do the same to the United States through the conversations that you referenced with regard to Switzerland? 

And do you interpret that heads-up as a — as a sign that they wanted — that they were not looking for escalatory action or that they were — well, I guess my question is: How would you interpret that heads-up? 

And, lastly, if I can add one more, can you confirm that the President told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States would not participate in a counteroffensive?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On Iran, no, that is absolutely not true.  We — they did not give a notification, nor did they give any sense of, you know, “These will be the targets, so evacuate them.”  They were clearly intending to destroy and to cause casualties.  That was their intent.

And the fact that they didn’t, I think they might want to now say that, “Well, we didn’t mean to.”  But you launch 100 mis- — 100 ballistic missiles, you know, targeting certain locations, that was clearly their — their intent.  They just didn’t succeed.  And so, no, there was no such forewarning or anything like that. 

They were very clear that so- — you know, they would be responding and that was, you know, clearly going to happen.  The level, scope of it was something that was discussed throughout the week.  Their Foreign Minister would say something completely different than others, which is not an uncommon practice with them. 

But no, there was no kind of, like, warning as a way to kind of fire missiles but somehow not hurt anybody.  That was not — that was not their intent. 

Sorry, your second question?

Q    The second ques- —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.

Q    The second question was about the call and whether President Biden said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that the U.S. would not participate in a counteroffensive. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, yeah.  I think that’s — again, (inaudible) going back to the Damascus strike, for example, we had nothing to do with that.  You know, we — we believe Israel has freedom of action to protect itself and defend itself in Syria or elsewhere.  That’s a common — that’s a longstanding policy, and that remains.  But, no, we would not envision ourselves participating in such a thing.

OPERATOR:  Our next question is from Peter Baker with The New York Times.

Q    Oh, hi, guys.  Just to follow up on Jeff’s question.  The — putting aside the idea of a 72-hour notice, they certainly telegraphed publicly for more than a week that they were going to do this.  Everybody knew they were going to do this.  You all had those 10 days to get forces in the region.  I mean, does that not tell us anything? 

And in terms of the scope of what they did fire — more than 300 missiles and drones — is that on the high end, low end of what you expected?  What was your anticipation?  How do you — how do you — what context do you see that — that?  And do you think they still have plenty of munitions still to go, or what — does this deplete their ability to continue further attacks?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, Peter, I think it’s fair to say the scope of this attack is on the high end.  Launching 100 medium-range ballistic missiles — over 100, that is definitely on the high end, and makes it harder to defeat — to defeat when you have that many missiles in the sky. 

And, again, I think it was due to the preparations, everything else.  I don’t think that the characterization is Iran gave us time to prepare.  They needed the time to prepare for themselves to do this. 

So, we — we took advantage of the time from the moment we had any sort of information something could be coming.  We got assets in place.  We got coordination in place.  And my DOD counterparts can talk more to this, but a truly extraordinary level of military coordination to be prepared for this — I mean, unbelievable.

And what General Kurilla did and everything else, in getting our assets in place and the President making sure we had all the authorities, everything in place, good to go — you know, my counterpart here in this call talking multiple times throughout — every day throughout the week, making sure everything was — was ready.  But until — you know, until it comes, you never — you never fully know. 

But just to kind of put a period on this: yeah, the high end, in my view. 

And we used the time wisely to prepare.  And I think — but I would not characterize it as if Iran gave us the time to prepare.  Their intent was clearly to be highly, highly destructive.  And that is in their public rhetoric, and I think it’s borne out by what they tried to do last night.

OPERATOR:  Our next question is from Yuna Leibzon from Channel 12 News Israel.  

Q    Thank you.  Yuna Leibzon from Channel 12 News Israel.  So, just following up on previous questions about the call and the message that the U.S. will not participate.  What exactly did the President say about any response from Israel? 

On one hand, we hear that there is an understanding that there’s supposed to be some sort of response, no escalation.  But what was the exact term that was used for the U.S. and its support or not support for an Israeli response to this attack?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so sorry.  I think — no surprise — first, I don’t have direct notes or a transcript in front of me, and I wouldn’t provide the exact terms, in any case, of the call. 

I think — I think I’ve described the call.  I think John spoke to the call this morning.  And we read out the call last night with the President’s statement.  So, I think it was very clear. 

I mean, of the — I would also say their last call 10 days or so ago, which had a number of issues to it — including, obviously, the situation in Gaza — humanitarian situation — the first issue discussed on the call was indications of this potential attack.  So, this has been ongoing communication with the Israelis from — from that level, but also through — through our systems. 

But last night, as I’ve mentioned, was really coming out of the immediate aftermath of the attack, kind of assessing where we were and thinking through carefully about the next steps.  So, I’m not going to characterize it beyond that.  

OPERATOR:  Our next question is from Gordon Lubold from The Wall Street Journal.  

Q    Hi there.  I wondered, [senior administration official], particularly, if you could just expand a little bit on how you brought this coalition together — a little bit of color would be welcome — in the last 10 days or whatever, as you began to see what — what was imminent. 

And, also, a little bit more about what General Kurilla’s role was in Israel the last 48 hours.  What was — what was his message?  How did he coordinate?  Thanks. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think anytime you’re talking about a coalition action, every capital has different legal standards, authorities.  And to make sure all of that is in place is — takes a, you know, military diplomatic effort. 

Here, I think we had the French and the — and the Brits were obvi- — they fly with us in — in this theater all the time and — and were very — very clearly ready.  But then also bringing in our additional assets and then ensuring everything was coordinated, that’s really done at a — at a mil-mil level.  And then kind of, you know, who takes down what and the organization for the defense was really done at a — at a military-to-military level. 

From time to time, there’d have to be political engagement in capitals, but also make sure we had all the accesses we need and everything else in order to — to defeat what we thought — thought to be a large-scale attack.  And as I mentioned in response to Peter’s question, this was on the high end, I think, of what we were — what we were anticipating. 

But I don’t know if my DOD colleagues might have — might have more.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Well, this is the senior defense official here.  Secretary Austin was in, you know, pretty much daily contact with General Kurilla, as were many of us and others throughout the CENTCOM system.  And it was really quite impressive to see the — the level of coordination and trust that that obviously requires between our CENTCOM colleagues and their Israeli counterparts. 

General Kurilla was able to meet, as well, with Minister Gallant and other Israeli leaders to keep them informed about his coordination with their military.  And — but it — it gets down into very, very fine details of coordination to be able to execute what happened last night, as [senior administration official] sort of alluded to.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Yeah, senior military official.  General Kurilla makes, you know, fairly routine visits to the region.  He has had an increased number of visits, you know, since October the 7th. 

While in Israel, he ensured that we were — we were prepared to deconflict and coordinate our supporting efforts to the defense of Israel.  He also discussed with them our pending operations to support the delivery of humanitarian aid from the sea into Gaza. 

But this was, you know, in light of Iranian rhetoric and to ensure that we were — we were best postured to support their defense.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’d just add, Gordon — I mean, it’s a good question, but to kind of — thinking through this, you know — one thing, we have a — we have a robust naval coalition, as you know, dealing with the Houthis.  And that has already provided a lot of, I think, the touchpoints, patterns of interaction, you need to be quite effective. 

But, also, I just — I think — I don’t think I’ve mentioned on the call — I should have — the Houthis did try to engage last night.  But because we have that so well covered, I think we destroyed a ballistic missile on a launchpad.  And the other — other stuff they launched obviously did not make it to the target because we — we just have that area so well covered.  And that’s with a number of coalition partners.  So, what we’ve done there, we’ve done elsewhere — just standing mechanisms. 

You know, there’s a — there’s a — between the Quad — with the French, the UK, and the Germans — I think Jake’s had a number of calls with his Quad counterparts to kind of coordinating this whole thing, particularly with the French and the Brits.  And then the — just the regular touchpoints between these capitals brought it together pretty quickly.  

OPERATOR:  Next in queue is Liz Friden from Fox News.  

Q    Thank you.  Jennifer Griffin here.  I’m just trying to understand.  You had a hundred ballistic missiles fired at Israel, and you say that four to six were shot down by naval assets in the eastern Med.  What shot down those other ballistic missiles, and was it, before it got in — they got into Israeli airspace? 

And if you could talk a little bit about how many U.S. fighter jets or aircraft were involved in stopping these drones, et cetera.  

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL:  Yeah, this is senior military official.  The — the majority of those missiles were engaged by the Arrow system — Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 — in Israel — Israeli system. 

The intercepts themselves took place not — not only over Israeli airspace, but over neighboring countries as well.  It was a — it was a pretty broad engagement zone. 

There was, as you mentioned, between four and six — we’re still conducting analysis, but between four and six were confirmed by U.S. destroyers.  And then there was one that was confirmed by a U.S. Patriot battery as it flew near — in the vicinity of Erbil, Iraq. 

And the number of — as far as the number of aircraft, I — I can’t get into the — into the specific numbers and, you know, reveal how many forces we had there.  But it was — it was a number of aircraft, both land-based and from — from the sea.

OPERATOR:  Our next question is from Alexander Marquardt from CNN.  

Q    Thank you all for doing this.  [Senior administration official], I appreciate you don’t want to get into the specifics of — of the Iranian messaging, but I’m wondering if you could characterize how different it is — this is the direct message to the United States — how different that was in private to what we’ve heard in public — which was essentially, you know, “We’re done here,” and “The United States, don’t get involved” — and at what time or what stage in the process that messaging came in and whether there was a direct U.S. response in private back to Iran. 

And if I may, could you give us a sense of how you think this is going to play into Israel’s plans for Rafah and the ongoing ceasefire talks, which feel like they’re going a bit round and around?  We have today this latest rejection by Hamas to the latest proposal.  Thanks.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Alexander.  Yeah.  So, we — we received a message from the Iranians as this was ongoing, through the Swiss, basically suggesting that they were finished after this, but it was still an ongoing attack.  So, that was their — that was their message to us.  I think they’ve said that publicly as well. 

So, yeah, on — on Rafah, we have a process with the Israelis.  As we’ve discussed, I think, a number of times, I think, the complexities of Rafah, given Egypt, given the humanitarian dimension, given the density of the population there, given what it’s going to take, is extreme- — extraordinarily complex.  So, we have a process with them we kicked off about two weeks ago. 

I think, obviously, this situation delayed that a little bit.  But we look forward to pick- — picking that back up as early as next — this coming week, as it’s important.  Our expert teams have been — have been working through it, particularly on the humanitarian side and — so that we can provide our — our input, which the Israelis have agreed to do. 

They’ve also told us a number of times that anything there would be conditions-based, particularly with having the humanitarian situation set.  So, that’s a tall order of business.  And so, that’s something we’re continuing — continuing to work through. 

But I don’t think there’s a direct — just to answer your question, how does this — how does one affect the other, I think, if anything, it — you know, attention has been focused on this — this most immediate threat.  But we will get back to the situation with the hostages.  We have to get the hostages out of Gaza. 

It is outrageous that Hamas basically has an offer on the table that is everything they had asked for.  And I’m not going to confirm one w- — one way or the other what their response is, but pretty clear that Sinwar wants to hold hostages, including these young women, when releasing them and releasing old people and sick and wounded would result in an immediate ceasefire and all sorts of other things that are in this deal. 

So, it really is — it kind of speaks to everything you need to know about Hamas.  I have to think that answers the question.  

OPERATOR:  We have Alex Ward from Politico.  

Q    Yes.  Hi.  I guess just to ask a question very directly: I mean, does the U.S. not want Israel to respond to Iran at this point?  Should — should Israel just not do anything and take the defensive success as the win?  Thanks.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m just not going to say that so definitively.  I think it’s a — it’s a calculation the Israelis have to make.  This was an unprecedented attack from Iran against Israel. 

At the same time, we think in the overall exchange here — as I said in my opening, I think that the Israelis came out clearly very much on top and demonstrated their ability to defend their country in coordination with us and others — speaks for itself.  And I think a big question is not only — not only whether but what Israel might choose to do. 

And so, this is a decision — decision for them.  But I’m not going to answer it that specifically.  And I think the conversation between the President and the Prime Minister was really kind of thinking through strategically where we are after having just come through this very intense period of hours last night.  So, I’m not going to say that so definitively, no.

OPERATOR:  We have time for one more question.  We have Nadia Charters from Al Arabiya on the line.  

Q    Thank you.  Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Al Arabiya.  Do you all expect a new set of sanctions on Iran?  And, also, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, congratulated the Iranian regime, and there was reports that Sinwar was holding in the hostage deal, waiting for the Iranian attack.  So, I know you touched on it a little bit, but do you believe that this attack will make it harder or easier for Hamas leaders to negotiate?  Thank you.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Nadia.  Hamas has been, since October 7th, trying to ignite a regional war.  That is what they want to do.  They say it publicly, and we know that’s what they’re trying to do. 

They have tried to do it through working with the Iranians.  They’ve tried to do it through Ramadan.  It’s in their public statements of what they tried to do and hope would — would happen over the course of Ramadan in Jerusalem.  It did not happen. 

I think they hope this incident would have — do — do the same.  So, that is what they want and, again, speaks to what they’re trying to do. 

Haniyeh was in Tehran about two weeks ago.  And, yeah, you know, they work closely together and coordinate.  And this is one reason why Israel faces very real threats from the IRGC and from the Houthis and from the proxies that are — you know, have a desire to encircle Israel.  And we’re going to ensure that they cannot succeed. 

So, what I just said in my opening: Look, we have dif- — we have differences and disagreements with Israel on a number of things, including, in particular, on Gaza.  And those are things we’re continuing to work through. 

But when it comes to the defense of Israel against Iran, as I said in my opening and as my DOD counterpart said, that commitment truly is ironclad. 

And I think I’ll end the call with a point that I think we demonstrated that last night, and we will continue to do so going forward.  

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Thank you, everyone, for joining.  That’s all the time we have for today. 

As a reminder, this call was on background, and the embargo is now lifted. 

On this call today, we had a senior administration official, senior defense official, and senior military official. 

Thanks, everyone.  Hope you have a good rest of your day.  

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on Iran’s Attacks Against the State of Israel appeared first on The White House.

2:03 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey.  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, thank you — Thursday afternoon.  (Laughter.)

So, a couple of things, and then we’ll go into the Q&A.

I — do I — I sound like I — do I sound like I have an echo? 

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can we — can we fix the sound?  Does that sound — does that sound better?

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Great.

So, from Buffalo — from Buffalo and Kansas City to Uvalde and Monterey Park, we have seen the epidemic of gun violence tearing apart communities nationwide, leaving empty seats at dining room tables across the country. 

The President and the Vice President have spent countless hours with families who have lost loved ones to this senseless violence, and they all say the same thing: Do something. 

These same families and other survivors of gun violence turned their pain into purpose.  They organized, demanded action, and marched for their lives. 

And thanks to their collective efforts, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. 
 
Today, we are building on that progress and announcing a new rule that saves lives by requiring background checks for all gun dealers engaged in the business of firearm — firearms dealing, including for guns sold at gun shows and online. 

This new rule implements the only significant expansion of background check requirements since then-Senator Biden helped shepherd the Brady Bill over the finish line in 1993.  

Today’s new action furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s historic efforts to stop the illegal flow of guns and hold those who supply firearms used in crime accountable.  But there is still much work to be done.

President Biden and Vice President Harris continue to call on Congress to enact universal background checks and finish the job.

Now, as you all have reported, overnight Russia launched another lon- — loun- — large round of aerial assaults against Ukraine’s energy grid, as Vladimir Putin continue[s] to try to break the spirit — the spirit of the Ukrainian people and plunge them into darkness. 

Russia struck the largest power plant in Kyiv Oblast, as well as power facilities in five other regions across Ukraine. 

As President Zele- — Zelenskyy said in the recent days, Ukraine needs more air defenses and interceptors to protect its people and critical infrastructure against Russian missiles and Ir- — Iranian-supplied drones. 

We need the House of Republic- — House of Rep- — Representatives — Republicans specifically, obviously, but the House of Repre- — Representatives — to take urgent action to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental bill so we can send Ukraine more air defenses. 

And let me correct myself.  It’s actually the House of Representatives.  We need Speaker — the Speaker to put that bill on — on the floor because we know we would get overwhelming support on — from Republicans and Democrats, obviously.  So, we need to see that bill put on the floor that was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. 

The strikes in Ukraine over the past 24 hours are another terrible reminder that Ukraine’s need is critical. 

And now, turning over to Gaza, I wanted to provide an update on our efforts to do all we can to increase the amount of humanitarian assistance reaching Gaza and ease the humanitarian suffering. 

As you know, when President Biden last spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu just last week, he was clear that Israel must announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, measurable steps to address humanitarian suffering.

The past few days have shown some pra- — some promise.  Israel made the commitment to open the Ashdod Port for the direct delivery of assistance into Gaza, to open a new crossing for a new route for assistance to reach North Gaza, and to significantly increase deliveries from Jordan directly into Gaza. 

And over the past few days, over 1,000 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid have gotten into Gaza and with over 300 trucks going into Gaza yesterday — just yesterday alone. 

That’s good progress, but it’s still not enough. And we hope to see the progress continue and accelerate. 

This afternoon, President Biden will welcome President Marcos of the Philippines to the White House for his second meeting at the White House in as many years.  I know the National Security Advisor — Nat- — Jake Sullivan spoke to this on Monday, but I will reiterate what he laid out as well, which is that the President later will host the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit between the United States, Japan, and Philippines. 

During President Biden’s meeting with President Marcos, the two presidents will mark the unprecedented strength of the alliance between the United States and the Philippines.  The leaders will discuss initiatives to enhance economic and energy security, bolster maritime cooperation, invest in critical infrastructure, and deepen people-to-people ties.  And President Biden will reinforce the ironclad U.S. alliance commitments to the Philippines.   

Following the meeting, the President will host the historic trilateral leaders’ summit.  As — as leading maritime democracies, the United States, Japan, and the Philippines share a joint vision for the future of the Indo-Pacific.  And with this — with this leader-level trilateral, we are — we are taking our cooperation to new heights. 

Our national security advisors met in Tokyo last June to initiate our trilateral cooperation, and officials from across our three governments have met on topics as varied as economic security and maritime cooperation. 

Today, the leaders will announce new initiatives to accelerate and surge high-quality infrastructure investments in the Philippines, enhance energy — energy security, deepen maritime cooperation, and strengthen partnerships on technology and cybersecurity. 

Our three countries embark on this new era of trilateral cooperation as trusted equal partners, guided by shared values and an unwavering commitment to a free, open, peaceful, and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

With that, Darlene, it’s good to see you.

Q    Good to see you too.  Thank you.  To jump off of what you were saying in your topper about Gaza, the USAID Administrator, Samantha Power, has said that she accepts as credible reports that famine is already underway in Northern Gaza.  Does the President and the White House share that assessment?  And if so, you know, you were talking about the progress —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — is good, but more needs to be done.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Exactly.

Q    What more can be done?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Exactly.  The progress is good.  More needs to be done.  I talked about the commitment that Israel had — the Prime Minister gave to the — to the President just last week, and we talked ab- — I talked about the port, and I talked about the new border crossings in Northern Gaza.  We need to see that open up, that move forward. 

But we’ve seen some progress — right? — the opening of more routes and also more trucks.  As I just laid out, we’ve seen more than 1,000 trucks in the last three days. 

Look, specifically to Samantha Power and her comments, our an- — understanding is that the latest reporting from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification indicates that the famine is imminent in Gaza.  And that’s why we’re trying to do everything that we can to uptick, obviously, the humanitarian aid. 

We know how dire the situation is in Gaza.  So, we are certainly deeply concerned about these reports.  And so, we’ve been working around the clock — around the clock to get more of that aid into Gaza.  And so, we’re going to continue to do this.  We’re going to continue to push Israel to increase the flow that is getting into Gaza. 

And like I said, we — I’ve laid out their commitments.  There are two other ways that we want to see their commitment continue, which is that port that I just mentioned at the top and just moments ago, and — and so, also those — the routes — the routes in — in Northern Gaza.

So, there is more work to be done.  But, again, a thousand trucks over the last three days is an improvement.  It’s good promise.  We need to see more. 

Q    Second, was there any reaction from the President to O.J. Simpson’s death?  Do you know if they ever crossed paths? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    If so, how?  When?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  Our thoughts are with — with his families during this difficult time — obviously, with his family and loved ones.  And I’ll say this — I know that they have asked for some privacy, and so we’re going to respect that.  I’ll just leave it there. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Iran is threatening a significant attack against Israel.  With all of the U.S. assets in the region, will the U.S. provide assistance in thwarting this attack?  How is the U.S. preparing to respond?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you heard from the President directly yesterday.  He mentioned this at the top of his press conference and laid out our concerns, certainly, about these threats that are being made.  And he made very clear as well that America’s support for Israel’s security is ironclad, especially against these threats against — that’s coming from Iran and their proxies. 

And so, the President made that clear as well when he spoke to President [Prime Minister] Netanyahu just last week.  As I mentioned moments ago, I want to be really careful.  I’m not going to get into operational procedures from here. 

Beyond that, we’ve made ourselves very, very clear.  The President made himself very clear just yesterday.  And so, just don’t have anything else to add beyond that. 

Q    But we certainly have done joint strikes against Iranian proxies in the recent weeks and months.  Should we be braced for joint strikes against — in response to an Iranian strike against Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I want to be super mindful.  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here.  What we have made very clear — obviously, we’ve seen the threats coming from Iran.  And so, we have made ourselves very clear where we stand in supporting Israel’s security.  That is ironclad.  Does no- — that does not change.  I’m just not going to get into — into details about our operational procedures from here. 

Q    Just one more on this.  General Kurilla is in the Middle East.  He’s making a stop in Israel.  He’s reportedly there to help, you know, coordinate with Israel ahead of this expected attack.  What does that coordination look like?  What does — what does that mean exactly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will refer you to CENTCOM. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Karine, just to follow up on that topic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Has Iran been in touch via intermediaries with Washington to indicate that when it responds to Israel’s attack on — on its embassy — on its Syrian Embassy that it will not escalate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, we don’t want this conflict to spread.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And we’ve been very clear that in — you know, to Iran that we’re not involved in the Damascus strike.  Right?  We’ve been also very clear.

I’m not going to get into public back-and-forth.  We communicated to Iran that the U.S. had no involvement in the strike, as I just mentioned, that happened in Damascus.  And we warned Iran not to use this attack as a pretext to escalate further in the region or attack U.S. facilities or person- — personnel. 

I’m going to be super mindful not to — to speak beyond that from here or elaborate further.  But we’ve been very clear.

Q    Can you say whether Iran has responded to your or the U.S.’s indications?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into public back-and-forth from here. 

Q    And following up on something that the President said yesterday with regard to Julian Assange.  He indicated that the U.S. is considering a deal.  To what extent does the White House and the President weigh in with DOJ on this, considering that it’s a DOJ-led run — or a DOJ-led issue? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, from here, from the podium, I’m not going to go beyond what the President said.  I’m going to refer you to the Department of Justice.  I’m just going to be super mindful from the podium from here. 

Q    But he weighed in.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I’m — I’m going to be super mindful from the podium.  I’m just not going to go beyond what the President — the President sa- — shared yesterday.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice. 

Go ahead.

Q    I have questions on two topics, Karine.  First on abortion.  Vice President Harris is going to Arizona tomorrow to talk about the need for abortion access in the state.  I know the President’s own views on this topic have been evolving over the recent decades.  Should we expect him to be talking in public about this issue? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, want to be super mindful.  Tomorrow’s event is a — is a campaign event.  So, going to let the campaign speak to the Vice President’s engagement. 

Q    Is tomorrow a campaign event?  I thought it became official.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  From what I understand, it’s a campaign event. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would refer you to her team, at least — at the le- — at the least.  But from my understanding, it’s a campaign event.  So, I’ll leave that there. 

But, you know, the President spoke to this.  He was shouted a question about — about what occurred in Arizona, how devastating and how wrong the decision to go back to 1864 to make it more difficult for women — millions of women. 

And, you know, he — he talked about that.  So, I certainly will — will refer you to his comments. 

The President has consistently been very clear about where he stands.  He stands for women’s rights.  He stands for women to be able to make decisions about their bodies, right?  He — he stands for reproductive freedom.  He put a statement out right after Arizona made their decision.  

So, he’s been very — you know, very steadfast and out front on this.  You’re going to hear from the Vice President.  So, you’ll hear directly from her.  We’ve been really clear.  And all of this — what we’re seeing right now in states — we have 21 states that have some se- — that have extreme bans — 21 states across the country. 

And a lot of — and that has been caused by the chaos that we have seen from the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  And that’s because, obviously, of the Dobbs decision.  It was a — it was a constitutional right for almost 50 years, and that has been taken away from women. 

And so, it’s caused chaos.  And we’re going to continue to call that out.  We should be fighting for women’s rights, women’s freedom, Americans’ freedom.  And that’s not what — that’s not where Republicans are. 

Q    I know other colleagues have questions.  But I also just want to ask about the State Dinner, because regulators in the Biden administration have sued both Amazon and Apple alleging anticompetitive behavior that has caused public harm.  So, why were executives from those companies invited to the dinner last?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, when it comes to the State Dinner, we invite an array of folks to come in.  And — and obviously, you know, it’s — it’s an important night of — especially when another country comes, it shows bipartisanship.  It shows the strength of that alliance that the U.S. has with that particular country.  The — the list varies, you know, and it — we — it’s always — it’s always different types of people that come to — to the —

Q    But the Justice Department said, just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — less than a month ago, that Apple uses its control —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — saying that that lawsuit should send a strong signal to other companies. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And —

Q    So, what signal is the White House sending?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear your question.  That’s the Department of Justice to decide.  I do not —

Q    But the White House choose —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I — 

Q    — who to invite to the dinner.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — no, I’m not saying that the DOJ invited — invited people to the White House state dinner.  That’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying DOJ moved forward with that particular case — that particular lega- — legal action.  I can’t speak to that.

We always invite an array of — of people.  We bring people from all corners of different industries here to the White House.  That’s what we do.  And I just don’t have anything else further to share.  And we — you know, I think it’s important that — that we do that, but I can’t speak to a DOJ legal case.  They took —

Q    So, the President doesn’t think that those companies did —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — anything wrong?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is a legal action being taken by the Department of Justice.  I can’t speak to that.  They have their reasons of moving forward on that.  I — I can’t speak to that.

We invite a — a diverse group of people when it comes to events — not just state dinners — when it comes to events here — from even different sides of the — of the aisle.  That’s what — that’s what this President has done. 

I — I can’t speak to what DOJ — and their legal action.  I just can’t speak to that from here. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Picking up on abortion.  When the President was asked yesterday what his message was to the people of Arizona in light of the ruling, he said, “Elect me.”  So, can you elaborate on what —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — he meant by that?  What can he do for those people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  I — I’m going to be careful because obviously he was talking about 2024.  I mean, look —

Q    Actually, he was talking about the 20th century, as I recall.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mm-hmm.  Yeah, okay.

So, this extreme abortion ban, as we know, that we see was made possible because of the Supreme Court.  And we know what the last previous President said.  He said that, you know, he would — he would make sure that Roe v. Wade was no longer constitutional law, and he made that happen and — which has led to — to chaos — to chaos across the board. 

And so, I want to be careful for — for, you know, talking about an upcoming election, so I’m not going to speak to that from here. 

But we have seen what’s happened in last almost two years since Roe v. Wade has been overturned.  We’ve seen women having to be turned away from emergency rooms, not being given lifesaving — lifesaving needs that they — they have to get in order to — for their lives to be protected.  That’s been turned away. 

And so, what this President has done is he’s taken executive actions — as I’ve talked about, we’ve talked about.  He’s created a task force.  He has done and taken action to do everything that he can from the executive branch to protect women, but we need more to be done.  We need more to be done. 

And so, you know, we have to get Congress to act to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land.  And so, that is where we are right now.  But this is — this is — chaos was started by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  And we’ve seen where extreme Republican elected officials have been on this issue.  We’ve seen that. 

And so, that is something that we’re going to continue to make very clear to Americans, but I’m not going to speak to the upcoming election from here. 

Q    Okay.  And also, on an interview that the President recently did, he said, “I think what he’s doing is a mistake.  I don’t agree with his approach,” talking about Netanyahu.  Can you clarify: What is the mistake?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve talked about how the President spoke to President — Prime Minister Netanyahu just last week; they had a 30-minute conversation.  It was direct.  They have known each other for some time.  They have spoken over more than a dozen times since October 7th — the tragic, tragic attack that we’ve seen from Hamas, a terrorist organization.  And they said October 7th — they said October 7th would be something that they want to see over and over again.  So, they’ve had those conversations. 

Look, the President has been very clear.  I started out this briefing talking about how humanitarian aid has increased, and that’s because of conversation — the conversation that the President had with the Prime Minister.  That’s important. 

We need to make sure that civilians are protected.  We need to make sure that humanitarian aid workers are protected.  The President has said that.  That is what our focus is going to continue to be, as well as making sure that this hostage deal gets done — working around the clock to get that completed so we can get hostages home to their loved ones. 

The President has always been very honest and direct with — with leaders, including the Prime Minister. 

Q    So, does — just one more quick one.  Does the President believe Netanyahu’s approach, as you sort of just laid out there, is to blame for the famine that we are now seeing in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is I — that is not what the President is saying.  The President has been very clear that more needs to be done to pro- — to protect innocent civilians.  More work needs to be done to make sure that humanitarian aid workers — who are doing incredible work, who are being incredibly brave — are protected.  And so, that is what we’re speaking to. 

And, unfortunately, we’ve seen more than 200 of humanitarian aid workers die, and that is something we do not want to continue to see.  That’s why the President had this conversation with the Prime Minister last week — a 30-minute direct conversation with the Prime Minister on what needs to be done to continue to protect innocent — innocent civilians.  That’s why we’re having conversation about that Rafah operations.  Right? 

And our two sides are committed to — con- — moving forward with those conversations.  They’ve been pr- — they — we’ve seen some progress.  We’re going to continue to have those conversations. 

And Israel has made commitments.  The Prime Minister kept — is — has made a commitment to the President.  We’ve seen an uptick of trucks — more than a thousand over the last three days.  That commitment is continuing.  We want to see more.  That’s good progress.

Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I also wanted to ask about the Univision interview.  The President said that he was “examining” ways to potentially shut down the border.  It’s a phrase that can mean lots of different things to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — lots of different people, so I’m wondering if you could maybe explain what the President means when he talks about shutting —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think the bottom line with all of this, and I’ve said this many times: The — the number-one way to really deal with what’s happening at the border is — is to move forward with the bipartisan agreement proposal that came forward out of the Senate and that obviously was rejected by Republicans because of what the former President told Republicans. 

That’s what we want to see.  That’s how we deal with the broken system — the immigration system obviously being broken for decades now — and dealing with the challenges at the border. 

We’re always going to look at executive actions.  We are, and we have been.  But really — really, truly to move forward, we have to make sure that we get this proposal done.

Q    I — I understand that your preference is obviously for that legislation to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Frankenstein back to life — (laughter) — but since the President himself said that you guys are looking at those executive actions, can you talk —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    Is it — is the, sort of, universe here just trying to restrict asylum claims?  Is it changing processing times?  Or is it as extr- — you know —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — President Trump, when he talked about it, talked about le- — ending legal travel or legal trade across the border.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what — here’s what I can say.  We evaluate all options.  Right?  We do.  We evaluate all options as it — as it regar- — as it relates to executive actions.  We just have not made a decision on this yet.

But we believe, the President believes it’s important to evaluate those options to see what’s at our disposable — our disposal to move forward. 

And we haven’t made a decision.  But what we will continue to do is — because there is a proposal out there that is bipartisan, that is — would deal with what — the challenges that we’re seeing at the border, we think it’s important.  It was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the — the Border Patrol unions.  It is a bipartisan, again, proposal that we think would be tough and fair.  We want to see Congress move forward with it.  And — and so, we’re going to continue to call for that. 

But as — as it relates to what we’re looking at, we’re always looking at options.  I just don’t have anything.  We’re always going to evaluate our options.  I just don’t have anything to share.  We d- — haven’t made a decision.

Q    And really quickly.  The trilateral today is open to the press, but the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — bilateral beforehand is not.  I was wondering, first, of course, to request that it be possible that we get in there.  But if not, if you could walk through why the White House decided — because normally those meetings are —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no —

Q    — open.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — it’s a meeting between — obviously, between the two countries.  I think it’s important to note it shows the strength of the U.S. alliance and how important it is for these two countries to — to speak with one another and have this meeting.

Look, I will say this.  Their schedules, the — both schedules were — were, you know, the President and the Philippines leader have a very packed schedule.  And so, we weren’t able to make it into — open that to the press. 

But what is important is there is going to be a trilat, which is a historic meeting that’s happening later today.  And you’ll have an opportunity — obviously, that is open to the press.  And you’ll have an opportunity there to see the three leaders together.

Go ahead.

Q    Two quick ones.  First, following up on Weijia.  In the White House’s view, who is to blame for the famine or imminent famine that we’re witnessing right now in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s our focus.  And — and I — I get the — the question.  And — and, you know — and the humanitarian situation in Gaza, obviously, is dire.  And that is why the President is doing everything that he can to get more humanitarian aid in.  And that’s what our focus is going to be.

Q    Was it a mistake —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our focus —

Q    Was it a mistake not to push Benjamin Naten- — Netanyahu sooner to open Ashdod and Erez crossing, which would have allowed the prevention of what Samantha Power agrees is famine in Northern Gaza right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But here’s the thing.  For — every time the President has spoken to the Prime Minister, there’s — part of that conversation has been to do more on humanitarian aid.

Q    So, why did it change now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It didn’t change.  It is a — it was a continued — it was the conversation that — that —

Q    Why did Netanyahu respond differently now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s a c- — that’s a conversation with — for the Prime Minister.

Q    It wasn’t the potential that the U.S. would change policy —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It —

Q    — as the President said?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is — that is a c- — that is a question for the Prime Minister.  But what I want to make sure that is very clear here is that we have seen a thousand trucks go — go into Gaza over the last three days.  That is important.

They have — the Prime Minister made commitments.  They are upholding their commitments.  We want to see more.  We’ve seen good progress.  And what we’re seeing in Gaza — obviously, we have said over, over again that the situation — the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire.

Q    Can you help me — last question.  Can you help me understand one thing?  Yesterday, the President made very clear that the U.S.’s commitment to Israel is, in his words — he said it twice —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — “ironclad.”

How can the U.S.’s commitment to Israel be, quote, “ironclad” when, in the statement released on behalf of the White House last week after his conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, he said that the U.S. would reassess its policy as it relates to Israel given the way it prosecutes the war in Gaza?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the Pre- —

Q    How can it be ironclad and be reassessed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is an important relationship that we have with Israel.  It is a — they are our friends.  And we have always said that we are committed to make sure that Israel’s security, especially against these threats that we’re hearing from Iran, that they are protected. 

And we — and that is ironclad.  We’ve always been consistent there.  And we’re going to continue to be very clear about that.

The President made sure to put that at the top of his press conference because he wanted to continue that message, continue the message of making sure that America — we support Israel’s security, especially against these threats that we’re hearing from Iran and, also, their — their proxies.  And so, that hasn’t changed.  That hasn’t changed.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Just another on Israel.  House Republicans are expected to bring up this resolution that’s critical of the President’s work with Netanyahu.  They say in the resolution they oppose efforts to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza, including calls for an immediate ceasefire.

Does the White House have any view on the resolution?  Is this constructive?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we believe the entire premise of — of the resolution is — is certainly flawed — is flawed, as — as it — as it claim of one-sided pressure against Israel, which this administration has supported militarily, diplomatically, and in — in myriad of other ways, both since October 7th and from our first day in office. 

So, we oppose it.  And we call on members to vote against it.

Q    And just one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The steelworkers union David McCall — leader — David McCall, was at the dinner last night.  You know, he obviously opposes this — this deal with Nippon Steel.  Was — was he invited because of this pending deal?  Was it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    — an opportunity to allow him to speak to Japanese leadership?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t make that connection.  I wouldn’t make that connection.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I just want to clarify one of your earlier answers.  Did the administration send a direct warning to Iran not to attack Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve been very clear.  I’ve — I’ve — we’ve been — I mean, you heard from the President — right? — and laid out our commitment to Israel and make sure Israel’s security — that continues.

And so, we’ve had those conversations.  I’m just not going to go into back-and-forth publicly.

Q    Well, the reason that I think it’s important to know is because you — you just shared earlier that, you know, the U.S. was quick to tell Iran directly that we had nothing to do with the strike in Damascus.  The President hasn’t minced words on his feelings about Netanyahu.  But we haven’t gotten a very clear answer on whether it was communicated directly to Iran, “Don’t attack our ally.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just said we communicated to Iran.  I just said that.  I said we’re not going to go into b- — public back-and-forth on this.  But I said we communicated to Iran and we said had no involvement.  That’s what I said — right? — on the strike in Damascus and warned Iran.  We warned Iran.

So, I said that at the top and I’ll say —

Q    That was my only question.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    On the issue of inflation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    There was a report in Politico on Tuesday that the former Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, was teeing off on the President’s, you know, talking about bridges all the time when he’s out on the campaign trail and not talking enough about the prices that people are paying.  We didn’t get any statement today on the PPI index.  You know, why — why aren’t we hearing more from the White House about the issues that people are facing at grocery stores and paying rent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the State of the Union, the President made very clear about what — he understands what the Americans are facing.  And he’s talked at almost every — every event that he’s had — crisscrossing the country after the State of the Union — about lowering costs, how important it is, and how there’s more work to do.  You hear that.

In New Hampshire and North Carolina, he spoke about his work to lower healthcare costs.  In La- — Las Vegas, he discussed his plan to build and renovate — renovate 2 million homes to lower housing costs.  In Madison, he announced his student debt re- — relief plan. 

He also spoke with Senator Sanders just last week about his progress lowering costs for prescription drugs and inhalers. 

This week, he spoke about plans to lower costs for childcare, home healthcare, eldercare.  He talks about lowering costs almost every event.  I just laid out the events that he did in March and in early April about how he’s making sure that — the number-one economic concerns that American have are lowering costs. 

And just like Ron — Ron said this.  He said that the President has been — he believes — he believes in what the President has been doing in crisscrossing the country and talking about the state of the Union and talking about how we’re going to continue to cut costs for Americans and making sure that we do not give big tax giveaways to corporations. 

That’s what Republicans are talking about.  They put out their — their budget, and their budget is to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  That’s what they want to do.  And we’re doing the opposite.  We’re trying to protect that and lower costs for Americans.

Q    Is it at all inappropriate for the President to be commenting on what the Fed might or might not do with interest rate cuts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President, unlast — unlike the last one, has been very clear about giving the Fed the space to make independent decisions about how they’re going to move forward on their monetary decisions.  The President has always been very clear about that, and he’ll continue to do so. 

And in his comment yesterday, he was also clear.  He said, “We don’t know what the Fed is going to do.”  And he was simply reflecting on public interpretation of recent datas, but he also said, “We do not know what the Fed is going to do.” 

And we’ve always given them the space to make those decisions — those monetary decision independently and make sure that, again, they have the space to do that. 

Go ahead.

Q    There’s been some discrepancies between what Israel is saying in terms of the number of trucks getting into Gaza that are full of aid versus some other aid groups, including the United Nations.  So, how is the White House exactly measuring what “good progress” is? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m not going to get into the nitty-gitty — -gritty here.  I will leave it up to — up to — up to — up to them to speak to what they’re seeing.  But we believe — I mean, we’re talking about a thousand trucks in over three days.  That matters — a thousand trucks.

Q    But a lot of the U.N. folks are saying that some of those trucks are not completely full.  There are trucks that are half full that are being counted.  So, what are the measurements here in terms of what is effective aid delivery? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think when we are hearing more than a thousand trucks and we’re seeing that — we’re — I just said 300 trucks just yesterday — that matters.  There’s more — there’s more access being allowed.  The trucks are being allowed to come in.  That matters. 

And so, look, that’s what — that’s what we are — we’re continuing to see.  We believe that Israel is keeping their promise. 

There’s more work to be done.  Right?  We need to see the ports open.  We need to — we need to see that as well. 

But we’re seeing progress here. 

Q    And in —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re seeing progress.

Q    And in terms of the distribution once the trucks are in — I mean, northern Gaza, obviously, experiencing a lot more famine that’s setting in, as was talked about earlier.  What is the White House tracking?  Or how is the White House, if at all, trying to facilitate some of the distribution?  And are — are there concerns about how it’s getting to the regions where it most needs to be?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re going to continue to have conversations with the Israeli government on how they’re — how these — how this aid is being distributed.  We want to make sure — it is important.  Here’s what is important: It is important that the innocent people in — in Gaza, the Palestinians, get that im- — all-important aid.  We know what’s going on there.  Obviously, it’s dire. 

And so, we’re going to continue to have those diplomatic conversations, be very straightforward with our — with our Israel counterparts here. 

But they made a promise.  We’re seeing a difference here.  We’re seeing aid getting in.  Of course, it’s not going to be enough.  Right?  Of course, we need to see more progress.  Of course, we know what the — how dire the situation is in Israel — and I’m sorry, in — in Gaza. 

And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversation with Israel government. 

Yeah.

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  You said President Biden still hasn’t made a decision on taking executive action on the border.  Why is there a holdup on making a final decision on this?  What factors are being considered before the White House makes a call on this matter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I mean, look, Joe, we — we spent a couple of months working with the Senate Republicans and Democrats to make sure that we came up with a bipartisan solution to deal with the border — right? — to deal with the challenges at the border.  We believe that that was the best way — we still believe that’s the best way to move forward because it would be tough, it would be fair, and — and it’s gotten support from places that you would never think — right? — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Border Patrol union.  That’s important. 

And so, we believe that is the best way to move forward here.  We’re always going to evaluate other options as it relates to executive action.  But we are continuing to be clear here: The best way to move forward is to get that bipartisan proposal forward and for, you know, Republicans to not pick politics here, to pick a majority of the American people.

Q    I mean, is a matter of there being concerns about opening the administration up to litigation on this with executive a- — action, or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s why we came up with the bipartisan proposal — right? — because we believe that the way to actually deal with this is legislation.  The — the way to actually deal with this is to turn legislation into law, obviously. 

And so, that is the best way to move forward.  And no executive action is going to have the full — the full resources that we need to — to get this done — to get this done. 

We’re going to evaluate all of our options, as we’ve been saying, but we have to continue to be really clear here.  Republicans need to act.  They need to move forward. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Following up on my colleagues Weijia and Peter.  You said earlier that the President is doing everything he can on getting humanitarian aid into Gaza.  I have to respectfully suggest that that’s not true, because it took until seven aid workers were killed last week for the President to even suggest that he would change U.S. policy and possibly condition humanitarian — condition defense aid on the humanitarian situation in Israel. 

So, how can you stand there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and say the President is doing everything he can when, for weeks and weeks and weeks now, even as NGOs and aid groups warned that famine was imminent, he continued to refuse to pull on that lever and link defense aid to humanitarian aid. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first of all, the President has done airdr- — we’ve done airdrops.  We’re going to do this pier.  We’ve talked about, for the past several months, how we need to do more and how we’re going to uptick our efforts to get that humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

We understand what’s going on.  We understand that the dire — it — what it — the dire needs there are.  And so, the President has — we’ve announced we’re going to do this pier.  Right?  We’ve done — done this airdrops. 

And so, we have had the conversation with the Prime Minister multiple times, with the Israeli government almost every day on what needs to be done.  And we’ve had those conversations with them. 

And so, now we are seeing an uptick.  That is important.  That is indeed what we want to see.  We’ve also been working on doing this hostage deal.  The President has been working around the clock. 

So, I take — I take offense to what you’re saying because it isn’t true.  The President has been working on this hostage deal for months now — for months now. 

Q    Respectfully, the hostage deal that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, wait — for months now.  And that is a way to make sure that there is a temporary ceasefire that could pr- — hopefully lead to something longer, get those hostages home, and get humanitarian aid. 

And so, that is what we have been also focusing on really diligently —

Q    But — but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — for the last t- —

Q    But with all due respect, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    With all due respect —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    — my question was on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the famine, which has been something that aid groups —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But that’s the same —

Q    — have warned about for weeks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The hostage deal includes humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. 

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s what he’s been working on — this humanitarian aid to get into Gaza — and, also, get those hostages home. 

Q    But why — why is it — because it sounds like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you’re saying that we haven’t done anything.

Q    No.  No.  I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but — no, but it’s what you’re saying.

Q    You said the President has done — has been doing all he can. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s been working 24/7, around the clock — 

Q    I have — I have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to do what he can —

Q    — no doubt. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But —

Q    But he has not — he has not until recently even suggested that he would condition military aid, which Israel needs, on them allowing food and humanitarian aid into Gaza, which the people of Gaza need.  That has been — I hate to use the term —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a red line every time I or any of my colleagues have asked —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not —

Q    — in this briefing room about this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you’ve heard from the National Security Advisor.  I’m not going to get into red lines from here. 

Here’s what I can say: The hostage deal includes getting the humanitarian aid in.  We’ve been working on that.  We’ve been working on getting that hostage deal done.  We’re going to continue to do that. 

You’ve heard us say that we’ve worked around the clock to get those hostages home — which, by the way, includes American hostages as well — and getting that aid in.  We know how dire the situation is — is in Gaza.  We are very aware of that. 

And we’ve had conversations almost every day with our counterparts in the Israeli government.  We’ve had conversations, more than a dozen, with the Prime Minister. 

And so, it is important — it is important to get that aid in.  We understand that.  We understand that, and we’re going to have those conversations every day to make sure that it continues.

Q    Thank you.  And one un- — one more, unrelated. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Earlier this week, the former President met with Lord Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary.  He has, in recent weeks, met with Viktor Orbán, the leader of Hungary.  He has said he’s spoken to Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia.  There is a long history of Republican presidential candidates meddling in foreign policy to undermine their Democratic opponents.

Without getting into Hatch Act territory — you know, telling people to vote for or against someone — is the administration concerned that this private citizen could be working against U.S. interests in the interests of his own political ones?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you’re talking about his meeting specifically with —

Q    With — with foreign leaders: Lord Cameron, his talking with MBS, Viktor Orbán, and others possibly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a- — look, as it relates to other — other leaders and those types of meetings — specifically, let’s — let’s talk about David Cameron.  The UK noted earlier this week it is common for officials from other countries to meet with representatives of different parties.  That includes the United States, as we routinely meet with political leaders of different parties as well. 

For instance, we hosted Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid yesterday — at the beginning of the week — at the beginning of the week.  And so, it’s not uncommon. 

I am going to be really careful here, because you’re talking about a presidential candidate.  I’m going to be really mindful.  I used David Cameron as an example.  But I’m going to be really mindful.  I’m not speaking beyond that. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Governor Moore is apparently on the Hill today.  He was there earlier this week meeting with lawmakers.  Is — has he been down to the White House to meet with officials to talk about funding for the bridge?  And can you give us an update on the President’s conversations with lawmakers to get that funding moving forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we — yeah, look, we have said to Congress that we want to continue to work with them to make sure that the Key Bridge is back up and that the — Baltimore gets what it needs, certainly, to — to be whole again.  And obviously, we’re getting that port open. 

We’ve been in regular touch with Governor Moore.  You know the President was with him very recently.  And they have had continuous conversations about what Baltimore needs. 

The President said, when he was in Baltimore: We will be with Baltimore and the — and the state of Maryland for as long as they need to get this done. 

I don’t have a specific readout to share with you.  But we’ve been in regular communication.  Our Office of Leg Affairs has been in regular communication with members of Congress.  Our — our Intergovernmental Affairs folks, Tom Perez, has been leading on this issue as it relates to Baltimore and the needs there. 

And also, let’s not forget our — our Department of Labor has been very involved, as well, in making sure — you know, dealing with the economic situation and how we can help on that front as well. 

So, don’t have anything to read out as far as the conversations, but —

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — we’ve been there for them. 

Q    And is there any better sense now that we’re, you know, a coup- — another week passed this — and the President’s conversation last week and the briefing he got there — on an estimate of how much this is going to cost?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have an estimate for you.  We’re going to talk to our — our — the Maryland delegation, have those conversation.  Don’t have an estimate for you to share — to share. 

DO- — Department of Transportation announced $60 million really right — right aft- — the week after the — the bridge collapsed.  And so, we know that’s — that’s there to help.

Don’t have a — a final estimation.  Obviously, we’re going to continue to talk to the delegation.

Go ahead, Jon. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Back in late December, President Biden, in response to a question that I asked him, said that he could not think of one reason for presidents to receive total immunity from prosecution.  Four months later, does the President continue to have that same belief?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have anything beyond what the President shared with you. 

Q    And in two weeks’ time, a Supreme Court case will happen.  It’s Donald J. Trump vs. the United States. 

Earlier this week, there was an amicus brief that was filed by more than a dozen retired generals and admirals opposing this legal theory that Donald Trump and his lawyers have that he does have total immunity from criminal prosecution.  Does the White House, the administration plan to file an amicus brief of their own on this particular issue? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

Q    Is there any effort to have the former presidents — that you know of — to file an amicus brief taking one side or another on this particular issue?

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

Q    Is there any effort that you are aware of of the former presidents, the predecessors of President Biden — President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter — to file a joint amicus brief, either taking a position one way or another on this particular matter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I’m going to ask you about inflation.  So, yesterday in the Rose Garden, the President said that when — when he came into office, inflation was skyrocketing.  But it was 1.4 percent in January of 2021, and that was the 11th consecutive month, at that time, under 2 percent.  So, was the President misleading Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, when — when the President took office — and you know this — there was a pandemic.  It was closing down businesses, closing down schools.  And so, it was drastically disrupting the supply chain.  Let’s not forget about that.  And — and so, that’s what was going on.  And that caused inflation around the world to increase.  We know that. 

And — and then further increasing inflation was the — the Russia’s war — Russia’s war in Ukraine.  And in fact, many other countries are even worse off because of — of that — of — because of what we seen with Russia’s war. 

So, the President took historic action to deal with the disruption of the supply chain.  Let’s not forget what he did with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

And so, we have made progress in lowering costs.  We’ve made progress in dealing with inflation. 

But that’s what was happening when we walked in: the pandemic, the disruption of the supply chain.  All of these things were happening when the President walk — took office.

Q    But the President didn’t say “the supply chain was being disrupted.”  He said “inflation was skyrocketing.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But that’s what he was referring to.  Right?  That’s what was going on.  Those were the things that were happening right before us.  The pandemic — it was taking thousands of lives a day when he — when he took office; schools were closed — were — a majority of schools were closed; businesses were closing; and we had a supply chain that was disrupted.  And so, that’s what the President was speaking to and laying out. 

And then inflation — down the road — became even more — increased even more because of the war that Russia had t- — had — had taken on into Ukraine. 

Q    But the Fed’s — the Fed’s supply chain measure actually went down in November at that time.  So — so, is the President being honest about inflation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President has said what — he — he said what he saw when he was — when he took — when he took office.  The pandemic was happening, right?  It disrupted the supply chain.  We know — you know what happens when the supply chain is disrupted.  You know what that leads to.  And so, that’s what he was speaking to. 

And not only that, we — he had to — we also saw a war in Ukraine that — that Mr. Putin, an aggressive — aggression that Mr. Putin was — was putting into Ukraine — set forth.  And so, the President had to take historic action, take aggressive action in dealing with the disruption in the supply chain.  He had to — he released the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that we can deal with the supply chain. 

And he continued to take action to lower costs.  And that’s what we’ve seen — whether it’s healthcare costs, whether it’s dealing with junk fees, whether it’s prescription drugs — lowering those costs.  That’s what the President took action in.

But we saw what was happening when the President took office.  We did. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Okay. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  As you know, there — there’s a tradition, dating back to the Truman administration, of offering intelligence briefings to major party presidential nominees.  President Trump was declared the presumptive nominee on March 6th.  Has the White House offered intel briefings to former President Trump?  And if so, how — have they begun?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the ODNI.  That’s for them to speak to.

Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  See you tomorrow. 

2:51 P.M. EDT

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

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

(April 10, 2024)

3:05 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you all for joining today’s background call to preview the bilateral meeting of President Biden and President Marcos of the Philippines and the historic trilateral summit of the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines. 

As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributed to senior administration officials.  The call is also held under embargo until 5:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time tomorrow. 

By participating in today’s call, you are also agreeing to these ground rules. 

On today’s call, we have [senior administration official].  And I will now turn the call over to [senior administration official] to kick us off.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you so much.  And thanks to all for joining us this afternoon.  I’m also pleased to be joined here in the room by several of my colleagues who’ve been formative to the preparations of both the bilateral meeting between the President and President Marcos and the first-ever trilateral U.S.-Philippines-Japan leaders’ summit that will take place tomorrow.  So you may also hear the voices of [senior administration officials] alongside me as we work through what we have to share with you today. 

As you all know, we just concluded the meetings portion of the official visit with state dinner, during which the President is hosting Prime Minister Kishida of Japan here at the White House for nearly their dozenth meeting in the last two and a half years since Prime Minister Kishida took office.  And at that visit, we announced a number of extremely consequential deliverables, ranging from the defense space to civil space to critical and emerging technologies, critical infrastructure, and people-to-people ties. 

But this is really just kicking off what we see as a tremendous week for us and for the President’s Indo-Pacific strategy here at the White House.  Because tomorrow we will also be welcoming President Marcos of the Philippines and holding, as I said, the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit between the Philippines, the United States, and Japan. 

Since the start of this administration, President Biden has, of course, prioritized the reinvigoration of the United States’ greatest strength: our network of alliances and partnerships.  And in our view, there is nowhere that this strategy has yielded more success and bigger results than in the Indo-Pacific. 

Today, you saw our Japanese allies consistently standing up and stepping up alongside us to modernize the alliance in ways that would have seemed impossible just three years ago.  And tomorrow, you will see another longstanding ally in the Indo-Pacific stepping up in a big way, who is now more closely coordinated than ever with the United States, and that is President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

He’ll be here for the second visit to D.C. in just two years’ time.  And this is the seventh meeting with either President Biden or Vice President Harris, which is a sign of the very close relationship that we have built with President Marcos.

Our alliance with the Philippines is the oldest in the Indo-Pacific and has never been stronger, with deep people-to-people ties at its foundation.  And that, of course, includes the more than 4 million Filipino Americans who live in the United States and 400,000 Americans who live in or are visiting the Philippines at any given time. 

Under President Biden and President Marcos, we’ve modernized the alliance to meet emerging opportunities and challenges.  And our defense and security ties continue to serve as a cornerstone of that alliance.  And in particular, we’ve added four new sites under the Enhanced Cooperation Defense Agreement and provided an additional $100 million in foreign military financing for the Philippines. 

We’re also working together in a range of areas from economic growth to energy security to critical and emerging technologies to secure connectivity.  And you’ll see all of those areas on display tomorrow. 

But beyond the bilateral relationship, we are also excited to launch at the leader level, for the first time, a brand-new format, and that is the trilateral that includes our friends in Japan.  That trilateral met for the first time at the national security advisor level last year, and our leaders are now taking it to new heights.  And you’ll see there a huge amount of work on display that covers areas ranging from energy security to infrastructure to critical and emerging technologies to maritime security.  And we’re excited for all that we’ll be able to share in those spaces.

Amongst the priority of deliverables that we’ll be unveiling tomorrow — which, as Michael noted, are embargoed until 5:00 a.m. in the morning tomorrow — we’ll be announcing an important set of new infrastructure projects known as the PGI Luzon corridor, the first-ever PGI corridor in the Indo-Pacific, which will connect Subic Bay, Clark, Manila, and Batangas in the Philippines to accelerate coordinated investments in high-impact infrastructure projects, including ports, rail, clean energy, semiconductors, supply chains, and other forms of connectivity in the Philippines. 

We will be holding events and setting up a steering committee to accelerate the work on this Luzon corridor, and the Development Finance Corporation will open its first regional office in the Philippines as part of this announcement. 

Second, we’ll be making announcements in the space of Open Radio Access Network technology, where the U.S. and Japan, both governments and industry, will be providing millions of dollars in funding for O-RAN field trials and the support of an Asia O-RAN Academy in Manila to enable future commercial deployment.  And we’re working closely with the government of the Philippines to ensure that we can partner as a trilateral grouping to deploy secure, trusted ICT technology in the Philippines. 

Earlier this week, you saw an important step in a coordinated Australia-Japan-Philippines-U.S. maritime cooperative activity.  We held a joint sail in the South China Sea, of course in a moment where the Philippines is facing enormous pressure from the PRC in that part of the region. 

And you’ll see us making further announcements tomorrow with respect to our coast guard cooperation, our cooperation on the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief space, and in our military cooperation and capacity building.

All in all, particularly at this moment when, as I mentioned, President Marcos is coming under pressure from the PRC’s aggressive tactics in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, what you’ll see is a clear demonstration of support and resolve from both President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Marcos, ready to support and work with the Philippines at every turn.

I’ll hand to my colleague to say just a bit about what you can expect in the bilateral space from the President’s meeting with Marcos.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  I’m happy to add a bit on that. 

So, President Biden and President Marcos will meet tomorrow.  They’ll discuss initiatives to enhance economic and energy security, bolster maritime cooperation, invest in critical infrastructure, and deepen people-to-people ties. 

President Biden will also reinforce the ironclad U.S. alliance commitments to the Philippines.  And the two leaders will also discuss their shared commitment to democratic values, including respect for human rights and internationally recognized labor rights. 

Now, this is the second time that President Marcos has been to the White House in his many years.  And the two presidents will mark the unprecedented strength of the alliance between the United States and the Philippines, and underscore the historic achievements in bilateral relations since they last met at the White House in May 2023. 

In addition to some of the deliverables that [senior administration official] mentioned, I wanted just to add a few. You’ll see several U.S. companies announcing new investments in the Philippines tomorrow, including areas in undersea cables, logistics, clean energy, and also telecommunications. 

You’ll also see some new announcements related to humanitarian assistance and disaster response, specifically located around the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement sites that [senior administration official] mentioned.  Including over the next year, you’ll see USAID in partnership with DOD launching a new initiative to pre-position humanitarian relief commodities for Philippine civilian disaster response authorities at EDCA sites. 

In addition, you’ll see us working together to invest in people-to-people ties, and you’ll also see us do more on clean energy and critical infrastructure, especially the new initiative under the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment that [senior administration official] mentioned.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  With that, we look forward to taking your questions. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Moderator.  I think we’re ready to go into the Q&A portion.

OPERATOR:  Let’s go to our first caller.  Please go ahead.

MODERATOR:  Could you say the name of the person who’s going to ask the question?

OPERATOR:  Sure.  It’s Michelle Jamrisko from Bloomberg.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing this.  Just wanted to go off something Jake Sullivan said yesterday and we’ve heard from other U.S. officials as well, talking a lot about U.S. efforts to modernize the alliances and bringing in non-traditional allies.  So I’m wondering if you see the trilateral tomorrow as a sort of launching board for having other partners across Asia kind of join these sorts of formats.  And if so, who would be on that target list?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Michelle.  I’m happy to take that one. 

You know, I think we see less that we are necessarily going to continue to expand ad infinitum any given trilat and more that each of these individual partnerships add some very special sauce to the broader mix of what National Security Advisor Sullivan has called an overlapping latticework of mutually reinforcing partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. 

So you might think about the fact that, of course, we have a number of strong bilateral alliances like the one you saw on display with Japan today.  We’ve got more innovative groupings, like the Quad, which the President and National Security Advisor Sullivan raised to the leader level early in this administration.  You’ve got AUKUS, which is a newer innovation also during this administration.  And now we’ve got a number of strong trilateral relationships, including the U.S.-ROK-Japan partnership, which the President took to new heights at Camp David, and now this trilat with the Philippines. 

So we don’t necessarily see that each one of these partnerships needs to expand further, but rather, each one needs to serve its purpose.  And part of what we’re excited about with tomorrow’s visit is that we do think there is a very clear purpose and a very clear agenda guiding this trilat.

OPERATOR:  Okay, moving on to Trevor Hunnicutt from Reuters.

Q    Hey.  Thanks so much for taking the question.  So will the President give a commitment to Marcos as far as the U.S. being involved in any defense that needs to happen around the Second Thomas Shoal?

And then, out of the outcomes of this meeting, should we expect trilateral joint military training, defense capacity building for the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and anything on maritime domain awareness?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Hey, Trevor.  I’ll kick off and pass to [senior administration official]. 

The President’s commitment to the Philippines and to President Marcos on South China Sea issues has been quite clear.  He has repeated many times that the U.S.-Philippines mutual defense treaty applies to the South China Sea, including Philippines’ vessels that may be underway there, including its coast guard vessels. 

So I think our declaratory policy, again, is crystal clear and has been consistent throughout this administration and, needless to say, has also held on a bipartisan basis.  And the Philippines is confident in that commitment.

When it comes to the maritime activities that you might see coming out of this, I’ll pass to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  Just to add on top of the comments you already made: Over this past weekend, the United States, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia held a joint naval patrol in the Philippines’ EEZ.  I think as National Security Advisor Sullivan said yesterday, you can expect to see more of that in the months ahead. 

On top of that, we will be announcing tomorrow an upcoming coast guard joint patrol that will be taking place in the coming year in the Indo-Pacific.  That builds on the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines coast guard patrol that was held over the past year.  The U.S. Coast Guard will also welcome Philippine and Japan coast guard members onto a U.S. Coast Guard vessel during the patrol in the Indo-Pacific this year to further train and synchronize our work together. 

And I think you can expect to see further announcements tomorrow around trilateral maritime training activities, including around Japan, and a trilateral humanitarian assistance and disaster response exercise to take place over the coming year as well.

OPERATOR:  Okay, moving on to Patsy Widakuswara.

Q    Thank you for taking my call.  Just to follow up on Trevor’s question: Do we have a clear guideline of which type of gray zone tactics are covered by the U.S.-Philippines mutual defense treaty?

And then, if I may just ask for some clarity on what the President said earlier, where Japan, the U.S., and Australia will create a network of air, missile, and defense system.  Do we have a timeline of that initiative?  Thanks. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m happy to take that one.  You know, the U.S.-Philippines mutual defense treaty extends to armed attacks on Philippines Armed Forces, public vessels, or aircraft.  And as I mentioned earlier, that includes its coast guard, and that includes anywhere in the South China Sea. 

So that’s the text of the treaty that governs our alliance.  It is quite similar to the text of other treaties that support U.S. alliances around the world. 

And obviously, we continue to coordinate very closely the question of China’s so-called gray zone tactics, its coercive tactics, and what the implications of those might be.

On the question of the air and missile defense integrated networks: As the President mentioned earlier, this is a deliverable out of the Japan state visit which also includes Australia.  What we announced today is really a vision for a coordinated network of radars and sensors that will better integrate our ballistic and air defense capabilities around the Indo-Pacific.  And it’s probably a few years off that will involve considerable work amongst our three countries.  But we don’t have a framework for how we will pursue it, as well as a strong mutual commitment amongst these countries if this is something we want to accomplish together.

OPERATOR:  Okay, moving on to Morgan Chalfant from Semafor.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  I just had two questions.  First, on the announcements of investments in the Philippines and undersea cables and telecom, can you say which companies are making those?  And then also, I was wondering if there’s a specific timeline for the PGII corridor you mentioned.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, on the secure connectivity piece, I think you mentioned a few different projects.  The first one you may have mentioned is a submarine cable project, which is an investment that was announced at the Japan state visit today.  That involves our Japanese friends plugging into an ongoing sub-cable project that is led by Google in the South Pacific.  The United States and Australia are already invested in that project, and we’re very gratified that the Japanese have decided to join us.

When it comes to PGI, you know, we do expect it will take some time for the full suite of investments that we’ve envisioned here to come to pass.  But as I mentioned, we’re standing up a steering committee of high-level U.S., Philippines, and Japanese government officials to ensure that we are steering private sector investment to exactly the types of projects that this corridor needs to improve, as well as bringing a full suite of U.S. government tools to bear. 

Again, as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation will be standing up an office in the Philippines to help to steer this work.  And the U.S. Trade and Development Agency has announced a number of new activities in the Philippines that will help to support it as well. 

In addition to all of this, you may be tracking that Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo recently led a presidential trade and investment mission to the Philippines, which announced more than $1 billion in combined investments to promote the Philippines’ innovation economy, clean energy transition, and supply chain resilience. 

So, suffice it to say that we take very seriously all of the work that we’re doing in the Philippines.  There will also be a number of announcements tomorrow by way of private sector investment in the Philippines that we’ll be announcing anew, and those will come from Meta, UPS, GreenFire Energy, and Astranis telecommunications satellites.

OPERATOR:  Okay, moving on to Michael Shear, New York Times.

Q    Hi there.  Thanks, guys.  I appreciate it.  Just wanted to follow up on the so-called gray zone (inaudible) that China has been launching against the Philippine ships.  Will that subject — do you intend that subject to come up during the bilateral or trilateral talks tomorrow?  And is there anything the United States can do or is planning on suggesting or talking about in order to try to mitigate those attacks, since they appear to be, by default, just below the level of what would trigger the (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thanks, Michael, for your question.  So, we absolutely expect the South China Sea to come up in tomorrow’s trilateral meeting.  It is one of the reasons for the meeting, because we are very concerned about what we’ve been seeing. 

We consistently condemn the use of coercive and unlawful tactics in the South China Sea every time they occur.  We do so via public statement and diplomatically.  There’s a strong record of U.S. statements on this issue, particularly in the last several months since the Philippines has been under increasing pressure. 

You will also see in our trilateral joint statement some very strong language on our unity on the South China Sea.  And that language will make very clear that we have a combined position that supports the Philippines’ lawful operations and rights in the South China Sea and in particular in its own exclusive economic zone.  So we will be quite unified in that position. 

Additionally, you know, many of the deliverables that we started to preview for you here today — whether that’s the recent joint sail that we just conducted on a quadrilateral basis in the South China Sea, the coast guard cooperation we’ll be undertaking, or new military exercises that we may conduct together — these are all intended to boost our cooperative capacity and, in particular, to make sure that our friends in the Philippines have the capacity that they need to be able to uphold international law in the South China Sea. 

So this is a very common theme, if not a pillar, of tomorrow’s trilateral meeting.  And we’re really looking forward not only to making good progress as a trilat in private, but to announce publicly our next steps in support for the Philippines.

OPERATOR:  Our next caller, Phelim Kine, Politico.

Q    Good afternoon.  Yeah, just a quick follow-up on the Second Thomas Shoal issue, and that is that China is turning a deaf ear to all of the Biden administration’s protests about its behavior there.  What we’re seeing is we see the State Department issue kind of like a template press release, saying they should stop this; we have a mutual defense treaty.  And Beijing isn’t just responding; they’re actually amping up the pressure on the Philippines in terms of the intensity and the aggression of its response. 

So, I guess, two-part question.  What are you hearing from China, from Beijing, in terms of why they’re pushing this at the Second Thomas Shoal at a time of a wider, quote, unquote, “stabilization” of the bilateral relationship?

And number two, what exactly can the U.S. do with Japan or with others to kind of make China back down or turn away?  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  I’m not going to interpret the Chinese government’s motivation for its use of coercive tactics at this time.  We’ll simply say that all of the international law in this space is very clear that the Philippines is lawfully operating in its own exclusive economic zone, and there’s really no question about that. 

To your question about, you know, what can we do beyond continuing to issue statements, I would note, first and foremost, that while, of course, it is very unfortunate that the PRC has continued to use coercive tactics, we do see that every time it does, an increasing number of supporters come out to stand behind international law in the Philippines.  I believe that the last time there was an interdiction of a Philippines routine resupply effort, as many as almost two dozen countries came out with both (inaudible) support. 

But of course, we raise this diplomatically in private, including at the highest level all the time, including the President raised this with Xi Jinping when they last spoke and not only reiterated our alliance commitments, which are crystal clear, but made clear his concern about PRC actions around Second Thomas Shoal.

But finally, the point that I’ll make — and you asked the question of what more can the U.S. do — the United States can invite President Marcos to the White House tomorrow for a bilateral meeting and a trilateral leaders’ summit for the first time ever.  This is very clearly a purposeful signal of support and resolve to Marcos.  There will be a lot of discussions, again, that take place on this in private.  But this is an invitation to the President — from the President to a close ally that is intended to signal very clearly that we support the Philippines at this difficult moment.

OPERATOR:  Our next caller, Ken Moriyasu, Nikkei Asia.

Q    Thank you very much.  On the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief hub, I believe there was a similar proposal in the factsheet of the U.S.-Japan (inaudible).  Are they similar things?

On the Philippines one, I think you said it will be placed on the EDCA sites.  Does that mean they’re going to be on all nine bases or just a few of them?  And does this also mean that, in the Japanese case, they will be based on U.S. bases in Japan as well?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, thanks.  Happy to take that. 

I mean, our main point here is that these additional four EDCA sites that we and the Philippines agreed on when President Marcos was here last year really demonstrate the value of U.S. military and Philippine cooperation at these sites and elsewhere. 

And the main point of these EDCA sites is to do a few things.  One is to help the military modernization of the Philippines, is to increase coordination between our two militaries and increase interoperability, and then it’s also to help facilitate humanitarian assistance and disaster response. 

The Philippine government, of course, has done a lot in this area.  We’ve been working with them quite extensively over many years.  What I had mentioned before is that, over the next year, USAID will be launching a new initiative to pre-position humanitarian relief commodities.  I won’t get into which specific sites those will be located, but the intent of those commodities is to assist Philippine civilian disaster response efforts and to ensure that disaster response can get to Philippine citizens when it’s needed most.

OPERATOR:  Okay, let’s move on to Tetsuo Shintomi, Kyodo News.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for taking my question.  When the national security advisors of three countries had a meeting last year in Tokyo, they reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  And they also discussed on East China Sea, on North Korea, according to the readout. 

So will the three leaders’ discussion go beyond South China Sea?  Will they also discuss on Taiwan Strait or even broader region, including East China Sea and DPRK?  Thank you very much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you very much.  We fully expect that the three leaders will cover the full gamut of Indo-Pacific security topics, including, of course, South China Sea, East China Sea, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and the threat posed by the DPRK’s illicit nuclear and missile program.  

And one of the things that I think binds this group of leaders together is they are very — have a common outlook as maritime democracies who see much of the challenges in the Indo-Pacific in the same ways. 

So one of the strong bonds between them is not only their assessment of the risks that are posed in all four of these situations, but their belief that common cooperation can help to inject stability in all of these areas.  So I know that President Biden is looking forward to those conversations.

OPERATOR:  All right, and that brings us to the end of our Q&A.  I’ll turn it back over to Michael Feldman.  Please go ahead.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you all for joining today.  I will just pass it to [senior administration official] for some closing remarks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much, Michael.  And thanks for a great set of questions. 

I’ll just reiterate that while, of course, you know, we are very proud of the work that we have done over the course of the last three years here at the White House and on the Indo-Pacific team, we really do think this week is a special one, in particular coming on the back of a successful U.S.-Japan state visit where we’ve unveiled a number of new alliance initiatives. 

The innovation of bringing this trilateral to the leader level for the first time is a significant one.  And while a number of your questions today have been related to the maritime space and rightful concerns about the South China Sea, which we deeply share, part of what we’ll also have on display tomorrow is a number of new initiatives related to economic security, demonstrating that, together, the United States, Japan, and the Philippines can deliver energy security, can deliver secure connectivity, can deliver high-quality, high-standard investments that are good for the people of the Indo-Pacific. 

So we’re really going to be showcasing a new form of cooperation at the highest levels, and we look forward to being able to share the details with you soon. 

Thanks for joining today. 

MODERATOR:  Great.  And thank you all for joining.  As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributed to senior administration officials, and it is under embargo for 5:00 a.m.  Eastern Standard Time tomorrow. 

Feel free to reach out to the NSC press team if you have any questions.  Thank you and have a great day.

3:33 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call Previewing the Bilateral Meeting of President Biden and President Marcos of the Philippines and the Trilateral Leaders’ Summit appeared first on The White House.

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

(April 9, 2024)

5:40 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Thank you. And hi, everyone. Thank you again for joining today’s background call to preview the official visit of Prime Minister Kishida of Japan.

Today’s call is on background. Speakers on today’s call will be attributed as senior administration officials.

On today’s call we have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official]. Again, today’s call is on background, attributed to senior administration officials. And the call will be held under embargo until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

By participating in today’s call, you are agreeing to these ground rules.

I will now turn the call over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. And thank you all very much for joining us today. It’s really a pleasure and honor to be with you all.

Let me, if I can, first place this visit in a larger context. I think it is undeniable that at the conclusion of this visit we will judge it to be a remarkable and historic summit. And it’s long in the making. We’ve been working on this kind of summit and state visit, frankly, for years. Our two leaders have met over a dozen times in a number of capacities. Prime Minister Kishida graciously hosted President Biden for an official visit as part of the G7 engagements in Hiroshima. And they’ve met on a number of occasions, engaging on the most critical issues before us.

I will say that what we’ve seen specifically is what was largely a regional alliance, and important alliance undeniably, but now a global partnership that I think could be judged as if not our most important global alliance, then among the most important. And I think that reality will be on full display over the course of the next few days.

I do want to just take a moment, if I may, just to commend. These summits are enormously challenging endeavors. Lots of spinning plates and engagements with huge stakes at every turn. And I just want to commend the two people that I’m on the call with today. [Senior administration official] has been the spearhead of this effort, driving forward on what we call deliverables. And I would just underscore that that list is over 70; it’s not uncommon to occasionally have a dozen, maybe 20, at the outside. This is probably the largest set of substantial, significant deliverables that we’ve seen of its kind. And [senior administration official] and her team have helped drive that forward.

I will also say my friend and colleague [senior administration official] has basically set a new standard for what it means to be an activist, determined, a passionate advocate for a relationship between two countries. And what he’s done in the U.S.-Japan context is no short of remarkable.

Now, I will say Prime Minister Kishida arrived with his team, members of governments from the Diet and the business community, yesterday. It’s an appropriate time of year as we celebrate the Cherry Blossom Festival starting this weekend.

We will have a number of engagements. [Senior administration officials] will run through them. But I think what you will see is a huge number of deliverables in the security arena, but I do want to underscore that the progress and future-oriented stance of our alliance that is on display in Haiti, in the Ukraine, in Southeast Asia, in the Pacific — everywhere that American purpose is being put to the test, Japan is by our side. You will see that clearly animated in our deliverables.

We are working to build stronger bonds in technology, in joint investment running each way, programming that advances our joint interests in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, and clear initiatives with respect to people-to-people.

I think, in many respects, this relationship and what you will see is the fundamental validation of President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which seeks to elevate the role of partners and allies in concert with us as we seek to keep an open, secure, and vital Indo-Pacific.

I do just want to underscore just a couple of things as we go forward. The initiatives are both sophisticated and down to earth.

I do want to just mention one particular thing. I think the two most important gifts that countries have given the United States over the course of our existence: one would be the Statue of Liberty, and the second might be the gift, 110 years ago from Japan, of the cherry trees around the Tidal Basin.

This is a tribute to both [senior administration official] and others on the Japanese side. I think they noted a few weeks ago that, sadly, several hundred of those trees would have to be felled in order to do some work around the Tidal Basin. The Japanese immediately understood the significance of that; offered us to help provide saplings when the time is right to replace these felled trees, to signal their continuing friendship and partnership.

I think we’ll find that it’s initiatives like this that may not be as significant as apparently as new arrangements on military command structures or joint co-production on the military side, but they’re deeply significant to our peoples. And we are grateful. Prime Minister Kishida will have a planting ceremony tomorrow on the Mall to basically underscore his commitment to this.

I’d like to turn it over now to [senior administration official] to basically give us a blow by blow about how we arrived here, what he thinks are the big moving pieces that are significant, both in the Indo-Pacific and globally, as we take the U.S.-Japan relationship to the next level. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official]. I want to emphasize and underscore something [senior administration official] said, because in the last 60 years, you would define this relationship between the United States and Japan, since it got formalized in 1960, as one of alliance protection. I think this state visit kind of ends that era and defines the next period of time, this alliance projection from alliance protection.

And in the last two years that allowed this transition to occur, the Prime Minister changed five to six major 70-year-old policies that have always been on the books. Japan has gone from a 1 percent cap on defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. And that was before there was even a tank on the Ukrainian border. And it’s going to become the third-largest military spender in the world.

They’ve acquired Tomahawk counter-strike capability, which will have a real effectiveness to the credibility of our collective deterrence.

Third, they’ve lifted the cap on defense technology export.

Fourth, with us they have raised the ROK-Japan-U.S. relationship, as experienced in Camp David, to a level of stability that shifted the strategic landscape in the Indo-Pacific as one of (inaudible) main pillars has been that the ROK, Japan, and the United States (inaudible), all three get on the same page.

Fifth is, the day that Russia invaded Ukraine, they ended their policy with Russia and decided to throw all their weight behind values and ideals of (inaudible) democratic democracies and understand that Russia had to be sanctioned because this cannot be permissible behavior, become a norm. The raw exercise of power was committed and accepted and became the new norm.

In that same time, I think then what has that committed for the United States? One is: For the first time ever, we’re going to change the force structure that we have in Japan so it actually can make the most of their new joint operations center that’s part of the defense budget and have a real capacity and capability to integrate our forces. Second is: Now with the cap on the defense export being lifted, we’re going to have a military industrial council that will evaluate where we can (inaudible) and co-produce defense weapons. And so, Japan’s industrial capacity and strength that had always been on the sidelines will come to bear on one of the weak points right now that we have, which is we don’t have really the bandwidth on the defense production capacity that we need for our strategic applications.

There will also be pieces as related to the integrated missile defense system with Australia, the United States, and Japan.

The second column, which is — in the last two years, we’ve signed five separate space agreements with Japan: Artemis, Gateway, Mars, International Space Station framework, and there’ll be a major agreement to the lunar exploration with Japan as a full partner, from expending major resources with their NASA equivalent, which is JAXA.

And then building on the people-to-people, two initiatives. There’ll be a joint AI research between Carnegie Mellon and Keio University, their major private university in Tokyo. That will be in the AI area, funded by both a series of Japanese companies and Microsoft. And then AI — a separate but a different part of AI — between the University of Washington in Washington State and Tsukuba University. And that’s going to be with Amazon and NVIDIA at $50 million.

And then a third kind of people-to-people, which is Norman Mineta scholarship, $12 million, to fund students in their junior year of high school to go live overseas and study — the United States students go to Japan, and Japan high school students come to the United States. The Norm Mineta scholarship.

But to me, each of these, in the end of the day, are — all the particulars add up to a major shift where Japan, which used to be, you know, only worried about the perimeters of their island, projecting not only into the region and the alliance and its value system, but being a full global partner on whatever happens in Europe, the Mideast, and also the Indo-Pacific.

And so, this state visit comes at a point that the relationship is shifting to a higher and different level, and having the building blocks and the deliverables that underscore each one of those pieces.

[Senior administration official]?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official].

[Senior administration officials] put out a lot on the table here, so I’ll just a saw a few words to wrap up our topper, and then I look forward to taking your questions.

There’s certainly a lot more we can dig into in our defense and security deliverables, where there’s some really (inaudible) advances taking place within the U.S.-Japan alliance, some of which are some of the most consequential moves we will have taken in decades.

But as [senior administration official] just indicated, what we’re really doing here is culminating three years of fast and furious work that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago and, frankly, unimaginable with a leader other than Fumio Kishida, but that has truly taken this alliance to the next level, modernized it, and now put us on a pathway to even bigger things.

And we’ll be taking our next logical steps tomorrow and also lighting the pathway for U.S.-Japan alliance managers for many years to come.

But a broader point that I think I’ll leave it with and conclude these opening remarks is the fact that the President’s visit with Prime Minister Kishida tomorrow, as well as the trilat that he’ll be holding with Prime Minister Kishida and President Marcos of the Philippines later this week, is both a really important and consequential set of meetings in and of themselves, but it’s also a proving ground for the President’s theory of case when it comes to his entire Indo-Pacific strategy.

When the President took office over three years ago, his theory of the case was that if the United States reinvested in its alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and built collective capacity as we put it in our Indo-Pacific strategy, along with others, that those allies and partners would step up alongside in ways that made us much better able, much better equipped to accomplish our objectives in this critical region.

And nowhere is this theory better proven out than in our alliance with Japan, where Prime Minister Kishida has stepped up and stepped out into the world more than anyone really ever could have imagined.

So that’s what you’ll see on display tomorrow. We have a lot to celebrate, and we’re excited for the pathway ahead. I’ll stop there.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you all for opening remarks. Moderator, I think we are ready to move into the Q&A portion.

OPERATOR: Moving to our first caller. Michael Shear, your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Hey all. Thanks for doing the call. I appreciate it. Two quick questions.

One, can you describe what, if any, message President Trump [sic] is going to deliver to the Prime Minister about U.S. Steel and his concerns about a potential acquisition?

And two, to what extent are you all — do you all feel an urgency to cement, I think as [senior administration official] called it, this next level of relationship, given the coming election and the fears in — you know, sort of abroad in many places, but maybe in Japan too, about the possibility that President Trump could come back into office and all that could mean to the region and to the alliance?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So I’ll start maybe, and then let — I think you inadvertently said what would President Trump have to say. I think you probably meant —

Q Oh, sorry. President Biden. Sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Probably inadvertently reveals your state of mind as well, though.

So, look, on the second part of that question, I can say this: Look, I think we all recognize that there is anxiety in capitals, uncertainty about what the nature of the future of U.S. policy will look like, whether we will remain as engaged in internationalist pursuits and the kinds of bipartisan foreign policy efforts which have animated the last period, both after the Second World War and after the Cold War. There are questions and concerns there.

I think what we believe, and the people on this call have been deeply engaged with this, is that by strengthening and validating the concept of load-bearing bilateral and multilateral relationships — countries that are prepared to lend a hand and work with us and, in some cases, leading efforts — we think that validates that philosophy and creates a kind of momentum of its own.

And so, I think it would be fair to say that, you know, there are a number of responses internationally. I think some countries have sought to lie low. Others recognize that the best approach is to double down and engage deeply with the United States. And we’re seeking to do that.

And I think the Japan experience and what we’ve seen with Prime Minister Kishida is a case study in recognizing that their best possible way forward is a deep, substantial, continuing engagement with the United States.

[Senior administration official]?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll pass to [senior administration official] actually on this one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Mike, let me just deal with the second question, and then I’ll go to the first.

On the second question: Look, there is a tactic and a strategic objective by China, which is to isolate the Philippines, what they’re doing on the coast guard, or to isolate Japan, what they’re doing with the embargo on fish.

The idea of switching to a multilateral lattice-like strategic architecture is then to flip the script and isolate China. When you have, like we did this week, the United States, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines doing an exercise together, when you have the trilat on Thursday, the country that’s isolated is China, not the Philippines.

And in every practice that we’re doing — the strategic, diplomatic, military exercises of doing it multinational is that the end result is that China’s attempt to intimidate one country, make an example of that country and intimidate the others in the neighborhood, flips the script and China is the isolated and the outlier in the neighborhood (inaudible). So that’s number one.

And number two is: You know, I’ve seen it upfront with now three presidents. Not only the trilateral on Thursday, but the one at Camp David with the ROK — if they have trust in America and then personal trust in President Biden, or (inaudible) president, other leaders are going to go past just clearing the bar. They’re going to stretch themselves, spend political capital because it means something and comes back to value.

So the real answer is: Some of this is standalone and will stand the test of time. Building on it requires somebody that’s invested in it. So there’s also risk that’s straight up, because people are putting resources — the Australians, South Korea — ROK, Japan, the Philippines — in the United States because they trust us, they want to work with us, and they know that we are the right kind of counterweight to an untethered China.

Then to the first question on Nippon Steel: Look, the relationship between the United States and Japan is far bigger and more significant than a single commercial deal.

Six weeks ago, the United States gave Mitsui, a Japanese company, a $20 billion deal to build a crane factory here in the United States and replace all our port cranes throughout the United States. Nothing says trusted ally like a $20 billion contract with a Japanese company.

And in 2021, outside companies or foreign companies were looking at Toshiba. Japan said, on national security interests, they didn’t want that to go forward.

So I guess would just basically understand — everybody understands where we are. Everybody understands the significance of not only this visit but also the relationship. And it’s larger than a single effort. And I say that as somebody who started his political career back in — national political career in 1992 working for Bill Clinton.

We’re in a different place fundamentally. And I just think that this single commercial transaction does not define not only the visit, but the relationship and its potential and what is actually delivering in the region or across the globe. And both leaders (inaudible).

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller in the queue.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And for the record, I was talking about President Biden, not President Trump.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller. Demetri Sevastopulo from Financial Times. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Thanks. I have two questions. The first is for [senior administration official]. The other day at CNAS, you said Japan had made some progress implementing information security systems improvements. How far do you think they are from getting to a place where the U.S. and the Five Eyes are kind of comfortable with their level of security?

And then, for any of you, what sort of the things that you’re doing right now with Japan, including restructuring the U.S. command in Japan, are complete? Do you think we’re at a point where Japan could actually fight alongside the U.S. if there was a contingency over Taiwan? Or is that still a long way away?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll start and then [senior administration officials] jump in.

So, look, I think it’s fair to say that our Japanese partners and allies have taken substantial steps on information security and procedures that protect the most sensitive of information potentially shared between United States and Japan.

As I indicated, there is still more work to do. I think we believe that there are legislative steps, as well as executive actions, that are possible.

You will see over the course of the next few days that we are stepping up our intelligence cooperation. This is an area that [senior administration official] has played a key role in, in particularly ensuring on key initiatives that the two countries are in sync and in close coordination on key information. And I think some of those steps have been deeply successful. And we’re seeking to build on those as we go forward.

I think what you will see over the course of the next couple of days are major steps on the security side, highlighting some cyber-related efforts and also our fundamental goal of being able to share the most important information with our closest ally, Japan.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official]. You know, the only thing I’ll had on the Taiwan bit is that the U.S. and Japan have carefully honed public (inaudible) on Taiwan that we worked through together a few years ago. And we expect you’ll see language that’s quite similar on this visit.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I got nothing to add.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller in queue. Ken Moriyasu from Nikkei Asia. Please go ahead. Your line is unmuted.

Q Hello, thank you very much. I think [senior administration official] said that Japan, until now, was only worried about the parameters of the island but now they will be a full global partner on whatever happens in Europe. This seems like a very drastic statement. What is your expectation of the engagement in places like Ukraine and Gaza? Will it be just political support, or do you expect some kind of security cooperation as well? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ken, you’ve been following this, so it’s not a surprise. Day one they’ve been a full partner on the sanctions. There hasn’t been any equivocation there. They’ve called — their efforts as chair of the G7 has been, as it relates to Ukraine, been incredible in the sense they’re, step by step, measuring all the sanctions, as recently as including Arctic 2.

The second piece of that is there’s no greater contributor to the energy infrastructure that’s being targeted by Putin than Japan, with Mitsubishi and (inaudible) Kawasaki building the major transformers there. I think it’s close to six or — (inaudible) on the exact dollars, but I think it’s close to $6- or $7 billion.

They have used their position and assistance. They just re-upped funding as it relates to food relief in Gaza.

So they are a global partner. And what I meant, and I stand by, is the last period of time has all been just about the defense of Japan. They are stepping beyond that role into — and they did it in March 2022 when there was a U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s vote. They not only voted the correct way; they helped corral 8 out of the 10 ASEAN countries to all vote in favor of condemning Russia for the (inaudible), co-sponsors of the resolution. And that was Japan’s initiative. So, yeah, a global partner.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller. (Inaudible) with Kyoto News. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Hi, thank you for taking my question. I would like to ask for AUKUS pillar two, which is likely to be one of the topics at the meeting tomorrow. Is there any specific area in which Japan could bring significant contribution to enforce AUKUS pillar two? Is it AI hypersonic capability or other (inaudible)? Would you give us some explanation? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m happy to take this one.

You know, we think that Japan stands to potentially bring a great deal to AUKUS pillar two. And as you’re tracking, we will be noting tomorrow that the AUKUS partners are excited to begin their consultations with Japan towards possible inclusion in pillar two.

But I do want to note, number one, that Japan is one of several additional partners that the AUKUS partners are closely considering partnering with under this pillar two (inaudible). And number two, that we expect the consultations will take a period of months, and it will take a portion of the 2024 calendar year before the AUKUS two pillar — the AUKUS pillar two vision is fully fleshed out, that is with us being able to assign specific partners to specific pillar two projects.

So there’s no doubt that Japan brings a great deal to the table. That’s why we are announcing that AUKUS partners want to begin consultations with Tokyo as soon as possible. But we have a way to go before we’re able to share some of the details that you just raised.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller. Jennifer Jacobs from Bloomberg News. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Hey, thanks. I heard your answer to the New York Times question about Nippon Steel. So you guys are saying that you do think that the topic of the steel deal will come up between the President and the Prime Minister?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.

Q Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) to predict, but no, we don’t, because I think that the relationship is much bigger, and I think that everybody understands everybody’s position. I was trying to give you reference points for both Mitsui and Toshiba as kind of — as to kind of appreciate where this is.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller. Ryo Kiyomiya from the Asahi Shimbun. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Thank you so much for this opportunity. My question is about the change of the (inaudible) in Japan. First, could you please clear us on expected timeline of deciding and establishing new U.S. force structure in Japan? And also, do expect a drastic change of posture in Japan, such as increasing the number of U.S. personnel of the U.S. (inaudible) or sending of (inaudible) to Japan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m happy to take this one as well.

We’ll be announcing tomorrow our commitment to modernizing our alliance partner posture, including our command and control, in Japan. But I do expect it will take a period of months for the details of those changes to be worked through.

Of course, we’re doing this in close partnership with the government of Japan, with the aim of making ourselves a very neat fit for the new joint operations command that Japanese friends are standing (inaudible). Secretary of Defense Austin and our new INDOPACOM commander will work through the details of what exactly that modernized approach is going to look like.

But tomorrow, not only will the leaders commit to this — undertaking this project together, a project which, as [senior administration official] highlighted, is in many ways one of the biggest changes to take place in the U.S.-Japan alliance since 1960, but they will direct our two-plus-two ministerial structure to take on the responsibility of executing these changes (inaudible).

So this is all to say: Stay tuned. It’ll take a period of months to work through. But we have not only a commitment but the structure to get these details hashed out very soon.

OPERATOR: Moving to the next caller. Prashant Jha from Hindustan Times. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Hi. My question is for [senior administration official]. One of the things that you said was this is a validation of the Indo-Pacific strategy of the President, where he assigns this role to partners, and partners step up. I was wondering how you’re thinking of India within the context of this deepening military, defense, security partnership with your treaty allies in East Asia. Do you see India as a part of this network? We know that, bilaterally, India’s relations have improved with the U.S. as well as with these countries. Do you see it as a part of a wider network as well? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: First of all, thank you very much for the question. I do — and I understand the way you asked it, but I think it’s important to just underscore: I don’t think this is about the United States assigning roles to countries. I think it is much more about working in partnership with likeminded and other states who share common views about what should be upheld on the global stage with respect to key features of the global operating system that I think we’ve all benefited from.

I think if you ask the President, one of the things that he’s proudest of is his efforts to build a stronger relationship between the United States and India. And I do believe, both in the Indo-Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and on key issues like technology, the United States and India are working more closely together than ever before.

And I would simply say that I think the U.S.-India relationship is trending substantially in a positive direction and that our level of engagement across every possible vector — security, intelligence, technology, people-to-people — has excelled.

And I think the point that [senior administration official] made is not only have our relations with India improved in a bilateral context, but it is also the case that India’s partnership with other countries, working with us and then working just independently, has also stepped up substantially. I would say, in many respects, engagement with India is some of the most — the most desired kinds of engagements on the global stage, and we’ve seen this with a variety of key players.

I’ll be in India next week to celebrate elements of our bilateral relationship, compare notes on the Indo-Pacific, and also talk about next steps in technology cooperation. We think these are all effective, prudent elements of taking the U.S.-India relationship to the next level.

And, yes, I do believe, perhaps in the past, on both sides, there perhaps had been some ambivalence or some uncertainty. I see very little of that now. I see leaders on both sides who are all in on the promise and prospects of the other, recognize the potential of this relationship that is deeply supported by an activist diaspora community here, and technology and other firms who understand the potential of India.

And I would just simply say that I see the engagement with India as central to everything that we’re seeking to do on the global stage. And I would simply say that I think, in many respects, it will be our most important bilateral partnership heading into the latter parts of the 21st century.

So, thank you for that.

OPERATOR: Moving to our next caller. Sang-ho Song from Yonhap News Agency. Your line is unmuted. Please go ahead.

Q Thank you for doing this. I have a question for [senior administration official]. You talked about the transition from alliance protection to alliance projection. So can you elaborate further on what you actually meant by projection? Is it projection of power for global security?

And my second question is that: What kind of end state are you pursuing when it comes to the combined command structure? Are the United States and Japan pursuing these structures akin to the Combined Forces Command in South Korea between the U.S. Forces Korea and the (inaudible) military? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, let me say about alliance projection: A lot of times, as you just did, it’s always defined as — or kind of narrowed down to defense. I actually see — if one of the things we want is credible deterrence, we should widen the definition of what deterrence looks like.

And I think both the trilateral meeting with the Philippine president, the trilateral meeting and gathering that happened at Camp David, that’s about credible deterrence. As much as what Japan is doing individually and then in collaboration with us on a series of exercises, it’s about the credibility of deterrence. What they’re negotiating with the Philippines, the reciprocal agreement, that’s part of deterrence.

So the wider definition is, in my view, what matters here. And when I say about alliance projection in the region — when it’s either the Quad or either one of the trilats, or whether it’s a military exercise with the Philippines, the constant in all this by our side is Japan. That did not exist 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago. It’s a different — this is the new norm. And the constant in both the diplomatic arena, the defense arena, or the development and economic arena, which will be a big part of what happens with the Philippines trilat, is Japan is the constant in this effort.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would just add one other thing to [senior administration official] colleagues that — look, it should not be lost on you that this is our fifth state visit and state dinner. But four of the five — this is the crowning partnership of the Quad. And so, this suggests how the President views the Quad, how important it is, how central it has been to his vision of a deeper Indo-Pacific engagement. And at the heart of that, as [senior administration official] has indicated, is Japan. Everything that we’re doing of purpose on the global stage we’re doing with Japan.

Q Could I ask also about the command structure, the end state of this?

MODERATOR: Unfortunately, we have to conclude today’s call. I’d like to offer it up to [senior administration official] for any quick closing remarks here.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll just speak briefly to that last question, which is to say, you know, the end state is that close integration and coordination of our forces, of the U.S. and Japan, in a way that’s appropriate for 21st century challenges. I think both of our countries has been clear that that’s the objective of our alliance modernization efforts. And we look forward to pursuing it in lockstep.

But zooming out, just back to sort of (inaudible) context of the week we’re having here, obviously we’ve been talking about, in a fair amount of detail, a number of these really substantial deliverables that are going to move our alliance forward in consequential ways.

But I want to bring us back to the fact that in addition to this state visit with Prime Minister Kishida — which, of course, in celebration of how much we’ve achieved in the last three years — we are also holding the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit with President Marcos on Thursday. We’ll be back to share more on that tomorrow and to preview some of the outcomes then.

But when you take these two achievements together, these are critical parts of a much bigger picture in which the President’s vision, Jake Sullivan’s vision for how we do strategy in the Indo-Pacific is bearing itself out in real time.

You’re seeing a single treaty ally, who has always been one of the United States’ closest partners, stepping up in more consequential ways than anyone could have imagined. And another ally in the Philippines working more closely with us than (inaudible) the years. And the three of us together able to marshal resources towards common objectives in ways that weren’t even on the horizon two years ago.

So it really is an important week for (inaudible) in addition to our bilateral visit and the deliverables that we’re unveiling tomorrow. We’re grateful to all of you for the conversation today. And we look forward to talking about more soon.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you so much. And thank you all for joining today. Thank you to [senior administration official]. Thank you to [senior administration official].

I’d just like to remind everyone that this call is on background, attributed to senior administration officials, embargoed for tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m.

I also wanted to flag for everyone that we will hold, for everyone’s planning purposes, another background call tomorrow afternoon, I believe at 3:00 p.m., to preview the trilateral summit of the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines. So, stay tuned for information about that.

And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to myself or our team here at the NSC. Thank you very much.

6:22 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call Previewing the Official Visit of Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:12 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  Well, thank you.  (Laughter.)

So, I want to start by addressing some devastating and alarming news from the Arizona Supreme Court.

With today’s decision, millions of Arizonians will soon face an even more extreme and dangerous abortion ban than they did before.  This Arizona law, which was initially enacted in 1864, more than 150 years ago, fails to protect women even when their health is at risk or in horrific cases of rape or incest.

There are now 21 extreme state abortion bans in effect across the country.  One third of all women of reproductive age now live in a state with an abortion ban.

And all of these bans, including the one upheld today that was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, are a direct result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. 

When the President’s predecessor handicapped [handpicked] three Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, it paved the way for the chaos and confusion we’re seeing play out across the country today.

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.  And they will continue to fight to protect reproductive rights and call on Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade for women in every state.

On the topic of healthcare, you just heard from the President earlier today.  He marked Care Workers Recognition Month by joining care workers, union members, and advocates to highlight his administration’s work to make care more affordable for American families, support family caregivers, boost compensation and job quality for care workers, and expand care options.

Through the first-ever care EO signed by President Biden just last year, as well as through the American Rescue Plan and the CHIPS and Science Act, the Bipartisan-Har- — the Bi- — pardon me — the Biden-Harris administration is marking transformational investment in childcare, homecare, paid family and medical leave, and tax cuts for workers and families.  And the President’s plan would pay for these investments in working families by making billionaires and the biggest corporations pay their fair share.

That is in sharp contrast with congressional Republicans, who released a budget that would make devastating cuts in funding for childcare, Head Start, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare — all to pay for massive tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations.

Care workers play an essential role in our economy, and President Biden will never stop fighting for them.

Finally, today, the President spoke with UConn Coach Dan Hurley and congratulated him on last night’s championship. 

The UConn Huskies had an incredible year, which culminated in a series of dominant performances in the NCAA tournament.  UConn is the first team to win back-to-back championships in the men’s bracket since the University of Florida accomplished this feat in 2006 and 2007.

We also congratulated Coach Dawn Staley and the University of South Carolina on their undefeated season and national championship.  The women’s tournament featured fantastic games and generated record ratings.

It was really a March Madness to remember.  We congratulate the University of South Carolina, UConn, and the atle- — athletes on their victories.

With that, as you can see, we have the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, who is here to speak about the Ja- — Japanese — the Japan state visit that’s happening starting today and also talk about the developments around the world.

Jake.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know you’re, like, much taller than me.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thanks, Karine.

Thank you, Karine.  And thanks, everybody.  I’ve got some opening comments on the Japan state visit and — and a couple of other topics, and then I’d be happy to take your questions.

Starting this evening, the President and First Lady will welcome Prime Minister Kishida and Mrs. Kishida to the White House for an official visit and state dinner.

From the very outset of the Biden administration, we have focused on reinvesting in and reinvigorating our alliances.  And nowhere has the strength and vibrancy of that strategy been on display more than in the Indo-Pacific and especially with Japan.

The two leaders, President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida, have met nearly a dozen times over the past three years, in Tokyo and Washington and in cities around the world.  And this official state visit will build on the immense progress between our two nations that we’ve made towards creating a safer and more secure Indo-Pacific as well as mutual prosperity for our peoples.

Over the course of the visit, the President and the Prime Minister will highlight the high ambition of our alliance — yes, in the defense and technology space but also across the board — deepening our partnerships on space, technology, economic investment, fighting climate change, coordinating global diplomacy, and strengthening our people-to-people ties.

I’ll briefly touch on some of what you can expect the two leaders to announce.

They will announce measures to enhance our defense and security cooperation to enable greater coordination and integration of our forces and ensure that they are optimally postured and linked to other like-minded partners.

There will be major deliverables on space, as we lead the way on space exploration and returning to the Moon.

There will be announcements of significant research partnerships between our leading institutions on critical and emerging technologies, such as AI, quantum, semiconductors, and clean energy.  All of this will strengthen our economic ties and economic security as we announce significant commercial deals as part of the state visit.

Japan is one of the largest providers of economic assistance and budget support to Ukraine, one of the largest investors in development and infrastructure in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands.  And this visit will highlight Japan’s continued role in global diplomacy and development and the coordination that the U.S. and Japan have together with significant deliverables on global assistance and investment both inside and outside the Indo-Pacific.

And we’ll also announce new initiatives to further foster — foster our cultural connections and promote ties between current changemakers and future generations of leaders.

Following the important visit that Prime Minister Kishida is initiating this evening and that will carry through tomorrow, President Biden will welcome President Marcos of the Philippines to the White House on Thursday for his second bilateral meeting at the White House in as many years. 

President Biden will also host the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.

The U.S., Japan, and the Philippines are three closely aligned maritime democracies with increasingly convergent strategic objectives and interests.  Just this past week, our three countries and Australia held joint naval drills in the South China Sea.

When I met with my Japanese and Filipino counterparts in Tokyo last June, we agreed to enhance our nations’ trilateral partnership.  And this week is a culmination of months of effort since that meeting in Tokyo last June.

The three leaders will announce new initiatives to enhance energy security, economic and maritime cooperation, partnerships on technology and cybersecurity, and joint investments in critical infrastructure.

And with this first-ever leaders trilateral, we’re continuing to deepen our cooperation with our closest partners to ensure what we’ve talked about many times from this podium and elsewhere: a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

Over the past three years, the President has achieved historic breakthroughs across the region — across the Indo-Pacific.  He’s launched AUKUS; elevated the Quad; brought the U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral to new heights; upgraded relations with ASEAN, Vietnam, and Indonesia; and hosted two Pacific Island summits and one ASEAN summit here at the White House.

And we look forward to adding another momentous chapter to this story with both the state visit that Prime Minister Kishida has embarked upon and this historic trilateral meeting among the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines.

I also want to take a moment before going to your questions to address the events of April 5th in Quito, Ecuador.

We condemn this violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, including the use of force against embassy officials.  We’ve reviewed the security camera footage from the Mexican embassy and believe these actions were wrong.

The Ecuadorian government disregarded its obligations under international law as a host state to respect the inviolability of diplomatic missions and jeopardized the foundation of basic diplomatic norms and relationships. 

We’ve asked Ecuador to work with Mexico to find a resolution to this diplomatic dispute.  And to that end, we welcome the Organization of American States Permanent Council meeting this week to help reach a peaceful, diplomatic solution.

Finally, let me say something on an important issue that’s moving through the House this week: reauthorization of 702 of FISA.  The administration strongly supports the bipartisan bill, whose text is now with the Rules Committee, to reauthorize this essential intelligence authority and other FISA provisions before they would expire on April 19th.

If we lost 702, we would lose vital insight into precisely the threats Americans expect us in government to identify and counter: terrorist threats to the homeland; fentanyl supply chains bringing deadly drugs into American communities; hostile governments’ recruitment of spies in our midst; transnational repression by authoritarian regimes; penetrations of our critical infrastructure; adversaries’ attempts to illicitly acquire sensitive dual-use and military commodities and technology; ransomware attacks against major American companies and nonprofits; Russian war crimes; and more.

So, to protect the American people, we need to maintain this vital collection authority, while strengthening its protective guardrails with the most robust set of reforms ever included in leger- — legislation to reauthorize Section 702.  And this bill does that.

For these same reasons, the administration strongly opposes the amendment we anticipate being offered that would rebuild a wall around, and thus block access to, already lawfully collected information in the possession of the U.S. government. 

The amendment, if it looks like what we’ve seen before, would prohibit U.S. officials from reviewing critical information that the intelligence community has already lawfully collected, with only exceptions that are exceedingly narrow and unworkable in practice. 

Our intelligence, defense, and public safety communities are united: The extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.  And so, the administration strongly opposes the amendment.  But we strongly support the underlying bipartisan bill, whose text is now with the Rules Committee.

With that, I would be happy to take your questions.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you.  The White House is still reserving judgment on the IDF report on the killing of — of the World Central Kitchen aid workers.  Why?  Why is this review taking so long?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first, that report just came out last week.  And what I have done is asked an interagency team of experts who actually have knowledge of the humanitarian, operational, oth- — other elements of this to look at the circumstances, to look at the findings of the report, and then to come up with some judgments as a result of that.

This isn’t a formal process.  It’s an informal review.  And as we gain some judgments from that, we’ll be prepared to share them with you.  But that process is underway now.

Q    How long does — is it going to take?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t tell you exactly how long it’s going to take.

Yeah.

Q    Jake, could you update us where — where things stand on the latest hostage negotiations?  Is any real progress being made?  I think Hamas rejected the latest proposal.  Are both sides making the kind of concessions that are going to be necessary?

MR. SULLIVAN:  As you know, Bill Burns was in Cairo on Sunday.  There was a marathon session that went late into the night among the United States, Israel, Qatar, and Egypt.  Qatar and Egypt, of course, were communicating with Hamas through this process.  And we have seen Israel take some steps forward in terms of what they’re putting on the table.  And, of course, we’ve seen the public statements from Hamas that have been, shall we say, less than encouraging.

But I spoke with the Prime Minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed, this morning.  He does not yet have an answer from Hamas.  I pressed him to try to secure an answer from them as soon as possible.  And when we have more to report on that front, we will report it to you. 

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.

Q    Two things.  Prime Minister Netanyahu says he has a date for the Rafah operation.  Will the administration take any action or restrict military support for Israel if Netanyahu moves forward on Rafah?

MR. SULLIVAN:  If he has a date, he hasn’t shared it with us.  So, I’ve seen his public comments, but I have nothing more on that front. 

I’m not going to comment on hypotheticals, but I will state here what I stated the last time I stood at this podium, which is that the United States does not believe that a massive ground invasion of Rafah — where 1.3 or more million people are sheltering, having been pushed out of other parts of Gaza that are now destroyed, into the area where humanitarian assistance comes in — this is not the best way forward. 

There are better ways to go after Hamas in Rafah.  We presented those ways to our Israeli counterparts in a session we held last week.  There have been ongoing technical talks between our teams since then, and I anticipate we’ll have another opportunity at senior levels to engage them in Rafah and that conversation will stay ongoing.  And then we will make determinations about how we proceed based on how those conversations unfold. 

Yeah.

Q    To follow up on that, Jake.  If the U.S. is not even being looped in on the date for when this military operation is set to take place, why do you think the U.S. has any influence in those upcoming meetings to change Israel’s strategy?

MR. SULLIVAN:  First of all, when you talk about “looped in,” the Prime Minister makes public statements.  He also talks to us in private about aspects of operations, about their thinking with respect to Rafah, in some considerable detail. 

I sat in the Situation Room not long ago on a secured video conference that went on for hours going into specifics on this.

So, I can’t speak to every public comment he makes.  What I can tell you is that we have open channels of communication with the Israelis on these issues.  They understand our position.  And we have been very clear about our deep and abiding concerns about a Rafah operation and our belief that there are better ways to deal with the strategic threat Hamas poses than some of the ideas that have been put forward.  And our further belief that any kind of plan to protect civilians in a serious way in Rafah, that’s something we have yet to see be presented to us. 

And so, our concerns continue.  And now we will have to wait and see what happens.  And the United States will respond accordingly. 

Yeah.

Q    There’s a report out today that the Israeli government plans to purchase 40,000 tents ahead of its invasion of Rafah.  Has the U.S. seen any sort of an evacuation plan, particularly one involving those tents?

MR. SULLIVAN:  As I said just in the answer to the last question, I have not yet seen a credible and executable plan to move people that has the — any level of detail about how you not only house, feed, and provide medicine for those innocent civilians but also how you deal with things like sanitation, water, and other basic services.  We have not seen that yet. 

Q    Do you think —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    — 40,000 tents would be sufficient?  Would more be needed? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not going to stand at the podium and substitute for the judgment of humanitarian experts who could speak to what precisely on the shelter front, as well as on all of these other fronts I just described, would be sufficient.  So, I just can’t react in real time to news reports like that.

Yeah.

Q    On — on the Japan visit tomorrow.  The President has said to U.S. Steel workers, “I have your back.  I mean it.”  What is his message to the Prime Minister tomorrow about the potential acquisition of U.S. Steel?  How strongly will the President convey his opposition?  And will there be any specific things that the President will either urge the Prime Minister to do or will say steps that he’s willing to take to prevent — prevent an acquisition?

MR. SULLIVAN:  You guys all know Joe Biden.  You’ve seen Joe Biden.  He’s been very clear that he’s going to stand up for American workers, he’s going to defend their interests.  He’s also been very clear that he is going to make sure that the U.S.-Japan alliance is the strongest it’s ever been.  He’s going to accomplish both of those things. 

That’s what he has set out to do as President.  That’s what he’ll continue to do.  And I — I won’t comment further on the — the specifics of diplomatic conversations between the two leaders.

Yeah.

Q    Jake, can you give us a better understanding — what is the U.S.’s assessment of the troop withdrawal we’ve seen by the Israelis recently from Gaza?  Is this in response to pressure from the United States?  Was there any commitment made to the U.S. there, or is this a way of trying to advance negotiations with Hamas?  And do you view this as a change in the way Israel is prosecuting its war there?

MR. SULLIVAN:  You’ll have to speak with the Israelis about the purpose or motive behind their particular operational moves.  I’m not going to characterize that from the podium.  What I will say —

Q    So, you don’t think — there has been no private commitment made to you that “we will remove troops” based on the conversation you had or after months of pressure —

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m —

Q    — to help —

MR. SULLIVAN:  As you might expect, I’m also not going to get into private diplomatic conversations between the President and the Prime Minister.  But what I will say is that a reduction in the intensity and scope of military operations does create a greater opening for the movement of humanitarian goods around Gaza at a critical moment when there is a real humanitarian crisis there. 

So, we welcome the opportunity to move more trucks in and then move more trucks around Gaza so that the innocent people, innocent civilians there can get the food, water, medicine, and other essentials that they need for their —

Q    You also welcomed Erez and Ashdod — the announcement that was made by the Prime Minister — or by the Israelis last week.  Neither of them have opened now approaching a week since then.  Are you satisfied with this timetable?  We were told that the U.S. — from your colleague, John Kirby — needed to see action within hours or days.  It’s now days, but certainly well beyond hours.  Are you satisfied by the pace of this?  And what commitments has the U.S. been made about how soon that will occur?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, just to take the — the opening point of your question, which is that we welcome these steps.  What we actually said very clearly from the first minute was: Israel has made public statements; now we need to see them follow through with action and that action needs to be specific, concrete, and measurable. 

And that goes for the opening of a crossing into northern Gaza from Israel.  It goes for the opening of Ashdod port.  When it comes to those two things, we will watch to see what unfolds over the next few days. 

What John Kirby was talking about in terms of hours was a step change in the willingness of the Israeli government to take action to get more aid into Gaza.  And if you look at the last two days, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of aid going into Gaza.  That’s good.  It is not good enough. 

We would like to see more action following through on what the Prime Minister has announced publicly, and we’d like to see that over the course of the next few days. 

Q    Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  CNN has reported that the U.S. is bracing for a retaliatory attack by Iran in the Middle East.  What can you tell us about your current assessment, whether that’s inevitable and what the U.S. is doing to safeguard its assets there?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we are watching public statements by Iranian officials, public reports of Iranian plans to potentially take retaliatory action.  And we have made clear that as the President said to the Prime Minister and as was read out in his call that America’s support for Israel’s security is ironclad and America’s support for Israel’s defense against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad. 

And I’m not going to speak to operational details beyond that. 

Yeah.

Q    And on Ukraine.  Speaker Johnson has said that he will pursue what he described as “innovations” to the Senate package.  Has the White House has been briefed on what those innovations are and whether the President could support any of them? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  We — our teams — between the White House and Speaker Johnson’s teams as well as with the other leaders in both the House and the Senate — have had ongoing discussions about how we get a bipartisan — a bill that is supported on a bipartisan basis passed by 70 votes in the Senate.  We believe it could be passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House, actually on to the floor and voted upon. 

And I’m not going to speak to the specifics of those conversations because I don’t want to negotiate from the podium. 

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  Just on Russia.  Russian investigators said today they’re opening a probe into the financing of terrorism that they say involves Western countries, specifically including funds received by the firm Burisma, by which Hunter Biden was employed.  What’s your comment on that?  Is that just a political ploy or what — how do you view that?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I mean, it’s nonsense.  Russia knows that it was ISIS who committed the attack in Moscow.  We know it was ISIS who committed the attack in Moscow.  We warned Russia of an impending terrorist attack in Moscow.  And all of the rest of this is noise. 

Yeah.

Q    And just very briefly — very briefly, if I may.  Yesterday, David Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary, met with Donald Trump.  What’s your — what’s your view on that?  Is the President concerned to see him meeting a potential election rival?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not going to speak to campaign-related issues — Hatch Act.  So, I’ll plead that and move on.

Yeah. 

Q    Thank you.  So, you are saying that changes from Israel are good, but not good enough.  So, to pursue more changes, are you going to do something besides talking to them?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, what the President said on Friday is that our policy will be determined by the actions that we see unfold.  We’ve seen them take some actions.  We would like to see more actions.  And as Secretary Blinken said last week, if Israel doesn’t continue to sustain and make further changes, then our policy will change.  And I won’t go beyond that today. 

We’re going to continue to watch.  We’ve seen positive steps.  We have welcomed those positive steps, and we have said that we need to see more steps, particularly the follow-through on the things that they have committed to publicly.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  Two questions, quick.  Regarding the defense industry cooperation and joint production of defense equipment between the United States and Japan, do you think South Korea and the United States and Japan will be joined in this industry cooperation as they — to strengthen their power in the Indo-Pacific region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I believe — I don’t necessarily like to use the word “synergies” very often, but I do believe that there are synergies on a trilateral basis in terms of our technological, industrial, economic capacity, as well as our security and military cooperation.  And we want to build on that. 

For tomorrow, what we are announcing will be bilateral measures in this space.  And then, of course, we would be open in the future to discussing things more broadly.

Q    And one more.  Japan is approaching North Korea for a summit, but North Korea says it is not interested because there is no context for the summit.  What is the United States’ position on Japan’s push for the summit with North Korea?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’ll — speaking from the United States’ perspective, we believe that principled diplomacy is a good thing.  It’s a necessary component of an overall strategy to confront the North Korean threat.  We ourselves have indicated we’re prepared to engage in diplomacy with North Korea. 

Of course, the North Koreans have not shown any interest in that.  They have only tried to move down the track of further development of their weapons — their missile and nuclear programs.  And so, we, the United States, have pulled closer together with our allies to enhance our capacity and posture in the Indo-Pacific, and we’ll continue to do that.

Yeah.

Q    Thanks.  Jake, you were scheduled to travel to Saudi Arabia before you were recently injured.  First, how are you doing?  And, second, is there a rescheduling of that meeting with the Crown Prince back on the books?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Cracking your rib is very painful.  Maybe not as — maybe not as painful as answering your questions.  (Laughter.) 

But I — I kind of rushed the timing on that joke, which I prepared for.  (Laughter.)  So, yeah.

No, it actually — it — it hurts a lot.  Some of you may have cracked your ribs at some point.  There’s not a lot you can do about it other than just rest. 

And, yes, I intend to go to Saudi Arabia at some point soon.

Q    What happened to you?

Q    But nothing — nothing is scheduled yet?

Q    What happened, Jake?

Q    Jake, can I follow up? 

Q    You’ve got to tell us, man.

Q    Just to follow up, you mentioned bilateral deliverables for the Prime Minister tomorrow.  But can you also touch on some of the more regional stuff?  There are also plans for an integrated air and defense missile system with Japan, Australia.  For example, if you can speak about that — how Japan can support AUKUS. 

And also, any plans for trilateral joint naval patrols between U.S., Japan, and the Philippines.  Anything you can share?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first of all, on the naval patrols, we just saw trilateral, pr- — plus Australia — a new form of quadrilateral joint naval patrols last week.  So, you can expect to see more of that in the future.

With respect to AUKUS, there was an AUKUS defense ministerial yesterday with a statement that came out of it that indicated what we’ve been saying for quite some time, which is that, under Pillar 2 of AUKUS, which is the advanced technology pillar, we’re prepared to work with additional partners beyond the three of us where they can bring capabilities. 

And Japan is one of the countries that could very well bring capabilities to that.  So, we will explore partnership with Japan under the — under Pillar 2 of AUKUS, as well as other partners.

Q    So, is — is — the approach, broadly, I mean, if we look at this, it’s kind of like what you guys have been trying to do in the Middle East against Iran, this joint — this integrated missile air defense system.  So, is the President’s ultimate vision, ultimately, an air and also naval network of alliances against Iran in the Middle East and then China in the Indo-Pacific?  Is that’s where he’s going?

MR. SULLIVAN:  That is not how I would characterize it.  The President has said that his alliances are not designed against, they’re designed for.  They’re designed for a free and open Indo-Pacific, for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. 

And, frankly, the American alliance system has helped bring peace and stability to the Indo-Pacific for decades.  And now, we need to update and upgrade that alliance network for the modern age.  And that includes also reaching out to partners who are not traditional treaty allies of the United States, who have a key role to play in ensuring that the Indo-Pacific remains free, open, prosperous, and secure.

So, that’s how we’re looking at things across the region. 

And, by the way, it goes way beyond security.  It’s economics, it’s technology, it’s infrastructure development, and it’s diplomacy.  And that’s all going to be on display in the meeting with the Prime Minister, and it’s all going to be on display in the trilateral meeting among President Marcos, Prime Minister Kishida, and President Biden.

Yeah.

Q    Just really quick on Gaza —

Q    Xi Jinping —

Q    — please, Jake, if I may.  Tomorrow is — 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I think — I think —

Q    — the end of Ramadan.  The President originally said that the goal was a ceasefire before Ramadan.  Tomorrow is the end of Ramadan.  What does that say about the President’s ability to bring about peace?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I think it says more about the fact that you have a party, Hamas, who is holding innocent people that it took hostage a long time ago.  Doesn’t get a lot of attention, unfortunately, in the commentary, and I’ve said that from the podium before.  And there could be a ceasefire in place today that would extend for several weeks to be built upon longer if Hamas would be prepared to release some of those people.

So, let’s train the attention where it belongs, which is that the world should say at this moment to Hamas, “It’s time.  Let’s go.  Let’s get that ceasefire.”

We’re ready.  I believe Israel is ready.  And I think Hamas should step up to the table and be prepared to do so as well.

Yeah.

Q    Xi Jinping met earlier today with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.  I wondered what you made of that meeting.  And just — is the U.S. seeing any evidence that China may offer some type of direct military aid to Russia in the war with Ukraine?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We have not seen any evidence that they’ll provide direct military aid to Russia, but we have expressed our concerns about inputs to Russia’s defense industrial base — something Secretary Blinken spoke about, I think, quite effectively in Europe last week. 

I can’t comment on the meeting or characterize it yet because I actually haven’t had a chance to get a readout.

Q    Jake —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    Jake, just to — to follow up on Danny’s question — a policy question, not a political question.  With Cameron at Mar-a-Lago, is this something that the administration knew about in advance? 

And is it helpful to have the former President potentially weighing in more on Ukraine and meeting in — meeting with foreign leaders? 

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I — I’ll take the first of that as a factual question.  Yes, we knew it — about it in advance.  And beyond that, I’m not going to comment on it.

Yeah.

Q    Just wanted to follow up on the AUKUS question, because we heard a lot from the Australian Prime Minister yesterday about how it wasn’t an invitation for Japan to join that alliance.  Is that something that the U.S. envisions happening someday and is any part of this discussion this week part of moving toward that goal?

MR. SULLIVAN:  On AUKUS?

Q    On AUKUS.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.  So, what the statement said was that we’re engaging in discussions with a range of partners, and then it went on to say that Japan could be a critical contributor to this.  You will see, when they speak tomorrow, an indication that that’s the direction we’re moving in. 

And I’ll leave the precise terms of that announcement to the President and the Prime Minister to make so I don’t front-run them.

Yeah.

Q    Hey, Jake.  Thanks.  On the meeting with J- — Japan tomorrow, is the President going to discuss the high-speed rail in Texas?  And how does he square support for that with opposing the Nippon Steel merger or acquisition of U.S. Steel?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t tell you, standing here today, whether the high-speed rail issue will come up tomorrow or not.

Yeah.

Q    One more, if I could, on BRICS.  One more, if I could, on BRICS, Jake.  Iran, Egypt, UAE, and Ethiopia have joined BRICS now, with Saudi Arabia considering it.  How worried is the President that — that he’s been degraded on the world stage in terms of — of the leadership?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, if you look at what’s happened with NATO, we’ve made NATO larger than ever. 

If you look at what’s just happening this week: a historic trilateral with the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines. 

If you look across the Indo-Pacific at how we’ve upgraded our relations not just with traditional allies, but with the likes of Vietnam, Indonesia, ASEAN as a whole. 

If you look at the fact that, next month, the President will welcome the President of Kenya for a state visit here — a historic moment — one of the few times that a president has welcomed an African leader. 

If you look at the fact that twice he’s hosted all of the leaders of the Pacific Islands; that he’s hosted all of the leaders of Africa at a summit in the United States; that the United States has increased its investments in the infrastructure — physical, digital, energy infrastructure — in the Americas, in Africa, and Southeast Asia and beyond; the partnership between the U.S. and India — a country in BRICS — has gone to new heights with an engagement across technology and so many ot- — and security and so many other dimensions.

I think if you look at the U.S. role and standing and its relationships across the key regions of the world, we fe- — we feel very good about where we are.

Yeah.

Q    All right.  So, Jake, really quick.  I just need an update on immigration and the funding for Haiti.  The immigration piece.  Is there going to be some kind of temporary movement to allow Haitians as they are dealing with war, the assassination of the president?  Democracy is pretty much gone.  They’re in tyranny from coordinated militia there.  Will there be a temporary change in status for immigration to the United States so they can seek asylum here instead of seeking asylum there? 

And what’s going on with the funding that the White House proposed and that Republicans are kind of holding up when it comes to Haiti?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We are consulting with the Congress to try to unlock that funding, because it is critical to get a multinational security force led by the Kenyans on the ground in Haiti as soon as possible to help bring about stability and calm so that we can alleviate the suffering of innocent people in Haiti, as you were referring to.

And then the United States has a very forward-leaning policy relative to Haitians being able to access programs to come to the United States.  We will continue that as we go forward.  It’s a historic level of access for people who would be fleeing violence or otherwise seeking to deal with their circumstances in Haiti by coming here.

Q    But if — but just —

MR. SULLIVAN:  And that’s going to be our —

Q    Just to — a follow-up, though.  But if everything is so broken down in Haiti and a militia is basically controlling everything, how can people genuinely go to file for asylum and really make it happen and — and come here versus just getting on a boat or going some kind of way to get here?  I mean, it’s — wouldn’t — isn’t that harder in a war-torn or militia-torn country to do that there versus just coming here?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not sure I entirely understand the question.  But the root of all of this, of people’s ability to operate freely in their country or choose where they’re going to go from there country, is security and stability.  And the United States is leading a global effort to try to help restore stability and calm to Haiti through a multinational force.

And we need the funding to do that, and I thank you for raising that, because we would like support on a bipartisan basis from the Congress to unlock that funding, which is currently being held.  And we’re pressing for that on a daily basis. 

I’ll take one more question.

Yeah.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  The French Foreign Minister said that France is contemplating imposing sanctions on Israel in order to speed up humanitarian aid.  Turkey, as well, which is a close ally of yours, imposed restriction on — on trade and goods with Israel.  At what stage the administration will consider similar meas- — measures? 

And, also, do you still believe that Israel is not in violation of the Geneva Convention or international humanitarian law?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I will say — sound a bit like a broken record to your first question, which is repeating what the President said, repeating what Secretary Blinken said: Our policy going forward is going to be determined by whether we see sustained follow-through on specific concrete and measurable steps to provide access, provide deconfliction, take other measures to alleviate the suffering of people in Gaza. 

And if Israel’s policy doesn’t change on a sustained basis, in that way, our policy will change.  And I can’t go beyond that. 

(Cross-talk.)

Sorry — all right, fine.  One more.  Yeah, go ahead.

Q    So, back to North Korea.  If Prime Minister Kishida decided to meet Kim Jong Un, does the U.S. support of such a meeting under any concerns?

MR. SULLIVAN:  So, again, I can’t speak to a hypothetical of what may happen or may not happen.  I’ve only just made the point: On a principled, sustained basis, the United States has supported diplomacy with North Korea, as long as it fits into a broader approach that is well coordinated with us, with South Korea.  And we should continue to work in that direction. 

And I can’t speak to any particular meeting, because I don’t know the specifics of it. 

Thanks, guys.

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much, Jake. 

We have about 10 minutes or so.  I think — I think some of you are tracking that the — the hostage families — or the families of the hostages are going to be speaking at the Sticks.  And we want to give you all an opportunity to ask questions — at, like, three o’clock. 

Q    Did they just meet with the Vice President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I bel- — I believe so.  Yes, they did — just met with the Vice President.  I shouldn’t say I believe so.  Yes, they just met with the — or they’re meeting — or I’m not sure where they are in that process. 

So, don’t have too much time.  But, Joshua, it’s always good to see you go.  Go ahead.

Q    Good to see you.  Two quick — following up on Arizona.  Other than calling for a national law, is there anything else the administration plans to do in response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think we’ve been very vocal here, right?  We’ve been very straightforward.  We’ve been — I don’t know how — how more vocal and — and leaning into where we stand on this, which is with the majority of Americans.  We believe and have been very clear — the President, the Vice President, this administration — that we have to make sure that there is a — when it comes to repr- — reproductive freedom, that it is available to — to all, to women — you know, millions of women right now who are put in a incredibly difficult situation.

We — you — you all have written about the stories.  You’ve all heard the stories about what women have to go to now because of these restrictive — extreme, restrictive bills that we have seen — laws that we have seen across the country.

So, we’re going to keep the issue of reproductive freemo — freedom at the forefront.  That’s what we’re going to do.  We’re going to continue to call it out. 

It is causing chaos, what we saw this former President do in making sure that there were Supreme Court justices that he appointed to the — obviously, to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade because of the Dobbs decision.  And, you know, it’s — it’s created some — some awful stories, some chaos, as I just mentioned.

And so, we’re going to continue to put that out at the forefront.  We believe that women’s lives are at stake across the country, and we’re just not going to stop speaking out. 

And, obviously, we’re going to ask Congress to legislate and make Roe v. Wade the — the law of the land.  And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do.

Q    And th- — and then, inflation is at 3.2 percent.  It’s higher than it was in January.  Are there any concerns that the disinflation we saw last year is starting to stall out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to say that this is a president that — that is doing everything that we can to fight inflation — right? — to build an economy from the bottom up, middle out.  And we’ve been pretty consistent about that. 

And over — what we have seen over the past several months is that inflation is down two thirds and core inflation is at the lowest since it — since May of 2021.  That matters.

Wages are rising faster than prices over the last year.  Since the pandemic, we’ve seen 15 million jobs created because of the policies that this President has put forward — some — some really historic — bipartisan, even — legislation that’s come into law to help create those — those millions of jobs.  Unemployment is at under 4 percent. 

Is there more work to be done?  Absolutely.  We’re going to continue to do everything that we can to lower — lower cost.  We’re going to take on — continue to take on Big Pharma, for example.  We’re going to continue to lower housing costs, which we know really hurts families. 

And you hear talk — talk about, you know, junk fees, getting rid of junk fees and the gouging that we’re seeing from corporations.  That’s also very important. 

Congress — congressional Republicans want to do the opposite.  They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, cutting taxes for the wealthy and big corporations.  That’s not where this — the President is.  You heard him talk about it in depth during the State of the Union, and we’re going to continue to fight for Americans. 

So, look, we see inflation is down.  It is important, and we’re going to continue to build an economy that leaves no one behind. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  In Michigan, the parents of a school shooter have just been sentenced to at least 10 years in prison.  Does the White House think this precedent could impact the number of school shootings in the future?  And does the President believe parents should be held accountable in this way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I — I don’t want to get ahead of the legal process here.  There is a legal process.  I want to be super careful. 

But the President obviously remains committed to stopping tragedies like these from happening.  It is a tragedy that we’re seeing in all communities across the country.  Ending the epidemic of gun violence that is tearing up communities is a — is a priority for this President. 

We know that, when it comes to guns, it is the number one killer of our children, and that shouldn’t be.  So, we know that most students who carry out the K to 12 school shootings are using firearms they obtained from home of a friend or a family member.  That’s why we recently announced new executive actions to help promote the safe storage of firearms. 

The U.S. Department of Education released guidance to help parents and families learn about the importance of safe firearm storage.  And the DOJ released the gun guide on best practices for safely storing firearms. 

Under the leadership of this President, of this administration, we’ll continue to use every tool at our disposal to implement these and other commonsense gun safety measures to protect our children.  We’re going to continue to work.  We did the Bipartisan Safer Communities Ac- — Act that you know that we passed in 2021, obviously, in a bipartisan way.  That was important.  But we need Congress to take another step. 

And so, we’re going to continue to push Congress on — on taking more steps to get — get those — get those weapons of war, if you will, out of — out of — off our streets.  And that’s what the President wants to continue to do. 

Q    So, no reaction?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m going to be super careful about the legal process.  I — I’ve talked through — I just laid out, I think in pretty detail, about what we’re doing to make sure that, you know, the stu- — as we know, the K to 12 students who carry out those types of horrific actions are getting their — easily have access to firearms.  So, we’re trying to — through DOJ, through executive action, trying to figure out and — and really help parents and — and folks really store their firearms in a way that this doesn’t happen. 

So, we’ve taken actions and steps in those — in those forms, in that way.  And so, look, we’re going to continue to do what we can to work with Congress to do more. 

Go ahead, Mary.

Q    Just a follow-up on Jake’s comments on Rafah.  You know, he stopped short of saying that an invasion would lead to a change in U.S. policy; you want to see how these high-level talks and conversations play out.  But the White House has been very public in warning Israel that if they don’t make concrete changes to address humanitarian suffering, there will be these changes.  Why not extend that warning to an invasion that you clearly have very deep concerns about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  I mean, you had the National Security Advisor right in front of you lay out where we are with the conversations.  We had a virtual conversation.  Jake was part of it.  He just talked about how it — it took some hours.  That — that happened just about a week ago. 

And the most important thing there is that there’s conversations happening with the Israeli government and our government.  And we’re — and they are listening to what we’re saying.  They’re — and — and obviously, we’re hearing them out.  And we understand — I want to be really clear.  We understand that there are Hamas operatives in — in the Rafah, but they’re also more than 1 million innocent civilians who are taking refuge in — in Rafah, and we want to make sure that they are protected. 

So, a major military operation is not something that we support.  We’ve been pretty consistent about that.  Don’t want to get into hypotheticals here.  But we believe that the conversations are happening.  They’ve been productive.  That is important. 

There’s going to be a face-to-face conversation, in-person conversation that the Israeli government agreed to.  So, that’s going to happen. 

And so — but those open line of communications, as the National Security Advisor was saying just moments ago from this podium, is continuing.  They’re happening almost every day.  And so, just want to be super, super careful about not getting into hypotheticals.

But we’re in conversation.  They’ve been productive.  We had one last week virtually.  And we’re going to continue to make sure that we’re having those discussion and they hear from us directly about how we believe protecting those more than about 1.5 million civilians in Rafah — we got to protect those lives. 

Go ahead.

Q    When should we expect that U.S.-Israel meeting to take place? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I believe it’s going — from what I’ve been hearing from our folks at National Security Council, it’s going to be in a couple of weeks.  But, again, those open line of communication — there’s constant communications happening every day.  But as it relates to this particular conversation, when they’re going to be here in person, members of the Israeli government, that’s going to happen in a couple of weeks. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  A couple days ago, in Dearborn, there were protesters chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”  Does the President condemn that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes. 

Q    Is the President at all concerned that Dearborn is becoming — is facing a risk of becoming a hotbed of any sort of homegrown threats?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have any intelligence to share with you on that.  Obviously, that’s something that we’re always very vigi- — vigilant about.  But don’t have any national intelligence to — to share it with you. 

Q    And then —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But obviously, we will condemn any — any violent rhetoric —

Q    Will we be seeing a statement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — which — which we have been very — I mean, you’re hearing from me — right? — you’re asking me a question.  I’m answering it.  And we’ve been very vigi- — vigilant about — or very consistent about denouncing that type of — that type of rhetoric. 

Q    Should we see a — should we expect a statement from the President on that, though?  I mean, it was a pretty significant display. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you’re hearing from me.  I think that’s important. 

The other part, too, that I do want to be very clear about: You know, peaceful protest is something that the President has also been very, very clear that is important for — to give folks space to peacefully protest.  But any type of violent rhetoric, we are going to denounce.

Q    And then, on some of the comments he made today.  Did — did the President mean to essentially accuse Republicans of — of murder?  I mean, the language that he was using to describe opposition to the Affordable Care Act — the quote was, “They want to ‘terminate’ the Affordable Care Act.  ‘Terminate.’  Well, guess what?  Killing millions of Americans…”  Does he think that Republicans are trying to kill Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — I think you’re — I think you’re taking the most extreme — extreme definition or extreme evaluation of what the President said. 

Here’s the reality: The Affordable Care Act, which obviously started in the Obama-Biden administration, the President expanded on that, making sure that people have affordable healthcare.  That saves lives.  It does. 

It is important —

Q    (Inaudible) use other language, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, wait — it is — it is —

Q    It is stronger than usual.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — but you’re — but you’re taking what he said to the most extreme part of — of your definition or your realization —

Q    Well, he said it.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, but — but let’s be — let’s be really clear —

Q    He’s — he’s said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s —

Q    — “harm” and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s be really clear.  People having healthcare is important.  It saves lives.  It is important to have that.  The fact that this President was able to expand that is important, right?  We’re talking about people who didn’t have access to — to healthcare that could — whether they’re dealing with diabetes or cancer or something that is affecting their everyday life.  Right? 

And I think, you know, when you have a party that is trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and says it bluntly and wants to repeal — they tried to repeal affordable healthcare — or Affordable Care Act, to be more specific, more than 60 times — they literally voted on it — when it is saving people’s lives.  Why?  Why do they do that?  Why? 

Do they not want Americans to have healthcare — affordable healthcare to protect themselves, to save their lives?  I mean, that’s the question to be asked.

The President is trying to do the right thing.  He’s trying to be — be where majority of Americans are and protect — protect their healthcare, protect their Medicare, and protect their Medicaid. 

And you don’t see that from the other side.  You just don’t. 

He literally had a back-and-forth with them during the State of the Union about that.  So —

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.

Q    On the nomination of a Adeel Mangi.  There are three Democrats publicly opposed.  Do you — does the administration feel like there are some winnable Republican votes here? 

(Cellphone with wind chime ringtone plays.)

And is the administration committed to filling this circuit court position ev- — by the end of the year, even if that means, you know, moving on from —

(Cellphone with wind chime ringtone plays.)

Q    Please, turn it off. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Somebody’s door?  I don’t know what’s happening.  A chime? 

Q    (Inaudible) turn it off.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Everything okay here?

Q    It’s windy.  (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s windy.

Q    (Inaudible.)  

Q    Go ahead.

Q    It’s actually warm.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  But to your question, I’m going to be — I’m not going to comment or respond to particular members.  I will say what I’ve said many times from here, is that the President is deeply proud to have nominated an extraordinary, qualified person for this position, who is being targeted by malicious attacks.  We know that.

We — we have heard from the Anti-Defamation League.  They made that clear.  They debunked a right-wing smear campaign against Mr. Mangi.  They said it was profoundly wrong.  And it is unfortunate that we’re seeing this.

And so, we’re fighting for him.  We are continuing to have conversations with members of Congress about this.  We’re committed to getting him through.  And, you know, we — again, this President believes that he’s highly qualified and is proud to have nominated him to this position.

We have, like, one more question —

Q    Back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — because we’re — we’re running out. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Brian.  Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  I wanted to ask about the Mayorkas impeachment.  House Republicans are planning to send articles of impeachment to the Senate.  What is the President’s response to this?  And has the President personally reached out to members of the Senate to talk about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President spoke — I think, the last time they tried to do this and were unsuccessful, the President put out a statement, and he said that the history will not look kindly on House Republicans about this. 

It is a blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship.  That’s what the President has said, and he continues to believe that. 

Look, the President was in Madison, Wisconsin, yesterday.  He talked about student loans.  He talked about ways to give Americans a little bit more breathing room, making sure that they can go after their dreams — right? — making sure that borrowers who have been really crunched by — by student loans has an opportunity to get out from that. 

And that’s something that Republicans could be helpful with.  But, instead, they get in the way and s- — they get in the way and block what the President is doing.  But he’s going to continue to do that. 

There is a national security supplemental that could go to the floor in the — in Hou- — in the House, that the Speaker can put to the floor.  We know it would pass overwhelmingly.  We know that it would protect our national security.  It would help Ukraine — the brave people Ukraine, who are fighting for their democracy — help them.  They are getting in the way of that. 

So, look, there — there are ways.  Let’s not forget the bipartisan border deal — right? — that the former President said to Republicans to reject that deal because it wi- — it would help Joe Biden and hurt him.

Who — who are they working for?  Are they actually working for the constituents who put them into office?  I mean, that’s a question for them to — to have to answer. 

Majority of Americans — the things that I just listed out, majority of Americans want to see action.  They want to see us work in a bipartisan way.  We saw that coming out of the 2022 midterm election.  They want to see us come together and get things done. 

So, House Republicans need to stop playing politics.  They need to stop being partisan about these issues that matter to majority of Americans and get to work — and get to work.  We expect them to be leaders, but so do Americans expect them to be leaders as well.

Guys, I have to go, because I know they’re going to go to the sticks.  And I want to make sure that you guys get that.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, the President, obviously, is going to have the two-plus-two press conference tomorrow, and then we’ll be back on Thursday.

Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

Q    Thank you.

3:03 P.M. EDT

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

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Madison, Wisconsin

12:25 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Here we go.  So, from day one, President Biden vowed to fix the broken student loan system and make sure education was a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity. 
 
Today, we are heading to Madison, Wisconsin, where the President will announce his new plans to cancel student debt.  If these plans are finalized, more than 30 million people would stand to benefit from student debt relief when combined with the steps we have already taken. 
 
The Vice President, Second Gentleman, and Secretary Cardona are also fanning out across the country to talk to Americans who have received debt relief thanks to the Biden-Harris administration.  The President will continue to use every tool to deliver as much relief as possible to as many people as possible, no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stand in his way. 
 
Second, last night, the President, as you all know, called Coach Dawn Staley from the University of South Carolina to congratulate her and the team on their undefeated season and national championship.  Yesterday’s game was fantastic and capped off a woman’s tournament that generated record ratings.
 
On behalf of the White House, we congratulate the University of South Carolina and all the athletes who have accomplished so much for their teams and their — and their sport.  It was really a March Madness to remember. 
 
And finally to mark the eclipse, the White House released a video — hopefully, you all got to see it before we took off this morning — on social media with the President reminding people to wear protective eyewear.  The President hopes that everyone enjoys the eclipse but hopes they also play it safe and protect their eyes. 
 
With that, I am happy to take some of your question.
 
Darlene. 
 
Q    Thank you.  Congress is back this week.  Apart from the national security supplemental, money for Ukraine and Israel, is there any legislation the President would want to see Congress send him before they break again for recess in a couple of weeks?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, thank you for the question.  I think it’s really important.  You mentioned the national security supplemental, which we all know passed in a bipartisan fashion, overwhelmingly, in the Senate, 79-29.  And now we want to see Speaker Johnson put that national security supplemental on the floor.  We know it would get overwhelming support.  We want to see that moving forward. 
 
We also want to see Congress move forward with the border security negotiation that came out of the Senate.  It was done in a bipartisan way.  The President, obviously, was involved in that.  And so, we know that the last president, President Trump, told Republicans to reject that proposal and not put the — not put majority of Americans first.

A majority of Americans want to see that proposal move forward or — not even the proposal — want us to take action on the im- — immigration system, which has been broken for decades.  And we want to see that proposal move forward because we believe that proposal, if it were to move forward, it got to the President’s desk, and he were to sign it, it would be not just the toughest but also the fairest — getting support from U.S. Chamber of Commerce and also the Border control — Patrol folks. 
 
In addition, there is — the Senate should pass the bipartisan tax deal passed by the House, which would expand the Child Tax Credit for millions of families and support construction of hundreds of thousands of affordable homes. 
 
Congress should extend funding for the Affordability [Affordable] Connectivity Program — you heard us talk about that recently — which has helped over 23 million households save 30 to 75 bucks each month on their monthly Internet bills.
 
And then, finally, Congress should pass the bipartisan bill to reauthorize and reform Section 702, which provides irreplaceable information on almost every threat that the American people expect their government to find and stop: terrorist plots, illicit fentanyl, ransomware and other cyberattacks, Russian — Russian war crimes, and many, many more. 
 
So, there’s a lot for Congress to do, and we hope that they take — they take action. 
 
Q    Sec- — second, will the President be able to see any of the solar eclipse —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —
 
Q    — today?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I — I don’t have any information on that to share with you.  Obviously, as I stated at the top, the President wants to make sure — it’s exciting time.  We know millions of Americans are excited about the — the solar eclipse that’s going to happen today.  We want to make sure that they protect their eyes, they have the protective eyewear.  I just don’t have anything to share on — on — right now, at this moment, on — on the President.
 
Q    On Section 702, does the White House have a contingency plan if Congress allows this to lapse?  And then what would be — you mentioned a few of the risks, but what are some of the ramifications if this provision expires?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I don’t want to get ahead of the most important point — right? — the provision underpinning the government’s most critical foreign intelligence tool, Section 702, is set to expire on April 19th and — along with other provisions.  And we’re — and we’re laser-focused on working with the Hill to prevent that from happening.  And so, that’s our focus.  That’s what we’re going to do.
 
And — and I — I think I’ve mentioned this already about what it — what — what Section [7]02 provides: irreplaceable information on almost every threat that the American people ex- — expect their government to find and stop.  And so, we urge Congress to — to reauthorize it now. 
 
The bipartisan bill that the House will take up this week includes some of the most extensive reform we’ve ever seen to protect the privacy of Americans and to strengthen guardrails to ensure accountability and transparency in how this critical authority is used.
 
The administration strongly, strongly supports the reauthoration — reauthorization and the of — and reform bill.  And so, don’t want to get into hypotheticals from here.  We are going to do everything that we can to get this done. 
 
Obviously, the deadline for this is April 19th.
 
Q    Do you have an update on the Gaza hostage talks in Cairo?  And I think Jake is meeting with some hostage families today.  
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything on the Jake meeting with hostage families.  I would certainly refer you to the National Security Council. 
 
As you know, there were reportings on the Di- — Director Burns being in Cairo over the weekend.  Certainly can confirm that for all of you.
 
I’m not going to get into details of those talks.  As you know, they’re incredibly sensitive.  And — and we’re doing everything — this administration is doing everything possible to broker a deal that secures the release of all hostages and leads to an immediate ceasefire.  And there is no — no higher priority for us at this time.
 
Q    And — and Israel’s withdrawal from parts of Gaza, what do you make of that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m just not going to get into the — Israel’s — Israel government op- — operations — military operations.  I’m just not going to get into.  I let them speak to it for themselves.
 
Go ahead, Mario.
 
Q    Yes, Jamie Dimon today, Morgan Chase’s CEO, said that — suggested that the LNG exports were political, the ban was — were — was political.  Does the administration have any response to that assertion at all?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, we want to be really clear about the facts here.  And the facts are: We announced a temporary pause on pending additional approvals of LNG report [export] licenses to evaluate the economic and climate impacts on consumers and communities.  I’ve mentioned this before — very recently, last week at the podium.
 
Meanwhile, record domestic oil and gas production is helping meet our immediate needs while we make the historic investment needed to transition to a clean energy economy. 
 
The President has been very clear that climate crisis — that the climate is indeed — climate change is a crisis.  He’s going to do everything that he can to deal with this.  He’s — he’s been the most — yeah, he’s taken the most progressive, ambitious actions on dealing with climate change.  And we have to deal with the facts.  That’s what we have to deal with: the facts.
 
Q    On the student debt plan — the second student debt plan.  The — the earnings-to-borrow ratio that’s being applied to for-profit universities — if you took that ratio, it would also apply to almost 80 percent of undergraduate degrees, some HBCUs.  Why isn’t that being applied evenly?  It looks like you’re targeting the for-profit universities.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just a couple of things.  Obviously, the Department of Education is going to be really squarely focused on this, but I’ll say a couple of things. 
 
We’re committed to holding colleges accountable when they leave students with mountains of debt and without good job prospects.  That’s our commitment.
 
And so, we’ll be issuing proposed rules on the policies announced today in the coming months.  So, we’ll be able to address those specific questions in the coming months.  But obviously, the Department of Education is — is monitoring all of this as well.
 
Q    And does the White House have any response to what Senator Fetterman said this weekend about squatting?  He took a pretty firm stance against that. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, I — you know, I’m always very careful on what — what congressional — congressional members say.  You know, I’m going to obviously let — let the senator speak for himself. 
 
As I said before — I also spoke to this last week at the podium — it is critical that communities take action to address this issue in a way that works best for them.  While this is a local issue, it is important that we protect the rights of both property owners and also renters.
 
But I also want to be clear here: Anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable.  And that is something that we’ve been consistent about from here. 
 
The bottom line is this: Everyone in every community in this country wants the same thing.  They want their families to be safe, and we want to see that.
 
Q    Just one follow-up on that.  Democrats are talking about a bill that would eliminate — would ban back- — criminal background checks for renters.  That would include convictions for squatting.  Does the administration support that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I haven’t seen that particular legislation — what Democrats are working on — so, I want to be super mindful and not comment on that.  Obviously, I need to check in with our Office of Leg Affairs. 

But we’ve been very clear: Understanding this is a local issue, local government needs to address this, I don’t want to get ahead of — get ahead of where we might be on that. 

Q    Karine, Steve asked about the withdrawal of troops in southern Gaza.  I just want to ask, is that something that the President and Netanyahu talked about last week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything beyond the readout that we all shared with you. 
 
Obviously, the purpose of that call last week was about protecting humanitarian aids who are in Gaza.  That was the purpose of that call.  And we have also said that Rafah operations was not part of that.  So, it was really focusing on that, what — what is — you know, what is Israel doing to protect humanitarian aid — aid workers, but also, six innocent civilians in Gaza, and that was the focus of the call. 
 
It was a 30-minute call.  It was very direct.  And so, don’t have anything beyond what we’ve read out to all of you.

Q    On Ukraine.  I know you’ve been asked similar things.  But if — if the Democrats were to support Speaker Johnson, if you were to bring that to the floor, is that something — would you be opposed to Democrats kind of helping out Johnson there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, that is — and you’re talking about as it relates to the — the national security —

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — supplemental?  Look, we’ve been always very clear, Democrat — you know, Leader — Leader Jeffries — he’s the Leader.  He — he will — he will determine what’s right for his demo- — for his caucus — obviously, the Democratic Caucus.  We’re not going to step into that.  We’ll let them figure out how they want to move forward. 

Look, we’ve been very clear, and I said this at the top, I think even in my — in the first question that I got from Darlene: The national security supplemental — if we want to help Ukraine, if we want to keep our commitment to Ukraine as they are fighting for their freedom — the brave people of Ukraine fighting for their freedom, we got to get that national security supplemental done.  That is what is going to — we got to do our part.  We have to do our part.  And what we have seen in the past several weeks, several months is Ukraine is losing ground in the battlefield.  And that’s because of congressional inaction. 

And so, we have to continue our support, as we’ve been supporting them for almost — more than two years now.  And they are fighting for their freedom, their democracy against Mr.  Putin’s aggression. 

And so, look, we know what happens if we do not deal with tyranny, if we not — if we do not stop at a dictator.  We know how history has played out in the past.  And so, this is critical.  This is important. 

If that — if Speaker Johnson were to put that supp- — national security supplemental on the — on the floor, we know that it would get overwhelming support.  But as it rel- — as it relates to Democrats and how they’re going to move forward, I would have to leave it to Leaders Sc- — Leader Jeffries.

Q    Just — just one more quick one on Trump and abortion.  I know the campaign put something out, but just on the policy position that he’s taking, any response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I do.  So, obviously, don’t want to comment on 2024 election.  Going to be really mindful. 

But I have a couple of things that I want to say here.  So, the only reason that — that extreme abortion bans are now in effect all over the country is because of the judges the previous President and Senate Republicans put in the courts.  The only reason that women are being denied lifesaving and even unrelated procedures and turned away from emergency rooms as a result of those bans is because of the judges the previous President and Senate Republicans have put in the courts.

The only reason that Republicans’ officials are able to take radical actions like banning IVF and criminalizing doctors for providing care is because of the judges the previous President and Senate Republicans put in the court.

When it comes to the fundamental freedoms at stake and the devastating healthcare effects that Republican officials’ extreme agenda mean for more and more American women every day, we need to be clear-eyed here. 

Just look at the extreme law about to go into effect in Florida, as one in three women live in states with bans — with bans. 

Just look at the budget.  Look at the budget 80 percent of House Republicans put out that bans abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. 

The President is absolutely clear, his administration — the Biden-Harris administration — has been very clear: We need to restore the protections of Roe, and that’s what we’re going to continue to fight for.

Q    Karine, the Vatican, today, put out a new document that states gender-affirming operations risk, quote, “threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception,” and also denounces attempts to obscure, quote, “the sexual difference between man and woman.” 

Obviously, the President is a devout Catholic.  I’m wondering if he has seen that document and if he has any comments on it. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I’ll say this: So, we are pleased to see that the document you just mentioned, Tyler, further the Vatican’s call to ensure that LGBTQ+ are protected from violence and imprisonment around the world. 
 
However, the President will continue to be an advocate for the rights, safety, and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community, including transgender people, here in the U.S. — and not just here in the U.S. but also around the world. 
 
And I just don’t have anything else to add.
 
Q    What about the — what about the more specific comments about gender theory and — and transgender individuals?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to be really careful and — and the President’s role to — to litigate internal church policy.  It’s not — that’s not his role.  So, I’m going to be super careful there. 
 
But I can speak to the President’s stance, and he’s always been very clear on the importance of protecting — or having protections for the transgender community and the broader LGBTQ+ community.  And that’s been very clear since day one of his administration.
 
Q    And just one more on student debt.  Does — the President’s previous attempts to cancel student debt have been struck down by the courts.  What is the level of confidence within the administration about the ability to — to go forward with the plan that he’s going to lay out in more detail today?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we know that Republicans’ officials, obviously, in the past, have done everything that they can to oppose the President’s — the President’s effort to give Americans — millions of Americans a little breathing room. 
 
So, while we can’t prevent them from — from filing lawsuits against this plan, the President will never stop fighting on behalf of borrowers, no matter how many times Republicans try to stop them. 
 
You know, we — as I just stated at the top in answering your question, we know what Republicans are going to do.  We can’t stop them from that.  But it’s also not going to stop the President on acting and taking action like he’s doing today.
 
Q    And just one more quick one.  Did the President — you said the President called the coach of South Carolina.  Did he watch any of the game last night?  And did he invite them to the White House?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll have more to share.  We’ll have more to share on — on a potential visit to the White House.  As you know, that is a common — that is a common — common event for the champions to come to the White House.  So, we’ll certainly have more to share. 
 
I have not had a second to ask him if he was able to watch the game last night, so I don’t have anything to share on that.
 
Q    One quick follow-up. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    Why is the —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which — which follow-up?  (Laughs.)
 
Q    I’m going back to the eclipse.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, okay, okay.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Why is the President traveling today?  Did he not want to be at the White House for this, you know, big moment?  I mean, during the last eclipse, President Trump was at the White House and watched from the balcony.  So, just —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We all saw that moment, yes.
 
Q    Just wondering if this current president —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We all know that moment.  And, hopefully, you saw the President’s video on the eclipse.
 
Look, we know — we know how exciting this is.  We get it.  We know that people are going to want to watch it, obviously.  And I said this multiple times already: We want them to do it safely, put some — the — your protective eyewear on to do this. 
 
Look, but student loans matter — right? — giving — giving Americans student loan relief also matters, right?
 
Q    True, but you could talk about student loans any day of the week. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)
 
Q    The eclipse only comes around, you know, once every 40 years.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know.  I know. 
 
But, you know, the President has a different schedule.  And the schedule certainly is — is focused on — on what he’s doing on behalf of the American people. 
 
And, look, you know, what he announced today con- — and as — as it’s obviously also connected to other announcement that he’s — he’s made on — on student — on student debt relief — is going to help at least 30 million Americans across the country.  That matters.
 
And I think when we go to Madison, Wisconsin, which the President is — is really looking forward to do and having — and him laying out what he’s — what he’s announcing, I think folks there are going to be excited to hear about that too.
 
And so, look, it’s an exciting day.  Yes, there’s an eclipse.  But, you know, the President — it’s not going to stop the President from traveling and being — going directly to the American people and talking about a plan that he pro- — he promised that he would deliver on — deliver on, even though Republican officials have tried to stop it.
 
Q    Can I ask you about the articles of impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas and the trial this week?  House Republicans clearly believe that he violated the law there.  Do you all take this as a sign that some law has been violated or just that it’s a — a representation of a frustration with border policies?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  And I’ve talk- — I’ve spoken to this many times before.  Obviously, this is not their first attempt. 
 
And as the President has said, “History will not look kindly on House Republicans for this blatant act of unconstitutional partnership.”  This impeachment stunt already failed once on the — on a bipartisan vote.  And it drew bipartisan opposition again in February, as I know you’re tracking.
 
Instead of wasting time on these kinds of political games, Republicans should — should want Congress to deliver more resources and stronger border security.  We talked about that.  There is a bipartisan border security proposal that we were able to ha- — make happen in the Senate, as you all know.  That took a couple of months.  And the former President told Republicans to reject it. 

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and be where majority of Americans are when it comes to the immigration system and fi- — fixing — fixing that — a system that’s been broken for decades.
 
So, if — this is not what the American people want or expect from their leaders.  They want us to deliver on real, real solutions — solving problems that they have — including, as I just mentioned, the border security.
 
Q    Is the administration still considering executive actions at this point?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’ve also been very clear about this, and I think the President has been as well: This administration has been — the only real solution, we believe, in dealing with the border challenges that we’re seeing and — and fixing the immigration system, again, that’s been broken for decades is moving forward with this border security proposal. 
 
Again, I stated this at the top; I’ll state it again.  You’ve got the Border Patrol union supporting this; you have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It was done in a bipartisan way — the negotiation — coming out of the Senate.  You know, we believe this is the way to move forward. 
 
And it would be, yes, tough but also fair.  And it would be the first — I think the first — the first legislation, if it were to get through and the President were to sign it, that we have seen in some time. 
 
And so, a majority of Americans care about this.  Let’s get to work.  Congress should get to work and get this done. 
 
Q    If it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen, though, before the end of — before the end of President Biden’s first term, is it something that the administration thinks is important enough to move on unilaterally?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the President has taken so many actions over the last three years.  And he started off putting forth his own — his own proposal — a comprehensive immigration proposal the first day — first day that he walked in — the first piece of legislation that he wanted to move.  And three and a half — three — three years — more than three years, Republicans got in the way at every turn.  Every turn, they got in the way of getting things done. 
 
And so, we finally came to the end of the — end of last year, had a conversation — Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate — to get this done.  I mean, that’s pretty impressive to be able to come out with a bipartisan proposal. 
 
The former President got in the way and told — and told Republicans to reject it because it’s going to help Biden — I mean, you all reported that — and hurt him.  And that’s unfortunate. 
 
So, look, there’s been many times where we’ve been told that we’re not going to get things done in a bipartisan way, and we’ve been able to do that in the past three years.  So, that’s not going to stop us.
 
We’re going to continue to call on Republicans to — to — for them to reject what the former President told them on not doing — on not moving on this — and to move on this on behalf of no politics, not partisanship, but on behalf of the American people. 
 
All right?  Thanks, everybody. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
12:47 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Madison, Wisconsin appeared first on The White House.

11:36 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Looks like most folks are on.  Kirby has a few words at the top, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can in the next few minutes.  Thanks, everyone.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Just a quick overview on the latest in the Middle East. 

First, yesterday we saw more than 300 trucks enter Gaza.  That’s more trucks than any single day since the war began.  And that’s progress.  But obviously, we need to see this number increase, and we need to see it sustained, to really address the dire humanitarian situation there in Gaza.

Also over the weekend, Ambassador Lew and David Satterfield had productive discussions with Minister of Defense Gallant, with the IDF, and with COGAT officials on the steps that the Israeli government has taken to implement the measures that the President discussed with Prime Minister Netanyahu in their call last week.  That includes to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance, sharpen up the deconfliction process, and again, to reduce the risk and raise the confidence level of humanitarian workers.

We certainly welcome all these steps.  Again, the President requested to get more aid into Gaza and address civilian harm.  But what we need to see, as we’ve said before, is that these steps are implemented and then sustained over time.  That includes major improvements, again, as I said, to the deconfliction process.  And we’re going to keep pressing the Israelis on exactly that. 

Second, just to provide an update on our review of the IDF independent investigation of the killing of World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza, we continue to review the conclusions of that investigation that was released by the IDF.  I know everybody is very curious about when we’re going to be done with that, what we’re going to say about it.  We’re still working our way through it.  I don’t have an update for you today.

Third, as has been publicly reported, Director Burns was in Cairo over the weekend as part of the hostage negotiations.  I don’t have a specific update to provide you today, but the administration is doing everything possible to broker a deal that secures the release of all the hostages and leads to an immediate ceasefire.  And there’s simply no higher priority.

Where we are now is that a proposal has been presented to Hamas, and we’re waiting on Hamas’s response.  As you all know from tracking this before, a response from Hamas to any particular proposal, one way or another, can often take a matter of days just because of the nature of communications with them and with Mr. Sinwar.  So that’s the best I have for an update for you.  I don’t have more detail. 

I’m not going to — as much as I know everybody is interested, I’m not going to get into what the specifics of that proposal is or what it looks like or what was negotiated in Cairo.  That would be one of the surest ways to torpedo this, and I’m not going to do that. 

I do want to add on the hostage front, though, that Jake will be meeting with family members of the U.S. citizens that are being held hostage.  And he’ll be meeting them tonight, later this afternoon, here at the White House.

Now, just on the state visit: As you all know, the President and First Lady are prepared to welcome Prime Minister Kishida and Mrs. Kishida of Japan to the White House for an official visit.  That will include a state dinner.  This visit will be a celebration of our bilateral relationship as it evolves into a global partnership that is a force for peace and prosperity; also a recognition of the significance of our alliance.  It builds on the immense progress between our two nations to help create a safer and more secure Indo-Pacific. 

You’ll be hearing more from us soon, obviously, on the wide range of deliverables that will be announced by the leaders on Wednesday.  I’m not going to get ahead of that.  But I do want to highlight that, on Thursday, President Biden will welcome President Marcos of the Philippines to the White House for his second bilateral meeting here at the White House and also a chance to host the first-ever trilateral leaders’ summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.  And again, we’ll have much more to say about that as we get closer to Thursday.

The United States, Japan, and the Philippines are three closely aligned maritime democracies with increasingly convergent strategic objectives, interests, and, frankly, concerns in areas like the South China Sea.

The leaders are expected to announce new initiatives across a range of important issues during this historic trilateral meeting.  It’s the first ever at the leader level, and so we’re going to look to find ways to continue to deepen the collaboration with our closest partners, again, to ensure a free, open, prosperous, secure Indo-Pacific. 

And with that, I’m happy to take some questions.

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

Q    Hey, thanks, John.  Thanks, Sam.  Any updates on scheduling of the Rafah meetings in Washington?

And then, second, will the President or anyone at the White House be meeting with Mr. Lapid while he’s in town this week?  I believe he is meeting today at the State Department. 

And I know you don’t want to talk about specifics on the Cairo talks, but generally speaking, is there any reason to be more optimistic that a hostage deal can come through soon, coming out of the talks this weekend?  Thank you, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Aamer, can you ask me your first question again?  I’m sorry, I was trying to write fast and I —

Q    Sorry.  On the Rafah meetings that were expected for Washington —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, yeah.

Q    — is there any updates on timing on that?

MR. KIRBY:   Okay, thanks.  So, on Rafah, still no date certain.  Nothing set for the calendar.  We were hoping to be able to do it this week, but I’m not sure that it’s going to actually happen this week.  I think folks are really sort of circling around sometime next week.  But stay tuned, obviously when we know something.  But I’m not expecting one this week, but we’re still working the calendar items.

On Lapid, look, since the war started, Jake has met with Ron Dermer, Minister Gallant, Benny Gantz, Mr. Bennett, obviously and — and the Speaker of the Knesset.  And yes, he will be meeting with Mr. Lapid.  So he’s always made it a priority to meet with senior Israeli officials when they’re in town; Mr. Lapid is no exception.  And Jake will be having a discussion with him.

On the hostage deal, I really can’t say, honestly, Aamer, as — I went, really, as far as I could go in my topper.  There was a serious round of discussions and negotiations over the weekend.  Mr. Burns participated in that and represented us in those talks.  And at the end of the weekend, a proposal was submitted to Hamas, and now it’s going to be up to Hamas to come through. 

So what the chances are of that, I wouldn’t want to handicap it, except to say that — and I think it should be plainly obvious just by the amount of shuttle diplomacy that we’re doing and our counterparts are doing — we’re taking this very, very seriously.  And we really want to do — come to closure on a hostage deal as soon as possible.  Because again, with that hostage deal comes a ceasefire of some weeks’ duration, hopefully around six weeks, which could do a lot to ease the burden on the Gazan people and to help us improve that humanitarian assistance.

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

Q    Hey, guys.  Thanks for doing this.  Two quick ones.  The first was: I was wondering if you could just kind of give a general reaction to the Israeli statements over the weekend that were positive on ceasefire negotiations and possibly pulling some troops out of Gaza.  You know, are you encouraged by those?  Are you still kind of wait and see?  Just whatever you have on that. 

And then, I know you said you didn’t have an update on the talks themselves, but I was wondering if you had a response to the — if you could share if there was a response to the letters the President sent to the leaders of Egypt and Qatar on the hostage talks.  And if there was response, anything you could share there.

MR. KIRBY:  So as we’ve said before, the announcements and the statements coming out of the Israeli government over the last two, three days are welcomed.  And we are, as I said in my opening statement, beginning to see them move on some of the very specific things, the concrete steps that the President asked them to do.

So, again, these are welcome steps.  These are welcome announcements.  These are welcome statements.  But really, what it comes down to is sustainability and a commitment to meet these — commitment to follow through on these steps over time.

I don’t have a response to speak to in terms of the President’s communications with the Emir of Qatar and with President Sisi of Egypt.  Those letters were sent to convey the President’s strong view that we want them to urge Hamas to commit to this hostage deal and to abide by those commitments.  And as I said, a proposal was offered, and we’re going to wait and see what Hamas’s response is. 

And I honestly think that anything more that I would say — even though you’re not really asking about the hostage negotiations; you’re asking about the letters — anything more I would say at this point, you know, could potentially put that response in some kind of jeopardy.  And I just don’t want to do that, not when so many lives are hanging in the balance.

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

Q    Hi, thank you.  Question about Khan Younis.  How are you interpreting it?  Have you sought any clarification about the repositioning of those troops, the withdrawal, as to whether it’s preparatory to something else, or is it a routine reservist, you know, withdrawal?  Or the rest, are they going back to their civilian jobs?  Can you give us any clarification about the military moves this weekend that were ordered?

MR. KIRBY:  Andrea, I’m really not going to do that.  I mean, that’s really for the Israeli Defense Force to speak to.  It’s their troops, their units, their movements.  And the last thing I’m going to do is try to talk for another military.  All I can —

Q    But have we sought any clarification from them as to what they’re up to? 

MR. KIRBY:  All I can say is —

Q    Because that’s been one of the issues on the table.

MR. KIRBY:  All I can tell you, Andrea, is that they’ve made it clear that these troops have been on the ground for four months consecutive, fighting, and they needed to be refit and get some rest.  So that’s our best understanding of what they’re doing. 

I don’t have any internal communications we might have had with them about this.  I will just add that we have consistently made clear that we don’t support a major ground operation in Rafah.  I would also add that we don’t see any signs that such a major ground operation is imminent or that these troops are being repositioned for that kind of a ground operation. 

The last thing I would add is that we’re still looking to have a conversation with the Israelis about Rafah here in coming days, hopefully sometime next week.  And the Israelis have assured us that there will be no operations in and around Rafah until we have had a chance to talk to them at greater length about the viable options and alternatives to a major ground operation.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Shalal with Reuters.  Andrea, you should be able to unmute yourself.  Okay, we see you unmuted yourself, but we cannot hear you.

Q    Okay, can you hear me now?

MODERATOR:  We can.  Yep. 

Q    Okay, thanks so much.  Thanks for taking my question. 

John, I’m just wondering about the aid — you know, flow of aid into Gaza and what you’re seeing there.  And then, you know, like, how many trucks do you think are possible per day?  Three hundred was a lot compared to what we’d seen earlier, but is still not — you know, not sufficient.  So what are you looking for there?

And then, on the investigation into the World Central Kitchen thing, can you give us any more details in terms of what you see there?  And I know that this has been asked before, but do you — you know, is there thinking about whether that did, in fact, amount to a war crime?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Look, on the trucks, what we’ve said and what we communicated to the Israelis is we’d like to see the flow

in the very, very near future get up to between 3- to 350 per day.  And today, as I said, we saw more than 300.  So that’s a good start but still not up to the upper range of that and — of the 350.  And, again, what matters is how it can be sustained over time.

I have nothing for you on the investigation.  As I said, we’re still working our way through it.  I just don’t have any updates for you on that. 

And as I’ve said before, the State Department continues, as always, through their ongoing processes, to review operations by militaries that receive, you know, U.S. security assistance.  It’s an evolving thing that they watch it, they examine facts as they develop.  They have not made any determinations at this time with respect to war crimes.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’re going to try to speed through three more questions before we have to jump.

Our next question will go to Alex Marquardt with CNN.

Q    Thank you, guys.  Thanks for doing this.  John, in terms of what a potential Iranian retaliation could look like for the consulate strike last week, I know you guys have — I was wondering whether you guys could say a little bit more about what you may be tracking in terms of specific Iranian plans.  Do you have an expectation of whether targets could be civilian or military, U.S. or Israeli; whether Iran would retaliate themselves or have this done through proxies?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Alex, I’m going to be real careful here, because you’re talking about some intelligence assessments.  And I’m just not going to get into that. 

I will just tell you that, number one, we know that Iran has made very public threats against Israel itself.  And one of the things that the President said in his call with Prime Minister Netanyahu was that the Israeli government could count on the United States’ support for any self-defense needs against threats directly by Iran to Israel — again, threats that Iran has made public. 

Number two, our own people — not just our troops, but our diplomatic personnel, as well, in Iraq and Syria — are under constant threat.  We take that seriously, and we take the appropriate force protection measures we need to as the threat changes to make sure that they can protect themselves.  And that has not changed; that will not change.  We’re continuing to do that. 

But we take the threat to our own people and our own facilities seriously.  And we know that those groups, many of the groups that conduct those kinds of attacks, are supported, funded, resourced by the IRGC. 

So I think I’ll just leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Robin Wright with the New Yorker.

Q    Thanks, John.  A related question.  Has the United States received any message, directly or indirectly, that Iran might refrain from a military response for the attack on its facility in Damascus if the U.S. brokers a ceasefire?  In other words, is there any kind of understanding or sub-deal, deal parallel to the negotiations, on a ceasefire in Gaza?

And also, as related to Alex’s question, is the U.S. still seeing signs of Iran positioning to respond in any way?  And if so, where?  I know it’s related, but is there any detail you can provide, insight?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, Robin, the second part of the question was what? 

Q    Well, related to Alex’s question.  And are you still seeing signs, as U.S. officials said on Friday, that Iran is positioning for a response, both missiles and drones?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh.  Oh, I gotcha.  I gotcha.  I thought that was — I guess I should be more clear.  I thought it was kind of implied in my answer to Alex that, of course, we’re still considering this an active threat.

And look, I don’t really have a comment to make on the report that Iran claims they would refrain from responding if there was a ceasefire.  Quite frankly, if Iran desires a ceasefire in Gaza, then it should pull out all the stops to do what they can to press Hamas to accept the deal that’s on the table, to accept the proposal that was worked up this weekend, if that’s what they really want.  We want a ceasefire too.  They can lean on Hamas.  That would be the best outcome. 

And look, we want a ceasefire, again, that would release women, the wounded, sick, the elderly.  That’s really the focus.  But if Iran is serious about a ceasefire, they’ll use the influence they have with Hamas to press for a positive response to that proposal. 

Q    But has the U.S. received any message, directly or indirectly, to that effect?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to offer on that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question, and unfortunately our last, will go to Nadia.  Nadia, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me now?

MODERATOR:  We sure can. 

Q    Oh, thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  You said that, today, for the first time since October 7th, that 350 trucks of aid are entering Gaza.  I’m just wondering why it took that long.  And why — what were the major obstacles that prevented this vital aid to come to Gaza, especially for (inaudible)?  Is it the phone call from the President?  Is it a change of policy on the U.S. that made this happening?

MODERATOR:  Nadia, we can’t really understand you.  Are you on speakerphone?

MR. KIRBY:  Nadia, I could not pick up most of your question.

MODERATOR:  Now you’re breaking up.  So we’re going to move on and try get one more question.

We’ll go to Hiba.  Hiba, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Yes, Sam.  Thank you.  Thanks, John.  I want to follow up on the question regarding the Iranian consulate and the message that — reports on the message that the Iranian conveyed to the U.S. that they will go — they will refrain from hitting in case there’s a ceasefire.  Is it fair to say, John, that this report is not accurate?  Are you trying to tell us that? 

And my second question: On the strike itself against the Iranian consulate, some (inaudible) are saying it was unwise by the Israeli.  What’s your position?  We never understand what the administration position on the strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. 

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything more to say about the strike in Damascus, except that we weren’t involved in any way whatsoever.  And I need to just leave it at that.

And as I said to Robin’s question on this, I don’t have anything further to add on Iranian claims that they’re making this sort of promise.  You got to take pretty much everything that the Iranians say with a huge grain of salt. 

I would just add that if they’re serious about wanting a ceasefire, then they should put the pressure on Hamas to accept the proposal that’s on the table.  That’s it. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thank you, everyone, for joining us.  Sorry this was a quick one.  But as always, reach out to the NSC distro if we weren’t able to get to you.  Thanks.

 11:58 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.

Via Teleconference

6:32 P.M. EDT

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you for joining our press call regarding the President’s ongoing efforts to cancel student debt.

Today’s call will begin with on-the-record remarks from White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. 

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

With that, Karine, I will turn it over to you.

Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello?  Can you hear me?

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  I apologize, guys.  I thought I was unmuted.

Thanks, Angelo.  And thanks, everyone, for joining. 

From day one, President Biden vowed to fix the broken student loan system and make sure education was a ticket to the middle class and not a barrier to opportunity.  And our administration has taken historic steps to cancel student debt for 4 million Americans so far. 

That’s 4 million people who have the breathing room to start businesses, buy homes, grow their families, and pursue their dreams. 

We’ve helped these borrowers through fixing Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so nurses, teachers, and other public service workers who have served their communities so — for 10 years can actually get the debt relief they are entitled to under the law.

Since taking office, nearly 900,000 people have gotten Public Service Loan Forgiveness.  Before we came into office, only 7,000 people had ever seen that relief since the program started over 15 years ago. 

The President launched a new repayment plan, the SAVE Plan — millions — pardon me — the SAVE Plan, which is the most affordable repayment plan ever, helping millions of borrowers have zero-dollar payments on their loans.

And earlier this year, we announced we were canceling the remaining student debt for over 150,000 borrowers enrolled in SAVE who took out loan balances of loans that — low balances of loans.  That debt cancellation came six months ahead of schedule. 

Those are just some of the ways that the President and — and the — and the Biden-Harris administration have delivered student debt relief to millions of Americans. 

And in 2021 [2022], President Biden announced that — announced a plan that would have elected of- — that would have canceled — I’m so sorry, guys — that would have canceled student debt for 40 million Americans.  But Republicans’ elected of- — elected officials sued us, and the Supreme Court sided with them, leaving — with them, leaving millions of people with the burden of student loan debt. 

On the day of that decision, President Biden promised he — that he wouldn’t stop fighting to deliver debt relief, and he announced that his Department of Education would immediately pursue a new path for debt cancelation. 

Tomorrow’s announcement is a result of that work. 

Tomorrow, the President will announce his administration’s new plans to cancel debt — cancel student debt.  And when combined with actions we’ve already taken, 30 million people would benefit from student debt relief under the Biden-Harris administration if these plans are fa- — finalized.

I’ll let the Secretary talk more about the specific plans, but in total, they would help 23 million people get all of their interest canceled if their balance today is more than it was when they started paying back their loans.

They would deliver $5,000 in relief to over 10 million borrowers.  And millions of borrowers would see their entire debts wiped out.

If these plans are finalized as proposed, our administration plans to start implementing some of these plans, such as interest cancellation, as early as this fall. 

Tomorrow, President Biden will deliver — will — will travel to Ma- — Madison, Wisconsin, where he will announce these plans and meet directly with borrowers who have benefited from his administration’s student debt relief efforts. 

We have Vice President, Second Gentleman, Secretary Cardona all fanning out across the country to meet with Americans who have had their debt cancelation — cancelled by the Biden adm- — -Harris administration and hear what his relief has meant to them.

Vice President Harris will be in Philadelphia, the Second Gentleman will be in Phoenix, and Secretary Cardona will be in New York City. 

I’ll close by saying that President Biden will use every tool available to cancel student loan debt for as many borrowers as possible, no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stand in his way. 

Thank you.  And I’ll turn it over to Secretary Cardona.

Secretary, the floor is yours.

SECRETARY CARDONA:  Thank you very much, Karine.  And I really want to thank everyone for joining in today.

When I became Education Secretary a little over three years ago, President Biden looked at me, and he said, “We’ve got a broken system, and I need you to fix it.”

When the Supreme Court struck down the President’s boldest student debt relief plan, within hours, we said, “We won’t be deterred.”  We announced a new rulemaking process designed to provide borrowers relief under the Higher Education Act.

And today’s announcement shows that we’re continuing to fulfill our promises.

As you know, the negotiated rulemaking process is how we change and improve our higher education policies.  As a result of that process, which we started last fall, the administration is announcing new proposals today to deliver student debt relief to as many as 30 million Americans. 

That includes more than 25 million borrowers who owe more money than they did at the start of repayment due to runaway interest — again, a broken system.  It includes automatic debt relief for least 2 million borrowers who are eligible for existing loan forgiveness program or closed school loan discharges but who haven’t yet successfully enrolled in or applied for these programs.

It includes borrowers who have been living with their student loans for 20 years or more and who have not already had their debt forgiven.  And it includes borrowers who have been taken advantage of by career training programs that left them with high debt and low-value credentials or borrowers who attended schools with unacceptably high rates of student loan defaults.

If these plans are finalized as proposed, altogether, this administration will begin to cancel up to $20,000 in interest for millions of borrowers and full loan forgiveness for millions more this fall. 

That’s on top of the $146 billion in student loan debt relief for four million Americans that we’ve already approved, more than any other administration in our country’s history.

We’ve also expanded Pell Grants to 1.7 million more Americans and are holding predatory institutions that cheated students accountable. 

It bears repeating: We’re delivering as much relief as possible for as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible. 

And what does that really mean for people?

It means breathing room.  It means freedom from feeling like your student loan bills compete with basic needs like grocery or healthcare.

It means the teacher I met in Philadelphia, who’d been teaching for 20 years, can finally afford to put a handicap-accessible bathtub in her house for her disabled husband thanks to the $20,000 in student loan debt relief she received.  Again, she’s been teaching for 20 years, and it was because of the debt relief that she can adjust the bathroom so that her husband can use it without issues.

Imagine that — working for 20 years and you can’t do that without the loan forgiveness.  That’s unacceptable.

Now, there’s an end to the nightmare of working hard, making loan payments, and still watching your loan balances get bigger and bigger month after month, and we’re proud to announce what we’re announcing today. 

Generations of students can now imagine themselves pursuing higher education instead of ruling it out early, sometimes as early as middle school, because of the cost.  And as a former school principal, I remember talking to young students who thought college was out of reach for them as young people.

President Biden often says the one word that describes America is “possibility.”  And when I think about all the possibility and all the potential we can unlock when — when young people see that they can afford and access higher education, I think this work is nothing short of transformative. 

That’s why we’re unapologetic about this fight.  Student loan forgiveness isn’t only about relief for today’s borrowers.  It’s about social mobility, economic prosperity, and creating an America that lives up to its highest ideals.

Again, thank you for joining.  And I’ll turn it back over to Angelo now, who will continue with the call. 

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you, Secretary Cardona. 

At this point, we will move to the question-and-answer portion of the call.  As a reminder, this will be on background and attributable to “senior administration officials.”

Please use the “raise hand” function on Zoom.  And I will give you all a minute to queue up.

Okay.  We will start — as you are called on, please identify yourself and your outlet. 

We will start with Jennifer Jacobs.  Over to you.

Q    Hey there.  Karine mentioned that you think that this would be implemented in the fall.  But can you say, are you expecting that it would be implemented before the election?  That’s one question.

And then secondly, will this plan go to a comment period?  And if yes, there will be a comment period, when will that start?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Inaudible.)  So, yes, these rule- — these proposals will go out for public comment in the coming months.  And the goal is to start delivering relief early this fall.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We will go to Michael next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey, thanks.  I appreciate being called on.  I have two questions sort of along the same lines of — of timing. 

One is, you know, given that the public comment period will ask for months and that — I think one of the — I can’t remember if it was the Secretary or Karine talked about some of the programs being implemented by the fall, is there — is there an exp- — I mean, it feels like the calendar is working against you here, that it’s unlikely that a lot of this is going to be implemented much before the election or before the fall. 

So, if you could talk a little bit more about which — which things you actually realistically think you could — you could put into effect. 

And then secondly, but related, is: Can you talk a little bit about the likelihood of a legal challenge?  And if there is a legal challenge, doesn’t that suggest that, you know, then you’re adding months and months on top of — on top of that, which — which puts you well beyond — you know, well into a potential second term?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  With regard to the timing question, this is not outside the norm for what we’ve done to turn around rules from draft to final by the early fall.  And we do anticipate beginning to cancel the outstanding interest for borrowers early this fall and then working on debt relief for millions of others. 

I’ll defer the questions on the legal challenges to others.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, just to echo [senior administration official] and, you know, the Secretary: The President’s goal has been to deliver as much relief to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.  And so, you know, we are focused on that goal within the constraints of what we can do.  And [senior administration official] talked a little bit about, you know, our sense of where we are on that right now. 

I think, with respect to the legal questions, you know, we know that some Republicans in Congress and some Republican attorneys general have opposed the administration’s efforts to prevent millions of middle-class Americans from receiving student debt relief.  And we know some of them have even challenged the President’s work to fix administration of flawed programs that were originally established by Congress through bipartisan legislation, even where that work is clearly legal. 

So, it is unfortunate that Republican politicians have fought to deny breathing room to millions of working families who are struggling with student debt.  But after the Supreme Court weighed in on our original debt relief program, the President was quite clear, and he directed his administration to develop an alternative plan.  And this plan is being done under the Secretary’s longstanding authority under the Higher Education Act. 

You know, we have studied the Supreme Court’s decision carefully.  We intend to pursue these regulations in a way that is entirely consistent with that decision.  The plans differ from the administration’s prior pandemic relief proposal in a number of significant ways, and the Department’s proceeding under different legal authority, which is longstanding.  And the plans involve different considerations by providing targeted relief to borrowers with particular circumstances. 

So, you know, this isn’t the same plan.  And we feel confident going forward.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, [senior administration official].  We’ll go to Zachary next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hi there.  Yeah, thanks for doing this.  So, again, just following up on timing here.  So, you say that you’re expected to begin implementing some of this stuff by the fall.  Can you help me understand how that’s possible if the regulation that went through the neg reg isn’t expected to go into effect by July of next year? 

And then, when can we expect the NPRM?  Is that going to be next month, a month after that?  You know, [senior administration official], you said “in the coming months.”

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t have an exact date for you on the NPRM, but it is coming. 

And then the Secretary has the ability to designate provisions for early implementation.  As you may recall, we early implemented some parts of the SAVE program, which is why borrowers are already seeing more of their income protected.  It’s why they’re not seeing their balances grow from accumulating interest and why we are beginning to provide relief to borrowers with lower original loans for college now.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We will go to Katie next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hi, thanks.  This is Katie Lobosco at CNN.  Can you say, like, whether or not — are all these proposals, like, a one-time thing?  Like, at one point in time, people who qualify are going to get the debt relief, or could someone possibly qualify, like, years later?

And also, if I’m — and just for clarification, it seems like the interest cancellation is the biggest part of that.  Like, that would be 23 out of possibly 26 million people who are getting debt relief.  I just want to make sure that that’s how I should be understanding this.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s a mixture in these proposals.  I think, taken together with the other things the President has done, the goal is to, as the Secretary said, solve the student loan crisis and make loans more affordable on a permanent basis. 

The interest forgiveness is currently crafted as a one-time benefit, for example, but going forward, borrowers will benefit from substantially more favorable treatment through the SAVE program and other borrowers will benefit from revised rules around interest capitalization. 

So, overall, it is an attempt to build upon the progress the President has made to make sure that no borrowers are left with loans they can’t afford to repay and to substantially reduce the burden of student loans and give borrowers additional breathing room.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And just to —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Inaudible.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  — (inaudible) thing that [senior administration official] said, you know, there are a lot of different pieces here.  And one thing to keep in mind is that, you know, there is potential overlap between the different populations, you know, that are subject to the various forms of relief that we’re proposing here.  And so, you know, in terms of the total numbers — right? — you know, people could be eligible for multiple channels.  And then, obviously, going forward, borrowers have access to programs like SAVE and PSLF. 

So, you know, we believe we’re going to reach 30 million people, but, you know, underneath that, people could be accessing, you know, various provisions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And — and just to pile on on [senior administration official]’s last point about SAVE.   In SAVE, which is an ongoing program that’s widely available, if you have small balances, you can get forgiveness in as little as 10 years.  If you are repaying for 20 or 25 years, you get forgiveness.  And if you have a lower income, you can have zero payment and you’re not accruing interest. 

And, in fact, the interest provision we’re talking about here is providing retrospectively, going backwards, an interest benefit that is available to everyone in SAVE right now on a forward-looking basis. 

So, if you are paying back zero dollars or low le- — low amounts in the SAVE program every month, you’re not accruing interest.  And that’s because of the benefit of forgiveness of interest that’s built into SAVE.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We will go to Michael next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey, it’s Michael Stratford at Politico.  Thanks for doing the call. 

I’m wondering if you can just walk us through the math of how you get to the 30 million figure and if you could give us a little more detail on what exactly that figure includes and maybe doesn’t include. 

It doesn’t look like you have, for example, an estimate for the hardship category.  And there was also, I think in one of the fact sheets, a number of 10 million borrowers getting at least $5,000 in debt relief or more.  I’m wondering if you can sort of be more specific about how these numbers all fit together. 

Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can start.  I think we will have greater detail in coming months as we produce the additional rules that you have heard about.  And so — so, there will be an opportunity to look under the hood more. 

But what we can say is that there are 25 million people benefiting from the interest forgiveness provision here.  And there are 4 million people getting full debt forgiveness.  And there are 10 million people getting more than $10,000 in forgiveness.  And that when you sum the effects of all the forgiveness provisions that we are talking about here, you get over that 30 million figure.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, just to add to that.  As [senior administration official] said, you know, 25 million in this interest category.  There’s a number — there’s another 2 million, approximately, we think are in the sort of eligible but ha- — you know, for forgiveness — but haven’t applied, mostly due to SAVE.  And then we have about 2 million — around 2 million that are in the category of loans that are about 20 years or more old. 

And then in the category of low financial value programs, we think that that is, you know, about a fifth of a million existing borrowers and more sort of into the future. 

And as you noted, with respect to hardship, you know, that will be an additional population as well that will cover additional people.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We will go to Andrew next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks. 

Can you talk a little bit about if you’ve projected the potential economic effects of this sort of mass-level forgiveness?  Any concern that it could be inflationary? 

And then, on the legal theory, you said you studied the — the Supreme Court opinion.  On the first page of the opinion in — in June last year, Justice Roberts said that the Higher Education Act can cancel or reduce loans in — in, quote, “certain limited circumstances.”  Any concern that he’s sort of sending a signal that a wide use of this would get struck down by the Court?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the second question first. 

You know, as I noted, we’ve studied the opinion carefully.  I think, you know, what you hear us talking about rolling out here is a variety of specific interventions and proposals that address specific situations and specific populations in ways that we feel very confident are covered by what the Secretary’s longstanding authority under HEA allows him to do.  And we’re confident that we’re acting within the scope of the law, as set forth by the Supreme Court. 

On the question of economic impact, you know, we have some CEA analysis that’s coming that we can follow up with you on around the plan.  I would say, generally, we know that student debt relief leads to economic mobility.  We know it leads to people contributing to the economy, being in a better position to be able to, for example, take out mortgages to buy homes and loans to start businesses. 

So, we know it’s good for people.  We know it’s good for the economy. 

We’re not concerned about an inflationary effect based on the analysis the CEA has done, you know, and we’ll have more detail on that that we can share. 

But we do feel good about its effect on economic growth and economic mobility and improving the ability of families to really be able to get that breathing room that the President has talked about and that the Secretary talked about in these sorts of situations.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  We’ll have a time for a couple more questions.  We will go into Ayelet next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hey.  This is Ayelet Sheffey with Business Insider. 

Can you confirm whether all of this relief will be automatic?  Or will there be any actions that borrowers have to take to be eligible?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Our goal is for the vast majority of this relief to be automatic.  Obviously, when you start talking about hardship, there are some things there that we’re looking to make as automatic as possible, but there may be details that we don’t have available to us.  But our goal is for the overwhelming majority of things like interest, loans that are older, borrowers that attended programs that didn’t deliver financial value — to do that all automatically.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  And we will go to Michael Jones next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  And thanks for taking my question.  Michael Jones from Once Upon a Hill. 

I’m curious — you know, obviously the Supreme Court made the decision last year.  The President has taken a lot of executive action.  I’m curious: Behind the scenes, have there been any conversations with congressional leaders, with members of any — either party to see if there’s any consensus around any legislative action that could be taken by Congress? 

A lot of this conversation is focused on the Supreme Court decision and the President’s, I think, executive actions.  I understand the mar- — the margins aren’t there, you know, vote wise for as much as the President would probably like.  But I’m curious if there’s any — been any conversation behind the scenes with Congress about any legislative action on this issue.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Michael, for the question. 

You know, we can’t speak to that specifically.  But what I can say is, you know, as you know, there are things that could be done by legislation and there are things that the President can do administratively under preexisting authority, which has been granted to him by Congress. 

So, for example, when you think about SAVE and PSLF, these are programs that have been created and improved pursuant to acts of Congress.  And when you think about the authority in the Higher Education Act, you know, that is a law that was passed by Congress and authority that was delegated to the Secretary. 

And so, consistent with the President’s directives to us, to his team, to do as much as we can within the law, you know, we are using that as the basis for the announcements that we’re making, you know, today and tomorrow.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  And our last question will come from the CBS desk, if you could please identify yourself.

Q    Hi.  This is Bo Erickson. 

Just a clarification on the interest component here.  Is it $20,000 of interest for everyone but then lower-income and middle-income borrowers can have more than $20,000 forgiven in interest?  Can you just clarify that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That’s right. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, go ahead, [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s — it’s $20,000 for everyone.  And then, if you are in either the SAVE or the IDR plan and you have a low or middle income — so, a hundred — up to $120,000 for an individual or $240,000 for a married couple — then you can have all of your accrued interest forgiven.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.  And that’s all the time we have today. 

The embargo time for this call and the materials will now be 5:00 a.m. Eastern time — 5:00 a.m. Eastern time.  You all will receive a note from us with embargoed materials and the corrected time.

Thank you, again, for joining us, and we look forward to hearing from you tomorrow.

7:02 P.M. EDT

The post Press Call by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, and Senior Administration Officials on President Biden’s Efforts on Student Debt appeared first on The White House.

11:47 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining us.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get started.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Can you hear me okay?  I’m going to hope you can hear me okay.

Look, I just wanted to reiterate some things that we’ve been saying here in the last 24 hours.  We obviously welcome the steps that were announced last night and, again, overnight by the Israeli government at the President’s request in that call with Prime Minster Netanyahu.

And these steps, as you’ve all seen, they do include a commitment to open up additional crossings into Gaza, including the Ashdod port and the Erez Crossing, and also commitments to increase the amount of aid that’s getting into Gaza.  That’s important, particularly those coming from Jordan as well.

And as we’ve also said, it’s important for those commitments to be fully realized and to be rapidly implemented. We’re obviously standing by and prepared to work in full coordination with Israel and other governments in the region, including humanitarian aid organizations, to see that these steps are implemented in a sustained way and that they do result in a significant increase in humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

So, again, we welcome these steps.  A lot of work is ahead.  And we’re prepared to continue to work, as we have, to see that these things are put in place in a sustainable way.

We also — you probably heard the Secretary of State talk about this earlier — we’re also reviewing Israel’s report of the investigation that they conducted into the World Central Kitchen team strike from a few days ago.  We’re going to take our time.  We’re going to review it carefully.  We’ll certainly be discussing the conclusions of it and our conclusions of it with Israeli officials and humanitarian aid organizations in coming days.

We note that they have held accountable a couple of officers and that they have made their findings public.  That’s important.  But again, what really matters here for us is sort of — is two things: one, that something like this does not happen again; and two, that there are concrete, verifiable, achievable, and again, sustainable changes to their processes in the way they conduct these kinds of missions so that the safety of civilians on the ground and humanitarian aid workers is top of mind and ensured.

With that, I’m happy to take some questions.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks for that.  There’s a video of the attack being shown in Israel.  Has this been seen here at the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know, Steve.  I’m not aware of that video.  And I don’t know the degree to which it’s been seen here at the White House.

Q    And the changes that Israel is — like the opening of the ports, the punishment for the two officers, is that all there is?  Or have you asked them for — did the President ask them for specific things in addition to opening up these corridors for aid?  Or are they — are you just kind of waiting to get a sense of the entire changes that they make and render a judgment on them?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, Steve, I mean, we welcome these initial announcements of additional crossings and increased aid. We welcome the release of their investigation.  As I said, we’re still going through it, so I don’t want to get ahead of our own look at this thing.  We certainly note that they did hold a couple of officers accountable.  They said they were going to include accountability.  They have done that.  Now, whether there’ll be more as they go through this, I don’t know and I’d have to refer you to the Israeli Defense Forces to speak to that going forward.

What’s important to us — I don’t want you to get too hung up on the homework assignment that we’ve given ourselves to look at their investigation.  What’s really important to us, and Secretary Blinken said this this morning, is that these changes are verifiable and they’re sustainable and that proper steps are taken to make sure that something like the strike that happened to the World Central Kitchen a few days ago can’t happen again.

And so we’re going to be looking, in terms of strike procedures, to make sure that they’re doing everything they can to prevent another one — another mistake like that — but also, on the aid and assistance, that it also is — the changes that they are announcing, the commitments that they are making, that they hold to them and that those changes too, in terms of increased aid, are sustainable.

The third thing that we didn’t talk about yet, which is — is the negotiations going on in Cairo this coming weekend, and one of the messages that the President had for Prime Minister Netanyahu was, you know, let’s get this done, let’s get a deal in place so that we can get a ceasefire for a matter of weeks in place so that it’s easier to meet those commitments on humanitarian assistance being increased — a whole lot easier to meet those commitments you made if there is a ceasefire in place and just as critically getting the hostages home.

Q    And Burns — is Burns in Cairo for these talks?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t ever talk about the travel habits of the CIA director.  I can just tell you that the United States will be present for those talks.

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

Q    Hey there.  So, just slight variation on Steve.  Is there specific things that the President would like the Israeli government to do, in addition to what’s being done, to sort of reach these overarching goals that you speak of to make sure that this doesn’t happen again?  Is there anything more that can be done?

And then secondly, just quickly, I believe Secretary Blinken also called for an “independent, thorough, and fully publicized investigation” of the tragedy.  Who does the White House believe could be a credible authority to carry out this investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think on the independent investigation thing — and we’ve seen Chef Andrés has called for that — we’re going to reserve — as I said yesterday, we’re going to reserve judgment on that until we’ve had a chance to see and carefully review the results of the investigation, the independent investigation that they themselves conducted.  So I’m just going to leave that there.

And as for the “more to do” — again, Aamer, I think we’ve been very open with all of you about the call yesterday and the asks that the President made.  And some of those asks were initially realized here in these announcements that the Israelis have made.

But let me just summarize — without getting into too much detail, let me just summarize them in general, and I kind of covered this with Steve.  It’s putting in place procedures and fixes so that an attack like this and a mistake like this can’t happen again.  It’s doing more to look after the safety of civilians on the ground, including aid workers, and giving them confidence — confidence-building measures so that aid organizations can continue to operate inside Gaza and feel that they can do so safely.  It’s increasing the humanitarian assistance getting in.  That means, A, opening up more crossings, and we’ve seen some announcements that have been positive over the last few hours; and B, increasing the number of trucks that get in to up over 300, and that includes increasing that flow from Jordan. 

And again, those initial steps have been announced, and we welcome that. 

And then the third big chunk here is about getting back at the table in negotiations in Cairo and getting a hostage deal done and powering his negotiators to come to a conclusion on this so that we can get the hostages home with their families where they belong.  We are coming up on six months — six months that these people have been held hostage in what we have to consider are just abhorrent conditions.  They need to be home with their families.  That also gives us a ceasefire of a matter of about six weeks, which, again, as I said earlier, would make it much easier for humanitarian assistance to flow. 

So those are the three big buckets, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

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

Q    Hi.  Thank you very much for taking the question.  I’m about to go on the air, so a quick question about the hostages.  Did the President press Prime Minister Netanyahu to try to get to yes on the hostage issues and be less specific about the demand on proportionality?  Can you get into any of the details on that?

And there does seem to be a conflict between what Secretary Blinken said and what you just said about the independent investigation.  If you could try to clarify that or take that question.  Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY:  I did not see Secretary Blinken make a call for an independent investigation.  He said that we were — what I looked at, he said they’re reviewing — we’re reviewing Israel’s investigation carefully and that we’re going to be discussing it with the conclusions of Israeli officials and humanitarian aid organizations.  So, I have not seen that. 

And as I said, we’re going to reserve judgment on whether there needs to be another investigation based on the conclusions we come up to, looking at the one that they conducted. 

And on your first question, Andrea, the short answer is: Yes, he did urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to get to yes on negotiating — on a deal to get the hostages out and on these negotiations.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Weijia with CBS.

Q    Thank you.  And thank you, John, for taking the question.  Just to follow up on Andrea and Aamer, he did say that.  He said, “It’s also critical that we see an independent, thorough, [and] fully publicized investigation into the killing of the World Central Kitchen team…”  So if you don’t have an explanation for the discrepancy now, will you please get back to us?

MR. KIRBY:  He might have been referring — look, I’m going to refer you to the State Department.  I wasn’t with the Secretary when he made those comments, so I think you guys are asking me to comment on comments that I don’t have visibility on. 

I would just note a couple of things.  The investigation that they concluded was an independent investigation.  It was done by an agency of the Israeli government that does not report directly to the IDF chain of command.  It’s sort of akin to our own inspector general reports that you guys are very familiar with.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close to that.  That was an independent investigation. 

And we are now going through that ourselves.  And as far as a third independent investigation — in other words, something outside the Israeli government, which is what I know Chef Andrés has called for — we’re going to reserve our judgment based on our conclusions on this independent investigation.

Q    And then, on the timing of the reports released, was that a coincidence, or did the President push for it to be made public during the phone call yesterday?

MR. KIRBY:  We made it clear, even before the call with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that we expected — and we said so publicly — that they would conduct a thorough, complete investigation and that they would make it public, that they would be transparent about it.

Q    Did they talk about the report’s findings during the phone call?

MR. KIRBY:  Not in any specific terms.  Prime Minister Netanyahu had only just received it himself.  So he covered sort of a broad brush at the top of the conversation, sort of the general findings, but he didn’t go into great detail.

Q    Okay.  And then, finally, I know you were asked about the video earlier, but aside from that, has the administration reviewed any evidence, or have you requested to see any evidence that backs up the findings?

MR. KIRBY:  We are working our way through the investigation right now.  I’ll just leave it at that.

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

Q    Thanks, guys.  Thanks, Admiral.  So just to clarify what everyone has been asking, you’re not ruling out, from the White House perspective, that the U.S. could do an independent investigation?  Is that — just to clarify.

MR. KIRBY:  There are no plans for us to conduct — (audio feedback) — is that okay?  Can you hear me? 

Q    Sorry, yes, I can hear you.

MR. KIRBY:  There are no plans for the U.S. to conduct an independent investigation or a separate investigation into this event.  Guys, they just finished it, and we are just now getting a chance to look at it. 

I think it’s important to let us have the time, as Secretary Blinken said, to do this in a careful, thoughtful way.  And then we’ll reserve judgment about it once we’ve had a chance to go through it. 

It seems like there’s — well, I’ll just leave it at that.  We’re going to — we’re going do this right.  We’re going to take our time with it.  We’re going to continue to consult with the Israeli officials as we look at the investigation. 

We have seen and we’re aware of people and institutions, including Chef Andrés, who want something separate than what the Israelis have done.  We’re reserving judgment on that until we’ve had a chance to review this carefully.

Q    And you said the calls are for civilians and aid workers, for Israel to do more to protect them inside Gaza.  They’ve agreed to open a few more crossings.  Can you give any other specific examples of what this administration is looking for?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to go into more detail than what we’ve already done on that. 

And let me come back to the confusion about independent and what Secretary Blinken said.  Because I’ve been — while we’ve been talking, I’ve asked the team here to check with State.  And what I’m hearing from State is that Secretary Blinken did refer to an independent investigation, but that was before — he was referring to the one that they were working on.  And he said that before Israel came out with the report that we are now examining.

Q    And just one more question.  Any update on that meeting next week with the Israeli delegation in person on Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any updates for you.  We’re hoping to get it done in the next week or two.  It’s possible that that meeting could slide to the week after next.  We just don’t have anything firm.  But obviously — look, guys, as soon as we get something nailed down on the calendar, you know we’re going to tell you about it.

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

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  We have a report saying that some key Israeli policymakers have started to push back on the idea of a full-scale invasion of Rafah.  One suggested that Israel could simply surround the four remaining Hamas battalions in that area.  Is this an idea that the U.S. would support?  And was this idea of surrounding the battalions, rather than a full- scale investigation, discussed between the two leaders, or was it discussed between administration officials and the Israeli Defense Minister when he was in town earlier this week?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we haven’t even completed the conversations with the Israelis here about Rafah.  We’re looking forward, as I just answered to Selina, in having that conversation here in coming days.  And I think you can understand we’re going to reserve our thoughts about alternatives to a ground offensive in Rafah to our private conversations with our Israeli counterparts.

As I said yesterday from the podium, the Rafah operation was not a focus of the discussion between the President and the Prime Minister.  That was really focused more on the aftermath of the strike and the implications that that strike has had on humanitarian aid organizations and their willingness to continue to operate inside Gaza and the kinds of things that we needed Israel to do.  We’ve detailed those for you as far as I’m going to detail them for you.  But that was really the — that was really the focus.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks, Sam.  Two, kind of, clarifications, and I may have missed it from yesterday, but did the President and Netanyahu talk about the strikes in Syria?  And did the President have a message to convey when it comes to widening the conflict, or whatever, there?

And then, second thing is: You know, you mentioned that you expect — you mentioned yesterday that you expected a series of announcements from the Israelis.  I assume one of those is the results of the investigation on the WCK attack and then another one was maybe about the other gate opening.  But do you have others, do you expect, that are in train, potentially over the next day or so, on other matters?  Or no?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, Gordon, I missed your first question.  Can you —

Q    The first question was: Did the President and Netanyahu talk about the Israeli strikes in Damascus?  And did the President convey any concerns about widening the conflict?

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, okay.  So, on your first question, there wasn’t a specific focus on what happened in Damascus.  As I’ve said before, we had no role in that whatsoever.  That said, there was discussion between the two leaders about the very viable and, quite frankly, very public threat that Iran is making to Israel’s security in the last day or so.  And the President made very, very clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he can count on U.S. support to help them in their self-defense against threats directly and publicly posed by Iran.  So, that’s that.

On the more announcements, I mean, as I said yesterday, we were expecting some announcements in coming hours and days.  We’ve started to see some of those announcements.  I’ll refer to the Israelis to speak to whether they’ve got more coming and what they might be. 

What we’re focused on, Gordon, is not the announcements.  The announcements are welcomed, and they certainly did come in the wake of the President’s direct requests.  But what we’re really looking for now is a sustainable commitment to meet those — what’s been announced; to make real, lasting, permanent changes to the way they’re doing business inside Gaza, both operationally and from a humanitarian perspective.

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

Q    Hey, John.  Just two questions.  Was there — and apologies if I missed this — did you have an update on the planned travel by Jake to Saudi Arabia?  Yesterday, you talked about — or the other day you talked about him postponing that because of his health situation.

And then, just stepping back to the U.S. analysis of the steps that the Israelis are taking and their investigation and then the readout of the Bibi call, should we be reading anything specifically into the fact that what you and the President and Secretary Blinken have said is that, you know, if the Israelis don’t show sort of effective changes, that it’ll affect U.S. policy on Gaza versus U.S. policy on Israel? 

I wondered whether this was trying to signal that some sort of support or the stance towards that particular operation might change.  But as you guys are saying, that the overall relationship isn’t going to change, are you trying to sort of caveat what the implications would be if they fail to meet the threshold that you guys are laying out?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I think you’re ascribing to us perhaps more parsing of language than we deserve. 

But let me take the first question first.  And I don’t have an update on Jake’s trip to the Middle East and to Saudi.  I know that he very much wants to get it back on the schedule, and the team is working hard to see what we can do to do that.  But, you know, his health obviously has to come first. 

And then, on your second question, we’re talking about, as we have all said consistently, that we need to see changes in their policy towards the fighting in Gaza and the support to humanitarian aid organizations, or we will have to make changes to our policy with respect to supporting their efforts in Gaza.  And I think it’s best if I just leave it at that. 

The only thing I’d add is — and I kind of got to this in an earlier question — they live in a tough neighborhood.  And while we are all rightly concerned about what’s going on in Gaza operationally and from a humanitarian perspective, we can’t forget that they are under a range of other threats not related to the war in Gaza, from Hezbollah in the north; even the Houthis down in Yemen are launching missiles at them.  And of course, there’s the militia groups that Iran supports in Iraq and Syria and the very public, direct nation-state threats that Iran has made to Israel’s security. 

The Israeli people do not need to be reminded of the threat that they’re living under.  And the President made clear in that call yesterday, particularly given these public threats by Iran, that Israel will continue, as they have had for so many years in the past and through so many different administrations, the American support for their self-defense.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrew with The Independent

Q    Hi, can you all hear me okay?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I got you, buddy.

Q    Wonderful.  Thanks for taking my question.  John, I know you have said multiple times on this call that you want to get through the report and review of the Israeli report.  But there have been over 200 aid workers killed during this conflict.  And I’m wondering why, given what has become — I don’t want to call it a habit, but the number of aid workers killed by the IDF and the fact the IDF has shot some of their own people on occasion and seems to have exonerated anyone from wrongdoing there, why this Israeli report — prepared very, very quickly and I don’t want to say under duress, but with the possible objective of avoiding any consequences from the Biden administration — why should it be given a presumption of good faith?

And I understand you spoke to your counterparts at State, but why shouldn’t Secretary Blinken’s original call for an independent investigation not be followed through on?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I don’t want to put words in Secretary Blinken’s mouth.  I would refer you to my colleagues there.  But we’ve been communicating with them during this gaggle so that I can make sure I had the context.  He called for that independent investigation while they were working on their independent investigation.  And that was the investigation he was referring to.  Because he understands, like I understand, that they have a process inside their government to conduct independent investigations, again, not unlike the ones that we conduct using inspectors general.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s as close as I can get to it.  That’s what he was calling for. 

As for separate calls, I’m happy to repeat my answer.  As for separate calls for something additionally and independent outside of Israel, which we’ve seen certainly Chef Andrés call for, we’re just reserving judgment until we’ve had a chance to go through what they just produced.  I mean, my goodness, guys, they just gave it to us.  So we’re going to take the time — we’re going to take time, we’re going to look at it, and then we’ll reserve judgment based on what we find and what we see and what questions we might have for our Israeli counterparts.

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

Q    Thanks, Sam.  I’m going to try again, John.  The IDF said that the officers misidentified the three World Central Kitchen vehicles and they believed that Hamas gunmen was hiding in the convoy.  I’m going to try again and see if you can give an early assessment of whether this explanation makes sense considering what we’ve heard from Chef Andrés. 

MR. KIRBY:  No, I’m not going to do that at this time.

Q    Okay, and so another question.  You said that the strike — the World Central Kitchen strike — was the reason for the President’s call to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I’m also tracking that the President met Monday with three doctors who have been in Gaza and also with Senator Sanders on Wednesday.  Obviously, he is a critic of the war.  Did the two meetings in any way also shape the President’s decision to say what he said to Prime Minister Netanyahu?  Can you assure that?

MR. KIRBY:  The President’s discussion yesterday with the Prime Minister — certainly the impetus for the call was in the wake of this; it was this strike on the WCK workers.  As I said yesterday, that was certainly the catalyst for this phone call.

But I think it’s important to remember in context that the President’s concern and frustration has been growing over weeks and months based on things he’s been seeing coming out of Gaza — you know, civilians still being killed, infrastructure still being destroyed, not enough trucks getting in, the need to supplement the lack of trucks getting in by conducting airdrops.  I mean, you have to put everything into context.  I mean, all of that has been weighing on the President’s mind as he was thinking this through, and that includes conversations, yes, that he’s been having with people who have their own views and their own experiences.

Q    Okay.  And thank you.  And one last one, John.  How would you respond to criticism that the death of one American was able to move the President in a way that the death of 33,000 Palestinians did not?

MR. KIRBY:  I think that I just answered that question.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Thanks so much.  A couple of questions.  First of all, regarding the investigation, is the U.S. looking also into the question whether American-made weapons or ammunitions were involved in this attack?  Does the report give an answer to that?  And if there were American weapons, would that make any difference?

MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to talk to the Israelis about the details of the report.  As I said, we’re going through that.  I’m not going to speak for an Israeli investigation that they’ve conducted and they’ve submitted.  We’re looking at it, we’re reviewing it, and I believe the Pentagon has been asked this question about American-made weapons, and there’s — they have said that they’re not in a position to verify the use of any particular weapon in any particular Israeli operation.  Those are questions that are much better put to the Israeli Defense Force.

Q    Thanks.  One more thing about putting in place new procedures that would ensure the safety of aid workers and of civilians.  Would there be an American mechanism that would follow up on this?  Would there be U.S. representatives on the ground, in the control rooms?  How would you make sure that Israel is following up on this?

MR. KIRBY:  No, there’s no intent to put American servicemen and women, or military experts, civilians — however you want to put it — there’s no intention to put Americans in the decision-making loop here on Israeli operations.  They’re a sovereign country.  They conduct their own military operations.  How they conduct those operations is obviously of interest to us, and that’s the context of the conversation that the two leaders had yesterday.  But, no, there’s not going to be an effort to do that. 

What we are interested in, as I’ve alluded to earlier, is sustainable, implementable, deconfliction processes, particularly when it comes to humanitarian aid organizations, so that there is a sufficient linkage, muscle and sinew, between aid organizations and the IDF in terms of real-time information-sharing and knowledge of what each other is doing so that this doesn’t happen again.  And that’s what we’re going to be looking for — real, practical changes to their deconfliction system.

Q    Thanks.  And just one more quick question.  Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid is scheduled to be in Washington next week.  Will he be meeting with an administration official?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to speak to on the calendar, but if that changes, we’ll certainly make that evident to you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Israel Channel 12.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for this.  So, (inaudible) approved and declared satisfying the White House and the President.  You have spoken about this in general, but this is something that the U.S. said that, regards to that, the U.S. will decide the policy.  And also, did the President threaten with conditioning aid during the call with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve answered this one before.  What we’ve said is — and it’s right in the readout — our policy with respect to Gaza will be greatly impacted by our assessments of Israeli follow-through on the commitments that they’ve made, both in terms of deconfliction and confidence-building measures for humanitarian aid organizations, as well as the increase of aid getting in, reduction of civilian casualties, and of course, an effort to move forward on a deal to get the hostages out and a ceasefire in place for a period of weeks. 

So our Gaza policy will be affected greatly by our assessment of how the Israelis meet these commitments over time, in a sustainable way. 

And as for conditioning aid, I am simply not going to go into greater detail about the conversation between the two leaders.  The President reiterated that we need to see meaningful progress and changes in Israeli policy and operational decision-making.  And I’ll leave it at that.

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

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  The President seems to be pushing Netanyahu to conclude this hostage deal.  I’m just wondering why the President didn’t push him or give him an ultimatum a month ago when the same deal was on the table, and Netanyahu rejected it.  And you could have saved both Palestinians and hostages’ lives, because (inaudible) reported today one hostage was killed by Israeli gunfire. 

And second, will you ask for an investigation of how the IDF is using AI program that targeting thousands of civilians, apparently?  And I asked you about this yesterday; you said you would get back to me, but this is another chance.  Maybe you have some more information about this.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I wish I did there.  I don’t.  We’re still looking at that — that report. 

On your first question, we’ve been working diligently, very, very hard, for months now to get all those hostages out.  There is no lack of a sense of urgency by the President to do that, both in our conversations with our Israeli counterparts but also, of course, with our conversations with our Qatari counterparts who have the communication linkage with Hamas. 

So the idea that we are somehow sitting on our hands — and I’m not saying you said that — but the notion that we’re not pursuing this with great energy and effort just doesn’t comport with the facts. 

But, yes, it was a conversation topic yesterday that the President, again, urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to fully empower his negotiators in Cairo so that we can get this deal done as soon as possible. 

We believe — we are mindful that with each passing day, those hostages are at greater and greater risk and that their health is, without question, suffering all the more.  We want them home.  We’ve wanted them home since the 7th of October.  We’re not going to stop working on that.

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

Q    Thanks, Kirby.  And I know that you’ve touched on this at various points, but could you just bring us into the President’s thinking a little bit more broadly on this issue?  What is his reticence in conditioning the military aid?  Why hasn’t he felt that it was necessary at this point?  And just, what about this specific strike on the aid workers this week has him rethinking U.S. policy?

MR. KIRBY:  I just don’t have anything more to add on the questions about conditioning aid.  I can’t — I simply have nothing more to say about that. 

And as I said earlier to a previous question, he has been watching over recent weeks and months, you know, the increasing death toll of civilians, the lack of progress in terms of getting humanitarian assistance in over ground.  That’s one of the reasons why he ordered the military to start conducting airdrops, to try to supplement that.  It’s not sufficient, but it’s a supplement. 

So I think what you’re seeing is a growing set of concerns now over weeks and months about the situation — the humanitarian situation, in particular in Gaza. 

This strike on the World Central Kitchen, yes, it was horrific in its own right, of course, but you saw yourself, Francesca, that aid organizations in the wake of it started to make decisions, like the World Food Program.  You can’t ignore that development.  You can’t just — you can’t just close your eyes and ears to that when an organization like WFP says, “Well, that’s it.  You know, we’re going to pull back.”  I mean, they’re having a big impact inside Gaza, and we absolutely want to see that impact continue. 

So, all of that led to the President’s decision to have this very direct, very frank conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 

And I want to go back to, you know, kind of where we started.  We have seen some welcome announcements from the Israelis.  They have acted on the President’s request coming out of that call; you’re starting to see it for yourself.  Now, again, as I said, these are just announcements.  We got to see results.  We got to see sustainable deliverables here over time.  It’s not enough just to announce it.  But they have moved on some of the very specific requests that the President made.

Q    And do you know if he’s spoken to Senator Coons or if that had any sort of an influence on his decision-making process here, or potentially the critiques that former Obama administration officials have been making?

MR. KIRBY:  I can’t speak for the latter.  As you know, he does speak to Senator Coons quite a bit.  I don’t know if there was a specific conversation that he had with Senator Coons in recent days.  But they’re close, and they speak frequently. 

But as I said to an earlier question, certainly his views have been informed by conversations he has been having with people with experience in Gaza and with members of Congress up on Capitol Hill, as well as his own national security team and other foreign leaders that he’s been speaking to.  I mean, there’s a mosaic here of context through which the President makes these kinds of decisions, and he’ll continue to do so.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Fraser with France 24.  Fraser, we can’t hear you.  We still can’t hear you.  So sorry. 

And it looks like that’s all the time we’ll actually have today.  If we haven’t gotten to you, as always, feel free to reach out.  Thanks.

END    12:27 P.M. EDT

 

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:10 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon.

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have just a couple things at the top, and then we’ll — we’ll get going.

So, tomorrow, as you all know, the President is going to be traveling to Baltimore, where he will receive an operational update on response efforts from the unified command. Leaders from the Coast Guard and Army Co- — and the Army Corps of Engineers will share updates on the assistance they are providing to state officials in surveying and removing the wreckage in the channel and allowing the Port of Baltimore to reopen as soon as humanly possible.

The President will be joined by Governor Moore and other Maryland and Baltimore-area elected officials. He’ll also be joined by Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

As we all know, six individuals tragically lost their lives when the Francis Scott King [Key] Bridge collapsed last week. They were hard workers, laboring in the middle of the night to repair potholes on a bridge that tens of thousands of travelers crossed every day. The President will meet with loved ones of those individuals during his trip tomorrow.

The President is continuing to lead a whole-of-government approach in responding to the bridge collapse. As the President said within hours of the collapse, this administration will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.

SBA Administrator Guzman is in Baltimore today as part of this administration’s efforts to support small businesses in need.

I also want to share a very big announcement that the Vice President and the — EPA Administrator Regan made today in Charlotte, North Carolina. They announced a $20 billion — 20 — $20 billion in awards to expand access to clean energy, tackle the climate crisis, improve air quality, lower energy costs, and create good-paying jobs.

This investment through the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund will stand up a national network that will finance tens of thousands of climate and clean energy projects across America.

At least 70 percent of these funds will be invested in low-income and disadvantaged communities. This makes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund the single-largest non-tax investment in the Inflation Reduction Act to build a clean energy economy while benefiting communities that have historically been left behind.

And finally, finally, finally, I want to briefly preview the President’s schedule next week.

On Monday, we — he will travel to Madison, Wisconsin, and discuss how he is lowering costs for Americans.

Later in the week, the President and the First Lady will host the Prime Minister of Japan and his wife for an official visit to the United States. This will include a state dinner on Wednesday, April 10th.

The visit will underscore the enduring strength of our alliance, the unwavering U.S. commitment to Japan, and Japan’s increasing global leadership role.

On Thursday, April 11th, President Biden will host Prime Minister [President] Marcos of the Philippines, Prime Minister Kishida of Japan at the White House for the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders’ summit.

In addition, President Biden will host President Marcos for a meeting at the White House on April 11th to review the historic momentum in U.S.-Philippines relations.

Thank you for your patience. With that, the Admiral is here to talk about the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu and any updates that we have in the Middle East.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Q Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY: Obviously, a busy day here. I do want to take a moment just at the start to recognize the 75th anniversary of the NATO Alliance, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world. And you all saw the statement from the President earlier today celebrating this historic milestone.

Now, for 75 years, the NATO Alliance has stood together for freedom and against aggression, provided an unrivaled bulwark of security that has helped protect the American people. And during that time, our NATO Allies have come to our aid in our time of need, with NATO forces serving alongside ours in Afghanistan.

Today, NATO is larger, stronger, it’s more relevant than ever before thanks in no small part to the President’s leadership. And we look forward to building on all that progress in July when we host our 31 NATO Allies here in Washington, D.C., for the next NATO Summit.

Now, as I’m sure you’re all aware, the President had a chance to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier today. On that phone call, the President emphasized that the strikes on humanitarian workers and the overall humanitarian situation in Gaza are unacceptable.

He made clear the need for Israel to announce and to implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.

He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action on these steps.

He underscored that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and to protect innocent civilians. And he urged the Prime Minister to empower his negotiators to conclude a deal without delay to bring the hostages home.

The two leaders also discussed public Iranian threats against Israel and the Israeli people. President Biden made clear that the United States strongly supports Israel in the face of those threats.

That’s all I have.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Zeke.

Q Thanks, John. First, on that last piece there. You said — you have said it from this podium several times that that — the — Hamas was the obstacle to getting some sort of ceasefire deal. Calling on the Israelis to empower the negotiators suggests that has changed. Has the U.S. assessment of Israeli willingness to reach a ceasefire deal changed in the last several weeks?

MR. KIRBY: No. It — look, it takes — it takes active participation and the negotiation of both sides here. And — and that’s what the President is urging. He’s certainly, in the call with Netanyahu, urging that — that the Prime Minister empower his team to the maximum extent possible to see if we can get this deal in place.

Q And then just on the substance of the real news from the President’s statement there, saying that he’s going to condition future U.S. support for this — for Israeli — the Israeli operation in Gaza on what Israel does. First off, what is at stake? What would be potentially cut off from Israel for use in this war if the — if he doesn’t change course?

And second, what do you want specifically to see from Israel were — to do to protect civilians and humanitarian aid workers?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to preview any potential policy decisions coming forward.

What we want to see are some real changes on the Israeli side. And, you know, if we don’t see changes from their side, there will have to be changes from our side.

But I won’t preview what that could look like.

Now —

Q Is that just body count —

MR. KIRBY: — they talked about — wha- — I’m sorry?

Q Is that just the body count, or is there specific changes?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m — I’m — in terms of concrete steps, what we are looking to see and hope to see here in coming hours and days is a dramatic increase in the humanitarian assistance getting in, additional crossings opened up, and a reduction in the violence against civilians and certainly aid workers. We want to — we want to see that — that even as the Israelis work through their investigation that they are willing and able to take practical, immediate steps to protect aid workers on the ground and to demonstrate that they — that they have that civilian harm mitigation in place.

So, again, those are broad brushes. I’ll let the Israelis speak to what they will or won’t do here. But, again, in coming hours and days, we will be looking for concrete, tangible steps that they’re taking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nancy.

Q Thanks. John, just to go back to that point. In your readout, when you say the President made clear that the U.S. — “that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action,” could you decode that for us? What exactly is the warning that’s being issued here?

MR. KIRBY: I think it’s very clear in the language itself, Nancy. We’re going to — the — we’re looking for concrete steps to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

Again, I won’t get ahead of what the Israelis will or won’t say or announce. We’re looking for concrete steps to be announced here soon.

And it’s not just about the announcement of concrete steps and changes in their policies, but it’s the execution of those announcements and those decisions and implementing them.

And so, we’re — we obviously will — will watch closely and monitor how — how they do on — on the commitments that they make. And as — as I said earlier, if there’s no changes to their policy and their approaches, then there’s going to have to be changes to ours.

Q I think — I think what the world wants to understand is: Is the White House warning that it may remove military aid? What exactly is the threat here?

MR. KIRBY: I think I’ve — I’ve stated it pretty clearly. And I’m not going to — I’m not going to — as I said earlier, I’m not going to preview steps. I’m not going to preview decisions that haven’t been made yet. But there are things that need to be done.

There are too many civilians being killed. The risk to aid workers is unacceptable. Now we have certain aid organizations that are reconsidering whether they’re even going to be able to continue operations in Gaza while famine looms. So, there has to be tangible steps.

Let’s see what they announce. Let’s see what they direct. Let’s see what they do. But I’m not going to get ahead of that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Mary.

Q So, I’m going to try this one more time, because the President seems —

MR. KIRBY: I reckoned you would. (Laughter.)

Q That’s what we do. The President seems to have said to — to the Prime Minister today, you know, “Make these concrete changes or else.” It’s the “or else” that I want to make clear here. Is the President threatening to withhold aid to Israel if they do not make these changes?

MR. KIRBY: The President made it clear that our policies with respect to Gaza will be dependent upon our assessment of how well the Israelis make changes and implement changes to make the situation in Gaza better for the Palestinian people.

Q And how much time are you giving them to make these changes, to implement these concrete steps?

MR. KIRBY: Again, we — we would hope to see some announcements of changes here in coming hours and days. And I’ll leave it at that.

Q That’s short.

MR. KIRBY: Hours and days.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q John, why today?

MR. KIRBY: Why today what?

Q Why was —

MR. KIRBY: Why today for the phone call? Why —

Q Why — why this apparent shift in policy today? The —

MR. KIRBY: I think — look, the President — well, all of us, but particularly the President — was certainly shaken by the attack on the WCK convoy and the aid workers. As I said earlier, it wasn’t the only event. There had been others like that: humanitarian aid convoys coming under fire and losing people.

And — and the President felt strongly that it was time to — to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about his concerns.

Q Would you characterize this call as an ultimatum?

MR. KIRBY: I would characterize this call as very direct, very businesslike, very professional on both sides. And the President laid out his significant concerns about the direction and where things are going and, quite frankly, laid out, as is clear in the readout, that — that we are willing to reconsider our own policy approaches here, dependent upon what the Israelis do or don’t do.

Q And can you just tell us who all was on the call?

MR. KIRBY: Well, it was — it was a bilateral call between the two leaders — Prime Minister Netanyahu and the President. They were the only two speakers on the — on the call.

Q Okay. But Vice President Harris also dialed in or —

MR. KIRBY: Vice President Harris did — did dial in, yes.

Q And the Secretary of State and the —

MR. KIRBY: Secretary of State dialed in. Jake Sullivan, yes. I don’t know who was also listening in on the Israeli side. But the — but the discussion was between the two leaders.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: M.J.

Q So, Admiral, you’re not specifying what concrete steps Israel must take exactly.

MR. KIRBY: I — I gave you some — a broad sense of it. We want to see more crossings opened up. We want to see more trucks getting in, particularly from Jordan. We want to see tangible steps at the mitigation of civilian harm, particularly to humanitarian aid workers but, obviously, all civilians. But we want to see that they have — that they have moved forward on proper steps to deconflict with aid workers as they move around, that the information flow is viable.

Q Sure. But that’s language we’ve heard for weeks now. You’re not talking about sort of telling us how exactly you will measure those measurable steps, right?

MR. KIRBY: What I said was we’re going to — we’re going to examine our policy approaches based on the — our assessment of the way the Israeli side modifies their behavior, modifies their policy and decision-making processes.

And so, first of all, let’s see what they say they’re going to do. And then let’s watch and see how they execute to what they say and do.

I don’t want to get ahead of them on what they — on what they — what they plan to say about the changes they’re going to make. But we- — we’ll base our policy decisions based on an assessment of how they execute to their policy decisions.

Q Haven’t you been doing that all along?

Q And you’re not talking about what potential U.S. policy changes are on the table. Can you say whether the President shared that with the Prime Minister on this phone call?

MR. KIRBY: The President made clear that — that absent changes in the protection of civilians on the ground; absent changes to the volume of humanitarian assistance getting in; absent — absent any movement on a ceasefire that will allow hostages to get out and more aid to get in; absent, you know, a calming down, that he will have to reconsider his own policy choices with respect to — to Gaza.

Q And one of the seven aid workers was obviously a dual American citizen. Did the Prime Minister offer the President an apology?

MR. KIRBY: I — I — I’ll let the Prime Minister speak to his side of the conversation. The — I would note that the Israeli Defense Forces, their Southern Command commander has made a public apology for the — the strike.

Q And there was no mention of Rafah in this readout. Can you talk to us about how — if that did come up and how that might have been discussed between the two leaders?

MR. KIRBY: This conversation was — was focused primarily on the need to get a temporary ceasefire in place, the need for there to be a pause in — in the fighting so that we can get the hostages out, humanitarian assistance; the need to see that steps are being taken to learn from this strike and to make changes in the way civilian harm is mitigated from an operational perspective.

And they did spend time, as the readout makes clear, talking about the very public threats from — from Iran to Israel. And the President, as I said, made very clear to the Prime Minister that the United States’ support for Israel’s ability to defend itself from a range of threats, not just Hamas, remains ironclad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Danny.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. Just a couple of things. Firstly, how — how long did this call last?

MR. KIRBY: It was about 30 minutes or so.

Q And just going back to, I mean, Jeff’s question about the — you know, why — why the sort of change in tone. I mean, has there been growing frustration on the part of President Biden that previous messaging to Prime Minister Netanyahu just doesn’t seem to have gotten through?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, there has been growing frustration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Raquel.

Q Thank you so much, Karine. John, one question on Israel and another on Venezuela. We saw, in the past, President Biden pushing Netanyahu to protect civilians, but how much words really matter here when — on actions, the same day of the attack on the humanitarian words — the U.S. was approving more bombs to Israel? The U- — we are now six months into the war. How much the U.S. actions are actually encouraging Israel to not do enough to protect civilians?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, I — I’m kind of glad the question came up, because I would tell you, when — I’ve seen press reporting, you know, about the — about the — the arms sales and that kind of thing. And I would just remind you that — that it — with the exception of the immediate two months after the attack, we haven’t really sent emergency aid and assis- — military assistance to — to Israel. There was in the first couple of months.

But what you’re seeing here is the result of a — a process of foreign military sales to Israel that takes years, and a lot of this materiel that’s been reported publicly was notified to Congress many, many months, if not years ago, and are in the train to get to Israel.

I think it’s important to remember, as I tried to mention in the last answer, that Israel still has a lot of threats it faces. I mean, we’re all focused on Hamas, and I understand that, but they still face active threats throughout the region, including from Iran. And the United States still has an ironclad commitment to help Ir- — Israel with its self-defense. And so, a lot of these articles, including the 2,000-pound bombs and the F-35s, that’s — those are things that have been long in the train and not tied — the sale — the foreign military sales process was not tied to this conflict.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Tam.

Q Can I have a one more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — on Ven- — on Venezuela quick. Because yesterday, Nicolás Maduro enacted a law creating a province of Venezuela in Guyana, and he accused the United States of building secret military bases in Essequibo. So, what is your reaction? And is the U.S. considering build a military base to support Guyana to defend their sovereignty?

MR. KIRBY: There’s no p- — there’s no plans for a secret military base.

And we’ve said ma- — many times that there’s an 1899 arbitral ruling about the border between Guyana and Venezuela, and we want both sides to respect that ruling and to do it peacefully.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Tam.

Q Thank you. You said, “We would hope to see an announcement of changes.” I’m wondering if that is just hope or is it an expectation?

MR. KIRBY: We ex- —

Q Is it based on a commitment?

MR. KIRBY: We expect that — that there will be some — some announcements coming from Israel in the coming hours and days, but I want to respect their right to manage that process on their own.

Q Okay. And was there any update given by the Prime Minister on what exactly happened with the World Central Kitchen envoy?

MR. KIRBY: They — they didn’t talk about the actual strike in great detail. The — the Prime Minister did reiterate, as his military has reiterated, that this was on them; that the investigation was — was concluding; that he looked forward to seeing it; and that, you know, he would take appropriate actions to make sure something like that couldn’t happen again.

I mean, they did — obviously, they talked about it, of course. But did they go through point by point the investigation’s findings? No, because I think the Prime Minister’s office is still evaluating the actual investigation results.

Q And just to try to get a technical understanding as you described the very long process of supplying arms to Israel, if this contingency isn’t met and there is a change in U.S. policy, how easy or hard would it be to slow down or change shipments to Israel based on current law and all of the requirements and all the things you just described?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. Let’s see what the Israeli side does and says and what they implement and where they go before we talk about actual policy decisions.

And I’m certainly not going to close down decision space for the President of the United States. He gets to make those decisions. But I mean, obviously, as Commander-in-Chief — and, yes, the foreign military sales certainly is — is supported by legislation, but — but there are certain authorities that you can do to manage that.

But, again, let’s not get ahead of where we are. This is really about seeing what the Israelis say they’re going to do and then act on — on those — on those changes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Gabe.

Q Admiral, has the U.S. lost its leverage with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY: You know, I keep getting this question about leverage. Israel is an ally and a friend and a partner. And the President believes strongly, and has for his entire public career, in the security of the Israeli people and the — and the longevity of the Israeli state. And that’s not going to change.

And I can say unequivocally — and I don’t think the Prime Minister would mind me saying here — that, in the call today, the Prime Minister reiterated his thanks to President Biden and this administration for the support that — that we have continued to provide Israel. It’s longstanding. It was before the 7th of October, and it is now. And that support is — that support is going to continue.

But, again, with respect to Gaza, we need to see certain changes. And if we don’t, then we’ll have to consider changes to our own policy.

But it’s not about — it’s not about leverage. It’s about the relationship, and it’s about the credibility — I would even say the unique credibility that this particular president has in Israel and with Israeli leadership based on his long public service of support to —

Q But you talk about this relationship. Do you think the Prime Minister is really listening?

MR. KIRBY: It was — I think it was evident in the phone call today. It was a good discussion. Direct — no question — but a good discussion. And — and I believe the — the President made very clear his concerns and the Prime Minister acknowledged those concerns.

Q And in — and in terms of the timing of this call, we understand that this call was set up after the strike on the World Central Kitchen workers. Would you say that this call was a direct result of that? Was that the reason behind the call?

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.

Q And then, one —

Q Thank you.

Q — one last thing: response to José Andrés. Chef Andrés says that the convoy was deliberately targeted. Any response from the U.S. on that?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I — I haven’t seen the Israeli investigation. They have said themselves publicly, after a preliminary investigation, that there was no deliberate targeting of WCK and — and Chef Andrés. They — they’re working their way through, now, independent follow-on investigation, which I understand is very, very close to complete.

The Prime Minister just talked about it broadly. And reiterated today — the Prime Minister reiterated today that there was no deliberate targeting of — of that aid convoy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.

Q Thank you, Karine. Two questions. Senator Coons, who is very close to the President, said that we have reached a moment where arms restriction to Israel should be considered. Senator Warren also said that we have — Israel has violated our own laws. Are they wrong in their assessment?

MR. KIRBY: The President — I think it’s clear in the readout, Nadia, that the — that the President has — has made it clear today that if we don’t see changes to the way the IDF is treating innocent civilians and aid workers and flowing the humanitarian assistance, that he’s going to have to reconsider our Gaza policy. So, I mean, he was very direct with the Prime Minister about that.

I’m not going to close down his decision space. As satisfying as that may be for some of you, I can’t do that.

But he made it very clear that we need to see some changes on the Israeli side.

Q Okay. I want to ask you about very disturbing investigative report by an Israeli journalist who said that — is the White House aware of an AI program called “Lavender” that’s being used by the Israeli army to target operative in Gaza in what they call a “kill zone,” where this program has only 20 seconds of human supervision. And it led to the death of thousands of women and children in Gaza. Do you think — are you aware of it, number one? And, second, does the White House believe that AI can be used in this way with that supervision?

MR. KIRBY: I’m — I’m not aware of it. You’re going to have to let me take question. We’ll get back to you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thank you so much, John. I’m going to start with the trilateral summit, then I’m going to move to Rwanda.

First of all, looking ahead to the trilateral summit next week, what are some of the priorities? And we recently heard the Filipino Ambassador say that the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines are going to start joint patrols in the South China Sea very soon. Can you confirm that and give us any details?

MR. KIRBY: I believe the Pentagon will have more to say about that this afternoon. So, I don’t — I don’t want to get ahead of — of them on that. We’re always looking for opportunities to improve cooperation with our allies in the Indo-Pacific.

We’re looking forward to this trilateral summit next week. I think it’ll be very, very important. As you know, we have self-defense treaty commitments with both countries. And so, the chance to sit down with — with both his Japanese and his Filipino counterparts is something the President is very much looking forward to.

There’s an awful lot to discuss. Certainly, the tensions in the South China Sea are not going away. That was an issue that was raised in the President’s call with President Xi just a — a couple of days ago. And so, there’s — there’s an awful lot to talk about there.

Q Cool. Then on Rwanda —

MR. KIRBY: Cool.

Q I’m going to ask — (laughter) — a multi-part question.

Q Cool.

Q It’s —
MR. KIRBY: I did not think my answer was cool, but I appreciate the compliment. (Laughter.)

Q It’s — sorry, it’s a small country. It doesn’t get a lot of attention. But President Biden has decided to send President Clinton —

MR. KIRBY: Correct.

Q — to observe the 30th anniversary of the genocide. You know, what message does this send to Rwandans who are understandably upset about President Clinton’s lack of action when the genocide was happening?

Secondly, what message is President Clinton taking to President Kagame, who has been in power since 1994 and has become increasingly authoritarian?

And then, finally, in 1998, President Clinton pledged to the Rwandan people that his administration was going to work to identify triggers of genocidal activity so that something like this would never happen again. Do you think Washington has improved on that front in the last 30 years?

MR. KIRBY: We — we — I — I believe — I can’t speak for every administration between 1998 and today, but I can tell you that President Biden absolutely takes those responsibilities very, very seriously, particularly when it comes to genocidal threats, wherever they occur around the world.

And he’s very grateful that President Clinton has agreed to lead the delegation for the 30th anniversary. Eight hundred thousand people slaughtered in that — in that —

Q Some people say it’s over 1.2 million.

MR. KIRBY: — in that conflict. And our hearts and our prayers go out to the families of the — of the survivors — of those who were — who were killed. Just a — just a dreadful situation.

And, again, the President is grateful that President Clinton has agreed to — to go down there and represent the administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Phil.

Q Thank you. I have two questions, one on Israel and another on China.

At this point in the conflict, does President Biden believe that a military victory against Hamas is possible for Israel?

MR. KIRBY: Obviously, that’s going to be up to the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli government to determine.

As I’ve said many, many times: It’s difficult to eliminate an ideology with military means, but you can absolutely, through military means, decapitate their leadership; dry up their resources; eliminate their infrastructure, their ability to — to operate and store weapons, train troops. I mean, all of that stuff can be — can be targeted with military means.

What — the — but as I’ve also said, and — and you have to keep it in the context of this call, it matters how you do that. It really matters a lot how you do that.

And it’s the how that the President was focused on today and the — the way these operations are being prosecuted and the additional harm that’s coming to civilian aid workers and innocent Gazans.

Q And then, Xi reportedly told President Biden during their summit in San Francisco that Beijing plans to reunify Taiwan with Mainland China. Did the Chinese leader bring up a similar sentiment in their call the other day? And if so, what was President Biden’s response?

MR. KIRBY: I wou- — certainly, Taiwan came up in the context of — of the call. There’s not a single discussion that we don’t have with senior leaders in the PRC where we don’t talk about Taiwan. Of course, it came up.

I — I won’t characterize President Xi’s comments. But I can tell you that — that President Biden was very, very clear that — that nothing has changed about our One China policy. We don’t support independence for Taiwan. But we also don’t want to see the status quo changed in a unilateral way and certainly not by force.

Q Thank you, sir.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, a couple more. Go ahead, Jared.

Q Did — I know you said that Rafah wasn’t the point of this conversation and it wasn’t discussed a lot. Does that mean that that is still sort of a separate issue that’s going to be sort of an ongoing discussion between U.S. and Israeli officials in the delegation?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t know that I’d call it separate. It wasn’t a focus of this call. The call was — as I answered to M.J., it was really about the humanitarian situation and changes we need to see.

But we look forward to having another conversation with Israeli counterparts in coming days, hopefully in a week or so, on Rafah specifically. And we hope this next one will be in person, but we’ll have more to say about that as we get closer to it.

Q So, an operation in Rafah would not, sort of, run counter to — to these new conditions that the President laid out to — to the Prime Minister?

MR. KIRBY: Oh, I didn’t say that at all. I mean, one of the big concerns about a ground operation in Rafah that we’ve expressed is the damage it could do — the death and destruction it could render to the 1.5 million Gazans that are seeking refuge there.

So, again, today’s call was really focused on humanitarian assistance, civilian casualties, and that includes humanitarian aid workers. You can’t talk about Rafah and the possibility of operations going after those Hamas battalions in Rafah without also talking about the humanitarian situation down there, which is dire.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Brian.

Q Thanks a lot, Admiral. Does President Biden agree with Donald Trump that the — Israel’s war against Hamas is taking a long time?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to compare the President’s views to — to Mr. Trump. I think you can understand I need to stay out — out of that.

All I would tell you is we have expressed our concerns about the manner in which operations are being conducted and the — the speed and the energy with which we want to see changes to the way those operations are being conducted. And I think I’d leave it at that.

Q Well, does — does the President think that Israel’s war against Hamas is taking too long?

MR. KIRBY: The President believes that they have a right to go after the Hamas threat, which is still viable. And the President made it clear again today that we support and we will continue to support — not just philosophically but tangibly — Israel’s right to defend itself against a range of threats. And it — certainly that includes this — this fight against Hamas.

But, again, I want to — I want to reiterate what I said earlier. It’s not just the threat of Hamas that Israel is facing. They are facing broader threats throughout the region, including directly and publicly from — from Iran.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Peter.

Q John, a follow-up on that first. Did the CIA warn Israel or did President Biden warn Netanyahu today about an Iranian plan to attack inside Israel within 48 hours?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters, Peter. I think you can understand. But they did talk about a very public and very viable, real threat by Iran to Israel’s security. And I think I need to leave it at that. It’s really as far as I can go.

Q On October 7th, President Biden said, “My administration’s support for Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.” That is not true anymore, correct?

MR. KIRBY: That i- — no, it is true. Still true today.

Q How is his support unwavering, but you’re also reconsidering policy choices?

MR. KIRBY: Both can be true.

Q They cannot be true. They’re — they’re completely different things.

MR. KIRBY: No. No, no. I just —

Q He is —

MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry — I —

Q He is wavering.

MR. KIRBY: Now, now, now. Come on, Peter.

Q How is he not wavering?

MR. KIRBY: Come on. (Laughter.) Come on, now.

As I said, and as it says in that readout, we made clear — and — and he made it clear to the Prime Minister in his call — that our support for Israel’s self-defense remains ironclad. They face a range of threats. And the United States isn’t going to walk away from helping Israel defend itself.

That said, you can say all that and you can act on that and you can believe that — and the President does — and still believe that the manner in which they’re defending themselves against the Hamas threat needs to change. And that is the conversation that we had today.

But both things are true. Our support is ironclad and consistent. It’s not going to — not going to stop; it’s not going to — not going to — not going to waver. But will there perhaps be some policy changes we might have to make if we don’t see policy changes out of Israel? Yes.

Q How is that unwavering? It sounds like you guys are trying to have it both ways here.

MR. KIRBY: No. I don’t know that I’d char- —

Q “We support Israel, but we are going to make all these changes because we don’t support Israel.”

MR. KIRBY: I didn’t say we’re going to make changes. I said we need to see w- — how Israel responds to the humanitarian crises in Gaza and how they respond to protection of aid workers. I think we can all agree, I think you would agree, you don’t want to see innocent civilians killed or targeted, do you? You don’t want to see Gazans starve. You don’t want to see famine in Gaza, do you?

Q Nobody wants to see —

MR. KIRBY: Of course not.

Q — that. But you’re —

MR. KIRBY: So —

Q — the policymaker and you’re talking about policy changes.

MR. KIRBY: So —

Q That is not what you were talking about on October 7th.
MR. KIRBY: Because things have —

Q When it was “solid and unwavering.”

MR. KIRBY: On October 7th, there wasn’t near famine in Gaza. On October 7th, there wasn’t a diminution of trucks getting into Gaza. On October 7th, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed. I mean, I could go on and on.

The — we’re talking about a conflict near — which is dang near at six months here — this weekend, six months. And it has changed over time. And the — what the President’s message today was: We need to see some changes in the way Israel is dealing with that threat.

Q And —

MR. KIRBY: That’s — that’s what two good friends and allies can discuss.

This isn’t about un- — this isn’t about changing our support to Israel or the security of the Israeli state. And I — I just have to take issue with the premise of the question.

Q Okay. Just the last one, then. Where is President Biden on any of this? When he wants to talk about how angry he is or frustrated he is about the high cost of insulin, he comes out and gives an impassioned speech. Where is he on any of this?

MR. KIRBY: He’s been talking about this. He’s been issuing statements on this.

Q In private.

MR. KIRBY: No, that statement, last I looked, was public.

Q But where is he? Why isn’t he here right now?

MR. KIRBY: Look, I’m sure you’ll continue to hear from the President about this and many other national security issues.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We’ve got to — we’ve got to wrap it up.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks. Can you share any- — anything about White House views on the upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution to prohibit nuclear weapons in space, which is scheduled to vote as soon as Friday?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, actually, I can. And if you don’t mind, I’m — I do have some notes. I want to make sure that I get this right.

But, I think, last month, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield announced that the United States and Japan would put forward a Security Council resolution calling on all countries not to deploy nuclear weapons in space or to develop nuclear weapons specifically designed to be placed in orbit around the Earth. And we will be bringing this resolution to a vote in New York early next week.

Now, the vote should be straightforward. The Outer Space Treaty — which has been signed by more than 130 countries, including Russia, the PRC, and, of course, the United States — prohibits the deployment of, quote, “nuclear weapons or other kinds of weapons of mass destruction,” end quote, in orbit, period.

Now, we have heard President Putin say that Russia has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, so we look forward to Russia voting in favor of this resolution. There should be no reason why not to. And if they do, then I think that should open up some really legitimate questions to Mr. Putin about what his intentions really are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. S.V., you have the last question.

Q Yeah, thank you. Admiral, could you clarify on the — the ceasefire language that the President used in his statement? He says that he und- — that there should be a ceasefire, and then the next — after a comma, it’s, “he urged the Prime Minister to empower… negotiators to conclude a deal without delay.” So, are the two tied together? Or is he saying ceasefire right now and then the other thing later? I mean, what —

MR. KIRBY: We — we —

Q How immediate is “immediate”?

MR. KIRBY: I — I can’t really improve upon the President’s language. We — we want to see a pause in the fighting. We want to see a ceasefire immediately, so that we can get more humanitarian assistance in and create a set of conditions where aid organizations feel better about operating inside Gaza because, as we — we’ve already seen it in — as a result of the attack on the WCK workers, that some aid organizations now are pulling back. So, we want to see that immediate ceasefire in place.

We also, of course, as we’ve said many times, think that that could also provide a window here to get the hostages out.

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

(Cross-talk.)

MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Admiral.

Q John, before you go, was it an ultimatum? Was it an ultimatum?

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

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That was a lot of screaming.

Q Was before — either before the call or after the call, has the White House briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill about this potential change in U.S. policy, what is at stake here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look, I think the Admiral made it very clear. We are giving the Israeli government an opportunity to deal with something that is pretty serious: humanitarian aid workers who are — you know, who are, we saw this week, being killed. I think we talked about — we’ve seen that ov- — more than 200 humanitarian aid workers in the past several months.

And so, that needs to stop. And so, we’re giving the Israeli government, as you heard from my colleague, to come up with some — some ways — some — you know, some measures here on how to avoid that. We have to keep civilians — civilians safe; we have to keep humanitarian workers safe.

And so, I don’t want to get ahead of that. We’re always having conversations, always in contact with congressional members. I don’t have a readout of outreach that was done right after the call. Obviously, the call ended not too long ago. And so, don’t want to — to get ahead of that.

But I think in that readout the President made it very clear where he stand — where he — where he stands in this moment. He made it very clear after the horrific — you know, the — what happened — the horrific events of seven — seven, you know, brave people doing — doing heroic work — what happened to them. He put out a very strong statement.

So, I think the President has been very clear. He’s outraged, he’s heartbroken, and this needs to stop. We need to protect civilian lives. That’s why he’s having — that’s why his team is having conversat- — conversations with the Israeli government on Rafah operations and what that’s going to look like. They’re having a — a, you know, reasonable debate back and forth and — and talking about that.

We’re hoping — we — we expect that to happen in person very shortly. And so, the President has been very clear: We got to protect civilian lives; we have to protect humanitarian aid workers. And — and those conversations certainly are going to continue.

Q And you got a question yesterday whether the President’s conv- — conversation, with the doctor who had been in Gaza, on Tuesday was his first interaction with somebody who had been on the ground in Gaza since the war began. I was hoping you might have a — be able to give us an answer on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I did have a moment to look into that. And so, as you know, the President and his senior team have been pretty actively honoring their commitment he made on — in continuing that ongoing engagement with communities directly, obviously, impacted by the conflict in Gaza. And he did that by hosting community leaders just this week. But, also, you’ve seen the senior White House officials going to Michigan, going to Illinois, and continuing those conversations over the past several months.

So, look — and we believe and — that by going across the country and hearing directly from community leaders in numerous states, that we’re doing — we are keeping that ongoing commitment.

And so, look, the three doctors — there were three doctors who recently returned from Gaza who participated in the meeting this week, and they shared their firsthand experience with President Biden. And so, we can say that there were three doctors.

We’re trying to be really respectful in keeping the privacy of those who are attending these very private meetings. But we were able to share — I am able to share there were at least three doctors who have — who have had the firsthand experience, have gone to Gaza, and they were able to share — to share their firsthand experience with the President.

And so, I can share that. But I also want to be really careful, because we do want to keep our commitment in keeping these conversations private. And that includes the atten- — the attendees.

Q But that was the first time though that the President has interacted with anybody who had been on the ground, correct?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is didn’t go — I have not checked in on — on that. Right? I want to be really care- —

Q Not since (inaudible)? Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. But I think three doctors coming to the meeting the other day — yesterday and laying out their first account, I think that’s important, right? So, we’re able to share that information with you: three doctors who were — who’ve been in Gaza, and they we- — shared directly with the President what they have seen on the ground. That matters, right? It’s — so, want to be very clear about that.

Look, we are going to continue to keep our commitment in hearing from folks in the communities who have been directly affected by this. That’s been our commitment from very early on.

We understand how painful this is for many. We understand how important it is to hear directly from Americans. This is what the President wants to do. He’s the president for all Americans. He has said that continuously on any issue.

And on this issue, it is important to do that as well.

Q And then, yesterday, you got a question that said the President had been briefed on this avian flu outbreak. I’m wondering has — is the President going to designate any sort of coordinator at the White House or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — for the federal government to manage those (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m glad that you asked that question, because we do have a couple of things to share with all of you. The President has been briefed. I think I may have sa- — shared that yesterday as well.

Look, the health and safety of American public is very serious. We take that very seriously. Our top priority, obviously, is to keep communities healthy, safe, and informed.

What we were able to do is the White House — immediately, the White House stood up a response team with relevant agencies — like the CDC, FDA, USDA — to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to ensure we keep communities healthy, safe, and informed; ensure that our nation’s food supply remains safe; and monitor any and all trends to mitigate risk and prevent the spread of avian flu.

We are also in regular touch with those relevant agencies and receiving daily updates because, again, we take that very seriously.

And this is an issue — when you think about the avian flu, this is — public experts, health experts, and agencies have been preparing for this for decades — for 20 years now.

And so, we have invested the ability to test, the ability to prevent and to treat. And so, as CDC said themselves, right now, the risk to human health from this outbreak is low. But we want to keep it that way, which is why we set up this — this immediate response team.

And so, we’re going to monitor — continue to monitor, and — and we’re going to look for all the relev- — relevant trends as it relates to the avian flu. And we want to make sure that we keep all Americans safe.

Thank you for the question. I think it’s important.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q Karine, if Speaker Johnson were to put some form of Ukraine aid on the floor and a lawmaker, say Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, then moves to oust him, would the White House, would the President support Democrats working to keep him as Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’ve always been very ca- — very, very careful when it comes to leadership. And we have always said, when it comes to picking the Speaker, picking the Leader in the Senate, we want to let Congress deal with that. We want — in this case, it’s something that House Republicans have to decide on. That’s something that — that Leader Jeffries and his caucus have to decide on. We are not going to weigh in on that. We’ve been very consistent over the past three years, and we stand by that.

Q Any recent contact with the Speaker’s office that you can read out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time. Obviously, our Office of Leg Affairs is in constant communication with congressional members on the Hill.

And I do want to just say — and we’ve been pretty consistent about this — when it comes to the national security supplemental that i- — includes all important Ukrainian aid. We believe that there’s bipartisan — there continues to be bipartisan support in Congress. The Speaker needs to put that on the floor. He needs to make sure that — that he gives House members an opportunity to vote for that. We believe it would get overwhelming support.

And we have to remember there are lives at stakes — there are live at stake here in — in Ukraine. And the brave people of Ukraine need the assistance from the U.S. to continue to fight for their democracy. That’s what we’ve been able to do for more than two years. We got to continue that.

And because of congressional inaction, we have — sadly, have seen that, you know, they’re — them — the Ukrainians — losing ground in the battlefield. And so, we believe: Put it out on the floor — Sp- — the Speaker needs to do that; let the con- — congressional members vote on it. We think it’ll get overwhelming support — 72-29 coming out of the Senate for that national security supplemental. It got to move. It has to move; lives are at stake here.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, was the President briefed yesterday or did he see the comments by José Andrés in his interview with Reuters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s aware. He’s aware. He’s been — he’s been briefed, and he’s aware by the comments.

Look, you saw the President — we — we put that in the s- — in his statement. Obviously, he — we made sure that it was in his statement how he felt about his relationship, his friendtr- — friendship with Chef — Chef Andrés.

They — he considers him a friend. He sees him as a hero in everything that he has done — not just in Gaza but across the globe in feeding — in feeding people who are in need — the humanitarian assistant that he provides. We have said the — the op-ed that he wrote is incredibly powerful. And he — you know, that — the first couple of words out of his statement yesterday was “outrage” and “heartbroken.” Seven people died.

Q Is he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Outrage and heart- — heartbroken.

Q Is he concerned about the discrepancy, though, between how Chef Andrés described a deliberate attack on his workers versus what the White House and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah —

Q — Israel have said in terms of describing that attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, there’s an investigation — ongoing investigation; we’re going to let that investigation move forward. And we certainly — I think we all can understand how heartbroken Chef José Andrés is at this moment. We understand that. We are mourning with him. We are mourning with the families that lost their loved ones. So, we can be sensitive to that.

But as it relates to making any declarative statement, we have to make sure that this investigation moves forward, and it is. And we will see where that takes us.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q Thanks, Karine. The presidents of — the par- — parents, rather, of Jacob Flickinger, who is the American citizen who was killed in the World Central Kitchen strike — they said this morning they haven’t heard from anyone in the U.S. government, except for that first day when they got a notification from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. Does the President or anyone else at the White House plan to reach out to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a readout for you at this time.

Look, we’ve been always very clear about this, that our hearts — and I just said this to Jeff — our hearts go out to the families. It is tragic — tragic. We send our deepest, deepest condolences, obviously, to the family of Jacob.

And, you know, he and the World — World Centra- — Central Kitchen workers were doing heroic work, as I just mentioned, and what happened — what happened on the ground as they were doing that heroic work in Gaza is tragic. It’s devastating. It’s heartbreaking.

And we just don’t have any additional calls to read out right now. I expect members of the administration to be in touch with the — with the family to express our — our condolences directly. Just don’t have any — anything to read out at this time.

But obviously, our hearts go out to all the families who lost — who lost some- — who lost someone they loved.

Q And several Democrats are now calling for an independent investigation into what happened here. Is the White House open to changing its position on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re going to let Israeli — the Israeli government do their investigation and see where that takes us. Don’t want to get ahead of that. They’re doing an investigation.

We have said we want it to be comprehensive. We want it to be — make sure there — it — that it has accountability. We want it to be swift, obviously. And we want it to be public. So, don’t want to get ahead of that — let that process move forward. And we’ll see where we are from there.

Okay. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. So, yesterday, John Kirby said that the U.S. would not consider a shift in their policy towards Israel until they finished their review of the World Central Kitchen strike. And just now, he said that the U.S. may consider a change if they don’t make changes in Gaza within hours and days. So, where is that — where is that shift coming from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it’s — we’re talking about that — the conversation that happened today with the President, as we have said, was very direct, it was productive, it was professional — a 30-minute conversation. And it was based on humanitarian aid; protecting aid workers, which is really important; protecting civilians. And that’s what the conversation was primarily about.

And what we have said — it’s in the readout — that we want to see measurable changes to protect those aid workers, to protect civilian lives. And so, that is what is — he was talking about. That’s what he — the President laid out in — in the statement that we put out. You heard that from Secretary Blinken today.

And I think that’s the way that we want to make sure that we’re — you know, we want b- — be very clear about that. We want to see measurable changes to how humanitarian aids workers are protected. That’s what the conversation was about, and that’s the changes that we want to see the Israeli government present. That’s what he was talking about in the days to come.

Q Yeah. And if I could just get one more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q Yesterday, Benny Gantz, the Israeli War Cabinet Minister, called for Israel to hold early elections by September. Where does the White House stand on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re not going to — we’re not going to get involved in the Israeli government or any government’s elections. That is something for them to decide on. It’s not coming from here.

Go ahead.

Q I have a question about electric vehicles. Ford said today it’s delaying production on an electric SUV. Tesla earlier this week said that its sales are plunging. Do these types of developments make the administration rethink their EV policy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. Look, you know, when it comes to EV sales, they are reaching record highs. EVs are more affordable than ever, and that’s because of the work that this administration has done. Last year, EV sales surpassed 1 million for the first time ever. That’s a 50 percent increase. That matters.

Under President Biden, EV sales have more than quadrupled. Sales of hybrids and EVs are now a record high of 18 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales. Average price of an EV is down 20 percent from just a year ago — just one year ago.

So, we believe that this is part of — well, I should say, the President has always said that he wants to make sure we do everything that we can to lower cost, lower prices — this is part of that — and also do eve- — all — everything that we can to deal with a climate crisis. And this is part of that.

Q So, is it realistic to go from about 7 or 8 percent of sales to 50 percent of sales in eight years if the automakers themselves are cutting back prod- — on production?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We believe — and we have seen that — that U.S. manufact- — U.S. manufacturing jobs have increased. Jobs have indeed increased. And when you see so- — a boom like this, that means you need autoworkers, right? It can’t happen on its own.

And so, we — we believe this is working. We believe this is part of what the President has promised. And we want to see a manufacturing industry that’s for the future of this — of this country, and that’s what we’re seeing. And that’s what the President is work — working towards.

Q And a question about yesterday’s call with President Xi. If President Biden is concerned enough about TikTok to bring it up on a call with the President of China, why is he and why is the Vice President — why are they still making videos for TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s coming out of the campaign, so I would refer you to the ca- —

Q But — but they’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Wait, that’s —

Q — doing the videos.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I understand. It is the campaign’s decision. I would refer you to the campaign.

We have been very clear: We are not trying to ban TikTok. We’re not trying to ban TikTok. We’re talking about a divestment. You heard that from the National Security Advisor when he has been here a couple of times at the podium speaking to TikTok and the legislation and how we’re trying to move forward. It is a — it is a platform that we really need to take seriously here. We’re talking about our national security.

And so, we’ve talked about not banning, divesting — not banning, divesting. So, I want to be very clear about that.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. There’s a report from Bloomberg that the White House — specifically Jeff Zients and Lael Brainard — are calling major Baltimore employers, including Amazon and Home Depot, encouraging them to not cut jobs in the wake of the bridge collapse. Can you confirm that that outreach is happening and other outreach like that? And what is the message from the administration to those big companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things that — and I think I’ve read this out before — that we have been doing as it relates to sup- — supply chain and the potential economic impact. The President’s Supply Chain Dis — Distribution Task Force has convened multiple times at this point to analyze the impact of supply chains, which has so far been manageable, which is important. The task force worked with railroads to set up new service lines and with ports and ocean carriers to divert vessels.

The SBA — the Small Business Administration — has made low-interest disaster loan assistance available to eligible businesses and set up business recovery centers to help on the ground.

As it relates to your question about Chief — the Chief — Chief of Staff Zients and other senior White House officials, they have had — they have called major employers in the Baltimore area, including retail chains and distributors, to encourage them to retain workers. So, we wanted to make sure that we’re having those important conversation for the people of Baltimore, obviously.

They’re also working with SBA to reach out to small businesses and are in touch with local unions alongside the Labor Department as well.

So, we’re going to do everything we can to have these conversations with stakeholders so that we can identify any — and address any potential disruptions.

And so, we — if anything, this should show that this is an adminis- — administration that’s being active. And we’re being proactive, obviously, in trying to make sure that — that we deal with any potential economic impact.

Right now, as I said at the top, we see this being manageable. And this is why the — these — these conversations are critical with stakeholders at this — this point.

Q And will the President have any update tomorrow for state and local officials about Congress moving forward on the funding package?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to get ahead of — of the President. He — as you know, he’s going to be there on the ground. We’ll certainly have more to share later tonight. I — as I mentioned at the top, he’s going to have an opportunity to engage with family members. We lost — as you know, we lost lives on that night. And the President, as he does — he understands what it means for people to have loss. He’ll be there for those families, just like he’ll certainly be there for the people of Baltimore.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Emily.

Q Thanks, Karine. I had a question about the state dinner next week.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q I saw the White House announced today the dinner itself is going to be held in the East Room. And I was just curious: The last state dinner was held on a tent on the South Lawn.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Was the East Room chosen out of concern that protesters who have been —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — coming after to the President might be shouting out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q — past the South Lawn and (inaudible) the atmosphere?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No at all. We’ve — we’ve — it’s not the — it’s not the first state dinner that’s been held in the East Room. I believe, if I’m remembering correctly, South Korea was held in the East Room. So, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Okay. I’m going to take one more.

Q Karine — it’s been a while, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q I appreciate you calling me, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have thoughts, but I’m going to keep my thoughts to myself. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, go ahead. Go ahead.

Q I’d like to ask you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I appre- — you are correct. It’s been a while. So, go ahead.

Q Well, thank you. I’d like to ask you about press freedom and then about a significant White House personnel matter.

About press freedom —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — our government appears to be closer to potentially extraditing Julian Assange. Press freedom groups say that the case threatens to criminalize our profession. So, I’m wondering what the White House’s thinking is regarding that matter and the potential threat to press freedom. And does the White House have a stance on the pending federal press shield legislation that passed the House and that Senator Schumer told me he hopes reaches President Biden’s be- — desk this year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re — you’re talking about the PRESS Act, more specifically?

Q Yes. Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, and I said this — I’ve said this many times. I said this last week — where journalism is not a crime. We’ve been very clear about that.

And as it relates to this particular legislation, I haven’t reviewed it. Would have to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs on that particular legislation.

But I do want to say, back in October of 2022, the Justice Department codified a policy to ban subpoenas of journalist records.

The President strongly supports the right of free and independent press. That is something that the President talked about when he was at the Gridiron. The President talked about this at the last White House Correspondents Dinner. He has been very consistent about this.

And I’ll just quote him for a second: A free press is “a pillar of any free society.” And while we may not always agree with certain coverage or admire it, we do admire the courage of the free press. Journalism, again, is not a crime.

Q Before moving on, just to confirm. No stance yet on the PRESS Act that you’re aware of? And the Assange matter — is there a concern about that and its implications?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, I don’t have much more to share beh- — besides what I just laid out here. So, I’ll just leave it as what I just stated to you.

Q He’s been in prison five years.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I understand. I hear — I hear — I heard the question. I’m just not going to go beyond from what I just stated.

Q And on the personnel matter, I’d like to ask you about my reporting on Anthony Bernal, who is one of the most powerful figures in this White House. The First Lady reportedly refers to him as her “work husband.” Three former colleagues have made allegations of sexual harassment against him, building on prior reports of bullying. Some of these sources have worked with you. I — I think you’d find them credible. But Chief of Staff Zients issued a statement dismissing the allegations as “unfounded attacks” without even investigating them, which my sources say they’re alarmed about, because they say it could —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q — chill sexual harassment and bullying reports.

How can the White House potentially — or possibly justify not invest- — investigating these allegations when the President says he will fire people —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. I don’t know who your sources are, so I can’t — I — just, with all due respect, I can’t speak to that. Right? I — I just don’t. I mean, they’re blind sources. I can’t speak to that.

What I can speak to is: You saw our statement from our Chief of Staff, Jeffrey Zients, saying they are unfounded. You saw a very strong statement from Anthony himself. It was in your — obviously, in your reporting. And he said the same.

And I cannot speak to personnel investigations here or anything like that. That is not something I will ever speak to. And I’m not saying there is one. I’m just saying that I will never sp- — I cannot speak to that. And that’s not something I can do.

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — hold on. I have known Anthony for some time now. I have known him for more than a decade. I’ve worked closely with him. And I consider him a friend but also a colleague that I respect. And that’s basically what you also heard from Jeffrey Zients.

I just don’t have anything else to share beyond your reporting. I — I’m —

Q I’ve just got to press you on this, though —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, w- —

Q — because the President said he would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — I don’t —

Q — fire people for disrespecting colleagues.

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

Q And there’s no investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I just laid — I just said to you that they have said themselves — Jeffrey Zients and also Anthony Bernal — that they are unfounded.

I can’t speak to your sources. Those are your sources to speak to. I cannot. But no —

Q Does Bernal’s special status come from the First Lady shielding him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Steve — Steven —

Q — as some sources believe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’ve answered the question. I’ve answered the question.

Bernal — Anthony Bernal spoke for himself. You heard from our Chief of Staff — our Chief of Staff — and gave your publication a statement, obviously. And you’ve heard from me. I — I’m — I don’t have a —

Q Is there not going to be a chilling effect, though, on —

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

Q — people who have suffered sexual harassment or bullying?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: S- — I don’t have anything else to share on that.

With — so we don’t end in that way —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Go ahead, Brian.

Q Thanks.

Q Real quick. I guess I want to just clean up something that you have spoken to today. Would you car- — categorize the conversation with Netanyahu that we’ve been told about all day long — was it an ultimatum? Did we deliver an ultimatum (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. I mean, look —

Q Was it a shot across the bow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, hol- — it was — it was a direct conversation. It was a honest conversation. It lasted 30 minutes, as you heard from my colleague.

And we have said these many times before — you’ve heard this from us; you’ve heard this from the President himself: The — the Prime Minister and this President have known them — known each other for decades. And because they have known each other for some time, they have been able to have a direct and honest conversation.

And so, after what we saw — especially with seven — you know, seven lives taken from the — who were part of the World Central Kitchen workers — right? — who were doing heroic — heroic acts, providing humanitarian aid — you know, after what we saw — and you heard from the President: He was outra- — he was outraged. He was heartbroken. He wanted to have this direct conversation on how to keep humanitarian aid workers safe, protected — and also civilians — innocent civilians.

And that conversation has been happening for some time, and so — on protecting innocent civilian lives. I mean, that’s one of the reasons, as I stated moments ago, why he wanted to make sure that his team and the Prime Minister’s team came together to talk about their Rafah — potential Rafah operations, because he believes that we need to protect civilian lives and a major — major military operation was not the way to go, understanding that th- — there are Hamas operatives in Rafah. But we have to make sure that we protect innocent lives here.

So, they had a very direct conversation. That is — that is because they’ve known each other for many decades.

All right, everybody. Thank you so much.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’ll see you — hopefully, we’ll see some of you in Baltimore tomorrow.

3:13 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.

12:58 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

 Q Good afternoon.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I have one thing at the top, and then we’ll get into Q&A. 

 I’ll start by sharing some more information on the President’s — on the President’s event earlier today with Senator Bernie Sanders.

 Twenty-seven million Americans have asthma, including 4 million kids.  The reality is, the price of inhalers is way too high for too many Americans.

 Families can pay anywhere between $200 and $600 for inhalers without insurance, despite the fact that it costs less than five bucks to make an inhaler.

 That is why, last year, the Federal Trade Commission and the FDA announced efforts to crack down on falsely claimed patents and increase competition of inhalers to lower costs.

 As a result of this administration’s actions, one inhaler manufacturer removed patents from a regulatory list.

 Last month, three of the four largest inhaler manufacturers announced that they will cap the cost of inhalers for many patients at 35 bucks per month.

 This is on the top of our work — this is on top of our work to lower the cost of prescription drugs through the President’s Inf- — Inflation Reduction Act, which every single congressional Republican opposed.

 Thanks to the law, Medicare can now negotiate lower drug prices for American families.

 But President Biden wants to expand those efforts by applying the $2,000 cap on prescription drug costs and 35 bucks for insulin to all Americans.

 This work to deliver lower healthcare costs is in stark contrast to what congressional Republicans have proposed.  They are still working to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and gut Medicaid.  And they just released a budget that would lead to devastating cuts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, increased housing costs and prescription drug costs for families, and huge giveaways for the wealthy and the biggest corporations.

 President Biden has been clear: This will not happen on his watch.  The Biden-Harris administration will continue working with partners, like Bernie Sanders, to de- — to deliver results for the American people.

 With that — all right.  Good to see you. 

 Q Hi.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good to see you.

 Q Thank you.  Good to see you too.  Two questions, starting with the earthquake in Taiwan.  Has the government there asked for anything yet from the United States?  And will the U.S. coordinate with China if Taiwan does request any kind of assistance?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is that we continue to closely monitor the earthquake impacting Taiwan.  And we certainly pray for all those who are affected.  And we are — we are — we are standing by — the United States is standing by on the ready for any necessary assistance.  I don’t have anything else to provide beyond that.  But we’re closely monitoring, and we are ready to assist.

 Q Is there any reason to believe at this point that the earthquake will affect the visits next week by the leaders of Japan and the Philippines for the summit?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any change of schedule.

 QAnd then, lastly — sorry, I know I said two, but I have a third.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay.  It’s all right, Darlene.

 QDoes the President think the meeting he had last night with Muslim leaders was useful?  And is there any reaction or comment on a Palestinian American doctor walking out in the middle of that meeting?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple of things just at the top about last night and how important it is.  As you know, the President and the Vice President — they continued their tradition of honoring the Muslim community during Ramadan by hosting a meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss issues of importance to the community. 

 Let’s not forget, this is a — the sit-down conversation, the meeting was asked and it was supposed — it’s supposed to be private.  They wanted a private meeting.  That was something that, as we have done our outreach — as you know, senior White House officials have been doing this outreach.  The President and the Vice President have been in communication with the community regularly since October.  And this is something that they asked — they asked for a private meeting — a working meeting, if you will. 

 And so, we understand what’s — how this community is feeling.  It is deeply painful moment for many in the Arab and Muslim communities. 

 The President also expressed his commitment to continue working to secure an immediate ceasefire as part of a deal to free the hostages and significantly increase humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And the President made clear that he mourns the loss of every innocent life in this conflict, Palestinian and Israeli.

 The President and Vice President committed — are committed to continue engaging with these leaders moving forward.  As I mentioned, we have had regular engagement with members of those communities.

 As it relates to the — the part of the question that you just asked me about a participant walking out, look, I want to be really careful here.  We said that we would keep this — these conversations private.  So, I’m not going to continue — I’m not going to comment on a — any private discussions.

 But as I said many times from this podium, the President respects an American — any American’s right to peacefully protest.  And we’re going to continue to have these conversations, obviously, with that community. 

 Go ahead, Nancy.

 Q Thank you.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  How did the White House decide who would attend the iftar dinner?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is — want to be careful here.  You know, this meeting, again, was decided, after we had done the outreach for some time now.  We wanted to make sure that this was a private meeting and that participants had an opportunity to be — you know, to be — to be honest and to be able to share their thoughts and feelings about how — you know, how — where they are, how they feel about the situation happening, obviously, in the Middle East.

 I don’t have a — a process to lay out how the list came about, and so I, you know, don’t have anything to — to lay out in that realm. 

But as you know and as I’ve — as I’ve stated a couple of times, we’ve done outreach for this past several weeks, several months to the Muslim, to the Arab community, Palestinian community and — and heard from them directly.  And they spoke; we listened.  And we hope that they feel like they had an opportunity to express themselves and had an opportunity, in front of the President and the Vice President, to talk about an incredibly painful time.

 Q Was last night the President’s first opportunity to speak face to face with someone who had been on the ground providing aid in Gaza?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can’t speak to the different — the different leaders who have been in this meeting.  It is a private meeting.  We want to make sure that we give folks the opportunity to feel that they have some — you know, some — that they know that they can speak and — and just be clear to us and — and have that — and be — know that it is — those conversations are in confidence. 

 So, don’t want to read out who’s been in the meeting or — or any specifics in that realm.  I’m going to let them — I’m going to let folks who — if folks who attended want to speak to that and — they can.

 What I can say is we’ve had multiple conversations, whether it’s senior — senior officials from the White House, whether it’s this pra- — this President.  We — not all conversations we — we, obviously, read out.  We keep o- — we try to keep these private conversations in private. 

 I don’t have a list of — of folks of — of, you know, who — who they are or where they come from, if they’ve been to Gaza.  That is something I want to be super mindful of. 

 Q What was the President’s reaction to the fact that the doctor decided to leave the dinner?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s very — very similar to what I said to Darlene.  The President respects — he respects, you know, any individual, any American, for them to peacefully protest.  He understands that this is a — a painful moment for — for many Americans across the country. 

 And so, he respects their — their freedom to peacefully protest.  I don’t have anything — you know, I don’t anything outside of that.  They have a right to peacefully protest.  And we’re going to continue to respect that.

 Go ahead, Jordan.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  Do you — does the administration expect there to be an emergency funding package for the Key Bridge in Baltimore to be announced before the President visits the city on Friday? 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, the Department of Transportation just last week announced $60 million to be able to put forward in — in — in building — having to rebuild that bridge.  I don’t have anything outside of — of additional funding. 

 The President has been very, very clear: He wants to make sure that we — we make the community of Baltimore whole again.  And he has said that the federal government will cover — will certainly cover the bridge being built. 

 Our focus right now, outside of the — rebuilding that bridge, is making sure that the ports are open, making sure that we continue to do that recovery, clean out — clean out that area. 

 And so, that’s been the focus.  The President is going to go on Friday.  He will see himself.  We’ll have more information of — of what’s — what’s going on on the ground.  But he gets regular updates, you know, and I think that’s important as well. 

 Our hearts go out to the lives that were lost during that — that evening — or that early morning.  It’s a sad — obvi- — sad, sad news.  And we are with the families who are mourning — who are mourning their lost ones at this time. 

 QAnd then on Ukraine.  The White House issued a statement yesterday that was dismissive of Speaker Johnson’s idea to tie that package to the policy banning future LNG exports.  You know, it said that the President wants the aid package passed right away —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– and that you support the LNG export ban.  But can you clarify whether that means you’re — you’re ruling out that proposal from Speaker Johnson?  Like, is that off the table or — or is this something that you might consider down the road?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we’ve been very clear, right?  We’ve been very clear.  The reporting, we have said — as you said, from our statement — is not true.  We’ve been really clear about House Republicans should pass the bipartisan national security agreement that already pla- — passed with overwhelming support out of the Senate — 70 to 29.  You’ve heard me say that many times before.

 We need to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.  We’re going to continue to be clear about that. 

 And there is a way to get Ukraine what they need.  All the Speaker has to do is put that national security supplemental on the floor. 

 The President supports the pause on pending — which is on pending ob- — obviously, additional approvals of L- — LNG export licenses to evaluate the economic and climate impacts on consumers and communities.  He supports that pause. 

 And there is a way — there is a way to deal with what Ukrainians are fighting for right now.  They’re fighting for their democracy.  They’re fighting for their freedom against the aggression of Mr. Putin.  There’s a way to get them the assistance that they need, and that is to pass that bipartisan — we believe that would be a bipartisan support — national security supplemental that got bipartisan support.

 If he puts it on the floor, we know — we know for a fact that Republicans will vote for it.  We know where Democrats stand.  He needs to put that on the floor. 

 Go ahead, Gabe.

 Q Karine, the meeting yesterday was a scaled-back event, as we understand it.  What does — or how troubling is it to the White House that prominent Arab American leaders are declining to come to the White House?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, you know, want to be really clear.  And we’ve been saying this many times before.  Number one, we’ve don- — we’ve done these outreach.  We listened.  The community wanted to have what we thought — change the format, do a meeting where it was a working meeting.  We respected that.  We listened to them and we had a working meeting.  And so, want to be really respectful of that. 

 And, look, we understand it’s a very painful time.  We understand that.  And we respect that. 

 And so, look, I — I can’t speak to individuals who want to attend, not want to attend.  That’s for them to speak to.  The President is going to continue to — and his administration, obviously — senior officials are going to continue to have these conversations.  We’re going to continue to listen to the community.  That’s what a president does.  And that’s what this President will — will continue to do. 

 Q I know the President spoke with Chef José Andrés.  Does the President agree with Chef Andrés that Israel is using food as a weapon?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we understand how Chef Andrés is feeling.  Right?  He just lost members of his team — I’m sure who felt like family to him as well.  The op-ed was very powerful.  What he does is heroic — not just in Gaza, around the world — providing food, providing that essential humanitarian assistance. 

 And we — you know, you heard from the President last night in his statement.  He — it is — he’s outraged, and he’s heartbroken.  We are all heartbroken here by those seven lives lost. 

 And so, we are going to continue to mourn with them — with — with the — with Chef José Andrés and, obviously, the families. 

 I’m just not going to — he’s going to speak for himself.  We are very clear about where we stand.  I think the President’s statement was incredibly powerful, impactful, and really, truly lays out where — how he feels about the current situation. 

 Q And on another topic, Karine.  How worried is the White House about bird flu?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is something that we are certainly monitoring.  We have been — CDC has been certainly working on — on top — working — working and focusing on this.  You know, we take health and safety of the American people seriously.  It is very important to this President.  Our top priority is to keep communities healthy, safe, and informed. 

 We are closely tracking this, monitoring this, as I just stated, of the reports that are out there and have active, relevant agencies to coordinate with and support local authorities. 

 The CDC has said the risk to human health from this outbreak is low.  They are continuing to monitor and will continue to coordinate with relevant agencies and officials.  This is — when it comes — again, when it comes to the public health of the American people, we take that very seriously.  And we’ll continue to track this. 

 Q And, finally, what’s the White House’s response to some on the left who think that Justice Sotomayor should retire so that the President could appoint her replacement?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’ve been asked this question before here at the podium.  And when it comes to those types of decision — decisions, those are personal decisions.  That is — regardless if it’s Justice Sotomayor or any other Just- — Justice on the bench, that is for them to make.  That is a decision for that Justice to make. 

 Again, it’s a personal decision.  That is not something that we get involved in.  But it is something for, obviously, any Justice on the bench — they are — they should be given the space and the freedom to make that decision.  I — I don’t have anything else to say beyond that.

 Go ahead, Selina.

 Q Thanks, Karine.  How is Israel going to conduct that investigation into the strike that killed those World Central Kitchen aid workers?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we — you heard from the President last night.  You heard from my colleague at — from the National Security Council yesterday and also earlier today. 

 I think the President’s statement was very, very strong — right? — very straightforward.  He wants to — he wants to see a — a investigation that’s swift, an investigation that’s comprehensive, that has — that brings accountability.  And he wants to make sure that it is made public. 

 We leave it to, obviously, the Israeli government to do that investigation.  But we want to make sure that it’s swift, it’s comprehensive, that it’s made public.  And it is important.  We need to get to — certainly get to the bottom of exactly what happened. 

 Q Can you explain what that would entail, a kind of investigation like this?  This is a strike that happened in an active warzone.  Can you give us some detail on what it looks like?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, IDF said they have an ongoing investigation.  It’s underway.  I think that’s important. 

We’ve called for this investigation to happen.  I think that’s important.  We wanted to see it happen in a swift manner.  We want to make sure that the findings are public and that there is accountability. 

 I want to be ma- — very careful here.  I’m not going to get ahead of that process.  There is a process underway.  I believe my NSC colleague mentioned that they have some initial findings.  It’s preliminary. 

 And so, that process is going to continue.  I’m going to let that process go underway and — and — and let — let the Israeli government speak to that.

 Q Right.  But for the sake of transparency, can you explain what that process is and if the U.S. is confident in that process?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re not — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I’m not going to get into that partic- — a particular process here. 

We want to see something that is comprehensive, we want to see something that leads to accountability, we want to see it be swift, and we want to make sure that it is made available to the public. 

 That’s what — that’s what the Israeli government — that’s what Prime Minister Netanyahu said he’s going to do.  And we’re going to let that process flow.  We’re going to let that process happen. 

 Q So, Kirby said earlier today that they’re hoping to get in the books a meeting in person next week with an Israeli delegation. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q Can you provide any more details on that and who might come?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to provide any details on that.  What I can say is — basically, from the readout, is that the expectation is to have a meeting in person.  I think it was important that there was a virtual meeting that occurred, obviously, on Monday to talk about the Rafah operations. 

 We’ve been very clear where we stand on this — very clear.  We believe there has to be alternative ways to deal with Hamas in — in Gaza.  As we are — specifically in — in Rafah, a military operation in — we believe is not the way to move forward. 

 There is a active conversations happening with the Israeli government and obviously our government, and I think that’s important. 

 I’m not going to go into details from here.  As you — as you heard from us, as you heard from my colleague, there’s going to be hopefully next week an in-person meeting, and we’re looking forward to continuing those really critical, important conversations.

 Go ahead.

 Q Do you anticipate any changes to the President’s policy toward Israel and Gaza as a result of yesterday’s strike?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I can say that nothing has changed, and we’ve been clear about that since — certainly, since yesterday.  We are going to continue to have those really tough conversations — right? — important, tough conversations about how Israel — Israel moves forward with their operation. 

 We want to make sure that civilians are kept safe, that — are protected — and also folks who are providing humanitarian aid.  The President was very, very clear. 

 He also said in his statement that Israel needs to do more.  We’ve been very clear about that as well.  We’re going to continue to have those conversation with our Israel cou- — counterparts. 

 And — and, look, your — you know, this is important to this President.  But I will also add: That’s why the hostage deal is so critical.  That’s why the President has been working 24/7 along with his — with his team to get that hostage deal done. 

 And if we get a hostage deal, it means that we can get more humanitarian aid into Israel — I’m sorry, into Gaza — pardon me — and also means that we get to a — a ceasefire — we get into a ceasefire so that we can get that aid in, so that we can get, also, hostages home.  So, that is what we’re going to continue also to work on.

 Q Do you have a progress report on that hostage deal?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a progress report.  You saw in the President’s statement that his team continues to have those conversation in Cairo right now.  That is important. 

 And he — you know, we — we — wish I can — I wish I can stand here today and say there’s a deal.  But those conversations continue. 

We’re — we have made this a priority.  This President has made this a priority to get that hostage deal.  It’s important to get those hostages home to their family.  It’s important to get that humanitarian aid and with a — you know, leading to a ceasefire. 

 Go ahead.

 Q Just one more follow-up on the meeting yesterday.  Dr. Ahmad said that he had handed the President a letter from an eight-year-old orphan girl who is living in Rafah.  Has the President read that letter? 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful here.  I’m not going to speak to contents of a private meeting.  Just not going to do that from here. 

 The doctor speaks for himself.  He’s free to do that.  But we have said we’re going to keep these meetings private so that we gave folks who attended the meeting the — you know, the opportunity to be honest, the opportunity to make sure to have a safe place to share their thoughts with us.  So, I’m just not going to read out a content of a me- — a private meeting.

 Q Well, since he chose himself to publicly disclose that he had shared this letter and the contents of that letter with the media, can you say whether the President has read it?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to speak to any content of the — of a private meeting.  That is something that many members who attended — all of them, truly, who attended wanted to — this to be private.  We’re going to keep — we’re going to keep our side to this — our side of the promise. 

 Q This letter, in part, says, “I beg you, President Biden, stop them from entering Rafah.”  Without getting into his reaction — potential reaction to that, does the White House believe that Israel entering Rafah is something that President Biden can stop?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re having conversations — important conversations.  The first one happened virtually.  And, actually, last we- — last week, when the Israeli Foreign Minister was here, obviously, we had a conversation — Jake Sullivan, Secretary Austin, and others had conversations — and that involved the Rafah oper- — operations or Rafah more broadly.  And so, it started then.  There was a virtual conversation on Monday, and it’s going to continue.

Our hope that we can get to a place where we are indeed protecting innocent civilian lives in Rafah.  You heard — you’ve heard my colleagues talk about there’s more than 1 million Palestinians there who ha- — who sought refuge, who are there seeking refuge.  And so, we want to make sure that their lives are protected. 

We know that there are Hamas operators there in Rafah.  And so, we want to make sure that Israel is able to, you know, do what it needs to do in getting — in getting those operators, but it is important — Hamas operators, to be more exact — but it is important that we protect those civilian lives — we protect those lives. 

So, those conversations are happening, we’re hoping to see — we’re expecting — I shouldn’t say “hoping” — expecting that it’ll happen in person next week.  And that’s what we’re going to work towards. 

Q And just on the President’s visit to Baltimore on Friday.  Do you know if he is going to the actual site of the collapsed bridge, and would he be willing to meet with family members of the workers that were killed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know there is a lot of interest in the President’s trip on Friday.  The President obviously is very much looking forward to going to Baltimore, being there for the — for the people of Baltimore. 

You heard him say he’s going to be there for as long as it takes to make sure that we make them whole again.  We’ll have more to share on what that day — what Friday is going to look like in the upcoming day or so. 

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine.  So, what is the accountability that the U.S. wants to see here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let’s let’s [let] the ongoing investigation happen.  We want to make sure — the President said this — swift.  We want it to — this — it to be swift.  We want it to be — brings to — lead to accountability.  We want it to be comprehensive and to make it public. 

 And so, I’m not going to get ahead of that.  Want to see what — what the Israeli government says when they do this investigation.  Just want to be really mindful about that. 

Q So, you’re not asking for anything specifically to take place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We want to see the investigation. 

Q Okay.  And the changes — can you detail what changes that the U.S. would like to see Israel make as a result?  And what even makes you think that as a result of these recent deaths that they would make changes when —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q– they haven’t so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I kind of said this earlier, moments ago.  We are going to continue to have those tough conversations with our Israeli counterparts.  We’re going to continue to make very clear that we have to protect innocent civilian lives.  That is something that we want to make sure is a priority. 

As — as Israel is moving forward with the — with their — their operation against Hamas, a terrorist organization, we understand the importance of them doing that, but we want to also make sure that innocent civilians’ life are protected.  And folks who are out there — brave folks — brave people who are out there providing that humanitarian aid, we want to make sure that their lives are protected, those lives are protected. 

We’re going to have those tough, tough conversations as we have been.  And so, that’s part of — this is part of it, right?  This is part of di- — diplomacy.  This is part of having honest, real, frank conversations.

Q And — and in respect to those conversations, John Kirby said earlier today that the White House has made its outrage known about this all the way up to the presidential level.  Aside from the statement that the President released last night, how has the President made his outrage known about this to the Israelis?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think the statement that he put out was pretty clear.  Right?  I mean, it showed his outrage.  It showed how he was heartbroken.  That’s the first couple of words in the statement.  He’s outraged.  He’s heartbroken. 

And we also laid out what we want to see and the conversations that we have been having.  But it also lifts up the importance of having that hostage deal, getting that done, getting to a ceasefire, getting that humanitarian aid, making sure that those hostages come home to their loved ones. 

So, there’s a lot of work to be done.  We’re going to continue to do that work.  But I think that statement made it loud and clear — made it loud and clear where the President stands. 

Go ahead, Karen.

QThanks.  Just to go back to bird flu.  Two questions on that.  Has the President been briefed on the cases that have been identified so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President has been briefed.  Yes.

Q Okay.  And in your answer earlier, you had focused on the health aspect of it.  But the nation’s largest producer of eggs has temporarily stopped production at plants in Texas and Michigan because some chickens had tested positive.  What are the concerns about supply chain issues and price increases?  And is there something the administration can be doing or should be doing right now to limit the potential impact on economic activity?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, any economic impact is something that we closely monitor.  So, we’re going to closely track that, closely monitor the — monitor that.

As it relates to that particular company, I would refer you to CDC on exactly what they’re doing and — and what ha- — what is happening there specifically. 

But we’re always going to assess.  (Reporter sneezes.)  We’re always going to keep a — keep — God bless you — we’re always going to monitor — monitor the economic impacts of any — any big changes like that or any changes like that. 

But, obviously, one of the most important thing for this administration is the health and safety of American public, and so that’s how — we take that very seriously.  That’s how we’re going to operate.  That is the number-one thing here.  And CDC is — is been working with rele- — relevant agencies to make sure that we — we keep the American public protected here.

AIDE:  Karine, you got to go soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hmm?

AIDE:  You need to go soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my goodness. 

Go ahead.

Q Thank you.  First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with the Putin price hike a few years ago, said you were going to refill it, but now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening.  Why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that.  So, I would refer you to Department of Energy.  I know there were certain components to that and how they were going to move forward in refilling — refilling it.  I — they would have more specifics on that for you. 

Q Okay.  And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, are you speaking of a specific case?

Q There’s the story in New York: an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns, six of them now are out on bail.  Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  That’s an active case.  So, don’t want to comment on an active case. 

But anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable.  We have been very, very clear about that.  And if a — if a person poses a danger to a community, they should be detained pretrial.

 Q So, more generally, then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I will say is — and I’m not going to speak to every state or city here; I — it’s not for me to speak to — we have been very clear about this: Anyone who commits a crime and is found guilty needs to be held accountable.  That’s what this Pr- — the President believes. 

And we are certainly very much — we welcome local law enforcement support and cooperation in apprehending and removing individuals in this country who pose a risk to our national security or also public safety. 

 If they are found guilty, they should be held accountable.  That’s our — that’s where we stand on this.

 Q In the back, perhaps.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

 Q Yeah, thanks, Karine.  Two questions.  One is you referred to the President being outraged by the strike on aid workers.  And in the past, the President has also referred to indiscriminate bombing.  I — I’m wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences and — and why there are no consequences.  So, beyond (inaudible) —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be clear: It’s — it’s not me referring to that.  This is the President’s statement.  I’m just lifting up the statement from last night —

 Q Yeah, I understand.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — where he says, “I am outraged and heartbroken” — the first — the first, basically, line — part of the first line of the President’s — President’s statement from last night, and it speaks for itself.  And he talked about how — he talked about how there’s more that needs to be done to protect cin- — innocent civilians in Gaza.

 Q But can you articulate why —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government.  We’ve been very clear about that.  Those conversations have been tough.  We’ve been very public about those conversations. 

 On this particular incident, there will be an investigation.  There is an investigation currently happening.  The President has said he wants it to be swift, he wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to — there — to see accountability, to bring account — account — right? — to bring accountability.  He said that in his statement.  And he wants to make sure that it is public. 

 So, we’re going to let that process move forward.  And, you know, you said it yourself, the President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. 

 We do not want to see innocent civilians die here.  We do not want that.  And we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations, from the President on down, with our counterparts in — in the Israeli government. 

 And those conversations are tough.  Right?  You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations.  We’ve been clear about that, how — where we stand: that a military operations is not the way to go.  There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in of- — in Rafah. 

 That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday.  That’s why we’re going to have an in-person meeting with the Israeli government. 

The person ta- — the President takes this very seriously.  He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there.  And yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday. 

 And we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government, as we have been.  It’s going to continue.

 Q If I can also go back to something that was asked earlier —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– about the President meeting with any aid workers or anybody who has been inside of Gaza since October 7th.  It is a question I’ve also privately posed to —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q– some of your colleagues, and it feels like a yes-or-no question, whether or not he’s actually met with somebody who’s been inside.  And — and the reason I’m asking is a number of people at the meeting said, to their knowledge, this was the first time the President had actually —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
 Q– spoken to anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7th, and I just wanted —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We- — well, here’s what I can tell you.

 Q– to confirm that.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s met with community leaders who are, obviously, from the Muslim community, the Arab community, Palestinian community.  I would let them speak for themselves on if they’ve been to Gaza. 

 You know, I don’t have any — we don’t have any information to share about that.  We want to be really mindful that the — this meeting and many meetings that we’ve held — had have been private.  We want to respect that. 

 And so, just going to leave it there.  I think what is important, though — like, I understand the question —

 Q I’m saying —

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

 Q– is he getting updates —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.

 Q– from, you know, what the situation tangibly looks like?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — no, I understand.  Right?  I — I get what you’re saying, the — the importance of hearing from folks who have been on the ground in Gaza.  I totally understand that. 

But I think it’s also important that the President is hearing directly from the community — directly from the community who are — some of them are personally affected by what’s happening in Gaza.  Right?

 And so, the fact that senior White House officials are having those conversations — tough conversations is important.  The — the fact that the President has done so as well is important. 

 But I — I hear your question.  But we are also hearing from folks from the community, having these sit-down conversations.

 The community leaders that were here yesterday and met with the President and the Vice President, they asked for a working group conversation, and we listened, and we made that happen.  And the President heard directly from them what they are going through, what they see, how painful it has been for them. 

 So, I think that’s important as well.  We can’t — we can’t not, you know, lift that up as well.

 Go ahead.

 QThank you, Karine.  Just while you’ve been up there, there’s been some reporting that Biden is going to speak to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow.  Can you confirm

— confirm that?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a call to confirm at this time. 

As you know, the President and — and the Prime Minister have spoken several times — more than, I believe, two dozen times — since October 7th.  And — and I’ve said this already: His — both — both administration, both governments talk to each other, their counterparts talk to each other every day.  Just don’t have anything to confirm at this time. 

 Q And on — on Uganda.  A court upheld the anti-LGBTQ law that would mean pri- — prison sentences for people who support gay rights in that country.  I just wanted to see if you have anything from the podium to say about that.  

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, a couple of things.  The announcement that some provisions of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act have been removed by the constitution- — constitutional court is a small and insufficient step towards safeguarding human rights. 

 The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions, which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda’s international reputation. 

 As the President has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination.  It is wrong. 

 We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all in Uganda and also around the world. 

 Okay.  I’m going to take a couple more —

 Q I just have one — one question. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sure.

 Q Sorry.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

 Q On — just going back to the LNG piece for a moment.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q I think, everybody in this room, we have a sense for how the President personally feels about Ukraine and Ukraine funding, and he’s made it abundantly clear over the course of two years. 

 This LNG temporary pause doesn’t have as high of a ho- — pro- — profile.  And can you give any sense for what it is that the President — why he cares so much about it, whether he has shared with you any sort of deep views that he has on this particular very, kind of, targeted policy?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, look, the pause on the pending approvals of LNG export, it is important.  It’s — and it is important to understand the climate and economic impacts — that’s why it’s so important, right? — of these LNG exports.  And it — and it is the impacts on consumers — right? — the impacts on communities.  And that’s why w- — the President supports these LNG pauses.

 So, we’re going to continue to meet our LNG needs of our allies.  And the temporary pause does not impact current LNG exports.  But there is some- — by having these pauses, it does tell us something that is important to know.  And so, that’s why the President supports it.

 As it relates to what we’ve been hearing from the Speaker — Speaker Johnson, we’ve been very clear: In order to — if we really want to help the people of Ukraine, the brave people of Ukraine, we got to get that national security supplemental done.  He has to put that on the floor.  It will get overwhelming bipartisan support.  We know that to be true.  That’s how we can help the people of Ukraine.

 Q I guess what I’m trying to say: Is the Pr- —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q Is the President personally invested in this ban — or this temporary pause the way he is —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, abs- — I mean, look, when we talk about the existential threat of climate, this is something that the President has said it is — it is incredibly important to deal with this emergency.  And he has done more — taken more robust action than any other president.  This is part of this.  Right?

 And so, the President has been — not just talked about it but has taken action.  So, I would look at this as part of the action that he’s taken to deal with climate — the climate crisis.  And, you know, it is a — it is indeed a crisis.

 When he walked into this administration, he talked about four crises that we had to deal with as — as Americans.  And climate change is not just as Americans, as a world.

 And so, climate crisis was one of them.  And he’s taken action, and he’s going to continue to do that.  And he’s been robust.  He’s — it’s been comprehensive — more than any — any other president.

 Q This just serves as, like, a smaller piece to that —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But it’s —

 Q– larger —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a — I would — I would put it together in that larger piece.  Yes, it’s a smaller piece of the — of, obviously, the — the larger initiative of what we’re trying to do, but it’s also critical.  It’s important. 

 And, look, the reports that are out there, as it relates to Speaker Johnson, they are not true.  We know how — the best way to get assistance for Ukraine is to pass that national security supplemental.  That’s what we want to see.  It’ll — it’ll get done in an — overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way.

 Go ahead.

 AIDE:  Karine, (inaudible).

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

 Q Thanks, Karine.  On the World Central Kitchen strike.  I mean, is there concern that this complicates the temporary pier project that — you know, does it make this effort more challenging?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The pier? 

 Q Mm-hmm.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the Department of Defense will have more — an update on the pier.  We’re going to continue to move forward with that. 

 Look, the President — when the President said he’s going to do everything that he can to get that important humanitarian aid into — into Gaza, in to — to the people — the Palestinian people, innocent civilians here, he meant it. 

 And so, you’ve seen us do the — the airplane drops.  You- — we’re — in a couple of weeks, it’s going to be — we’re going to have that temporary pier.  We’re going to continue to work with Israel to get those trucks in.

 We understand the dire situation that is currently happening in — in Gaza, and we are going to do everything that we can to get that aid in.  This is why the hostage deal is so important.  This is why we’ve been working 24/7 to get that done — get that humanitarian aid, get that ceasefire, and get American — American hostages as well as all hostages home to their loved ones.

 I have to go, but we will see you tomorrow, guys.  Thank you so much.

 Q Thanks, Karine.

 Q Thank you.

   1:36 P.M. EDT

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

10:08 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Sorry we’re running a little bit late.  Kirby was giving us a history lesson.

He has a few things here at the top, and then we’ll get through as many questions as we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  Thank you.  So just two things at the top. 

First, I want to just take a moment to recognize both Croatia and Albania, important NATO Allies that are now celebrating their 15th anniversary as part of the Alliance.

Over the years, both countries have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to the Alliance through concrete commitments to its plans to bolster European security, its missions further afield, and through NATO’s partnership for peace.

Both countries have also stood as leaders in their region, showing other countries of the Western Balkans that their aspiration of NATO membership is achievable.

Finally, as you may have seen, the constitutional court in Uganda partially overturned the Anti-Homosexuality Act today.  The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions of that act, which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda’s international reputation.  And our concerns are particularly around this language that imposes prison sentences for up to 20 years for, quote, “promoting homosexuality,” unquote, and permitting a life sentence for same-sex conduct.

As the President has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination.  It’s just plain wrong. 

We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all the people of Uganda and around the world. 

And with that, I think we can take some questions.

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

Q    Hey there, John.  Why shouldn’t we conclude that this was, in fact, a deliberate strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, why should you or why shouldn’t you?  I didn’t —

Q    Why should we not conclude that this was a deliberate strike?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I think I would refer you to Israeli authorities, Steve, to speak to what they have learned and — well, what they have said and what they have learned about this.  I won’t speak for IDF operations one way or the other.

As I said yesterday, they’re investigating it, and we have every expectation — we do expect that they will do a thorough job, a swift job, and that they’ll be transparent about it, what they find. 

So all I know is they’ve completed their preliminary investigation.  I think you saw a comment from the Southern Command chief of staff yesterday saying he’s received that and they’re reviewing it.  And it will inform what will become a larger — what they’re calling an independent investigation. 

So I think we need to let them investigate and let them read out their conclusions.

Q    And just two more things, John.  Is the U.S. doing a separate investigation rather than relying on the Israeli version of events?

MR. KIRBY:  No, we have no plans to conduct a separate investigation. 

Q    And lastly, has Jake Sullivan postponed his trip to Saudi Arabia?  And if so, is this the reason why?

MR. KIRBY:  So, Jake was planning to head to the region this week.  That trip has been postponed.  And when we have more on that to speak to, we’ll do that.  He’s recuperating from a cracked rib, and that has affected his ability to travel a bit.

Q    Cracked rib?

MR. KIRBY:  Cracked rib.

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

Q    Hi, John.  President Biden’s statement last night made clear that he believes Israel has not done enough to protect aid workers, and called it a major reason why distributing humanitarian aid has been so difficult.  Will the President ask the Israeli government to take any specific action to rectify what he’s really sort of identified as a core issue? 

And more broadly, is there any sort of expected consequences for Israel as a result of this incident?  Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I think we want to see the investigation, and my answer to Steve stands.  We need to see what they find as a result of this incident.  They have already admitted that that they conducted this strike.  They have already publicly said that they’re at fault for this strike.  And they’re working their way through the specific findings and details.  And I think we need to let them finish that work and speak to it themselves. 

So I’m not prepared at this point to speculate about anything we might or might not do.  You know, we’re going to have to wait to see what the investigation says. 

I will say a couple of things.  We are still supporting Israel’s ability to defend itself against this still-viable threat.  And that’s going to continue.

And then, I’m sorry, you had a question at the top that I think I blew off.

Q    Just, specifically, if there is anything that the President would like to see done differently, because the statement last night really sort of identified that they haven’t done enough on protecting aid workers.  So how do you fix that?

MR. KIRBY:  Of course — of course, we want to see them do things differently to prevent civilian casualties.  Absolutely.  And that’s been an ongoing conversation that we’ve been having with them for many months, in terms of being more precise, being more targeted, being more cautious. 

One of the reasons why we plan to have continued conversations with them about Rafah is because we don’t believe that a major ground operation against those Rafah battalions and — I’m sorry, those Hamas battalions in Rafah — is the right approach.  We believe there’s another way to get after that threat, and we want to share with them some of our views on that. 

So, yes, of course we have and will continue to talk to them about how to do things differently, how to do things more efficiently, how to do things more safely, and certainly how to do things in a way that minimizes damage to civilian infrastructure and, of course, civilian lives.

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

Q    Hey there.  On Nippon Steel and the Japanese prime minister’s visit to the White House that’s coming up: John, can you share anything on what we might expect from Kishida on the Nippon Steel deal?  Is the White House hoping for any reassurances on that?  Or can you share anything on what the President might share with Japan about the U.S. Steel situation? Thanks. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, JJ, I’m afraid I’m not going to be very satisfying to you today.  I’m not going to get ahead of that meeting and those discussions.  You’ve seen the President’s comments on the Nippon Steel issue.  I can’t improve upon where his head is in terms of protecting U.S. Steel workers and the American economy. 

But the President is very much looking forward to this state visit.  There is an awful lot of important things to talk about with Prime Minister Kishida.  Certainly, our two economies are on that agenda, and I have no question that issues of economic — economy and trade will come up. 

That said, there’ll be issues to talk about in terms of the security environment, concerns about the DPRK, concerns about aggressive PRC actions.  There’ll be things to talk about in terms of people-to-people exchanges between our two countries.  And quite frankly, there’ll be plenty of opportunities to talk about how we can continue not only our bilateral cooperation with Japan but our trilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea. 

So, lots on the agenda.  Lots to talk about including, of course, how we can both work together closely with the Philippines. 

So, there’s an awful lot there.  And I think I just don’t want to get too far ahead of a particular item like the Nippon Steel thing.

Q    Thank you.  And then, just one other thing.  On Jake Sullivan’s injury, can you say if this was just like a personal fall or something?  Or was he harmed by someone?

MR. KIRBY:  No, this was not — so, yeah, the fact that he’s recovering from this cracked rib is contributing to the postponement.  That’s point one.  Point two is, this was a minor accident of his own.  It was not caused by anybody.  It was not the result of a nefarious act or anything like that. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Thank you.  I was going to ask about Jake too.  But I guess if there’s no more that you can tell us — it sounds like maybe like a basketball or some kind of sports injury — but if anything else would be helpful. 

But in the meantime, if I could ask about Ukraine.  There is a proposal at NATO to have NATO take over leadership of the Ukraine working group that coordinates the assistance — the military assistance to Ukraine, apparently born out of both a concern of sort of a lack of U.S. leadership, given the Ukraine funding tie-up in Congress, but also the possibility of a return of Donald Trump next year. 

Does the U.S. support shifting that leadership over to NATO and the U.S. sort of taking a backseat in directing that money?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, look, I’m not going to get ahead of some — what sounds to me like some preliminary discussions there.  But amongst NATO Allies, they can speak to this. 

What I can tell you, though, Mike, is that the Ukraine Defense Contact Group has been critical in bringing together 50-some-odd countries to contribute to Ukraine’s security assistance needs.  And that was really an idea that was born from Secretary Austin and that he has convened now more than a dozen times, really, the result of American convening power, and an example of how President Biden has really revitalized our leadership on the world stage to bring countries together to do this. 

We think it’s important.  And it is bigger than NATO.  It’s bigger than the Alliance.  As I said, 50-some-odd countries around the world.  And what brought them together was American leadership.  The President believes that that leadership remains vital, remains important.  And he’s confident that we’re going to be able to continue to demonstrate that leadership through the contact group.

Q    So it sounds like you guys would not support shifting that leadership.  Or am I reading too much?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speculate about some hypothetical conversations that some NATO Allies may or may not be having.

The contact group has been very, very effective.  We’re going to continue to lead and convene it.  And we know that our leadership of that contact group is valued, it’s important.  We get terrific feedback from all the nations that are participating in it.

I want to just make two points.  Let me foot-stomp them.  First one, I’ve already said, is that it is bigger than NATO.  It’s 50-some-odd nations all around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific.  And what brought them together was American leadership.  What’s keeping them together is American leadership. 

And the second point I want to make is that NATO has been a part of that process since the beginning.  Jens Stoltenberg, he’s attended every single one of them, including the first one. 

So we certainly value the contributions of the Alliance proper but also individual Alliance members in the contact group.  And we would certainly expect that to continue. 

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

Q    Hi.  Thank you.  Just wanted to ask, John, if there’s any update to the timing of the rescheduled in-person visit from the Israeli delegation. 

And then ask you, looking ahead to the visit by the Iraqi prime minister, are you all expecting any sort of finalization of the mil-to-mil talks in terms of the — or announcement regarding a changed U.S military posture in Iraq during that visit?

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Missy.  On the Israeli delegation, I think we’re hoping to get an in-person meeting on the books next week.  We’ll have more detail for you as we get closer to it.

On the prime minister’s visit, we very much see this as a great opportunity to continue discussions with him and his team about the counter-ISIS efforts in Iraq and what that needs to look like going forward. 

I would not expect coming out of this visit that it’ll be a decision or meeting in terms of, you know, there’ll be some sort of final conclusion about what that posture looks like going forward.  But, absolutely, we will spend time with him talking about what it needs to look like given the threat that ISIS continues to pose both in Iraq and in Syria.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Weijia with CBS.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  And thank you, John.  Back to the humanitarian strike, John.  Do you know whether any U.S.-supplied weapons or resources were involved to carry out that strike?

MR. KIRBY:  I do not know the answer to that question.

Q    And if you don’t issue an investigation, as you said the U.S. would not, how will you ever know?  And if you don’t ever know, how do you answer to the families, including that of an American who was killed?

MR. KIRBY:  We expect the Israelis to conduct a thorough, comprehensive, complete, and transparent investigation.  We look forward to finding out the results of that investigation.  And we’ll move on from there.

But, my goodness, they just completed a preliminary investigation in, you know, less than 48 hours.  And they’re working their way through that, and that will inform a broader investigation.  And we’ve made clear our expectations for the results of that investigation.  And I don’t think it would behoove any of us to get ahead of it. 

Q    And have you set a deadline for Israel to complete that investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  No, we have not.

Q    And an unrelated question.  Last night, President Biden received a letter from an eight-year-old orphan in Rafah from Dr. Ahmad, who attended the meeting last night.  Do you know if the President has had a chance to read the letter and his response to that little girl?

MR. KIRBY:  I do not.  I’ll have to take that question. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Just first on the postponed Jake Sullivan trip.  Is this just that he is no longer going, or will other members of the administration travel there, or are they already traveling there without him?

MR. KIRBY:  No, there was going to be a small team that was going to accompany Jake.  And so, nobody is going.  I mean, it was a purposeful trip in that regard.  And again, his injury has contributed to the delay.  And he looks forward to getting it back on schedule as soon as possible. 

Q    Okay.  So the whole delegation, they are no longer going, but it will presumably be rescheduled once he is feeling better? 

MR. KIRBY:  That is correct. 

Q    Okay.  And I was wondering, just back to the aid workers that were killed, can you just help us understand what is stopping the administration from saying the U.S. can no longer support Israel’s current efforts to go after Hamas in the way that it is?  Not that the U.S. no longer supports Israel but that it cannot support the current war that it is waging, given that seven, eight workers, including an American, are dead.  The President says he’s outraged.  And he was pretty explicit last night in saying that Israel is entirely to blame for their deaths. 

MR. KIRBY:  I guess I just have to challenge a little bit the premise of the question, MJ.  We have been very clear with the Israelis privately — and, my goodness, we’ve been clear publicly — that the way they are prosecuting their operations is not always, in every case, the best way to do that.  We have said there have been too many civilians killed.  We have talked about the civilian infrastructure that’s been destroyed.  We have been very clear about our concerns and objections over some obstacles that have been put in the way of getting additional humanitarian assistance in.  And nobody is working harder than Joe Biden or this administration on trying to get a ceasefire in place so that we can get the hostages out. 

So I just — I guess I’m just going to take issue with, again, the premise of the question.  We have been exceedingly consistent and clear with our expectations for the prosecution of these operations. 

Q    Just to be clear, so you are saying you think the administration has already been clear to the Israelis that it does not support Israel’s current efforts in Gaza, the way that it is currently waging this war?

MR. KIRBY:  We have been very clear with the Israelis on the some of the specifics of their operations, some of the specifics regarding getting assistance into Gaza.  And those conversations have happened privately at various levels, including at the President’s level and certainly at staff levels. 

Now, I want to make it clear that while we take issue with aspects of how operations are being conducted — particularly like saying, quite frankly, publicly, we don’t support a ground operation in Rafah — we also continue to believe and continue to act on the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself against a still-viable threat by Hamas.  They still have every right and responsibility to their people to eliminate that threat after the 7th of October.  And so, that support for Israel continues.  No country should have to live next door to a threat that is truly genocidal, as Hamas has been. 

So while we make no bones about the fact that we have certain issues about some of the way things are being done, we also make no bones about the fact that Israel is going to continue to have American support for the fight that they’re in to eliminate the threat from Hamas.

Q    You said earlier that you would first need to see the results of the investigation before you can speak to what actions the U.S. might take after this incident.  You said yourself, though, that Israel has already said, you know, it was their mistake, it was their fault.  And we already know, of course, that seven people are dead.  So what more do you think the administration could possibly learn from the investigation?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the Israelis want to learn from the investigation.  They want to learn exactly how it happened.  And it’s one thing to be able to admit, and they have, that they perpetrated this attack and that they — and that, obviously, it was not the intended result.  But they, too, want to learn what decisions were made that led to this attack and where the fault lies. 

And as I said yesterday, we firmly believe that if accountability needs to be observed, then we want to see accountability observed for people who may have — you know, who may have acted here inappropriately.  But again, we don’t know that. 

So we need to let the investigation conclude.  We need to see what they learn.  And we need to see, just as importantly, what they do about what they’ve learned, what changes they’re willing to make, what accountability they’re willing to observe.  We’re just not there yet.  So we need to let them finish their work. 

In the meantime, we have made very clear, all the way up to the President’s level, our outrage about this attack and the result of it, of course, and our deep, deep concern about this particular operation.

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

Q    Hey, good morning, Kirby.  Thanks for doing this.  The Human Rights Watch director told ABC today that the U.S. could be legally complicit in supplying weapons to countries that are blocking aid, speaking about the war in Gaza.  She said, “If you’re helping another party commit grave abuses against civilians, then you risk being complicit in those abuses,” saying that’s “a matter of international law.”  Just wanted to get your response to the director. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not an international lawyer.  I can tell you that we share the concerns of so many groups out there about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is why almost — well, not almost; actually, from the beginning of this conflict — and then urging and pushing the Israelis to do more to get humanitarian assistance in to allow the flow into Gaza.  It’s why we’re doing airdrops.  It’s why we got a temporary pier that’s on the way over there to be able to assist with maritime loading of humanitarian assistance and getting that into Gaza. 

So we share the concerns over what’s going on inside Gaza with the Palestinian people, and we’re doing everything we can to try to alleviate that. 

It’s also why we continue to push for a ceasefire that will allow for the hostages to get out and a period of calm for about six weeks so that more humanitarian assistance can get in.

Again, I’m not a lawyer here, but I would also tell you, as I said yesterday from the podium, the State Department continues to review incidents as they arise.  And as I said yesterday, they haven’t found an incident yet that has pointed to a violation of international humanitarian law.  But they continue to do that work, as they should.

Q    And we also saw the Australian Prime Minister speak directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu following the strike.  Should we expect President Biden to do the same?  And if not, why isn’t he picking up the phone to speak to Netanyahu if an American was killed in this strike?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as you know, speaks routinely and as appropriate with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  He has spoken to him many times in the past since the 7th of October.  He will speak to him again.  I don’t have a call to speak to or to preview at this time. 

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

Q    Hi there.  Thanks, Kirby.  I had (inaudible) questions.  Yesterday, I know there were a couple of doctors who were at the White House, meeting with the President, who’d recently been inside of Gaza.  And the way they characterized their meeting was that they were — the first time since October 7th that the President had heard from anybody who’s been inside of Gaza.  And I wanted to assess: Is that accurate?  Had the President, prior to yesterday, not spoken to any aid workers or anybody else who had been inside of Gaza since October 7th?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m going to have to take your question. 

MODERATOR:  We’re going to go on to our next question.  Morgan with Semafor.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I have two questions.  Just, first, on the (inaudible) earthquake in Taiwan.  I’m just wondering how worried the White House is about the impact on the chip supply chain and if there’s anything you’re doing to address those concerns. 

And then secondly, I know you mentioned yesterday that the President and President Xi talked about TikTok, and I was just wondering if you could say how that came up on the call yesterday.  Did President Xi raise it?  Is that something that President Biden raised?  Just a little more detail there.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on the earthquake, I mean, our first and, frankly, our only concern right now is for the safety and security of people in the region who could be affected by the earthquake and its aftermath. 

And we’re in touch with authorities, as you might expect we would be.  We certainly stand by to assist in any way that might be required.  But that’s where our focus is right now, not on follow-on potential economic impact one way or the other, or for high tech.  Our concern is for the lives and livelihoods.  And our thoughts and prayers are with everybody who was affected by the earthquake.  We’ll continue to monitor it as we have overnight.

On TikTok, President Xi raised the issue, and President Biden responded to the concerns that President Xi raised.  And as I said yesterday at the podium, he responded by making it clear to President Xi that this was not about a ban on TikTok, that this was about divestiture, that this was about preserving the data security of the American people and our own national security interests.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Serena with Scripps.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I wanted to follow up on last night’s meeting at the White House.  Are you going to provide a readout of that in any way? 

And are there any plans for the President to speak to the American aid worker that was — family that was killed?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know about a readout for the Iftar meeting last night.  I’d refer you to White House Communications on that.  That’s not something that would be handled by the National Security Council.

And, shoot, I forgot your second one.  I meant to write it down and I didn’t.  What was your second one?

Q    Oh, the family of the American aid worker. 

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, yes.  As I said yesterday, the State Department has made initial contact with the family.  I think you can understand this is a delicate moment for them.  And, you know, they did express a desire for some time to process the news.  And so, I think we’re going to give them that time.  But obviously, first and foremost, they have the President’s and the First Lady’s condolences. 

And as he has in the past, when it’s appropriate, he’ll make the necessary, you know, outreach.  But again, right now, the family is going through a very difficult time, and we want to respect their — we want to respect their privacy and, quite frankly, their grieving process. 

Q    Are there any concerns that that strike on the aid workers are going to impact negatively the ceasefire and hostage negotiations that are ongoing?  Is there an update on the proposal that was made to Hamas?

MR. KIRBY:  No, I don’t have an update for you.  I don’t know and I wouldn’t anticipate any particular impact on those discussions as a result of the strike yesterday.  But I also, at the same time, don’t have, again, any progress to report to you.  We’re still working hard at this, trying to get this deal in place.  And we’re going to — we’re going to stay at that work.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Israel Channel 13.

Q    Hi, Admiral.  Thank you so much for doing this again.  I’m wondering about the meeting — the virtual meeting between the Israelis and Sullivan and the rest of the team here in the U.S. about Rafah.  I do understand that there are a few major gaps between Israel and the U.S., mainly regarding the evacuation of the civilians, but other issues as well.  Can you tell us a little bit about that?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  (Laughs.)  I don’t think that would be useful for me to do in this particular setting, to lay out their views versus our views.  The big muscle movements are the same, Neria, which is that we don’t support a ground operation in Rafah, and we still believe that whatever the Israelis decide to do about Rafah, they’ve got to factor in the 1.5 million refugees that are there. 

And we were grateful for the opportunity to have that virtual discussion.  As I said earlier, hopefully in the next week, sometime in the next week, we hope to do an in-person meeting to continue that discussion. 

I would look at what happened in the virtual discussion this week as sort of the beginning of that conversation, the beginning of that process of talking to them about what Rafah looks like now and what their intentions are for operations against those Hamas battalions that are still there. 

Q    And do you have any news about hostages deal, the negotiations?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  As I said to the previous question, I don’t have an update for you, except to say that we continue to work very, very hard at it. 

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

Q    Hi there.  Thanks for doing this again.  Just going back to the strike on the aid workers in Gaza.  I mean, the statement last night from the President was one of his strongest yet, and he said, you know, that his rhetoric has been getting tougher and tougher on Israel about this kind of thing.  But they just don’t seem to be listening.  I mean, this must be a source of frustration for the President, must it not?

MR. KIRBY:  I think you could sense the frustration in that statement yesterday.

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

Q    Good morning.  Thank you for doing this.  Just a follow-up on what happened on the incident with the World Central Kitchen. 

John, you said that you’re waiting for the results of the investigation to conclude, but can you give us an example of when Israel, in the last six months, investigated any incidents and held anybody accountable, whether civilians carrying white flags were killed, whether civilians at the food trucks were killed, whether mass bodies or mass graves that are being reported and not investigated? 

Many people believe the reason the Israelis admitted this time is because they caught red-handed because the workers were international members of the World Central Kitchen.  And their government is able to tell that it was an Israeli rocket, and Israelis cannot just basically cloud it and say, “Maybe we don’t know, maybe it’s crossfire, maybe it’s Hamas.” 

So how can you say with certainty that all these incidents, that could be by mistake, and yet you don’t have anybody on the ground — you have no U.S. intelligence on the ground — and you always seem to take the Israeli point of view as a fact?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, Nadia, I mean, that’s not even really a question, to be honest with you.  That is a — that’s a statement that you just made.  And I understand where you’re coming from. 

I don’t think you can look at what we’ve been saying, what we’ve been doing, or even the President’s statement last night, and say that we’ve somehow gone easy on Israel in every regard. 

Now, you can talk to the Israelis about their individual events; you seem to have reached conclusions about all of them yourself.  So I recommend that you talk to the Israelis about these incidents and see for yourself what their answers are for them. 

They have investigated some of these events in the past, and they have — as I’ve said from the podium, they have taken actions in certain regards and in certain ways to limit and to try to be more mindful of civilian casualties.  Is it enough? Absolutely not.  It’s not enough.  And the President said that last night in his statement; there’s been too many civilian casualties.  And the President said in his statement last night that he’s outraged about this attack. 

And I have said myself, today and yesterday, that we’re going to see what the investigation says, and then we’ll — you know, we’ll make decisions as a result of that. 

But I don’t know how differently to put it.  Israel has a right to defend itself.  Maybe not everybody believes that, but they do.

Q    Oh, I think —

MR. KIRBY:  And maybe not everybody believes — wait a second.  Maybe not everybody believes that they’re living next to a genocidal threat, but they are. 

And so, we’re going to continue to support them.  No country should have to live like that.  No country should have to be attacked, like they were on the 7th of October, with 1,200 people slaughtered.

At the same time, as a modern military and a democracy, they have obligations to the innocent people of Gaza.  And they have not always met those obligations. 

And the United States, more than any other nation — and you can’t name me another nation, Nadia — that hasn’t also put it directly to the Israelis about concerns about how they have not allowed more humanitarian assistance again, about how they have to be more careful about civilian casualties.  You name me another leader that has been more direct and more consistent than President Biden and this administration. 

So, again, I’m sorry, I’m just going to have to take issue with the premise of your statement.  We are working very closely with them.  We will continue to work closely with them to make sure they can defend themselves but also that they do it in a way that is in keeping with the highest standards of the law of armed conflict. 

Q    John, I just want to put it on the record: Neither me or any of my colleagues ever question the right of Israel to defend itself.  That’s for the record.  So I just wanted to tell you that our questions are always about the methods, not about the right to defend — Israel’s right to defend itself.  Just want to make that clear.

MR. KIRBY:  And my response, Nadia, is that we’re concerned about the methods too.  I don’t know how we can be more clear.  Every single day we’re talking about the way this war is being prosecuted.  And it’s important to us; it matters how they do this.  And that is why we are having these tough conversations with them.  And that is why you’ve heard — you saw it for yourself in the statement that the President issued, you know, his outrage, his frustration over this particular attack as it reflects a culmination of similar events.  I said yesterday it’s not the first time that this has happened.  And so, yes, we’re frustrated by this.

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

Q    Yeah, thanks, John.  So just, I guess, to put an overall cap on this, it sounds like the administration will not change its approach to Israel after the strike; it’s going to continue as is, the same sort of criticisms and the same sort of

support.  So there’s that.   

MR. KIRBY:  Well, wait.  Hang on just second now.

Q    Go ahead.  Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was: We are still supporting their right to defend themselves, and we’re going to continue to do that.  We’re also going to see what the results of the investigation is.  I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet.

Q    Okay.  Gotcha.  On the Biden-Xi call, did they discuss anything about the plans to have the trilateral patrols of the South China Sea with the Philippines and Japan?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    Okay.  And last bit.  Did the strike complicate any efforts by the administration to recruit that aid partner to distribute more aid into Gaza from the temporary pier?

MR. KIRBY:  What aid partner are you speaking about, Alex?

Q    Or is the U.S. trying to — isn’t the U.S. trying to recruit somebody to help bring the aid to sort of that last mile?  Or do I have that wrong?

MR. KIRBY:   Oh, okay.  I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your question. 

I don’t know of any effect on those efforts at this early time, Alex.  You know, I know that Chef Andrés said he was going to stop for a while.  We know the World Food Program has said that too.  But we’re still discussing the modalities of — well, the maritime effort to get humanitarian assistance in and what that’s going to look like.  And I think, you know, we’re just — it’s just too soon after the strike to know what sort of larger strategic impact this is going to have.  

We obviously are going to do everything we can to work towards the continued delivery of humanitarian assistance at an increased level.  So while we certainly understand why some aid organizations would have qualms about this — certainly within their rights to do that, given what happened; no question about it — but it’s not going to stop or lessen our efforts to do what we can to increase the flow of aid.  That’s, again, while our airdrops continue, while we’re working on this temporary pier, all that is indicative of our effort to try to increase the flow. 

And I want to come back, if I can, to foot-stomping that that’s why we’re working so hard on this temporary ceasefire — to get some security, some calm in place, not only so that the hostages can move safely home and out but so that more aid can get in and around. 

One of the challenges of humanitarian assistance — and there are many — is, in fact, the combat operations themselves.  It’s a war zone.  And it’s difficult to move trucks around inside a combat zone and particularly a confined urban environment like that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one more question, so we’ll go to James Rosen. 

Q    Samantha, thank you.  Admiral, thank you.  Thank you both, as always.  Since we hear and see so little of each other these days, I was hoping you might indulge three questions from me, in keeping with the multiple-question format employed by some of the reporters on the call.  I have in mind three different topics.  At least two of them can be addressed through simple yes-or-no answers. 

First, on the Mideast, is it the assessment of NSC that the airstrikes the U.S. conducted earlier this year against the Houthis and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq succeeded in establishing deterrence in the region?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, what we believe is that these attacks have definitely degraded Houthi capabilities.  Have they eliminated them?  No.  And the Houthis still conduct attacks. 

I want to make it clear though, at the front, James — and you don’t have to look any further than the Secretary of Defense, who made this more clear than I — this is about, and has been from the beginning, about taking away capability from the Houthis.  That’s the purpose of it.

Q    Second question.  Can you confirm that no facet or component of the national security apparatus, including but not limited to investigations on masking or surveillance in any form, is presently trained or focused on any current American political campaign?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not sure how to answer that question.  Are you suggesting or you’re asking —

Q    I’ll repeat it, if that would help.

MR. KIRBY:  — is the intelligence community spying on a political candidate?

Q    Correct.  Can you confirm that no facet or component of the national security apparatus is presently trained or focused on any current American political campaign?

MR. KIRBY:  This is a question beyond the NSC’s purview.  But just to put a fork in it, there’s no spying on a political candidate. 

Q    Lastly, on TikTok, which examples should Americans regard as a model for them to follow: that of the Biden administration, which has banned TikTok from federal devices, or that of the Biden campaign, which makes active use of TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has been very clear about this.  Because of —

Q    I don’t think it’s very clear, John.  I think it’s very confused messaging.  

MR. KIRBY:  Well, so if you just let me finish, maybe we can help clear this up.

TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance gives us pause and reason to be concerned about the security of data on that application and the use of that data by a company that has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

We don’t want to ban the application.  We want divestiture of the ownership of the company so that Americans, and certainly inside the national security establishment, we can take a measure of comfort that that data is not going to be mishandled.  That is very consistent.  That’s what we’ve been doing. 

I’m not going to speak for the campaign.  I can only speak for the National Security Council and speak for the President in the context of the National Security Council.  And from that perspective, we have been nothing but consistent. 

Q    Well, can’t you understand how Americans might be confused when they see a chief executive who declares the use of this platform a national security problem, and a candidate, in the very same person, who makes active use of that platform?  You can understand why Americans might be confused about that, can’t you?

MR. KIRBY:  I never make the mistake of trying to speak for the American people or trying to claim that I understand what they are or are not confused about. 

All I can tell you — and I’m not confused about this — is that there are significant national security concerns about that application on government devices, which is why we’re not allowed to use it on government devices. 

And number two, that is why the President continues to want to see a divestiture of the company so that it’s not owned by ByteDance, so that the Chinese Communist Party is not in control of the data that TikTok is able to assemble on its users. 

And I think that that — there’s reassurance there if, in fact, we can move towards that divest issue. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And as always, if we weren’t able to get to you, hit up the distro and we’ll try to get back to you as quick as possible. Thanks, everyone.

10:51 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.

1:43 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No bunny today.  No bunny.  Just — just me and the Admiral and the team.  (Laughs.)    Okay. 

So, yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the state’s dangerous abortion ban, putting desperately needed medical care further out of reach for millions of women.  What’s worse, this ruling is also expected to trigger Governor DeSantis’s even more extreme ban that would prevent women from accessing care before many even know they are pregnant.

We will continue to stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.  President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to work to protect reproductive freedom and call on Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Second, starting this week, the White House will push congressional Republicans to extend funding for the Affordable — the Affordable Connectivity Program.  Created as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the program is helping over 23 million Americans save between 30 bucks and 75 bucks per month on high-speed Internet costs.  But funding for the program is set to expire, and millions of Americans will lose this benefit in the coming weeks.

Six months ago, President Biden sent a request to Congress for $6 billion in supplemental funding to extend the program, but Republicans in Congress have failed to act.

If congressional Republicans continue to do nothing, tens of millions of their own constituents will see their Internet cost go up.  And some may lose access to high-speed Internet altogether.

Finally — actually, additionally — under the President’s Unity Agenda, we are prioritizing effort to counter the trafficking of illicit drugs to save lives.  We are leading initiatives to step up counternarcotics cooperation, including with Mexico and the PRC, and launch the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, which brings together more than 150 countries against cartels and illicit finance.

Working with our Mexican — Mexican partners, we have charged leaders of the Sinula — Sinula [Sinaloa] cartel.  And yesterday, we charged 41 individuals connected to the Jala- — Jalasco [Jalisco] New Generation Cartel.  To date, we have sanctioned over 290 individuals and entities involved in the global illicit drug trade.

A lot more work is needed.  And that’s why the President is pushing hard for the House to pass the Senate’s border security agreement — or for — for Congress, more broadly, obviously, because it did not get thr- — did not get out of the Senate yet — for Congress to push forth the border security agreement, which would provide additional technology to stop these illicit drugs.

Now, it’s important to acknowledge when a mistake has been made and take responsibility for it.  So, I want to recognize the Daily Caller for having the integrity to retract their story about the false claims that circulated this week about the Easter Egg Roll.

Now, I’m quoting from their retraction here: “The ban of religious symbolism on eggs as part of the White House Easter Egg Art Contest has been longstanding, dating back decades, and the Biden administration did not make any modifications to this rule.”

So, we hope others learn from their good example.  So, I’ll leave that there.

And finally — finally, I want to read out the President — the President who — the President’s call.  He called Chef José Andrés to express that he’s heartbroken by his — by this news of the airstrike that killed seven aid workers and to express and share his deepest condolences.  The President conveyed he is grieving with the entire World Kitchen — World Central Kitchen family. 

The President felt it was important to recognize the tremendous contribution World Central Kitchen made — has made to the people in Gaza and the people — and people around the world.  The President conveyed he will make clear to Israel that humanitarian aid workers must be protected.

Now, as you can see, Admiral John Kirby is here to discuss the President’s call with President Xi and — and events in the Middle East.

Admiral, the floor is yours.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  As you all know, President Biden spoke by phone today with President Xi — Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China.  The purpose of the call was to build on the two leaders’ meeting in Woodside, California, back in November of last year.

Over the course of about an hour and 45 minutes, the two leaders held a candid and constructive discussion on a range of bilateral, regional, and global issues, including areas of cooperation and areas of differences.  They encouraged continued progress on issues discussed at the Woodside Summit, including counternarcotics cooperation, ongoing military-to-military communications, talks to address artificial-intelligence-related risks, and continuing efforts on climate change and people-to-people exchanges.

President Biden also emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and he reaffirmed the importance of the rule of law and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

He raised concerns over the PRC’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base and its impact on European and transatlantic security.  And he emphasized that the United States’s — he emphasized the U.S.’s enduring commitment to the complete denu- — denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

President Biden also raised continued concerns about the PRC’s unfair trade policies and non-market economic practices, which harm American workers and families. 

President Biden also emphasized that the United States will continue to take necessary action to prevent advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our national security, without unduly limiting trade and investment.

The President also repeated his call for China to release U.S. citizens who are wrongfully detained or under exit bans.

Now, we believe that there is no substitute for regular communication at the leader level to effectively manage this complex and often tense bilateral relationship, and both presidents agreed to pick up the phone and speak when needed. 

Following the leaders’ call, we will continue to advance our interests through Cabinet-level diplomacy, including visits to China by Secretary of the Treasury Yellen and in coming days — I’m sorry, in coming days — and by Secretary Blinken in coming weeks.

Now, if I could just — as Karine noted, just turn briefly to events in the Middle East.  We were outraged to learn of an IDF strike that killed a number of civilian humanitarian workers yesterday from the World Central Kitchen, which has been relentless in working to get food to those who are hungry in Gaza and, quite frankly, around the world.

We send our deepest condolences to their families and loved ones.

We’ve seen the comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu and from the Israeli Defense Forces about their commitment to conduct an investigation.  As we understand it, a preliminary investigation has been completed today and presented to the Army Chief of Staff, and we’ll — we’ll obviously look to see what they — what they discover in this preliminary one.

But we expect a broader investigation to be conducted and to be done so in a swift and comprehensive manner.  We hope that those findings will be made public and that there is appropriate accountability held.

But — I’m sorry.  More than 200 aid workers have been killed in this conflict, making it one of the worst for aid workers in recent history.  This incident is emblematic of a larger problem and evidence of why distribution of aid in Gaza has been so challenging.

But what — beyond the strike, what is clear is that the IDF must do much more — must do — must do much more to improve deconfliction processes so that civilians and humanitarian aid workers are protected. 

The U.S. will continue to press Israel to do more as well to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers.  And we’ll continue to do all we can to deliver this assistance to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, do you have any worries regarding Israel and Gaza about the floating dock?  And how can aid workers be protected?

MR. KIRBY:  “Worries” — what do you mean by “worries”?

Q    Any concerns about its status, viability?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, let me break that up —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  — a couple of ways. 

Q    Yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  I mean, obvi- — obviously the temporary pier — it’s known as a JLOTS — joint logistics over-the-shore — it’s on its way to the Eastern Mediterranean right now. 

It’s not — hasn’t arrived yet, and it’ll take some time once it gets there to be assembled and to achieve what we call interim operating capability.  We expect that — we expect that that will happen in coming weeks.  There’s no concern in terms of our ability and the skills taken to — needed to build it and to get it up and running. 

What we are working with partners in the region are two things.  One is the logistics flow, getting — getting the maritime materials to the pier, and then working the Israelis, in particular, about how that pier is protected and secured and how the aid, the material gets from the pier into Gaza and further distributed.

Those modalities are still being worked out.

Q    And do the recent events, like the strike you referenced, raise additional —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, believe me, we’re under no — no illusion about the fact that Gaza is a war zone.  And forced protection of our troops, which will not be entering Gaza, will be first and foremost in the President’s mind as well as our military leaders to make sure that they can operate that pier — assemble it and operate it in a safe way.

But, believe me, we’re — we’re well aware Gaza is a — is a war zone.  And, frank- — fra- — that it is a war zone is, again, what makes it so challenging to get the humanitarian aid to people in need.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks.  John, you said that the White House is “outraged” by the strike that killed these World Central Kitchen workers.  Has the White House already conveyed that outrage to anyone in the Israeli government?  And what was their response?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I won’t speak for the Israelis.  We — we’ve been very clear about our feelings over — over this particular strike and our expectations of — of the Israelis.

Q    Have they provided or has the Pentagon been able to gain any understanding of what happened here yet?  I know it’s early, but it sounds, based on what José Andrés has said, that these workers were doing everything right.  Their vehicle was marked.  They were in a safe zone.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    What more could they have done?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.  It’s really — I mean, it’s devastating to — to see these images and to hear these early reports about the steps that they tried to take to protect themselves.  But the Israelis — look, they’ve already said this was on them and they’re doing this investigation. 

We obviously want to — want to make sure that that investigation gets completed and is as transparent as possible and, as I said in my opening statement, that there’s accountability to be — to be held here.

Q    One quick question on — on China.  What was the President’s message to the President when it comes to Chinese misinformation campaigns or any effort by the Chinese government or people associated with the Chinese government to interfere with the 2024 election?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just say that we’ve been clear consistently, even going back to the November meeting in California, about our concerns over our own election security and — and efforts by certain actors, including some from the PRC, to — to affect that.

Q    So, there was no new message in this conversation?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a new message to read out to you today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  On the death of those World Central Kitchen aid workers, which includes one American who was killed, Netanyahu’s reaction was, quote, “It happens in war.”  What is your reaction to that comment from Netanyahu?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think it’d be useful for me to get into a tit for tat here with the Prime Minister of Israel from the podium.  We’ve been very clear about our expectations for this investigation.  We noted that the Prime Minister said himself there will be an investigation.  So has his military said that.

We look forward to that investigation being thorough and qui- — and swiftly done and, as I said, that — that it’ll be transparent, the results of it, and that if there’s accountability that needs to be had, that it will be had.

Q    But how can you take Netanyahu at his word?  As Nancy was saying, this was a deconflicted zone.  They had marked their car.  They had even coordinated their movements with the IDF. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, and as I said in my opening statement, the — obviously, setting aside this incident, because this isn’t the first one, there are issues of deconfliction that clearly need to be fleshed out and improved.

Q    So, how can the U.S. continue to send aid to Israel without any conditions?  Yes, they have a right to defend —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not sending aid to Israel.  We’re sending aid into Gaza.  And that’s —

Q    Well, weapons.  How can they —

Q    Military aid.

Q    How can the U.S. continue to send military aid to Is- —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, military assistance.

Q    — Israel without any conditions?  Is there no red line that —

MR. KIRBY:  Now, we —

Q    — can be crossed here?

MR. KIRBY:  You know, we’ve had this — we’ve had this discussion, you and me, quite a bit from up here.  They’re still under a viable threat of Hamas.  We’re still going to make sure that they can defend themselves and that the 7th of October doesn’t happen again.

That doesn’t mean that it’s a free pass, that — that we look the other way when something like this happens or that we aren’t — and haven’t since the beginning of the conflict — urge the Israelis to be more precise, to be more careful, and, quite frankly, to increase the nu- — the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in.

You know, I haven’t been asked about it yet, but I expect that I would be.  You know, there was a discussion just yesterday with our Israeli counterparts about Rafah.  Now, this one was done virtually.  We expect there will be an in-person meeting here in a week’s time or so. 

But the whole reason to have that meeting was to talk about our concerns over a major ground operation in Rafah and to present viable alternatives for them to be more precise and more targeted. 

So, the idea that we’re — that we’re whirstling [whistling] past the graveyard here and we’re not paying attention to — to the civilian casualties or the civilian suffering is just not true.

Q    Right.  But these are verbal urgings, verbal commitments.  There’s no other incentive besides —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I know —

Q    — the urges and the discussions, right?

MR. KIRBY:  — you want us — you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck.  And what I’m telling you is that we continue to — to work with the Israelis to make sure that they are as precise as c- — as they can be and that more aid is getting in.  And — and we’re going to continue to — to take that approach.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Matt.

Q    John, I just wanted to follow up.  Do you guys have confirmation of the nationalities of the victims who were — who were killed in — in the strike —

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    — and that one was a U.S.-Canadian national?

MR. KIRBY:  I can confirm that one was a dual-national American citizen.  But I don’t — I couldn’t speak with authority about the nationalities of all of those.  And as I understand it, I mean, there could be additional casualties coming in terms of the count.  I just don’t know.

Q    And do you know if there has been any outreach to the family of that dual-national citizen from the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  The State Department has done some initial outreach, and I would fully expect you’ll — you’ll see outreach from us at the appropriate time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  Does — does the White House accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s explanation that this incident was “unintentional,” as he put it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the investigation will bear that out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Kelly O.

Q    Sir, do you think that — given these circumstances, is there a role for some kind of a protective force for aid workers, given the threat of widespread famine and concerns about the — you’ve already discussed the JLOT[S] coming in and so forth.  Is there a — a role that could be considered to try to protect aid workers with a neutral-party security force?

MR. KIRBY:  That protective force ought to be the IDF, Kelly, as we’ve said.  And as they conduct operations in an urban, highly populated environment, they have a concomitant obligation to take care of the civilians that are living there  and the civilians, quite frankly, that are being moved about by the combat operations that are being conducted in a very confined space.  They have that obligation.

Q    Are you concerned that aid will be cut off for some period of time now?  Because José Andrés has said they were —

MR. KIRBY:  He has said — yeah.

Q    — suspending operations for a period.  The World Food Program is having difficulties.  It seems like this incident is exacerbating the crisis.

MR. KIRBY:  It certainly isn’t helping.  There is no question about that.  And we obviously respect Chef Andrés’s decision not to continue operations, at least for a time.  Certainly, we respect that.  And — and others may make that decision, as you talked about the World Food Program.

We’re not seeing a wholesale declination here of humanitarian assistance in there.  But obviously, yes, that’s a concern.  The more violent it gets for humanitarian aid workers — and as I said, this is one of the worst in recent history — the less likely it is that they’re going to be willing to take those risks, which means it’s more likely that the people of Gaza are going to just suffer all the more.

So, yes, it’s a concern.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nandita.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Secretary Blinken, during his presser in Paris, did not condemn the airstrike even though, as you confirmed, there was a dual American-Canadian citizen who was killed.  The French Foreign Minister, who was at the same presser, did.  You said you’re outraged.  Why — why is the U.S. not condemning this strike?

MR. KIRBY:  I think by out- — by saying we’re “outraged,” I think you can fairly characterize that as condemning the strike itself.  Of course, I mean, nobody wants to see this kind of violence happen to humanitarian aid workers who, as was noted earlier, were doing all the right things.

Q    And just to follow up to what, you know, was asked earlier about the — about the floating pier.  Are you considering moving it off the coast of Gaza?  I mean, just trying to figure out how —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, by definition, it’s going to be operating off the coast.

Q    Sure.  But, like, further away.  I mean, how do you ensure that any private partners that the U.S. ends up partnering with to deliver aid is actually protected given the recent set of strikes?

MR. KIRBY:  Right.  That’s what I said we’re working on right now.  I mean, force protection for the troops and the people that are going to be operating the pier is obviously going to be a paramount concern.  But it’s only as good as the aid that gets to the pier and then gets into Gaza.

So, there’s going to have to be plans made — plans with partners — to do everything that we can to ensure that that aid is safely assembled and collected at the pier and then safely distributed into Gaza. 

It’s going to be a multistep process.  We’ll be responsible for some parts of that, but not all of it.  That’s going to take some teamwork, and we’re working our way through that right now.

Q    I just have a quick clarification on something that the Secretary said, again, in Paris.  He appeared to suggest that Iran delivered missiles to Russia and that those are being used by Moscow to target the Ukrainians.  I mean, can you confirm if that was the case — not just drone missiles but ballistic missiles?  And if — if yes, since when has this transfer been underway?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware of specific verification that we can give to Iranian missiles being delivered to Russia for use in Ukraine.  They certainly continue to deliver drones and actually helping the Russians manufacture Iranian-designed drones.

And we do know that the Russians are and have been using now for quite some time ballistic missiles that they have gotten from North Korea.  But I’m not — I’m not personally aware of — of any — any verification that Iranian missiles have been — have been transferred and used.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, you said that there is going to be an investigation into the World Central Kitchen strike and you’re reserving the U.S.’s judgment until that’s completed.  But what’s a reasonable timeframe for that investigation to be concluded?  And how regularly will the U.S. be getting updates on it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think in terms of timeframe, as I said in my opening statement, we — we believe an investigation can be thoroughly conducted in a swift manner.  Now, what is swift?  I think, obviously, we’re not going to dictate a date on the calendar to the Israelis. 

But it’s — it’s noteworthy that just before coming out here I was informed that they have completed a preliminary investigation and are reporting that up the chain of command.  That’s — that’s good.  That means that they’ve gotten some basic findings and some initial conclusions that they’re — that they’re willing to make. 

They have noted publicly that — that they were responsible here.  So, that’s another — that’s another reason to suspect that it shouldn’t need to be a long, drawn-out, weeks-long investigation.  I think something like this could probably resolve- — be resolved in a — in a matter of days.

Q    On the strike in Damascus.  Does the U.S. expect Iran to retaliate?  And if so, how?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I can’t predict what the Supreme Leader and what the IRGC will decide to do or not.  I don’t know — in terms of retaliation, I assume you mean against the United States.  Let me make it clear: We had nothing to do with what — the strike in Damascus.  We weren’t involved in any way whatsoever.

So, the comments by the Iranian Foreign Minister that somehow we’re to be held to account or that we’re to blame is just nonsense.  We had nothing to do with it.

We will, as we always have, take our force protection very seriously to protect our troops and our facilities in Iraq and Syria.  And as we have demonstrated in the past, as President Biden has made very, very clear through the actions he has ordered, we will — we will do what we need to do to protect those troops and facilities.

Q    And finally, if I may, just on China.  You said that the two leaders made a commitment to pick up the phone and call each other when needed.  I’m curious —

MR. KIRBY:  When is the next one?

Q    No, I’m curious why it was needed now.  Why not next week, next month?  Was there a particular catalyst that they needed to have this phone call —

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, no —

Q    — today?

MR. KIRBY:  — not at all.  I mean, they met, again, in November.  And the teams have been working a lot since November on fentanyl precursors, on climate change, on economic practices.  So, there’s been — on artificial intelligence.  There’s been a lot of staff-level work.  And both presidents thought that now, a few months later, this was a good time to kind of check in with one another, see how that’s going, discuss the future.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Hi.  Thanks, John.  Just wanted to follow up with a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid, and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks — that’s the Israelis — and your tone suggested you wouldn’t do that.  Why not?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ve already answered this question a whole bunch of times.  We believe that the approach that we’re taking is working, in terms of making it clear to the Israelis what our expectations are.

I’m not going to get ahead of decisions one way or another that we might take in the future.  What I’m saying is: Right now, we are continuing to support Israel because they continue to need military assistance because they continue to face a viable threat.

Q    But on the point of conditions, the President, on February 8th, issued a memo.  And it said — and you already know this, but just for context.  It said that it was the policy of this administration to “prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.”

Is firing a missile at people delivering food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, the Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made.  They’re doing an investigation.  They’ll get to the bottom of this.  Let’s not get ahead of that.

Your — your question presumes, at this very early hour, that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose.  And there’s no evidence of that.

I would also remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents as they occur.  The State Department has a process in place.  And to date, as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.  And lest you think we don’t take it seriously, I can assure you that we do.  We look at this in real time.

Q    They have never violated international humanitarian law ever in the past five to six months?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m telling you the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Mr. Kirby, Israel has killed a senior Hamas leader in Beirut with precision weapons in an area where thousands of civilians were there.  They killed senior Iranian officials in Damascus — in the heart of Damascus with serious — there was thousands of civilians there as well.

Does it make sense to you that a vehicle marked with “World Central Kitchen,” after coordinating with the Israelis, that they didn’t see it?  And doesn’t it — this debunk your theory and defense of Israel that it is difficult for them because Hamas embedded with the civilian population when they can go after Hamas leaders in the heart of a civilian population in Beirut and in Damascus?

MR. KIRBY:  To your second question, no.  It’s not my theory.  I have talked about —

Q    Defense —

MR. KIRBY:  Wait.  Now, just — hang on just a second now.  W- — I’ve talked about this for months now.  Fighting in an urban, highly populated, condensed environment like that is tough.  But they have taken strikes against Hamas leaders in — successfully taken strikes against Hamas leaders in Gaza.

I can’t speak to what happened in Damascus.  That — I can only tell you that the United States wasn’t involved.  So, I’m not going to talk about the details of that whatsoever.  I’m telling you that they have taken precise strikes against Hamas in Gaza.  They have also taken strikes that have been not precise.

It looks as if, very clearly, what happened yesterday is one of those examples.  They’ll investigate that.  And our expectation is — and we’ve made this clear to them — that they’ll come clean about what they’ve learned, they’ll be fully transparent, and if people need to be held accountable, that they’ll be held accountable.

Q    Admiral.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  John, there’s another case of somebody who was in this country illegally allegedly murdering a young woman — this time in Michigan.  Her name was Ruby Garcia.  Donald Trump is out there now calling this “Biden’s border bloodbath.”  What do you call it?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, first of all, while I’m not aware of this — the specifics of this case, I mean, that’s just terrible news.  And our thoughts and prayers obviously go to the family of Ms. Garcia.  I mean, that’s — that’s the kind of news no family ever wants to get, ever.

And we would certainly defer to local law enforcement and investigative bodies to do th- — do the spade work that needs to be done to figure out exactly what happened to — to Ruby and to hold the perpetrators accountable for that.  So, why don’t we let the judicial process play out here before we start making grandiose bumper-sticker comments about what this says about the border.

And, Peter, to folks that are concerned about border security, the President would be the first one to stand up here and say he agrees: The border does need some security capabilities, that we do need more Border Patrol agents.  And all that has to happen is for the Speaker to do his job, put that supplemental on the floor.  Let’s get a vote.  Let’s get those 13,000 additional Border Patrol agents down there to do their jobs.

Q    But everybody in this room knows that the bill that you guys keep talking about as a solution is dead at the moment and —

MR. KIRBY:  Says you.  It doesn’t need to be dead, does it?

Q    The bill is dead.

MR. KIRBY:  Says you.

Q    When’s the vote?

MR. KIRBY:  You — you ask Speaker Johnson that.

Q    The bill is —

MR. KIRBY:  It doesn’t need to be dead.

Q    There are — there are real problems at the border while that bill just languishes.  Right?  The — the Chief of the Border Patrol is saying —

MR. KIRBY:  Exactly.

Q    — of 140,000 gotaways, if we don’t know who is coming into our country and we don’t know what their intent is, that is a threat.  Does President Biden agree?

MR. KIRBY:  The President absolutely believes that, along that border, we do have significant national security concerns that have to be met.  But you said something really good in your question that I loved: that while this — while these concerns are going on, the bill languishes. 

So, what’s needed?  It’s not — it’s not anything more from the President.  What’s needed is for Speaker Johnson to do his job and get that thing on the floor.

Q    The President —

MR. KIRBY:  Let’s get it voted on.

Q    — as — as the person —

MR. KIRBY:  They had a chance and decided not to act because certain people in the House Republican world wanted a problem rather than a solution.

Q    As the person in charge of presenting — preventing a terrorist attack in the homeland, does President Biden think that some of these border crossers could be in the United States right now plotting a terrorist attack against Americans?

MR. KIRBY:  The President is confident that throughout the interagency — DHS, the intelligence community — that we’re doing everything we can to be as vigilant as we can to ensure the safety and security of the American people here at home.

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

Q    John, the call with President Xi.  Did the two leaders speak about Section 301 tariffs?  And any specific —

MR. KIRBY:  It did not come up.

Q    It did not come up.  But if you could just speak more about the economic nature of the conversation.  Did they speak about competition in specific industries, like semiconductors?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, they did talk about economic competition between our two countries.  And as I said in my opening statement, the President made clear that we have significant differences of opinion and concerns over some unfair market practices that the PRC uses that puts American workers and families at a disadvantage.  He was very clear about that.

Q    And just to follow up on Nancy’s question.  Are we clear to understand that the President did not warn President Xi about election interference?  That was — it felt like that was what you were implying.

MR. KIRBY:  It — it —

Q    Or is it there was no new message?

MR. KIRBY:  It — there was no new message today delivered on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — no, go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, you said earlier that two hundred and — more than 280 aid workers died since the start of the war.  Could you tell what the timeframe is for that?

MR. KIRBY:  Since the start of the war in — in October.

Q    So, since October 7th — 7th?  Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a tick tock for you on —

Q    Right.  But roughly around then.  So, more than 200?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s our — that’s our — that’s our estimate here —

Q    Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  — over the course of these many months.

Q    So, did the President — has the President reached out to any other head of, you know, a humanitarian organization before today —

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    — after an IDF attack?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll take the question.  I don’t know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We’ve got to — we’ve got to wrap it up.  Go ahead, Andrew.

Q    Thank you.  John, you described — you described the — the strike as a possible mistake by Israel.  According to Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, it wasn’t one strike but three:  the first one; then an interval during which aid workers got of their vehicles, removed the wounded, tried to move to another vehicle, which was struck; and then a third strike what — as they tried to move and escape in a third vehicle, at which point all of them were dead.

How would the second and third strikes of these marked vehicles be a mistake?  And why would the U.S. not more forcefully set conditions on the use of U.S.-made weaponry when it is being used to target aid workers?

If the first one was a mistake, the second two were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy.  So, how do you respond to that?

MR. KIRBY:  All right.  Well, first of all, there’s an investigation going on.  So, why don’t we let it get done and why don’t we see what they find, in terms of the decision-making process that led to this terrible outcome?

The Prime Minster and the IDF have noted that it was their error.  If you don’t like the word “mistake,” their “error.”

They’re investigating it.  Let them do that work and let them see what they come up with, and then we’ll go from there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. (Inaudible.)

Q    Thank you, Karine.

Q    Sorry, one — one more, John.  Two years ago, the IDF killed an Al Jazeera journalist.  They said that that was a — a mistake, that she was wearing a marked press vest.  She was shot anyway.  (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  They investigated it.  And they released the findings of their investigation, which found that they were at fault.

Go on.

Q    They did.  But my — my question, sir, is: In that case, the Is- — the Israelis did not initiate any criminal proceeding; in this case, if it’s found that the marked convoy was deliberately targeted, if not with the first shot but the second two shots, would the U.S. support any criminal penalties?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said, we would expect that should there be a need for accountability, that accounta- — that accountability be properly put in place for whoever may be responsible for this.  But again, that’s going to — a lot of that is going to depend on the investigation.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just want to (inaudible).  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions on China.  Admiral, this is an election year.  Does the President feel political pressure to act tough on China?

MR. KIRBY:  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, feels obligated and responsible for protecting the national security interests of the United States.  And much of his conversation with President Xi this morning — which was candid and constructive, very professional and businesslike — was arranged around those priorities that President Biden holds so seriously.

Q    Is TikTok part of the conversation part today?

MR. KIRBY:  TikTok came up today, yes.

Q    Have you talked to previous Secretary Mnuchin about his plan to buy it without the algor- — algorithm?  Or do you accept this plan?

MR. KIRBY:  Have we talked to Mr. Mnuchin about his — no, not that I’m aware of.  I mean, that — he — he should to speak to that as a private businessman.

Q    Can you share more details about the conversation on TikTok?

MR. KIRBY:  The President reiterated our concerns about the ow- — the ownership of TikTok.  He made it clear to President Xi that this was not about ban of the application, but rather our interest in divestiture so that the national security interests and the — the data security of the American people can be protected.

Q    Have you made progress?

MR. KIRBY:  Is there progress?

Q    On the deal to —

MR. KIRBY:  I — I know of no progress on — on that.  As far as I know, legislation hasn’t reached his desk, and it’s — it’s still on Capitol Hill.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Final question.

Q    Thank you.  John, I have a question on Ukraine and — and on Ramadan. 

So, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is warning about a new Russian offensive coming in end of May or June.  Meanwhile, Speaker Johnson is ignoring calls to put to the floor the Senate-approved legislation and coming up with a new Ukraine aid. 

Do — does the administration have a deadline, which — after which you might consider emergency — some measures to support Ukraine without the (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve already executed some emergency measures.  You saw the Pentagon was able to — to cobble together $300 million to support them in an emergency aid package.

We’re going to continue to look and see what more we can do.  But, quite frankly, our hands are — are very much tied here.  We need the supplemental.  That’s what is — what — that’s what will make a difference for Ukraine.

Q    Is there a deadline after which you would try to do something more?

MR. KIRBY:  The deadline was weeks, if not months, ago, when we needed the supplemental passed.  The time is now.  It’s past now. 

The Ukrainian commanders on the ground are making difficult decisions about where — what positions they’re going to hold, what weapons they’re going to use.  And in certain places of the Donbas, they are losing ground to the Russians.  So, it’s — it’s way past time.

Q    And one on Ramadan.  Why the President Biden has not included Muslim community leaders in the iftar.  And why is the event is not open press as it has been in previous years?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m — I’m going to — I’m going to — that’s a great segue for me to turn it right over.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much.

Q    Well, Karine, can you answer this question please?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  So, just a couple of things on — on that question.  Look, you saw the President put out a statement very early on last month about — about Ramadan and, obviously, respecting — respecting the religion and respecting the event.

I will say, about tonight, that the President is going to continue his tradition of honoring the Muslim community during Ramadan.  And so, President Biden will — will host a meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss issues of importance to the community.  So, he is going to be meeting with Muslim leaders, to your question.  He will be joined by the — Vice President Harris, senior Muslim administration officials, and senior members of his national security team.

And to continue the White House tradition of honoring Ramadan, as he did just last month, after the meeting, we will host a small breaking of the fast prayer and iftar with a number of senior Muslim administration officials.  So, that is what the President and the Vice President is going to be doing later today.

Q    But not — why not the community leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I want to be really clear here.  So, community leaders expressed the preference of doing — of doing a meeting — a working group meeting, if you will.  They — they wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity to discuss the issues at hand.  They thought it would be important to do that.

And so, we adju- — we — we did that, we listened, we heard, and we adjusted the format to — to be responsive and so that we can get feedback from them.  And this is a request — this was actually a request from members of the community.  This is what they wanted.  And we understand that. 

They wanted to — they want the President and the Vice President and senior administration officials, obviously, national security folks, as well, who will be joining the meeting, to hear directly from them.

So, this is going to be seen as a working — working group meeting, and we are — the President, the Vice President — we are looking forward to having that — that opportunity.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We discussed earlier former President Trump is describing the situation on the border as a “bloodbath.”  But on Friday, we’re going to get jobs figures, and past jobs reports have shown that immigrants are helping the U.S. economy.  Is the view of this administration that the inflow of immigrants do more to strengthen the United States or hurt the United States?  Does it do more?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, Josh, I appreciate the question.  And I think it’s an important question, as we’re hearing clearly awful rhetoric from the other side.  So — but what we know and what this President believes — and you’ve heard this President say this before — is that we know immigrants strengthen our country and our economy as well.  It goes hand in hand here.

Think about the critical work eight immigrants — these eight immigrants were doing on Key Bridge when it collapsed — when it collapsed. 

While Congress failed to act on President Biden’s comprehensive immigration reform — remember, he introduced that on the first day of his administration because he understood the importance of fixing — fixing immigration, a system that had been broken — that has been broken for decades.  His administration has led the largest expansion of lawful immigration pathways in decades.  And we continue — we continue to work [to] ensure employers and immigrants can effectively navigate the laws in place.

And so, reforming our immigration system only strengthens our economy.  You hear the President talking about that, about making sure that we have an economy that works for everyone, making sure that there is dignity and respect for everyone.

And so — and by doing that, it boosts our labor supply, it helps solve workforce shortages and — some businesses are facing — right? — that we see businesses are facing. 

And so, we took a step forward not too long ago.  We spent two months working with the Senate, working with Republicans and Democrats, to try and figure out how do we deal with this broken system.  We saw — they — we put together what would have been, if put into law, the toughest and fairest piece of legislation that we have seen in some time.

But what we heard from the last ad- — last administration, from President Trump — and you heard me say this over and over again; you all reported this — that he told Republicans to reject that proposal because it would hurt him and help the President. 

That’s not how this President sees this.  This President sees the immigration system as a — as an issue that majority of Americans care about and that we should fix.  We should get to the bottom of this.

So, we’re going to continue to urge Congress, Republicans, to come back — right? — to get — come back to the table, move forward with that proposal, get it out of the Senate, and then move it over to this Hou- — the House, get it out of the House, put it in front of the — in front of the President.  He will sign it — the toughest and fairest law that we have seen in some time.

And this is not about politics for this President.  And to — just to go back to the beginning of — of answering your question, we know immigrants strengthen our country and also strengthen our economy.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just to follow up on the TikTok question.  The President brought it up with President Xi. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  President Xi.  Yeah, he did.

Q    Has he also raised the issue with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?  Because the bill is — hasn’t been taken up by the Senate.  I mean, that’s where it is held up.  Has he conveyed those same concerns about ownership, about, you know, divestiture, like, to — to Schumer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we are in regular communication, this administration is, with leaders of Congress, including Senator Schumer — Leader Schumer and others.  And so, I don’t have a specific readout to — to give you about the President’s conversation on this particular issue. 

As — as my colleague — as the Admiral said, TikTok did come up and was raised on the call with President Xi.  I think that’s important.  The President has always been very clear about his concerns, and he’s been very public about that. 

There is a real threat po- — posed by certain technology services, and so — operating in the United States that put at risk Americans’ personal information and broader national security.  He’s been very clear about that, including the manipulation. 

So, he’s been public about it.  He brought it up with President Xi.  This is an issue, certainly, that we will continue to have that discussion.  I just don’t have anything specific to read out to you with any conversations with members of Congress —

Q    Does he want —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on the President — on the President’s schedule.

Q    Does he want the Senate Majority Leader to bring the bill to the floor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have said we support that bill.  We welcome that bill.  We do not see it as a ban, right?  We see it as a divestment.  We’ve been very clear about that as well.  And we welcome that bill.  So, we want it to go through the process. 

We’ve been offering technical support of you — as you’ve heard us speak to before.  You’ve heard the National Security Advisor speak to this very recently, the last time he was at the podium.  You’ve heard me say that.

And so, we’re going to continue to provide technical support.  We’re going to continue to have conversations with members of Congress.  I don’t have any — don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    So, during the call, did President talk to President Xi about supplying components to Russia to enhance their defense industrial base?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ve always been very clear, and the President did raise that we are deeply concerned, obviously, about the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and its efforts to help Russia reconstitute its defense industrial base.  That came up.

I’m not going to go beyond that.  But that did come up on the call.

Okay.  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Is there anything you can say about President Xi Jinping’s reaction to all of the concerns that Biden laid out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would let President Xi speak for himself.  I’m not going to respond to him — for him.

Q    Any color about the tone of the conversation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — you — there’s a readout of the call.  I’m not going to get into — get into reactions, personal reactions.  I will let President Xi speak for himself.

Q    And just lastly, the cost to attend a number of New England colleges this fall is topping more than $90,000 a year.  What’s the White House’s reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we have been very clear about how the cost of college is — is crushing many, many families.  We’ve talked about that.  And that’s why one of the things that the President has been very focused on is giving that student debt relief to — to many Americans and families out there.

While we tried to put for- — something forward, Republicans blocked it, and the President continued to find ways to move forward in trying to find really comprehensive measures to make sure that we’re giving relief to — to Americans so that they can — you know, so that they can start a family, so that they can buy a home.

And so, we’ve done that.  You’ve seen us announce a bunch of — a bunch of actions which the President is proud of and is going to continue to find ways to give that relief. 

The Department of Education has — has talked about the cost of — of college and has certainly worked with wor- — worked with students in fi- — in — in figuring out ways for them to afford going to school.  It’s important.  If someone wants to be able to go to college, they should be able to do that.  And they should be able to afford to make that decision.  Their family should be able to make that decision and not — and not go into debt.

And so, the President has been very, very clear about that.  He’s talk- — he’s talked about his own experience.  And so, you know, look, we’re going to continue to find ways to make sure that Americans get a little bit of breathing room, get a little bit of opportunity to move their — their lives forward, to reach their dreams the way that they choose.

And so, yeah, you know, we’re aware — we’re aware of how costly college can be.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  The owner of the ship involved in the Key Bridge collapse has denied responsibility for the accident, and they’ve filed a federal lawsuit trying to limit the amount of damages that they would have to pay.  What is the White House’s reaction to that lawsuit?  And is there going to be an effort to force them to pay more damages?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t want to get ahead.  As you know, there is an investigation currently happening.  The Department of Transportation is — is leading.  So, want to be really mindful, not get ahead of that, and not going to talk to an active lawsuit, as you just announced, from — from the ship owner.

But, look, I think it is important that we get to the bottom of this not just because — for us, but obviously the people of Baltimore, the people in Maryland need to have an answer here.  And so, we’re going to do everything that we can.  There’ll be investigation.  I want to be really mindful here.  But it is always important to make sure people are held to account.

For the President, he is going to do everything that he can, use a whole-of-government response, as you have seen from this administration, to continue to make sure that we do the recovery, to make sure that we rebuild that bridge, make sure they reopen the port. 

And you’re going to see the President on Friday doing that visit — visit to Baltimore.  We’ll have more details on that.  But just want to be really, really mindful.  If there’s investigation going on, don’t want to get ahead of that.

Q    Will he have any conversations with congressional leaders ahead of his trip to Baltimore to talk about getting funding rolling, knowing he will likely hear from local and state —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it —

Q    — leaders about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s a good question.  Look, we have said that we will fu- — the federal government will fully fund the — rebuilding that bridge.  That’s a commitment that the President is going to stand by.  Obviously, there are m- — there potentially could be an opportunity or will be an opportunity for — for Congress to get involved, and we’ll have those discussions.

We con- — we do — we are having those conversations with congressional members.  I can’t speak to what the President has on his calendar as far as speaking to congressional members about this particular issue ahead of Friday.

But I can assure you it is a conversation that members of his team are continuing to have and will continue to have as we move forward in making sure the people of Baltimore — you know, the community gets back on their feet as it relates to getting this bridge back, opening up the port.  It is critical.  It is important.  And we want to make sure we get that done.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q    In the way you described the celebration with the Vice President and Muslim leaders and so forth, smaller-scale working group, isn’t that, on its face, really an acknowledgement that there is a great tension between the President and the Muslim community —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — and that you can’t do it publicly because you would be concerned about protests?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:   So, look, I mean, the community leaders expressed their — their preference here.  They said this is what they wanted to — to see.  They wanted to make su- — they wanted to have a working group meeting.  That is something that they asked for.  It is — and we listened.  We heard them.

As you know, senior officials have been — you know, senior White House officials have been traveling the country, having really important conversations with members of that community — the Muslim community, the Arab community, the Palestinian community — because we understand how painful this moment is for them and we want to hear directly from them. 

This is a request from them.  They wanted to — they wanted to have a — again, a private working meeting.  They wanted this meeting to be held private.  So, we’re respecting that.  We’re respecting the fact that they want privacy. 

It is not the first time that they’ve requested a — a situation where it is private.  And so, that — this is what we heard during our outreach, and we’re going to respect that.  And this is what we’re doing today.

It doesn’t take away — it doesn’t take away how we’re going to continue to honor the tradition of the Muslim community as we speak about Ramadan, during Ramadan.  This is something that we’re going to respect and continue to do so.

But in this particular instant, they wanted — they wanted a working group meeting.  They wanted it to be private.  And we’re going to respect that.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Going back to the “bloodbath” question.  The former President used that terminology a week or two ago, but he’s talking about it again today.  What’s the White House reaction to the use of that term “bloodbath”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really mindful here because it is — the President — the — the — obviously, the former President is also a candidate here, so want to follow the law with the Hatch Act.

But we have to denounce — our response is we have to denounce any — any violent rhetoric that we hear, certainly from our leaders — right? — that tears our country apart.  It could tear our country apart and puts our fellow Americans in harm’s way — in danger.  So, we have to denounce that.

And look, you know, I think and we think that the American people wants to see the country coming together.  That’s what they want.  They want to — they want to make sure that we respect our democracy.  They want to make sure that we respect the rule of law.  That’s what they want.

And so, that is what the President is going to continue to fight for.  I’m — we’re going — any type of violent rhetoric, we’re going to denounce that.  It doesn’t matter who it comes from.  We’re going to denounce it.

Q    Does the White House believe that there is a “bloodbath” taking place or a wave of migrant crime?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’ve been very clear about — I just laid out to Josh, when it comes to immigrants, how important they are to — to the fabric of this country, how important they are to the strength of this country, to our economy.

And that continues to — to be true, right?  That’s something that this President believes.  And we’ve always called out any — if there is any form of — of violence that — that’d be — could be caused by one person — right? — that we may have seen, we call that out as well.

And — and that is always important to do.  But in this instance, it is used to — in the way that this violent rhetoric is being used, it is being used to tear our country apart.  That’s how it’s being used.

And we have to — we can’t allow that.  Right?  This is not what Americans want to see.  Americans want to see us bringing the country together.

And — and so, that form of rhetoric, it is — it’s not helpful to us.  So, we’re going to continue to call that out, and we’re going to be very, very clear about that.

But this — you know, if — if a violent act is — ha- — happens, as we have seen, and someone is killed, we want to make sure that — that — you know, we’ve got to condemn that and want to make sure that the law comes into place and we let the law enforcement on the ground deal with that. 

But to denounce an entire community — we can’t allow that.  We have to denounce that, any type of violent rhetoric. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, just a quick point of clarification — Karine.

So, when Donald Trump is talking about a “bloodbath,” it is violent rhetoric.  What was it when Joe Biden said, in 2020, “We — what we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really mindful and careful about Donald Trump, but if you read — because he is a — he is a candidate.  We’re talking about the 2024 election.

You should read h- — what he said in its context.  So, you’ve got to read what he said in context.

Q    I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- —

Q    “Bloodbath” is an ugly word —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve go- —

Q    — when Trump uses it.  What is it when Biden uses it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not — no, no, no.  Let’s be very clear: You’ve got to actually ask me the question in context of what it was said — right? — and what the — what was said when he said that — right? — in his remarks, in his speech.  Right?

And so, that’s being disingenuous in your question.

Q    I’m reading a direct quote from Joe Biden: “What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s talking about — he was talking about a group of people — a group of people.  That’s what he’s talking about. 

What the President was talking about during the primary was not to allow it to be — the words in — in the primary and that election to become negative.  Two different — two different things. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They’re not the same.  They’re not the same.  And your question is disingenuous. 

And so, look, I’m going to be really mindful here.  I’ve got to be really careful.  We have to denounce violent rhetoric, which — wherever it comes from — a former leader — we have to denounce that.  Because we saw what happened on January 6th.  We saw what happened there. 

When you have a mob of 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they didn’t believe in free — the free and fair election that just happened months prior because of violent rhetoric —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you’ve got to denounce that.  That’s not what leaders should be doing. 

All right, I think I have to go. 

Go ahead, Erica.  I — I rarely call on you.  Go ahead, Erica.

Q    I — rarely raise my hand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  You rarely raise your hand, so — (laughter).

Q    Back to college costs.  There are hundreds of thousands of families across the country waiting to see if their — their students will be able to afford college due to the botched rollout of the FAFSA.  And just this week, I mean, almost every day, the U.S. Department of Education is announcing another setback. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    It’s — it’s April — (laughs) — and, you know, I’m wondering what — what the White House is doing, what the oversight looks like, and what accountability will look like for these families, particularly the ones who rely on financial aid to go to college.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a really good question.  And I just want to say that the administration is — is committed to ensuring that students have access to the maximum financial aid possible. 

So, like with most major changes, implementing this new system has brought certain challenges.  And we’ve been very honest about that, and we’ve been very clear about that.  Yes, we have had some challenges here. 

But we don’t want to forget: Over 6 million — 6 million records have been processed — and that’s important — and delivered to schools.  And the department has an all-hands-on-deck team to address issues quickly and get information out to schools and families. 

Our top priority is, again, to ensure that students can acces- — access maximum financial aid possible.  We understand how important it is to get this aid.  And so, we want to make sure that we get that done. 

There’s an all-hands-on-deck scenario.  And, yes, we have had some challenges.  And we — we acknowledge that, and we’re doing everything that we can to fix that.

Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you tomorrow.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

2:39 P.M. EDT

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

National Security Council

Via Teleconference

6:07 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Thank you all for joining us this evening for a call on the United States’ bilateral engagement with the People’s Republic of China. 

Just a couple of quick ground rules.  For awareness but not for reporting, joining us on the call this evening is [senior administration official].  The call is going to be held under embargo until noon tomorrow — that’s April 2nd, noon Eastern Time. 

And with that, I won’t hold us up any further and I will turn the call over to [senior administration official].  She can be attributed on background as a senior administration official.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much.  And, folks, thanks for joining us on a Monday evening. 

Tomorrow, on April 2nd, in the morning, President Biden will hold a phone call with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China.  Ahead of that, we thought it would be useful to give some context on the expected shape of that call and what we plan to raise. 

As many of you are tracking, the two leaders met face-to-face in Bali in November 2022 and then held a summit meeting in Woodside, California, in November 2023.  At Woodside, the two leaders agreed to maintain regular open lines of communication to responsibly manage competition and prevent unintended conflict.  And this phone call really is just part of that ongoing effort. 

I will note just for folks’ awareness, the last call between the two leaders was July 2022.  So it’s been a bit since we’ve done a telephone call between President Xi and President Biden. 

This call, of course, builds on the in-depth meetings between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and CCP Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs Commission and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Bangkok on January 26th, 27th of this year, and Secretary Blinken’s meeting with Wang Yi in Munich in February. 

On the call tomorrow, we anticipate President Biden and President Xi will discuss the U.S.-China bilateral relationship, the continued importance of strengthening lines of communication and managing competition responsibly, and a range of regional and global issues. 

I should note as well, of course: We have not changed our approach to the PRC, which remains one focused on the framework of invest, align, and compete.  Intense competition requires intense diplomacy to manage tensions, address misperceptions, and prevent unintended conflict.  And this call is one way to do that. 

There are also, of course, areas of cooperation where our interests align, and it is important to work together to deliver on issues that matter to the American people.  These areas include counternarcotics, risk and safety issues related to AI, resumption of mil-mil communication channels, and climate issues.  We expect the leaders will discuss progress on each of these issues since the Woodside Summit. 

On the upcoming call, we expect President Biden to emphasize the need for continued progress and substantive action on counternarcotics to address the scourge of illicit narcotics trafficking. 

Since Woodside Summit, we have seen the PRC implement some initial measures to restrict and disrupt the flow of certain precursor chemicals used to produce illicit synthetic drugs.  But, of course, the drug trade is continually evolving and changing.  And in order to ensure that we are disrupting this trade flow, we, the U.S. and China, need to maintain close consultations, both law enforcement to law enforcement, at the technical level and otherwise, to really drive that substantive law enforcement action. 

We also urge the PRC to follow through by scheduling chemicals agreed upon by the international community at the recent U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs. 

On mil-mil communication, another outcome of the summit, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, held a virtual meeting with his counterpart in December.  The Defense Policy Coordination talks took place in early January. 

This week in Honolulu, operator-level Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings, the MMCA — it just rolls right off your tongue — will take place.  The goal of that is really to talk at the operator level about how to avoid and better understand the actions of the other party. 

We also expect communications at the minister-secretary level and between theater commanders in the coming months. 

All of these interactions from the operator up to the very top, SecDef level, are important to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. 

President Biden has made clear that this mil-mil communication is critical at all times but especially during times of heightened tensions. 

Another outcome from the summit: On AI, we are working towards a U.S.-China dialogue in the coming weeks aimed at managing the risk and safety challenges posed by advanced forms of AI. 

I will note as well: On March 21, the PRC supported a landmark resolution on AI at the United Nations as a co-sponsor, along with more than 120 countries, including the United States.  We think it is critical for the U.S. and China to better understand respective views and approaches to managing the risks associated with AI applications and to communicate about particular areas of concern.  That’s just what this AI dialogue will do in the coming weeks. 

We’re also continuing discussion in key channels on climate and economic issues, and seeking to strengthen ties between the people of the two countries, including by expanding educational and other exchanges. 

The call will also be an opportunity, as I mentioned, for the President to raise issues outside of bilateral issues.  We expect him to touch on a number of those.  This call will be an opportunity for the President to reaffirm the U.S. One China policy and reiterate the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, especially given the upcoming May presidential inauguration in Taiwan. 

The President may also express concern over destabilizing PRC actions in the South China Sea, including the dangerous recent action of the PRC coast guard against routine Philippine maritime operations near Second Thomas Shoal. 

He will likely also raise concern about the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and its efforts to help Russia reconstitute its defense industrial base.  We’re increasingly concerned that this action will impact longer-term European security.  And I think you heard many of these same concerns voiced by the French foreign minister in Beijing over the weekend. 

We also expect the two leaders to cover a range of other regional and global issues including efforts to advance the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

On economic and trade issues, President Biden will likely reiterate concerns about the PRC’s unfair economic practices and convey that the U.S. will continue to take actions to protect our economic and national security interests.  This includes, among other things, ensuring a fair and level playing field for American workers, as well as preventing advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our national security. 

And all of this is focused on de-risking, not decoupling, and the President will make clear that is the direction we continue to follow. 

In his many conversations with President Xi, President Biden has consistently underscored the critical importance of respect for human rights.  And I expect the President will again raise concerns regarding the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and PRC human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang and Tibet.

I also expect the President will repeat his call for China to release U.S. citizens wrongfully detained or under exit bans.

There is no substitute, of course, for regular communication at the leader level to effectively manage this complex and often tense bilateral relationship.  Following the leaders call, we will continue to advance our interests through cabinet-level diplomacy, including visits to the PRC by Secretary of the Treasury Yellen in the coming days and Secretary of State Blinken in the coming weeks.  We also expect a SecDef-Minister of Defense call soon.  And of course, paired with this is travel by PRC officials here to the United States as well.

I’ve gone on for a bit, so I’ll leave it there for now.  And I welcome any questions you all may have.

MODERATOR:  With that, we’ll begin to take your questions.

Our first question will go to MJ Lee with CNN.

Q    Hey.  Thank you so much for doing this call.  I had two questions for you. 

First, before the summit in Woodside last year, it was clear that U.S. and Chinese officials had done the legwork ahead of time so that coming out of the summit the two leaders could announce the restoration of the military (inaudible) and also the announcement on curbing fentanyl.  Are there specific, sort of, gettables that the Biden administration has been working towards that are likely to be announced after their phone call tomorrow? 

And second, do you expect President Biden to follow up on Xi telling him in their last meeting that China doesn’t want to interfere in the 2024 U.S. election?  And did the President sort of take him at his word on that? 

And how do you expect the President to sort of talk to President Xi about Chinese hackers targeting U.S. critical infrastructure? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much for the questions.  On the first one, on any announcements or outcomes from the call, you know, we approach calls a little bit differently than we do summits.  You know, summits generally once a year.  Really a lot of effort to go in to lay the groundwork through secretary level and other engagements to drive towards outcomes.  I would take a phone call more as a check-in, so checking in on the three outcomes from the summit, trying to drive progress in that area.  But don’t anticipate new outcomes from this. 

Really, this is kind of what the responsible management of the relationship looks like.  In between those top-level, senior-level meetings that can occur about once a year, really finding a chance for the two leaders to talk through the tough issues and ensure that we’re responsibly managing the competition between the two countries. 

But as I mentioned before, I do expect a discussion of those outcomes from Woodside and, again, a goal of trying to drive additional efforts in each of those baskets. 

On your question regarding election influence or interference, you know, this has been a topic at, I would say, nearly every, if not every, senior-level engagement, ensuring that we are being crystal clear about our concerns that any country interfere or influence our elections.  We have undertaken a whole-of-government effort to protect our elections against these foreign attempts to interfere or influence. 

And I would say, like with any message we deliver to China or to other countries, it is one of continual reinforcement of concern.  And I don’t think we ever really take the Chinese at their word when they say they will or will not do something.  It is about verifying what the president says, verifying the results we see, the actions we see, and then continuing to underscore and press home what our concerns are.

On cyber-related issues, another longstanding concern the U.S. has had with China, of course: We’ve been clear both publicly and privately that we will take actions to address threats to our national security for malicious cyber activity.  We’ve done that through attribution.  We’ve done that through work with multilateral partners.  And we’ve done that through other unilateral means.  We’ll continue to convey to the PRC these concerns about accesses on U.S. critical infrastructure, on hacking.  And again, this is another issue I see as a longstanding one we’re going to have to continue to message at and take action on.

MODERATOR:  Next, we’ll go to Ed Wong with the New York Times.

Q    Hi.  Thanks.  A couple of questions related to America’s partners in the Asia Pacific region.  I was just in Taipei and I heard concerns from Taiwanese officials who insist that China has been ramping up its gray zone activity, whether it’s incursions across the median line using fighter jets, or ship activities around the offshore islands.  And also, we’ve seen, as you mentioned, the very active measures taken by Chinese ships towards the Philippine military ships around the Second Thomas Shoal. 

The U.S. has rhetorically pushed back on all of these, but China continues these activities.  What else can Biden be doing or saying to Xi to try and get China to limit these activities?

Second, obviously, China has great concerns about the ramping up of military ties between the U.S. and its partners and the upcoming Three Leaders Summit this month between the presidents of the U.S. and the Philippines and the prime minister of Japan.  So, will Biden mention this to Xi or try and placate any anxiety Xi about this?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the questions, Ed.

On the first one, on gray zone activity, you know, I think this has been a longstanding PRC practice to (inaudible) slowly, or sometimes more quickly ramp up pressure (inaudible).  Sometimes it’s through military activities, sometimes it’s through economic tools, some through diplomatic pressure.  So I don’t see anything particularly new here with PRC behavior in the Cross-Strait or South China Sea.

Our toolkit with which we respond is similarly, I think, a wide range of different tools, whether it’s diplomatic messaging.  You mentioned the Japan-Philippines-U.S. trilat and the bilat engagements later this month.  Certainly, South China Sea and what we’re seeing in that space will be a topic of discussion. 

Similarly, you’ve seen it come out in statements.  G7 and otherwise are concerned about coercive activity in the South China Sea and Cross-Strait.  So, messaging is a piece of that.  Of course, we have economics, (inaudible). 

This is just, unfortunately, business as usual.  And I think pushing back on that gray zone coercion is both about U.S. actions but also working closely with allies and partners, (inaudible) doing with the trilat later this month. 

We’ve been clear, both from the President but all the way on down to Secretary of State and at high level as well, that U.S. alliances and partnerships are not about China.  They’re about the partnership.  They’re about the affirmative engagement.  But oftentimes, Chinese action motivates a lot –much of what we talk about.  But that is — you know, that is something certainly well within China’s control, what it says and does, and the impact it has on U.S. partners and allies throughout the region. 

But certainly, I would expect at the upcoming meetings China to be a topic of conversation.

Over.

MODERATOR:  Next, we’ll go to Selina Wang with ABC. 

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a few questions.  So, on the first one, how did the call come about?  Which side initiated this call?

Secondly, is the President going to use this call to pressure China to use its closeness with Iran to influence the Israel-Hamas war?

And just lastly, any reaction from the administration on, you know, a group of CEOs, including American CEOs, that recently met with Xi Jinping?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks so much, Selina.  On the first one, on the call, you know the diplomatic dance that usually precedes scheduling up a call like this. 

You know, at Woodside, just to take it back to that meeting last November, both President Biden and President Xi agreed that they would try to pick up the phone a bit more; use that tool as a means of responsibly managing the relationship, of being in closer touch at the leader level, which is so very critical in the Chinese system, on a more regular basis. 

So, you know, looking back between the last two summits, November 2022 and November 2023, we did not have a leader-level call.  And I think both sides realized that it’s important to do that to really manage the relationship in a more responsible fashion. 

So, after that agreement in Woodside last year, National Security Advisor Sullivan saw Director Wang Yi in Bangkok in January, discussed trying to do something in the first quarter of the year.  And then it was, of course, a trade-back of dates and times.  That 12-hour time difference does not make for easy scheduling, I can tell you.  From a granular working level, not an easy thing to do.  But landed on this week as a good chance to do it in almost the first quarter of 2024. 

On your second question, on Middle East: This, of course, has come up at — most recently, Secretary Blinken, before that National Security Advisor Sullivan, both with Director Wang Yi, and of course, back in Woodside as well.  We’ve been pretty clear in these high-level engagements of the role that the PRC should play in using its leverage with Iran, particularly to bring an end to Houthi attacks against civilian ships in the Red Sea.  These are exacerbating regional tensions, instability, and of course, impacting trade flows.  China should have a very direct interest in trying to limit that fallout.  So I suspect that, of course, could come up in conversation again. 

You asked about the U.S. CEOs meeting in Beijing.  Of course, saw the reports.  I think it’s pretty standard for U.S. CEOs to meet with Chinese leadership when they go back to China for the CDF, the China Development Forum.  I think it’s often a two-way conversation.  Of course, they’re raising their concerns about the business environment as well. 

But encourage you to reach out to them for more detail on that.  I don’t have any additional information.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Next, we will go to Demetri with the Financial Times.

Q    Thank you.  Good evening.  Two questions.  The first is: There appear to have been no, quote, unquote, “risky and coercive” intercepts by Chinese fighter jets since San Francisco.  I’m just wondering, why has China shifted course there?  Was it something that was agreed between the two sides, or was that a unilateral move by China?

And then separately, is there anything that the U.S. should be doing differently around the Second Thomas Shoal to make sure that that flashpoint doesn’t erupt even more?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the questions, Demetri.  On the unsafe intercepts, you know, this has certainly been a feature of mil-mil communication going way back, just raising these areas of — raising the chances that an unsafe intercept could very quickly lead to loss of a ship, loss of an aircraft; it could lead to loss of life.  Just incredibly risky behavior that could spin up into conflict, (inaudible) — but could spin us into unanticipated consequences quite quickly. 

It certainly has been discussed in track two channels.  It’s been discussed in Secretary Blinken’s meetings, National Security Advisor Sullivan, and it did come up at Woodside as well. 

I would not say there was an agreement to stop doing this, but we have consistently raised our concerns about the behavior and how irresponsible it is in a relationship between — one like between the United States and China.  I don’t know what motivated China to pull back from that.  I’d encourage you to reach out to them and see if there’s any additional detail there. 

But we have seen a reduction in that kind of activity, which is a welcome sign and a welcome signal of more responsible behavior in some aspects.  Right?  I would hasten to note, of course, we have not seen a reduction in some of the unsafe behavior around Second Thomas Shoal and around some of our other partners’ engagements with China, whether it’s Japan or Australia, in different areas in the Pacific. 

So a good sign, and hope that we will see additional pullback from some of that unsafe or risky behavior. 

You asked about a second question, which I foolishly did not write down.

Q    Yeah.  Should the U.S. be doing something differently with the Philippines around the Second Thomas Shoal to reduce the chances of that flashpoint erupting in a serious way?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Are you asking me if our policy is incorrect in any way, Demetri?  (Laughs.)

Q    I’m asking you if it’s perfect.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Laughs.)  Look, I think this is an area — again, another one of longstanding discussion between the United States and China going back years, going back since the grounding of the Sierra Madre.  It’s come up in every high-level engagement I’ve recently been in.  We are increasingly concerned that PRC’s behavior in this space could lead us closer to, really, unintended consequences, both with our Philippine partners. 

But of course, we’ve talked about the mutual defense treaty as well.  We’ve made clear we remain committed to promoting freedom of navigation and overflight, respect for international law, peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea, and close coordination with our allies and partners. 

But I think it’s fair to say just increasingly risky behavior in that space has us quite concerned and that I expect this will be a topic of conversation between Japan, Philippines, and the U.S. when the three leaders meet later this month both trilaterally and bilaterally.

MODERATOR:  Our next question will go to Zeke Miller with the AP.

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  Just a technical question in terms of the timing of the call.  When this call comes off embargo, will the President have already had that conversation, or will it take place in the future?  Just so we can describe it accurately in our reporting.

And then, will there be any further discussion of a potential — yet another summit this year?  Obviously, it’s an election year, but some other face-to-face meeting between the two leaders at the leader-to-leader level this year.  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the first, which is: The call will have occurred by the time the embargo lifts. 

And just another logistical flag for this group: It is likely that we will move up the lifting of the embargo.  So please be looking out for outreach from me on that front.

And I will hand the second question over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks so much.  And thanks for the question, Zeke. 

You know, I think both sides recognize the value in more regular touch points between the leaders.  We’re doing that now via calls.  I would anticipate, you know, depending what happens in the coming year, there would be — we would hope there would be a chance for another in-person meeting, but don’t have anything even to speculate on when that might be.  But certainly, value in that in-person meeting and the calls in the interim.

MODERATOR:  And our last question is going to go to Aurelia End with the AFP.

Q    Thanks for taking my question.  I was just going to follow up.  How hard do you expect the President to put pressure on President Xi regarding the PRC’s links with Iran and Russia?

And another one that’s not about the call itself but somehow related to the issues in the region.  According to the Yonhap News Agency, North Korea just fired a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan.  And I was wondering whether you could confirm that and also comment maybe.  Thank you so much. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that, Aurelia.  On the first question, Iran/Russia, certainly expect the topic to be raised on the call. 

You know, on Russia in particular, this has been a part of our diplomatic conversations with the PRC since the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine.  Started out talking about lethal assistance and concerns around that, use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine.  Both of those issues, I think thanks in part to the diplomacy not just by the United States with China but European partners as well, we saw more positive action from China on. 

But as time has gone on, we’ve really seen the PRC start to help to rebuild Russia’s defense industrial base, essentially backfilling the trade from European partners, helping provide the components that get us slowly towards increasing Russia’s capabilities in Ukraine.  And that has, of course, longer-term impacts on European security as well, as, again, you heard from the French foreign minister in Beijing over the weekend. 

So, quite a bit of concern around this.  China, of course, is a sovereign country; it will make its own decisions about its relationships.  But quite concerned about the direction of travel on this one, and I’m certain it will come up.

You asked as well, sorry, on the missile launch.  I don’t have a comment on that.  Will perhaps refer you to [senior administration official] to come back on the DPRK missile launch.  But certainly growing concern about DPRK’s provocations and the risks of its growing economic, military, and technological partnership with Russia.  You know, we certainly continue to underscore these concerns to China while also reiterating our readiness to conduct diplomacy with North Korea and our determination to take steps to deter further provocations by the DPRK.

MODERATOR:  And with that, we’re going to conclude this evening’s call.  Thank you all for joining us.  We anticipate that we will issue a transcript of the call following the call. 

And just as a final reminder, the embargo is currently set to noon Eastern Time on April 2nd.  Thank you.

 6:35 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on the Bilateral Relationship with the People’s Republic of China appeared first on The White House.

12:38 P.M. EDT

(A costumed Easter Bunny approaches the podium.)

Q    Awww!

Q    Happy Easter!

(The Easter Bunny gestures to take questions from the press.)

Q    How has Easter been for you this year?

Q    Are you the President of the United States?

(The Easter Bunny shakes its head.)

Q    Are you the Vice President of the United States?

(The Easter Bunny shakes its head.)

Q    Are you a senior White House official?

(The Easter Bunny shrugs.)

Q    Bring any chocolate for us?

Q    Are you John Kirby?  (Laughter.)

(Ms. Jean-Pierre enters the Briefing Room.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey.  Hi.

Q    How was the Easter Egg Roll today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  How was —

Q    How was the Roll?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — thumbs up?

(The Easter Bunny makes a thumbs up gesture.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thumbs up.  Two thumbs up from the bunny.

All right.  Thank you.

(The Easter Bunny departs the Briefing Room.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Happy Easter.

Q    Are you someone who works here at the White House?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, hello, everybody.  Happy Easter Monday.

So, I have something at the top for all of you, and I think you’ll be really interested in this.  So, President Biden is scheduled to announce he is revoking the Hatch Act.  So, as a gift to all of you — so, now I can actually take all your questions about 2024.  (Laughter.)

Q    Good one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No?  I thought you would love that.

Q    No.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Okay.  April Fools.  April Fools.  April Fools.  It is April 1st.

Q    That’s a pretty good one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — thank you.  I thought was pretty —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I thought it was pretty slick of me.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

All right.  With all — in all seriousness, a couple things at the top.

So, First Lady Jill Biden — Dr. Biden — a teacher for more than 30 years, is continuing her theme of “EGGucation” for today’s White House Easter Egg Roll, transforming the South Lawn and Ellipse into a school community full of fun educational activities for children of all ages to enjoy. 

In total, approximately 40,000 people will take part in this year’s event — 40,000 people.

We do want to say a special thank you to the American Egg Board and America’s egg farmers for continuing its more than 45-year history of support for the event and for its donation of 64,000 eggs used on the South Lawn and another 64,000 donated to the Capital Area Food Bank to match the eggs used for the Roll.

And I have some news for you at the top.  I know many of you were asking this question over the weekend.  President Biden will travel to Baltimore on Friday to visit the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge, meet with state and local officials, and get on-the-ground — an on-the-ground look at federal response efforts.

The President is continuing to lead a whole-of-government approach to the collapse. 

President Biden and his team are working with Governor Moore, the congressional delegation, Mayor Scott, and numerous state and local ol- — officials to reopen the port, rebuild the bridge, and support the people of Baltimore. 

Through the unified command, the U.S. Coast Guard is coordinating a complex and highly coordinated effort to remove the wreckage, with resources from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Maryland, and others. 

Crane barges are on the scene, supporting the mission. In addition, the Chesapeake 1000, the largest heavy-lift crane barge on the East Coast, which is nearly 200 feet long and can lift 1,000 tons, arrived Thursday night.  And on Saturday, the unified command successfully removed the first piece of wreckage.

Last week, within hours of receiving the request, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the immediate availability of $60 million in “quick release” Emergency Relief funds for the Maryland Department of Transportation.

We’re also doing everything that we can to help address economic impacts. 

On Saturday, the Small Business Administration quickly approved a disaster declaration and will provide low-interest disaster loans to eligible affected business — businesses. Today, the SBA is launching two Business Recovery Centers in Baltimore County.  These centers will support impacted business owners in com- — in completing their disaster loan applications.

The Department of Labor is working with local and state officials to determine how to assist workers out of — out of work due to closure of the port.  Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su is in Baltimore today meeting with stakeholders. 

And twice last week, the White House convened a meeting for the Biden-Harris administration Supply Chain Disruptors [Disruptions] Task Force to discuss potential impacts on regional and national supply chains.

As the President said within hours of the collapse, this administration will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.  We are with you, Baltimore, and we will be there until — until we get this done.

Q    Karine, is he viewing by air, land, and sea, like flying by Air Force One?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will — we will have more — we will have more information as we get closer to — to Friday.  I think the important thing is the President has said we just — he was going to go as soon as possible.  Now he’s — he is going to go on Friday.  We certainly will have more information to share.  I just don’t have any details at this time.

Go ahead, Will.

Q    Thank you.  So, the criticism over the Transgender Day of Visibility.  The White House said that the President wouldn’t abuse his faith for political purposes.  Does the President think that’s what Republicans are doing on this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, just a couple of things. And really, so surprised by the misinformation that’s been out there around this, and I want to be very clear.

Every year, for the past several years, on March 31st, Transgen- — Transgender Day of Visibility is marked.  And as we know — for folks who understand the calendar and how it works, Easter falls on different Sundays — right? — every year.

And this year, it happened to coincide with Trans- — Transgender Visibility Day.  And so, that is the simple fact.  That is what has happened.  That is where we are.

And I do want to say a couple of things, because I think it’s important here.  As you just stated in your question, what we’ve been hearing out there — a lot of misinformation done on purpose. 

And as a Christian who celebrates Easter with family, President Biden stands for bringing people together and upholding the dignity and freedoms of every American.

Now, sadly — and it’s not surprising, right?  It is actually unsurprising that politicians are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric.  It is dishonest what we have heard the past 24 hours.  It is untrue what we heard over the weekend.

And, you know, we — we were, at first — I want to be very clear — confused on their coverage.  We’re grateful that Fox agrees with President Biden about the importance of recognizing Trans Day of Visibility.

And I’ll just quote something that Fox said back in 2021.  They tweeted this.  “Trans Day of visibility is dedicated to celebrating transgender people.  To all the transgender men, women, and non-bari- — binary folk, we see you and stand with you.”

President Biden will never abuse his faith or — for political purposes or for profit.  That is not what this administration is about.  That is not what being a leader is about.

And this misinformation out there is just — it’s just — it’s bad.  And it is dividing — it is caused to divide us.

And I want to say one more quote.  This is what Politico covered.  “Every year” — and I said this at the top of my answer — “Transgender Day of Visibility is on March 31st.”  This year, March 31st just so happens to be also Easter, the date of which changes every year.  That’s how I started out.  And that’s how I’ll end.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Why are the U.S. and Israelis meeting virtually today instead of having that in-person meeting on Rafah?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, I can confirm that there is a virtual mee- — meeting happening today with both U.S. officials, Israeli officials to discuss Rafah — the situation in Rafah and, obviously, the next steps that we have been hearing that the Israeli government wants to take. 

This is — this is following the discussions that we — we all talked about last week with the Israeli Minister of Defense and his delegation.  And this conversation today is being led by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

Look, I think it’s important to note that we were rea- — we were able to reschedule this on Friday.  And we wanted to move very quickly on this.  And, today, the meeting is happening virtually, because we understand — and, obviously, you all understand — how important it is to have this conversation.

We have been very clear about our concerns about a military operation into Rafah.  We know that there are more than a million Palestinians who are in Rafah right now, who moved from the north to go into Rafah. 

And so, we want to make sure, if there is going to be a military operation — we also know that there are Hamas operators in Rafah as well — but if they are going to move forward with a military operation, we have to have this conversation.  We have to understand how they’re going to move forward.

We — and I’ll say one more thing.  When Jake Sullivan was here at the podium not too long ago, he believed and he said there are alterniv- — alternative ways of doing this –alternative ways of going after Hamas. 

And so, they’re going to have the discussion.  I think it’s important that it happen as quickly as — as it did, even though it’s virtual.  And we’ll certainly have more to share.

Q    Are there still in-person meetings planned and, if so, when this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — we will have more to share on the next steps.  We’re going to have a readout of this conversation.  But I think — rescheduled on Friday.  Today, Monday, we’re having a conversation.  We have laid out our concerns about this for some time.  And I think it’s important that both sides are having this discussion. 

Q    And just lastly, Speaker Johnson said there will be a vote on Ukraine soon when the House comes back from recess.  But he said it would include some “innovations,” like making some portion of it a loan.  If that’s the only way to get Ukraine aid passed, would the President sign that kind of bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into hypoth- — hypotheticals here. 

We’ve been very clear.  We believe if the Speaker were to put the national security supplemental on the floor — obviously, it includes Ukraine, humanitarian aid, Israel, the Indo-Pacific — we believe and it is fact that it would get majority bipartisan support on — on the floor in the House. 

We saw, 70 to 29, it passed out of the Senate — bipartisan support — overwhelming bipartisan support.  We believe it would get overwhelming bipartisan support if he would put it on the floor.  That’s all he needs to do. 

And so, that’s what we believe the — the Speaker — how it should be moved forward.  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals.

Go ahead.

Q    Do you expect specific decisions to come out of the Rafah meeting today, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get ahead of the meeting.  We will have a readout of — of that meeting.  I’m just not going to — I’m not going to get ahead of it.

Q    And then, secondly, the — the Israelis bombed Iran’s consulate building in Damascus today.  It apparently killed an Iranian military commander.  Did you know about this in advance?  Are you concerned this is an escalation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m aware of the reports.  Our team is looking into it.  So, I’m not going to get ahead of anything just yet.  But, obviously, we’re aware of the reports, and our team is looking into it.  I’m just not going to go beyond that. 

Q    And then, lastly, if I could, do you have an update on how to pay for the new bridge?  Have you — have you had conversations with House Republicans about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as — as I mentioned at the top, we — Department of Transportation was able to release $16- — $60 million, which, obviously, is going to be really important — a kind of a down payment, if you will, on getting — on dealing on — on getting that bridge rebuilt. 

We’re going to have continued conversation with the state of Maryland to get a sense of how much this is going to cost.  And we have said we’re going to certainly continue to talk to Congress to get some assistance here. 

The President has been very clear.  He’s going to be there for the people of Baltimore.  This is a whole-of-government approach, and we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that that bridge gets back up.  I don’t have anything further to share on congressional conversation.  But that’s a commitment that the President has made.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  “60 Minutes” reported last night on a connection between anomalous health incidents and a unit of the Russian military intelligence service.  What’s the White House’s reaction to that reporting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful here.  The intelligence community has not concluded that.  Obviously, there was an assessment that intelligence community made.  And so, I would have to refer you to the — to ODNI on their assessment.  But that particular piece about Russia — I know that they had not concluded that.

Q    Right.  And I know that the — the intelligence community has said that it’s — they still think it’s un- — not likely that a foreign power is responsible.  How can the administration continue to believe that when you have so many credible U.S. officials who have experienced this saying otherwise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is an intel- — intelligence community assessment.  ODNI can speak specifically on how they got to that assessment, how they got to that conclusion.  So, I want to be super mindful. 

What I can speak to is what we have done since 2023 since the intelligence committee assessment.  And we have taken this very seriously.  The President takes U.S. personnel — making sure that they are protected is the most important. 

A couple of steps that we took: We prioritized investigations into the cause of AH- — AHIs and to examine reports thoroughly. 

Now, this is something that the President directed the departments in the federal government — obviously, across the federal government — to do: ensure that U.S. government personnel and their families who report AHIs receive the support and timely access to medical care that they need and — and to take reports of AH- — AHIs seriously and — and threat to personnel with respect and compassion. 

So, we have taken some actions that will — that — that the President directed his agencies across the federal government.

At — any specifics to the intelligence assessment, I would have to refer you to ODNI.

Q    And the Pentagon confirmed another aspect of “60 Minutes” reporting today, that a Department of Defense official who was in Vilnius for the NATO Summit last year also experienced what appears to be AHI.  Can you give us any update on that person’s condition?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have any update.  I’m very careful about speaking to any personnel-specific case.  So, I can’t — I don’t want to do that from here.  I would have to refer you on Department of Defense, since that came from the Department of Defense. 

Q    Bottom line: Are U.S. officials who are working on issues related to Russia — particularly overseas — are they safe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we are going to continue to emphasize the importance of prioritizing — right? — making sure that personnel are, you know, protected.  And we are going to do everything that we can.  This is something that this President believes is important. 

And so, look, we’re going to get to the — we’re going to continue to do a comprehensive examine — examination of the effects here that we’re seeing and the potential causes of AHI.  That’s something that we’re going to continue to look into. 

And, look, we take this very seriously.  We take this very serious.  This is why we have taken an all-of-government approach and — and have directed agencies to do the three things that I listed out.  And, you know, it — this is — this is important.  We see this as a — as — as a important issue that we want to — to, certainly, prioritize.  And that’s what we have been doing since 2023. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Is the President hosting an iftar dinner tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to confirm here.  As you know, very early on this month, we put out a statement marking the first day of Ramadan.  This is March, obviously, we did that. 

The President wishes all who observe Ramadan a safe, healthy, and blessed month.  In his statement, he spoke to the appalling resurgence of hate and violence towards Muslim Americans.  He also spoke to the need to secure a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal in our efforts to signif- — significantly increase humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

And that’s something that you’ve heard us talk about.  You’ve heard us actually take actions in the past couple of weeks, whether it’s the pier, whether it’s the plane drop and working with Israel, obviously, to get that — increase the humanitarian aid.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that. 

We don’t have — I don’t have anything to — to share with you at this moment. 

Q    But if he does host an iftar dinner, would you announce that in advance the way you do for Hanukkah gatherings —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — or other kinds of gatherings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share on — on an event com- — an upcoming event at this time.  I just don’t have anything to share.

Go ahead.

Q    On LNG and Ukraine aid.  Can you say, is the President open to suspending the pause on — the administration’s pause on — on new LNG approvals in exchange for Ukraine aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as we said repeatedly, the House needs to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental.  I’ve been saying that.  It was the first thing I said when I came to the podium — one of the first things.  And we want to see that as soon as possible.  We know it would get bipartisan support overwhelmingly if it were to go to the floor of the House.  That’s what we want to see. 

As I stated, it’s already passed the Senate 70-29.  So, it’s important to move forward. 

And we’ve also talked about — Jake Sullivan has talked about, my National Security Council colleague has talked about this as well — is that we — or Ukraine can’t afford any more delays.  We have seen what’s been happening the past several weeks, the past several months in Ukraine.  They are losing ground on the battlefield. 

Q    So, are you saying it’s still on the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, what I’m saying is that we have to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental.  That’s what we want to see.  If we want to —

Q    All right.  So, you can’t say if Biden is — is willing to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — look —

Q    — make that exchange?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is — this is where we are at this moment in time.  We want to make sure that national security supplemental is moved forward.  It could get bipartisan support.  We know it will.  We know it would get overwhelming support if they put it on the floor, right?

And Congress’s inaction has led to Ukraine losing footing in the battlefield.  That’s what we’ve seen.  That’s what we’ve seen.  And so, Congress needs to act.  It is — in order to actually deal with this, in order to give Ukraine — the Ukrainians what they need, the brave Ukrainians on the ground what they need —

Q    So, can you say if the President is open to (inaudible) with the Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m just not going to negotiate from the podium.  That’s what we — we’ve always been very clear from that — from here.  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. 

We know what needs to be done.  And what needs to be done is to put that national security supplemental — passed out of the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, 70 to 29 — we believe it can get passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion in the House.  I just want to be mindful and not get into hypotheticals from here.

Go ahead.

Q    On the reporting about the health incidents.  Because a lot of these concerns and incidents are happening on the President’s and Vice President’s trip, do you know if the President or Vice President have met with anyone who has been impacted by any of these health concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s a good question.  I don’t have — I don’t have any readout or any conversations to — to say or to speak to at this time. 

Q    And then, these officials are saying they’re speaking out because they don’t agree with the ODNI assessment.  Is the President going to, you know, implore Director Haines to look at these claims more closely?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, there was a nat- — an assessment that was done, as you just stated in your — in your statement — in your question to me.  I would have to — we trust our — our intelligence community, right?  And they put out an assessment.  So, I would have to refer you to ODNI.  I can’t get into any sp- — more specifics than that. 

Q    So, the President is standing by that assessment and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is —

Q    — that’s the end of the road?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He is standing by the assessment.  I would have to refer you to ODNI. 

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, I have two different subjects related to one topic.  When it comes to the Baltimore port, is the President or Democrat- — or are you hearing from Democrats, particularly in this building, that there’s a concern that Republicans aren’t moving in an expeditious fashion?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t — I can’t speak to that right now.  What I can speak to: what the President has been doing.  He has said he’s going to use a whole-of-government approach.  You heard the Department of Transportation — you heard me at the top say that $60 million has been provided to get that bridge done. 

And, look, we’re going to do everything that we can to get the port open as soon as possible, obviously, to build that bridge as — as soon as possible.  The timeline is going to be complicated.  It is a complicated scenario.  So, I don’t have a timeline on that. 

Look, we’re going to have conversations with congressional members.  We’re going to, certainly, talk to them on what else is needed, if there is additional funding — there is going to be additional funding needed to get this done. 

I’m not going to go into — into specifics at this time. 

Q    Are Republicans invited to the White House this week or next week to talk about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any schedule about any congressional conversations here happening at the White House.  But I would say the — you know, our — our Leg Affairs — White House Leg Affairs has regular communication with — with congressional members.  Department of Transportation, as well, has regular communication with congressional members.  And so, that’s going to continue. 

I just don’t have a — a formal — a formal meeting to be happening here —

Q    And the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on this particular issue.

Q    And the next subject that’s related to this.  After all of us — the world watched how that cargo ship — that multi-hundred-ton barge ran into the pillar, is there a concern about assessing bridges that deal with these kind of things around the nation?  Has there been talk about that?  Because this was — yes, it was catastrophic, but this government seems to be very reactionary.  When something happens, it jumps on to try to fix it.  And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which I think is a good thing.  I think, when something happens, the fact that this administration jumps on top of it and tries to make sure that we don’t forget the communities, we assist, and we get communities put back together — right? — the — the bridge is something that the Balti- — people of the — Baltimore are feeling very acutely.  And so, we’re going to, certainly, do everything that we can to get that bridge back up and to get the port open.

Look — but as you’re asking me about bridges and — and, certainly, infrastructure —

Q    Throughout the nation, that’s (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — but that’s why the bipartisan infrastructure legislation was so important.  Let’s not forget, that infrastructure law is now going to really deal with infrastructure in a generation.  It is something that is a — an investment in our infrastructure, not just bridges.  We’re talking about tunnels.  We’re talking about roads, right?  We’re talking about broadband, right?

These are incredibly important.  And creating jobs — creating good-paying union jobs.

And so, that is what the President has said he was going to do.  The last administration turned it into a joke.  It was Infrastructure Week every week, and he did absolutely nothing. 

And so, this administration was able to get a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law done.  And so, we are — we are proud to have been able to do that.  Obviously, it’s going to speak to the bridges. It’s going to speak to bridge- — to — to roads and tunnels.  And I think that’s important that that was able to get done within the President’s first term.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  International doctors has been describing horrific scene at the Shifa Hospital.  Three hundred bodies were found.  Some were tied up and executed, including doctors, women, and children.  Is the White House calling for an independent investigation?  And second, do you believe that Israel is in violation of international law?

And just on another topic.  The Israeli Knesset, the parliament, just passed a law banning international media from working in Israel.  You always call Israel as an ally that you share values with.  Is this a value that you share with?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple — you asked me two very important questions, and I want to get to — to them.

So, as it relates to — and I think you were speaking specifically — at least the reports that we’ve seen — is about Al Jazeer- — Jazeera, specifically.  But it doesn’t matter, whichever — right? — journalists more broadly.  But at — to those particular report, we’ve seen the reports, and, certainly, I’m going to refer to Israel for what they may or may not be considering.

But it — if it is true — if it is true, a move like this is concerning.  We believe in the freedom of the press.  It is critical.  It is critically important.  And the United States supports the critically important work journalists around the world do.  And so — and that includes those who are reporting in — in the conflict in Gaza.

So, we believe that work is important, the freedom of the press is important.  And if those reports are true, it is concerning to us.

And to your first question.  So, look, Hamas should not — should not be operating out of hospitals — we have said that — we’ve said that over and over again — and putting civilians at risk.  That’s what we’re seeing.  And we are concerned by how Hamas appears — they appear to have been able to reconstitute in a hospital so quickly.

So, we’ve always ma- — also made clear that we continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself.  But — but as we’ve also said, we do not want firefights in a hospital where innocent people — people — helpless people, people seeking medical care are caught in the — in a crossfire.  We don’t want to see that.

We have urged Israel to take every step to avoid civilian casualties.  And this just points to how challenging Israel’s military operation is because Hamas has intentionally embedded themselves into — into civilian infrastructure, into these hospital.

And so — and so, we’ve been very clear.  As — as it relates to the footage, as it relates to the photos and recordings, we have not verified that photo- — footage.  We’re — we’re going to be reaching out to the Israeli government to get more information.

But obviously, if these reports are true, that is indeed deeply concerning.

Q    But this difference between the civilized world and uncivilized world is sticking to international law at the time of war. 

So, regardless, even if these people were Hamas, do you believe that under international law Israel has the right to execute people, even if Hamas, which you consider a terrorist organization — regardless, you can hold them to the same standard as a professional army that often the White House praise as a professional army, they know what they’re doing, and even sometimes you said, “I wish the U.S. Army behaved like the Israelis”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear your question, and I have said it is deeply concerning if it’s true.  We are reaching out to Israel government to get more information.  And that is also important to do.  We have to make sure that the- — this — what we’re hearing is verified — right? — that the footage is also verified.

But we’ve been very clear.  Like, this is — we also have to call out Hamas here.  They are operating out of hospitals — out of hospitals.  That’s what they’re doing.  They’re embedding themselves in civilian population.  This is what they’re doing.  And so, we have to be, also, very clear about that. 

And we have said we’ve urged Israel to take every step that they — to avoid civilian casualties.  So, we’re going to re- — we’re going to reach out to the Israeli government, get more information on that.  And it i- — if that is indeed the case, it is deeply concerning.  It is deeply concerning.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just kind of going back to the LNG pause for a minute.  In January, when the pause was announced, the President put out a statement, and he said, “This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”

Does the President still believe that that LNG pause is so necessary?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Nothing has changed.  Nothing has changed in our — in our — in our posture on LNG.

Go ahead.

Q    Great.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Back in 2007, there was another deadly bridge collapse.  It happened in Minnesota.  And days after, Congress reacted.  They passed the funding to replace that bridge.  Is the President disappointed that there isn’t that same sense of urgency as it relates to the Key Bridge in Baltimore?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I can speak to right now — in this time, in this moment — is the — what — what the President has promised: a whole-of-government approach here — response.  That’s what you’ve seen.

The Department of Transportation was able to provide $70- — $60 million.  Just last week, they made that announcement.  You heard me talk about that at the top.  And we will, of course — of course, we are going to work with Congress to ensure that we have the — the resources — right? — needed so that we can make sure that this is fully covered — the rebuilding of the bridge is fully cov- — covered.

I’m not going to go beyond — beyond that.  We’re going to have those conversations.  We’re going to make sure that we are there for the people of Baltimore.  That is the President’s promise.  He said that the federal government is going to fully pay for that.  And he’s going to stand by his word.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Also, on Baltimore.  The six victims of the collapse of the bridge were Latino — from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.  Is the President planning to meet with the families of the victims?  And more broadly, what the White House is doing to help these families that now are facing difficult decisions, for example, where to hold the funeral because some of the family members cannot leave to the home country, some others cannot come here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, what are you doing about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, going to give you more about what the President is going to be doing on Friday in the next upcoming days.  We’ll have more details to share to all of you.  And so, I’ll leave it there about what — what we’re going to be doing on that day.

As it relates to the family members, you may have heard Tom Perez, last week, met with a couple of the family members when he was in Baltimore.  He did a press conference and talked about that and laid that out.  So, certainly, we’ve been in touch with the family members.

I just want to be super careful.  And, you know, they are mourning at this time.  And so, just don’t want to go beyond that.

Q    Is the White House considering some kind of parole to let the people come and — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything beyond — beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q    Just a couple more on Baltimore.  You went into it a little bit at the top, but what does the President hope to get out of the visit on Friday?  Like, what does he want to see and what does he want to hear when he’s there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, sadly, he — he’s done these kind of — kind of visits.  Not — obviously, not this dramatic with a bridge before, but he has been there for communities when they’ve experienced a traumatic event like the people of Baltimore have. 

And I think it’s important for him for — for people to — for — for folks who are working on the ground, whether it’s the first responders who were there in the first couple of hours or the folks who are there now, to see from — from — to see the President, to hear from the Commander-in-Chief, to know that he appreciates the work that they’ve been doing around the clock, to also be there for the community. 

You know, we’ve seen Governor Moore, we’ve seen the mayor do everything that they can for the community in this time.  And so, the President wants to be there as well. 

He’s going to be — Governor Moore is going to be joining him.  I can share — share that with all of you.  And, certainly, we’ll have more beyond that. 

And so, I think it’s important for — when — when something like this — when something this traumatic — six people died, a community is affected by this bridge — to have the President be there. 

And so, we know that there’s a whole-of-government approach happening here — a response.  And — and so, the President is going to see for himself what happened, see for himself the work that’s being done.

I don’t want to get ahead of what that’s going to look like.  I know I was asked if he’s going to do it by air or land.  I just don’t have any details at this time.

Q    And sea.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And sea.

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  True.  And sea.

We’ll have more details to share if the family members are going to be there.  We’ll just have more details to share.  Obviously, he’ll be there with Governor Moore, and he will assess himself and see for himself and hear directly from — from the people who are on the ground doing the work.

Q    And Governor Moore and Mayor Scott were facing personal attacks in the wake of the bridge collapse last week.  When was the last time the President talked to them?  And did they talk about that?  What’s the White House response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think Governor Moore said it perfectly on Sunday: We do not have time for this foolishness.  We just don’t.  We don’t have time for this foolishness. 

And our focus is reopening the port, making sure that bridge gets rebuilt, making sure that we are there — we are there for the people of Baltimore. 

And so, I will add that these claims are baseless and they’re just wrong.  They’re just wrong.  And we’re not going to let these misinformation, disinformation — these horrible statements that are being made distract us from the work that the people of Baltimore want us to do. 

And so, we just have no time for — for any of this foolishness.  And that is, I think, the best way that could be said by — by the Gov- — Governor Moore, who said this yesterday. 

Q    Are you speaking of the words “DEI mayor”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  Oh yeah.  Yeah.  I — I’m — I’m referring — I mean, Karen could speak to her question, but they’ve been under attack.  There was the “DEI” comment on the mayor.  There’s been other really misguided, misinformed, just awful — awful statements that have been made.  And those are wrong and those are baseless.  And we cannot be distracted here.

Q    Are they racist statements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can say is they’re wrong and they’re baseless.  And I think that — that’s pretty — that goes pretty far, right?  And let’s not forget, six people — six people lost their lives.  Six people lost their lives.

Go ahead, Jared.

Q    As you have these conversations with Congress about the funding needed to reopen the port and — and reopen — rebuild the bridge, are there also conversations about any additional legislation that may be needed as it relates to, like, regulation or oversight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I’m not going to get into — I’m not going to get ahead of the funding conversations here that we’re having.  And I think that’s what is the focus here right now, is to make sure that we have the funding, that we get that bridge built, make sure that we open that port.  I think that’s really important. 

I just don’t want to get into — not going to get ahead.  As you know, there’s an investigation happening.  So, I don’t want to get ahead of that.

Go ahead.

Q    Does the President support the $20 minimum wage that’s going into effect for fast-food workers in California today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me look into that.  I have not seen that — that reporting. 

Obviously, the President believes that every worker should be paid, you know — you know, should be able to — to be — able to be paid to support their family. 

And we hear — you hear the President talk about making sure that, you know, folks are able to live in dignity — right? — and respect — have that dignity and respect to raise their family. 

You hear the President talk about his own experience growing up and how difficult it is to be — when you’re around that — when you’re around the kitchen table making those difficult decisions.

On this particular report, I just — I don’t want to speak — speak in — speak about it until I get more — more information.

Q    Okay.  And — but going back to the LNG export ban.  The Energy Secretary has said that that’s a temporary pause.  I’m wondering how long “temporary” is.  And if it is to the level that — that was read out earlier, you know, related to the climate crisis, are there plans to make it permanent?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the Department of Energy.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  Starting with Turkey, can you just tell us a little bit more about the Turkish President’s visit next month, what priorities the two presidents bring to this meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  We’ll have — we’ll have more to share as we get closer to that — to that date.  I don’t want to get ahead of, obviously, what’s actually going to happen in the meeting.  But certainly, we’ll have more to share.

Q    Cool.  Then I’ll move on to — a Chinese national was arrested for trespassing on a California naval base.  Does this speak to larger concerns that the White House has about possible Chinese spying, national security?  And what are you doing about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we take those types of incidents very seriously.  I can’t speak to case — case by case, but, obviously, that’s something that we take very seriously.  We work with folks on the ground when we see those types of cases pop up.  But I just don’t — and I just don’t want to get too fur- — too — too far into it.

Q    And, finally, on Senegal.  The President and the Secretary of State congratulated the new President — the 44-year-old President.  This is leading to other societies in West Africa pushing for quicker elections, for a loosening of their entrenched leadership.  How does the White House see that?  And is that something that you’d support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that last part — it relates to?  Say that last part.

Q    Sorry.  We’re seeing now that other countries — Mali, Burkina Faso, to name just two — their citizenry are now pushing for democratic transitions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Is that something you guys support?  What are you doing to support that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s important — right? — free and fair elections, democracy working at its best, in this — in this regard.  I think it’s incredibly important. 

I — that is — you know, that is something for each individual domestic country to decide on — on.  But I think it’s important to have free and fair elections, let the civilians — let the people decide who is going to represent them. 

I mean, that’s something that we have said multiple times on every election. 

Q    Will the President host his new Senegalese counterpart?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I don’t have a call to readout or anything to speak to at this point. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Most of the border crossers accused of beating up Texas National Guardsmen in a riot last month were released on their own recognizance Sunday.  How does that make people in this country any safer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have to refer you to Department of Justice and DHS on that particular reporting.  I will say this: As the event unfolded, the Border Patrol was able to act quickly and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants.  And we were grateful that the Border Patrol was able to do their job. 

Look, there is a challenge at the border.  Right?  Our immigration system has been broken for decades, before — even before this President became president, obviously, three year- — more than three years ago. 

And this President, a couple of months ago, worked with the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to get a negotiation done.  Right?  And what we saw is, from the last president — President Trump told Republicans in Congress not to move forward with this negotiation — this agreed negotiation, this agreed plan, this agreed proposal because it would help Joe Biden.  That’s what was reported by some of you. 

And we can actually deal with this.  We can actually deal with — with what we’re seeing.  And because they didn’t move forward — right? — because they didn’t move forward with this proposal, because of the last president and because they — they put politics inhea- — ahead of the American people, we are seeing chaos. 

And so, we want to get this done.  We did.  We worked with Congress to get this done, to deal with the challenges at the border.  President Trump got in the way.  And because President Trump got in the way, Republicans are now getting in the way. 

Q    So, does President Biden wish that Republicans in Congress would help him make a law that made it easier to deport people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What the President wants to see is he wants congressional Republicans to pass, to move forward with a bipartisan border security agreement — a bipartisan border security agreement that was supported by the Border Patrol union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce — something that we don’t see nowadays.  And we were able to get that done.

What the President wants to see is that being passed.  He wants congressional Republicans to not put politics first, to put — majority of Americans want us to deal with this issue.  That’s what the President wants to see.

Q    Totally different topic.  How worried do Americans need to be about squatters?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  About squatters?

Q    About squatters.  There’s a lot of stories out there: Homeowners are showing up at places that they own where the locks have been changed, some squatter has moved in, and the homeowner has no rights.  Does President Biden think that is right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, if — my understanding is that this is, obviously, a — a local issue.  We are certainly tracking that issue.  The rights of property owners and renters must be protected.  And we believe that, you know, ultimately, what needs to happen is the local government needs to make sure that they address this and they take action. 

And so, everyone in their community in this country wants the same thing, right?  They all want the same thing.  They want their families to be safe.  And that’s what we want as well.  We want to make sure that Americans and their families feel safe. 

Q    In Florida, there’s a new law where victims of squatting can call the cops and have the squatters removed.  Would President Biden support something like that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to get into — into hypotheticals from here.  What I can say is that, ultimately, this is a local issue.  And it is critical that — that local governments take action to address it. 

Again, everybody wants the same thing.  They want to feel safe in their communities.  That’s what they want. 

We certainly are tracking these stories. 

AIDE:  Karine —

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

Q    Hi.  So, last week, when Secretary Pete Buttigieg came, he talked about the Baltimore bridge collapse will be affecting 8,000 workers.  I was wondering if the White House had any plans for these workers. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know that the Department of Labor — the Acting Secretary, Julie Su, is certainly working on to- –is on top of this.  So, cer- — I would refer you to the Department of Labor on what they’re doing specifically to make sure that workers are certainly — are — you know, their — their needs are being addressed. 

But want to be really clear.  We’re taking all of this seriously.  Right?  We’re — we’re taking — this is a whole-of-government approach.  And so, the Department of Labor has — has had meetings with stakeholders, as I said at the top, and looking into this and trying to figure out how we can be helpful here. 

I know I can do one more.  Go ahead.  I haven’t — go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about Adeel Mangi, who is nominated for a seat on the circuit court.  Can you talk about what you all are doing specifically to get him confirmed after —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Which — which —

Q    Mangi is his last name.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    M-A-N-G-I. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    There were three Democratic senators now who have said they won’t vote for his confirmation.  Are you all doing anything specific to change their minds?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we — I don’t want to speak — speak specifically to members.  But I have said this many times before: The President was very proud to nominate Adeel Mangi, whose extraordinary qualifications and integrity are gaining him new backing each day, as well as retired Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.  That’s somebody who has supported it. 

He is now being backed by nearly a dozen law enforcement organizers, as well as former New Jersey Attorney General –Attorney General and former U.S. attorneys who served under Republican and Democratic governors and presidents.  He’s also backed by the AFL-C — and CIO. 

We are doing everything that we can to make sure that he gets through.  This Senate should side with qualities that make America exceptional, which Mr. Mangi embodies, not the hateful forces that we’re seeing trying to — to force America into the past. 

And so, we’re going to continue — our — our office here, the President is going to continue to do everything that we can to get him through.  We believe he’s extraordinarily qualified to — for this position.  The President is proud to have nominated him, and we’re going to continue to do the work. 

Go ahead, Brian.  You’re the last one.

Q    Hi.  Thanks a lot.  On the Key Bridge in Baltimore — Key Bridge collapse and the impact it has had on the Baltimore port.  Does President Biden want Americans to be prepared for any supply chain problems?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you heard us — you heard me at the top lay out the meet- — some meetings that we were able to do.  The task force met a couple times last week.  As you just stated, the port is — is one of the nation’s largest, as you were alluding to, shipping hubs.  And — and the Francis Scott [Key] Bridge is critical to travel in the Northeast Corridor. 

So, we have engaged in- — intensively with industry ocean carriers, ports, and labor unions to minimize disruptions as shipments are rerouted while the — the Port of Baltimore is closed to — to ship traffic.  So, the Small Business Administr- — Administration has been quickly activated, obviously.  I said this at the top.  You have the Department of Labor as well. 

This is a whole-of-government approach.  The Department of Transportation; we had the U.S. Coast Guard Admiral here that was able to — who’s running that effort, obviously, to — to deal with the cleanup and what we’re seeing there at — in Baltimore. 

And so, we are going to be there for the people of Baltimore.  That is what the President has said.  We’re going to be there every step of the way.  You’re going to see the President on Friday.  We’ll have more details to share as we get closer to that day. 

But all-of-government approach — Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, we are going to be there for — for the people of Baltimore.

Q    What’s the President’s current assessment on supply chain disruptions (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re obviously going to be monitoring this.  We’re going to be looking closely into that.  And that’s why we have activated — the President has made sure that we’re doing this in a — in a — you know, in a strategic way, in a smart way, and dealing with all the stakeholders that’s going to be affected by this.

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

Q    Karine, is the President going to throw out the first pitch —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll see you tomorrow, guys.

Q    — at Nationals Park this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ll — I’ll see you tomorrow.  I’ll be back tomorrow.

Enjoy the day.

1:23 P.M. EDT

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

11:03 A.M. EDT
 
MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words at the top, and then as always, we’ll get through as many questions as we can.  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good morning.  I just wanted to — I got a couple of things here at the top. 
 
First, I want to just take a moment to respond to the –both the nonsense and the propaganda that we’ve been seeing coming from the Kremlin and the Russian government over the past few days about the ISIS terrorist attack on the concert hall, which sadly took the lives of more than 140 people. 
 
Contrary to public statements by President Putin, Federal Security Service Director Bortnikov, Russian government spokespeople, and others who have sought to deflect blame onto Ukraine, the United States, and everyone else who suits their political narratives, it’s abundantly clear that ISIS was solely responsible for the horrific terrorist attack in Moscow last week. 
 
In fact, the United States tried to help prevent this terrorist attack, and the Kremlin knows this.  In advance of the March 22nd attack, the United States government provided clear, detailed information to Russian authorities regarding the terrorist threat against large gatherings and concerts in Moscow.
 
On March the 7th, at 11:15 in the morning, Moscow time, following normal procedures and through established channels that have been employed many times previously, the United States government passed a warning in writing to Russian security services.  In addition, we released a public advisory on the 8th of March, the next day, warning American citizens to avoid large gatherings and concerts in Moscow. 
 
Now, we provided this information to Russia because the United States takes very seriously our “duty to warn.”  We never want to see innocent lives lost in terrorist attacks.  And this warning was one of many that the United States government has passed to Russia since September 2023 about various threats. 
 
Now, while our embassy’s public advisory may have deterred the attackers from attacking on the 8th of March, our warning led — I’m sorry, our warning to the Russian government and the general public accurately identified the terrorist threat posed to concerts in Moscow.  ISIS bears full responsibility for this attack. 
 
The United States will continue to stay vigilant and alert governments around the world whenever we learn of terror plots, regardless of our relationship with them. 
 
It reminds me of something my uncle used to say.  He had a small farm and raised a few cattle in a place near Ocala, Florida.  He used to say that the best manure salesmen often carried their samples in their mouths.  Russian officials seem to be pretty good manure salesmen. 
 
Speaking of Russia, Russia today vetoed in the U.N. Security Council the routine renewal of a U.N. panel that monitors sanctions on the DPRK.  Russia has been violating these sanctions, of course, for some time, including through importing arms for use in its illegal war against Ukraine. 
 
The reckless action today further undermines critical sanctions that the United Sta- — or the U.N. Security Council has imposed in response to North Korea’s multiple nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches. 
 
As Secretary Blinken has said, deepening DPRK and Russian military cooperation should be of great concern to anyone interested in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.  And that includes the PRC, China, which chose to abstain in their vote today. 
 
The international community should resolutely uphold the global non-proliferation regime and support the people of Ukraine as they defend their freedom and independence against Russia’s brutal aggression. 
 
And with that, I’ll take some questions.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Patsy with VOA.
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks, Sam.  So, I have a question on Somalia.  The Somali government on Thursday said its soldiers, backed by international partners and local clan militias, have killed at least 80 al-Shabaab militants and wounded dozens more in different operations in the country’s south and central regions. 
 
I was wondering what the administration knows about this.  Did you take part at all in any of these operations?  Thanks. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Patsy, I don’t have any information on that today.  I’d refer you to the DOD.  That’s really the best place to go for some context on that. 
 
Q    Okay.  And just on the latest on Gaza, John, if you can brief us.  What is the latest on the building of the pier?  I understand from yesterday’s briefing at the DOD, it’s still happening.  But will it meet the target timeline?
 
And then one question about that also.  Once that’s all set up, will the Israelis also be checking for the convoys in Cyprus as well?  And would that also create a bottleneck, the same way that it has in Gaza?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m going to refer you to DOD for the particulars on this, Patsy.  As I understand it, the components of that temporary pier are still making their way across the Atlantic and into the Mediterranean.  I don’t know what the arrival date of that material is going to be.  DOD will have a better sense of it. 
 
But we’ll — obviously, we’ve got the expertise to construct that temporary pier.  And as I also understand it, we are still talking to our Israeli counterparts and other partners in the region about the actual process through which maritime material is going to be transported to the pier and then from the pier into Gaza. 
 
So there’s — DOD has already talked about this; I’d refer you to them.  But as far as I understand it, they’re still working out all the particulars on that. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Ed with Fox.
 
Q    Thanks, Sam.  Thanks, Admiral, for doing this.  I wanted to ask you quickly: Just any national security concerns about American CEOs meeting with Chinese officials this past week, including with President Xi, given China’s hacking of U.S. infrastructure, as well as the other illicit activities — stealing technology and so forth?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Ed.  I think I’ll let those CEOs talk about their discussions and what they intend to speak to with President Xi. 
 
All I can tell you is we’ve been very clear about putting fences around certain American technology going to China because of national security concerns.  You saw that at the G20.  We’ve also been working with industry quite closely and consistently on making sure we share those national security concerns we have about certain technologies.  As Jake Sullivan and the President have both said very clearly, we’re not trying to decouple but we are trying to de-risk some of the economic relationships we have with China.  And we’ll keep moving in that vein.
 
Q    And just a quick follow-up.  Do you have any, then, warnings then for American companies doing business in China?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’ve had a consistent, clear conversation with American companies, particularly in the tech sector, Ed, and those conversations are going to continue.  Believe me, they understand what our concerns are.  We’ve been very plain with them about that. 
 
But if you’re asking me, you know, are we issuing some sort of broadside warning to these particular CEOs as they get ready to go over there, I don’t know of any such specific warning.  We have simply been very, very clear over the course of now many months with American companies about the potential risks. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Seung Min with the AP.
 
Q    Hi all.  Thanks so much for holding the call.  Two questions, if I may.  The first: I wanted to know the U.S. government’s reaction to the new Palestinian Authority cabinet and whether this is the type of cabinet that the administration believes can deliver on those credible and far-reaching reforms like it called for a couple of weeks ago.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so I would just tell you that we’ve long urged the Palestinian Authority to form a reform — to form a reform cabinet with new leadership.  And so, we’re just seeing these reports, we’re going to take a look, and we’ll be looking for this new government to deliver on policies and to implement those credible and far-reaching reforms. 
 
And we’ve long talked about a revitalized Palestinian Authority and how important that’s going to be to eventually delivering results for the Palestinian people and to help establish the conditions for stability, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. 
 
This is about meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people.  We believe that a reformed and revitalized PA can do that. 
 
And again, too soon to make any broad judgments about this particular new government.  We’re going to reserve that to when we have a chance to get a better sense of what their intentions are moving forward. 
 
Q    Okay.  And my second question: Has the U.S. and Israel agreed on a rescheduled date for that meeting on Rafah?  And can you just walk us through a little bit just how the talks kind of suddenly went back on after being called off in such a dramatic fashion earlier this week?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into the sausage-making here one way or the other.  I’ll just tell you that we are currently discussing rescheduling that meeting on Rafah with the Prime Minister’s office and our Israeli counterparts. 
 
We’re working right now to kind of finalize a date, circling something on the calendar.  And as soon as we get that and we’re confident in it, we’ll keep you posted.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps.
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  I wanted to follow up to that question.  When it comes to a future meeting with the Israeli delegation, can you describe kind of the tones of these discussions as you’re rescheduling the meeting?  Is the intent still for an in-person meeting, or are you looking at alternative options?
 
And then also, just a status check on the discussions for a hostage and ceasefire deal.  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On the second question, I don’t have an update for you.  We’re still involved in active negotiations and conversations to try to get that deal in place.  But nothing — no updates.
 
On the first question, look, the tone throughout here has been businesslike and has been professional, and we expect that it’s going to stay that way.  We’re hoping that this meeting can be scheduled in person, here in Washington, as was the original plan.  That’s the plan that we’re still working on now.  But again, no final date.  And when we get that, we’ll let you know.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to James with the Financial Times.
 
Q    Thanks so much, Sam.  Two questions.  The first is: There was a report in Bloomberg this morning saying that the U.S. and the UK were reviewing $20 billion crypto transactions.  That may be, like, one of the biggest sanctions violations when it comes to Russia.  And could you confirm?
 
And the second question is on whether the White House is open to structuring aid to Ukraine as a loan rather than direct assistance as a sort of last resort, if it doesn’t get through Congress as direct aid.
 
MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, I’m going to refer you to the Treasury Department.  They’re really the best place to go for something like that. 
 
On the second question, we are still urging Congress, particularly the House, obviously, to move on the national security supplemental request that the President submitted.  We believe that is the best way to provide the support that Ukraine needs over the coming months, especially now as the Russians continue to try to take advantage of some pressure coming west out of Avdiivka. 
 
We would, of course, rather than a new package that would have to also pass the Senate, again, the House should just pass the supplemental.  And we know that it would pass if Speaker Johnson put it up on the floor.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
 
Q    Hi, thanks for doing this.  One question about the Israeli delegation.  I heard from several sources that they’re planning to be in Washington on Monday and that that’s likely the date of when they’re going to be in the White House.  Can you confirm that?
 
And second, after the visit of the Israeli Minister of Defense, do you have anything to tell us about your impressions on where the operation in Rafah is and whether you feel that you managed to get the Israelis to rethink their plans for such an operation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Barak.  On your first question: No. 
 
On your second question: We did have the opportunity in the discussions with Minister Gallant to broach the issue of Rafah operations, but those discussions were not meant to replace what we hope to be able to do in a more comprehensive way with the Israeli delegation coming to D.C., or hopefully coming to D.C.  That’s really where we hope to get a better sense of their thinking on Rafah, you know, in more specific terms, and also have an opportunity to share with them some of our thoughts about viable alternatives to major ground operations. 
 
And so I think, you know, we just need to let that conversation happen and take it from there.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Franco with NPR.
 
Q    Hey, Kirby.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Just to follow up on that: In the past, you have mentioned — or, pardon me, Jake has mentioned that the expectation is that there would be no ground invasion until after this meeting would happen.  Is that still the expectation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yes. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.
 
Q    Thanks, John.  Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of Evan Gershkovich’s detention.  Can you confirm that the U.S. — I know you won’t give any details — but can you confirm the U.S. is still trying to find some kind of prisoner swap with Moscow? 
 
And then on Haiti, it looks like as of last night there was some progress with the transitional council.  They released a statement.  Do you believe that we are close to the point where the council can actually begin and that would lead to Henry’s resignation?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so on your first question: Yes. 
 
On your second question: Again, we’re obviously watching things in Haiti very, very closely.  We certainly welcome yesterday’s statement by members of that transitional presidential council, that we’re vowing to restore order and democratic governance.  So that was certainly, again, a welcome statement. 
 
We certainly look forward to the TPC now finalizing and announcing its members, which I understand they are still working their way through.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.
 
Q    Thanks.  I just want to go back to the Rafah issue.  Can you just explain, John, again, please, that the U.S. insisted that there is no Israeli military operation in Rafah unless there is a viable plan to evacuate 1.4 million civilians?  And also, there are some reports that Israel has accepted some alternative plans, including going after Hamas’s four battalion in Rafah. 
 
So can you just explain again the U.S. position vis-à-vis  what exactly is required now, considering the fact that many, many people, probably including the White House, believe there’s actually no such plan?  Because, practically, you cannot evacuate one and a half million people.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m happy to restate what we’ve said many, many times before: We don’t support a major ground operation in Rafah.  We think it would be a mistake given the, you know, million and a half folks that are seeking refuge down there.  And, you know, we recognize that it’s a tight piece of geography.  There’s not a whole lot of geographic space to relocate people in a safe and secure way.  That would be a difficult chore for any modern military. 
 
So we don’t support a major ground operation.  We want to have the opportunity to talk to our Israeli counterparts about some viable alternatives.  And, my goodness, that’s what we’re hoping to get on the calendar here in coming days.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aurelia with AFP.
 
Q    Hi, thanks for taking my question.  I wanted to ask you about the situation at the Lebanese border.  So, yesterday, 16 people were left dead after a day of crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah.  How concerned are you about this?  Are you still confident that Hezbollah won’t get fully involved, or more involved that it already is, in the conflict?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Again, we’re watching closely the hostilities along that blue line.  And we’ve also been very, very clear we do not support a war in Lebanon.  We don’t want to see that happen.  We’ve been crystal clear about that throughout the –since the very beginning of this.
 
Restoring calm along that border remains a top priority for President Biden and for the administration.  And it has to be of the utmost importance, we believe, as well for both Lebanon and Israel. 
 
So we’re going to continue to work towards a diplomatic resolution that will allow both Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes in a safe and secure way and be able to stay there.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Laura Rozen.
 
Q    Thank you for taking me.  An expert at a think-tank event yesterday said that he understood there was a second indirect U.S.-Iran meeting in Oman in March.  Is that the case? And was it also on de-escalation, like the January meeting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m sorry, can you repeat the second half of your question?
 
Q    And if it took place, was it also like the January meeting about de-escalation in the Red Sea and the region?  Or what was the purpose of the meeting?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I am not aware of any such meeting, Laura.  And frankly, I don’t believe there was one.  But I’m happy to take the question and check on that and make sure.  But I’m not aware of one.  And frankly, I don’t think there actually was one. 
 
MODERATOR:  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.
 
Q    Thanks.  Going back to the delegation, is the fact that this is now scheduled once again, or about to be scheduled, does this mean that whatever tensions there were regarding the U.N. Security Council vote and the cancellation of the visit are resolved?  Has the air been cleared?  You spoke about the administration being confused and perplexed.  Is all this behind us right now?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’re focused on making sure we have this conversation with our Israeli counterparts.  Again, we really welcome the opportunity to get a better sense from them what their thinking is and to share some of our thinking about viable alternatives here to a ground operation.  And that’s where our heads are.
 
I don’t want to re-litigate nor do I think anybody needs to re-litigate our abstention in the U.N. Security Council.  We were very, very clear about why we took that stance, and we’re focused on moving forward here.  And a big part of moving forward is making sure we can have a robust conversation with our Israeli counterparts about what the future looks like for Rafah. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jihan with The National.
 
Q    Thank you, Sam.  Thank you, Admiral, for doing this.  I have a question about the U.N. Security Council vote.  If the United States supports broadly what the resolution was going to do, why not just support it?  Why take this sort of wishy-washy sta- — what seems to be a wishy-washy stance of just abstaining on it?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, I guess I’m just going to have to challenge the premise of the question just a wee bit there.  I don’t think it’s wishy-washy at all.  And as I said right after the vote, and as so did our U.N. Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, we abstained because we couldn’t support the text, because the text didn’t condemn Hamas.  But we didn’t veto it because, in broad terms, it did reflect what has been our policy, which is linking a hostage deal to a ceasefire.  I don’t know how much more simple I can make it.
 
Q    Yeah, I mean, after multiple vetoing, why not, you know, either — what seems previously was very, kind of, strong stances on resolutions, and so why suddenly this, you know, abstention, which can sort of be interpreted in either way, actually?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, again, I really don’t want to re-litigate this, but I’m happy to take one more stab at it. 
 
The reason we vetoed resolutions in the past was because they called for general ceasefires with no linkage to hostage deals, no mention of getting the hostages out.  It was just this, “Yeah, we call for a ceasefire.”  And number two, the resolutions that we vetoed before didn’t condemn Hamas and what they did on the 7th of October.  And it’s just mind-boggling to me that anybody, no matter where you sit, no matter how you vote at the U.N., could not be willing to condemn Hamas for the slaughter of 1,200 innocent Israelis.  That’s just mind-boggling.  And so, that’s why we vetoed those. 
 
We put one forward last week — I think you saw that — that got vetoed by Russia and China, that did those things — linked a hostage deal to a ceasefire and condemned Hamas.  Now, this last one did do the linkage, which was good, but didn’t condemn Hamas.  So we abstained.
 
I’m not — again, I just don’t understand what’s so complicated to understand about that. 
 
Q    Finally, on the airdrops, we’ve seen reports that 12 people drowned trying to reach aid in the water.  I wanted to ask specifically: Given that these ready meals are not particularly nutritious or edible, particularly for children, what is the value of continuing to do them given how dangerous they are to civilians?  Again, like, how do we weigh their benefit — their nutritional benefits for people who are already starving?  I don’t believe that they are edible for children, let alone nutritious.  Why keep doing them?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What are you basing your assumption on that they’re not edible for kids?
 
Q    I mean, they’re not — they don’t have any nutritious value.  I mean, we’ve seen videos of the contents of these food.  They’re packets that they’re — I mean, for infants, anyway — babies, children who are most at risk of starvation and malnutrition.  I mean, how do we justify?  I mean, are there any studies about how nutritious they are to infants?
 
MR. KIRBY:  They’re not designed for infants, in fact.
 
Q    Yeah, exactly.  So why keep doing that?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Because infants and babies aren’t the only people that are hungry.  There’s a lot of grownups and kids that are hungry too. 
 
And let me tell you something.  I mean, I’ve been downrange a bit in my time, and I’ve had to eat those MREs, and they are — there is a nutritional aspect to them.  I’d refer you to DOD, but those things are designed to provide significant caloric intake and nutrients to troops in the field.  That’s what they’re for.  And I can personally attest to the fact that they meet that need.  But, no, they’re not designed for infants.  The whole purpose for MREs, Meals Ready to Eat, is for troops.  So they’re not designed for infants.  That’s number one. 
 
Number two, nobody said — never — never did we say that our airdrops of Meals Ready to Eat were going to be a sufficient supplement for the kinds of humanitarian assistance — food and water and medicine — that can come in by trucks.  And by coming in trucks, there is — we are trying to make sure that there is ample supply of nutrients for infants and toddlers through that way. 
 
But the United States military does not create MREs to feed infants and toddlers.  Just not the purpose of it. 
 
Now, the other thing is, you know — so, two more thoughts.  Number one, obviously, our thoughts are with all those who may have lost their lives in trying to recover some of the material dropped by airdrops.  As I said when we first announced doing this, it is not a risk-free operation to conduct airdrops.  And we have gone to great lengths to try to do them in places where there’s a minimal risk to people on the ground.  And it’s obviously very sad that some people have been hurt or, in fact, lost their lives trying to recover some of this material, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a worthy endeavor to try to supplement the needs of people on the ground. 
 
I mean, before we started doing airdrops, we were being asked, “Why aren’t you doing airdrops?  You know, because you clearly aren’t doing enough to help feed the people of Gaza.” And now you’re telling us that we shouldn’t do airdrops because infants can’t eat MREs.  I just find that logic completely baffling.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Israel Channel 12.
 
Q    So, John, the IDF released recently just a video from interrogation of one of the October 7th terrorists admitting to rape.  This comes after the firsthand testimony of the released hostage, Amit Soussana, on her sexual assault in captivity.  Is there any comment on this?  I remember President Biden was very clear about this issue.  He had a statement about this when we saw the details that are coming and the testimonies.  I’m wondering if there’s anything to say now when we saw her interview in the New York Times.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that I can comment specifically on this particular testimony or that judicial process, except to say, you’re right, President Biden was very clear that we saw credible evidence that sexual violence was a part of the horrific attacks that Hamas perpetrated on the Israeli people on the 7th of October.  And it just underscores the evil that Hamas represents and the truly — as I’ve said before — the truly genocidal intent of this group towards the Israeli people and the Israeli state. 
 
And that is why we’re going to continue to work with our Israeli partners to make sure that they have what they need to go after that threat and, frankly, to share with them our lessons learned and our perspectives on how to do that in the most effective way possible, without causing additional civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. 
 
But again, without speaking to that specific case, it certainly is totally in keeping with the information that we saw early on of what Hamas not only was capable of but proved that they were capable of doing to innocent Israeli people.
 
Q    Okay.  And also, another question also about the delegation, the fact that there are talks for it to arrive as soon as Monday.  Can you say we’re either at the end of this crisis or that the tensions are de-escalating?  Because it seems now that what we are hearing is very different from what it was just a few days ago.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I kind of got this question a few minutes ago.  Our focus is on moving ahead here, you know?  And we’re glad to be in talks with the Israelis about rescheduling this meeting.  We think it’s an important discussion to have.  And that’s where our heads are.  We’re looking ahead.  We’re not looking at — we’re not looking aft. 
 
And as I said many, many times, we haven’t and we’re probably not going to agree with the Israelis on every single thing when it comes to their military operations, but we both agree on the main, important thing, and that is that we can’t allow Hamas to be able to conduct another attack like they did on the 7th of October.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thanks, everyone, for joining us today.  I think that’s all the time we have.  And as always, if we didn’t get to your question, feel free to email the NSC press distro and we’ll get back to you soonest.  Thanks
 
11:35 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.