Press Briefings

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:14 P.M. EDT
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh my gosh.  Hello. 
 
Q    Hello.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello.
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Hello. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wonder why so many people are here today.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    I’m here for you.  
 
Q    Karine —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, right.  Right, you’re here for me.
 
Q    Karine, before — before you begin —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no, no.  Nope.  That’s not — we’re not doing this.  We’re not doing this. 
 
Q    I would like to request —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re not doing this.  We’re not doing this. 
 
Q    I would like to request that you call on everyone from across the room. 
 
You’ve been discriminating against me and discriminating against some people in the briefing room. 
 
Q    Sir!
 
Q    And I’m saying that this is the U.S. —
 
Q    Come on!
 
Q    — this is not China —
 
Q    Let her start.
 
Q    — this is not Russia. 
 
Q    You’re being rude. 
 
Q    Let her start. 
 
Q    This is not Russia!
 
Q    Be respectful.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    What you are doing, you are making a mockery of the First Amendment.
 
Q    Simon!
 
Q    Decorum, please.  Decorum, please. 
 
Q    Let her start.  Respect her.
 
Q    It’s been seven months.  You’ve not called on me.
 
Q    Decorum, please.
 
Q    You blow off my messages.  I’m saying that that’s not right.  That’s not right. 
 
Q    Let her start the briefing!
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Fun times.  Welcome, guys.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    That’s not right.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Welcome.  Welcome to the press briefing room.
 
Q    (Inaudible) you are trying to silence some people —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    — but this is not right.
 
Q    Sir!
 
Q    Sir, let it go. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you ready?  Are we going to behave? 
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
Q    It’s not about behaving —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  While many folks —
 
Q    — I’m saying that it is to respect the First Amendment.
 
Q    Decorum, please.
 
Q    Simon!  
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    Sorry to our guests.  We apologize. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, I apologize. 
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  It’s all good.  It’s all good. 
 
MR. GOLDSTEIN:  No, that’s all right.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I apologize.
 
Okay, while many — while many folks here in the U.S. are focused on March Madness or the World Baseball Classic — go Team USA tomorrow night, by the way — we at the White House today are going to focus on another sport, which is soccer — or football, as some of my guests might say — (laughter) —
 
MS. WADDINGHAM:  Thank you.  Football.  Thank you. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — specifically AFC Richmond. 
 
And I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the “Believe” ba- — banners that we’re seeing around — that you all may be seeing around the White House complex today.
 
It is an honor — it is truly an honor to have Coach Lasso here with us today.  (Laughter.)
 
On a serious note though, because this is actually very serious for the reasons that they are all here — Jason and his castmates — and there’s a real message around mental health.  And they are meeting with the President and the First Lady, as you all know, this afternoon on this important topic.
 
And as you know, the President has made mental health the centerpiece of his Unity Agenda.
 
And I know that Jason wants to share a few words.  And so, Coach Lasso, the podium is yours.
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  I appreciate it.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And here you go.
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Thank you.  Thank you. 
 
Yeah, I didn’t — I truly did not know it was going to be this when — on the way here — (laughter) — until we were out here.  And so, thank you for taking an interest. 
 
And I know you’re here for bigger reasons than us, but I just want to say that on behalf of myself, everyone here with me today and the numerous other folks that — that it takes to make our show, “Ted Lasso,” it is sincerely an honor to visit the White House and to have the opportunity to speak to the President and to the First Lady about the importance of mental health.
 
So, like, no matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter who you voted for, we all — probably, I assume — we all know someone who has — or have been that someone ourselves, actually — that’s struggled, that’s felt isolated, that’s felt anxious, that has felt alone.  Right?
 
And it’s actually one of the many things that, believe it or not, that we all have in common as human beings, right?
 
And so, that means that we — it’s something that we can all, you know, and should talk about with one another when we’re feeling that way or when we recognize that in someone feeling that way. 
 
So, please, you know, we encourage everyone — and it’s a big theme of the show — is, like, to check in with your — you know, your neighbor, your coworker, your friends, your family, and ask how they’re doing and listen sincerely.  You know?  I mean, you all ask questions for a living, but you also listen for a living.  So, you know, who am I preaching to?  The choir, that is.  Okay?  (Laughter.) 
 
And look — and while — look, while it’s easier said than done, I — we also have to know that we shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help ourselves.  And that does take a lot, especially when it’s something that has such a negative stigma to it, such as mental health.  And it doesn’t need to be that way.
 
And if you can ask for that help from a professional, fantastic.  If it needs to be a loved one, equally as good in a lot of ways, because it’s — sometimes you just need to let that pressure — that pressure valve release.
 
The President is working on, and his — and his own team — although his team is real; our team is make-believe.  (Laughter.)  Don’t think I don’t know that.  Despite what the people that FIFA and EA will tell you, we are actually a make-believe team.  (Laughter.) 
 
But, you know, they’re working very hard to make sure that the — that — you know, that option is available to as many Americans as possible.
 
Now, look, I know in this town a lot of folks don’t always agree — right? — and don’t always feel heard, seen, listened to.  Yes?  But I truly believe that we should all do our best to help take care of each other.  That’s my own personal belief.  I think that’s something that everybody up here on stage believes in.  That’s things we talk about in the writers’ room and we talk about in the editing room and everything in between.
 
And just like — you know, you just want to emulate, you know, these make-believe folks that we all play at AFC Richmond and the way they take care of one another.  That is the wish fulfillment of the show, aside from me playing coach and these guys being professional footballers.  You know, that’s like — you know, that’s — that’s — that’s a big part of the show.  (Laughter.)
 
Now, I — I can’t help but take this opportunity to take at least one question.  So, please, yeah.
 
Q    So, you’re going to do better than 20th?
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Ahhh — wait.  Hold on.  The — decorum, right?  That was the word we were using?  Decorum. 
 
Yes, sir.  A familiar face.  Hi. 
 
MR. LANCE:  Trent Crimm.  (Laughter.)  Fake journalist.  (Laughter.)
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Yes, sir.  Yes, Trent.  Nice to see you.
 
MR. LANCE:  How do you feel about Kansas City being one of the named hosting cities for the 2026 World Cup?
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Ooh, here I was hoping for a softball.  (Laughter.)  Okay, you know what?  I’m very excited, truth — truth be told.
 
Yeah, Kansas City is going to be one of these teams — I mean, I love this town.  What I am genuinely worried about is once we get all these folks from all over the world to come to Kansas City and see our city, eat our food, meet our people, you’re going to have, you know, a lot of folks that won’t want to move away.  That’s what I’m worried about.  (Laughter.)
 
That’s it for us.  All right.  Thank you very much.  All right, see you guys. 
 
Thank you sincerely so much for having us and putting up with us.
 
Now on to greener pastures.  (Laughter.)
 
All right, thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much.  Thank you.
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  All right, see you guys.  Absolutely.
 
MS. WADDINGHAM:  Thank you so much. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thank you so much. 
 
Q    Would you do a Biden impression? 
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Excuse me? 
 
Q    You don’t have a little —
 
Q    Your Joe Biden. 
 
Q    — Joe Biden impression for us? 
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  No, I think — they got the real one here now.  You know?  (Laughter.)  Yeah.  No, I — I need fake teeth and, you know, and injected with a lot more chutzpah to pull that off.  So, you now.  Okay. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, boy.  Oh, boy. 
 
Q    We just want to know if you’re going to do better than 20th.
 
MR. SUDEIKIS:  Oh, I don’t know.
 
I — yes.  Yes. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, guys.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you. 
 
Okay, I just got to say something before we start.  I know some folks are probably going to leave the room.
 
Q    Karine, one (inaudible).  You can’t keep — you can’t keep discriminating against some people in the briefing room because you don’t like them and you don’t like their questions.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sir, you have a choice. 
 
Q    No, you’ve been —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have a choice. 
 
Q    — discriminating against me —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have a choice.
 
Q    — and against a number of people —
 
Q    Shhh —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.
 
Q    — in the briefing room.  And I’m saying that that’s not right.  This is not China.  This is not Russia.  This is the United States.
 
Q    Decorum!
 
Q    This is the White House.
 
Q    Come on.
 
Q    Simon — Simon, the point is —  
 
Q    I think you should —
 
Q    The point is you’re not letting her talk.
 
Q    The rest of us are here too, pal.
 
Q    It is based on (inaudible) —
 
Q    You’re not letting her talk.   
 
Q    (Inaudible.)
 
Q    If you have grievances, you should bring them to her later.
 
Q    I have done that. 
 
Q    Right now, this is —
 
Q    I have done that!
 
Q    — for the entire press corps.
 
Q    All my emails have been ignored.
 
Q    And the press corps is tired of dealing with this. 
 
Q    I’ve done that.
 
Q    It isn’t about you, Simon. 
 
Q    Understand that you get questions all the time and you don’t (inaudible) —
 
Q    The point is —
 
Q    — to sit here for eight months and being discriminated against.  Understand that — 
 
Q    Take your legitimate questions —
 
Q    — you’re in the front row.  And you feel comfortable, and you get —
 
Q    — to the Press Secretary at another time. 
 
Q    — to ask questions all the time. 
 
Q    But you have people in the back who don’t get any questions. 
 
Q    Don’t make assumptions about what the rest of us do.  Mind your manners when you’re in here.  If you have a problem, you bring it up afterwards
 
But you are impinging on everybody in here who is only trying to do their job.
 
Sorry.
 
Q    Okay, thank you.  I’m saying that you shouldn’t discriminate against some people because you don’t agree with their question, you’re offended —
 
Q    You made your point. 
 
Q    — by their question.
 
Q    You made your point.
 
Q    You made your point.
 
Q    We all heard it. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Guys, as you all know — many of you know, this is the White House Press Briefing Room.  A historic room.  A room that should have the decorum.  A room where folks should respect their colleagues and respect the guests that are here.
 
And I understand that there’s going to be give-and-take.  That’s the way the press briefing has gone for — for decades before me.  And I will always, always respect that. 
 
But what I will not — what I will not appreciate is disrespecting your colleagues and disrespecting guests who are here to talk — who were here to talk about an incredibly important issue, which is mental health. 
 
And what has just occurred this last 10, 15 minutes is unacceptable.  It is reg- —
 
Q    You’ve been discriminating against me.  You’ve been dis- —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is unacceptable. 
 
Q    — against me for months. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So we’re going to — so we’re either going to continue the briefing or we can just end the briefing right here.
 
Q    No.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Well, then let’s go.
 
Q    Let’s go.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Now, for my next guest, my colleague, John Kirby, is joining me here today to talk about President Xi’s visit to Moscow and take any questions that you may have.
 
Again, another guest that should be respected in this room and allowed to take questions from the front and from the back.  And that’s what we do every day.  And that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
 
Go ahead, Admiral.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.  Afternoon, everybody.
 
Q    Hello, John.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I do — thank you.  I do have a few things to get through.  And I promised Karine I’d try to be as brief as I could, but there’s a — there’s a lot going on.  So just please bear with me, and then I’ll be happy to take as many questions as — as time will allow.
 
Today, I think you — as you all know, President Xi is visiting Russia to meet with President Putin.  Now, you also probably know that China has already issued a 12-point plan for the conflict in Ukraine, which includes an essent- — an essential point, and that’s respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. 
 
We encouraged President Xi to advocate for this exact essential key point, which must include the withdrawal of Russian forces from sovereign Ukrainian territory consistent with the U.N. Charter. 
 
The entire world would like to see this war end — especially the Ukrainians themselves, who have put forward their own plan for a just peace, which draws, again, on these same U.N. principles.
 
And let’s remember, this war could actually end right now if Russia would withdraw its troops from the country. 
 
We hope that President Xi will press President Putin to cease bombing Ukrainian cities, hospitals, and schools; to halt the war crimes and atrocities; and to withdraw all his troops.
 
But we are concerned that, instead, China will reiterate calls for a ceasefire that leaves Russian forces inside Ukraine sovereign territory.  And any ceasefire that does not address the removal of Russian forces from Ukraine would effectively ratify Russia’s illegal conquests, enabling Russia to entrench its positions and then to restart the war at a more advantageous time for them.
 
This would — the world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, aided by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its terms without any viable pathway to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  Any such attempt — any such attempt would violate the U.N. Charter and defy the will of the 141 countries that demanded, just weeks ago at the U.N. General Assembly, that Russia immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw from Ukraine.
 
Efforts to end this conflict must take Ukraine’s position into account.  And so we encourage President Xi to play a constructive role by speaking with President Zelenskyy, which he has not done since Russia launched this invasion.  Because China, quite frankly, we believe, should hear directly from the Ukrainians and not just from the Russians.
 
And we encourage President Xi to press President Putin directly on the need to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  The world and China’s neighbors will certainly be watching closely.
 
I also have a few updates for you on Israel.  First, we welcome the understandings reach- — reached in Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday between senior political and security officials of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  This was the second meeting in this particular format following the gathering that was in Aqaba three weeks ago, and it included participation by senior officials from the United States, from Egypt, and from Jordan.
 
The parties held candid and constructive conversations on steps to improve security and stability for Palestinians and Israelis and on efforts to strengthen the economic stability of the Palestinian people. 
 
Meetings at this level have not taken place in nearly 10 years.  And they helped to build a critical foundation to deescalate tensions and reduce violence.  And that’s what we want to see happen.
 
We look forward to continuing these discussions as we enter the holy month of Ramadan, of Passover, and Easter.
 
Now, President Biden has also spoken, I think as you know, yesterday with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  In that call, he welcomed the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh and reinforced the need for all sides to take urgent collaborative steps to enhance security coordination, condemn all acts of terrorism, and maintain the viability of a two-state solution. 
 
He also reiterated his unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and our ongoing cooperation to counter all the threats posed by Iran — and there are many.
 
The President also stressed that democratic values have always been and must remain a hallmark of U.S.-Israeli bilateral relations.  Democratic societies are strengthened by genuine checks and balances, and fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of popular support.  He offered his support for efforts underway to forge a compromise on proposed judicial reforms consistent with those core principles.  And we call on all Israeli leaders to reach such a compromise without delay.
 
On a separate topic: Earlier today, I think you saw the President issued a statement welcoming the recovery and soon return of Jeff Woodke, a U.S. citi- — a U.S. citizen who had been held hostage in Africa for more than six years.  He is safe, and he is in the hands of the U.S. government officials.
 
As the President said in that statement not too long ago, we extend our deepest appreciation to the Nigerien government for their help in securing his release.  For more than six years, there has been a multi-pronged effort dedicated to locating and recovering Jeff, which was spearheaded by our military, our law enforcement, and our intelligence community, working together with French support.
 
Jeff, like other hostages and wrongful detainees, will be offered the best medical care possible, of course, to include post-isolation support.  After a full medical screening, he will be reunited with his loved ones in the near future. 
 
I think you can understand why we’d ask you to please allow Jeff and his family a little bit of privacy here as he adjusts to new surroundings and to life moving forward and to coming back into American society. 
 
The Biden-Harris administration remains unwavering in our commitment to bringing Americans wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad home to their loved ones.  And this is yet another example of the President’s commitment in that regard. 
 
Lastly, I know it’s not lost on any of you that today is the 20th anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Whatever one thinks about the war and what started it, I can tell you two things. 
 
One, we’re looking ahead, and we’ve got a — a good collaboration, a good partnership with Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces, who we continue to partner with in an “enable, advise, and assist” role, because there’s still a viable threat of ISIS there in Iraq and in Syria. 
 
And number two, the President and the First Lady remain absolutely committed, as they always have been, to the men and women of America — of our military, as well as across the interagency, who served, fought, died, and suffered in Iraq. 
 
Some 4,399 troops did not make it home from the war.  More than 30,000 came home forever changed by wounds and injuries. 
 
And it’s not just them; it’s their families that continue to suffer, that continue to sacrifice.  There’s 4,399 chairs at 4,399 dinner tables that are empty.  And it’s important for us always to remember that and never forget the bravery, the courage, the sacrifice that went into fighting that war, again, regardless of how you feel about it.
 
President Biden and the First Lady are going to commit — stay committed to those — to those families going forward.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to — go ahead — start in the back.  Go ahead.  Please start.
 
Q    Yes, Karine. 
 
Q    Oh, okay.  Thank you.  Just on Russia.  First of all, Moscow has indicated that they’ll put a pause on the grain deal by May 18th if the U.S. doesn’t comply with some of their demands, which include putting some banks back in the SWIFT system, resuming exports of agricultural equipment.  What’s your reaction to that?  And what’s the plan B if they do halt?
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, first, I — we obviously welcome the extension.  It’s for, I think, 60 days — not the 120 that I think we were — that everybody was hoping for.  But a 60-day extension.  That’s a good thing. 
 
In fact, over the weekend, I think two ships left with hundreds of thousands of metric tons of corn.  And a lot of that corn, a lot of that grain is heading for low- and middle-income countries that have been suffering — no question — have been suffering since the beginning of this war with food insecurity. 
 
So, it’s a good thing.  And we’re grateful for the work of Turkey, for the U.N. to move forward with that. 
 
I don’t have any — and I won’t get into speculating about repercussions one way or another.  We’re focused on now getting — now that this is extended, making sure we get those ships loaded and get them out and get them to places where they need to be.  That’s — that’s what — that’s what the focus is. 
 
Q    And can you just remind us of your position on — you know, doubtless there are going be conversations between President Xi and Putin about assistance to Russia in Ukraine.  What is the U.S.’s position on that?  And what if China does decide to aid Russia?
 
MR. KIRBY:  All right, so on the — on the communications — hang on, I just want to write this down so I don’t forget it.
 
The — you’ve heard the President say this himself.  He wants to have another conversation with President Xi, and he’ll do that.  And we’ll do that at the most appropriate time. 
 
I don’t have a call in the schedule to speak to, but it’s important that we keep those lines of communication open, particularly now when tensions are so high.  That’s why we’re — you know, we still want to get Secretary Blinken back to Beijing.  That visit was postponed; it wasn’t canceled.  And we’re still hopeful that we can get that back on the cal- — calendar. 
 
As a matter of fact, we’re having discussions with the PRC right now about a potential visit by Secretary Yellen and Secretary Raimondo to go over there and talk about economic issues.  So there’s that — that we’re still working. 
 
So all — all of that — keeping those lines of communication open — are still valuable. 
 
Now, you asked about lethal weapons and a provision of lethal weapons by China.  We’ll see what they come out of this meeting talking about.  I mean, we don’t know if there’s going to be some sort of arrangement. 
 
I would just tell you that we still don’t believe that China has taken it off the table.  We still don’t believe and haven’t seen any indication that they’re moving in that direction or they’ve made a decision to provide or that they’re actually going to do that.
 
We continue to believe it’s not in China’s best interest to do that, to help Mr. Putin slaughter innocent Ukrainians.  It’s hard to believe that they would think that that’s in their best interest. 
 
It would also run counter to what we’ve heard President Xi talk about in terms of what his ultimate goal here is.  I think he put an op-ed out today talking about sovereignty, territorial integrity, finding a peaceful way to end this war that — providing lethal weapons would seem to be inconsistent with that goal.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Alex.  Alex. 
 
Q    When is the right time for a ceasefire?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Alex.  Alex.  Go ahead.  Alex, go ahead. 
 
Q    Thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, do you all — are you encouraged by progress — or seeming progress in Israel on the judicial reforms?  It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his critics agree on some key things but not others.  How do you assess the situation?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re glad that they’re talking.  The President was — was encouraged by the — the efforts by President Herzog to come up with some alternatives.  We’re certainly going to let Israeli leaders speak to the details of that.  This is for them to work out. 
 
But one of the messages that President Biden had when he spoke to the Prime Minister yesterday was: It’s important for those efforts to be fully explored and for compromises to be made, because the beauty of democracy is, in fact, compromise.  And the strength of our — of both our democracies is that we believe in checks and balances and also in a consensus among the — the populace that — to make these changes, whatever changes they are, to make them sustainable.  All that has to be factored in.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Mary.
 
Q    Thanks.  Just a couple follow-ups here.  You said that you haven’t seen any confirmation that China has made a decision yet when it comes to providing aid.  Why do you think China hasn’t made this decision yet?  Do you think they’re waiting for this meeting today or —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Difficult to know.  It’s hard.  You know, we — I couldn’t possibly get inside President Xi’s decision-making to see, you know, what — what he’s thinking. 
 
China has, as you know, not condemned the war, but they haven’t provided lethal weapons.  They haven’t participated in — in sanctions the way we obviously would have preferred them to do.  They have — they have made their own sovereign decisions.  And largely, at least tacitly, many of those decisions have come down on the side of Russia here, including buying into the Russian propaganda that this war is some sort of existential threat to Russia and it’s the West or the U.S. and NATO pushing Russia, which is — of course is nonsense. 
 
I can’t speak for President Xi and why he hasn’t moved in this direction.  I would just reiterate here from the podium, what we’ve reiterated to pr- — to Chinese officials privately: that we don’t think it’s in their best interest, it’s not going to bring an end to this war any faster, and, as I said earlier, it certainly appears inconsistent with what President Xi has said publicly about what he wants to see happen. 
 
Q    And on the phone call between President Biden and President Xi, what is the holdup here?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It —
 
Q    You all seem interested in talking.  Are the Chinese not interested?
 
MR. KIRBY:  There’s no holdup — no holdup at all.  We want to make sure when we have this conversation it’s at the — at the appropriate time and in the right context. 
 
President Xi has been kind of busy of late.  I mean, he had the People’s Congress, which just ended; now he’s in Moscow.  So, look, when it’s the right time and — for both leaders, we’ll get them on the phone. 
 
But just as importantly, to my first answer on this, we’re still trying — you know, still interested in working towards getting Secretary Blinken back to Beijing.  I mean, he was practically on the plane when we had to pull that visit back and postpone it. 
 
And as I said, we’re having active discussions with the PRC right now about the potential visit by Secretary Yellen and a — and one by Secretary Raimondo.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, John.  On the — on the call yesterday with the Pres- — Prime Minister Netanyahu, was — has there been any discussion within the U.S. government of withholding potentially some military assistance to Israel because of the — if these judicial reforms do proceed, there are a number of instances around the world —
 
MR. KIRBY:  One of the —
 
Q    — where the U.S. holds — withholds military assistance for democratic reasons or concerns (inaudible)?
 
MR. KIRBY:  One of the — one of the main things that President Biden stressed to Prime Minister Netanyahu was our ironclad support for Israel’s security and that — that that’s going to continue.  We face some common challenges in the region, not — not the least of which is Iran.  That will continue.
 
Q    And then, just on a different topic, the other NSC side — the homeland security side, in light of some of the discussions regarding protests surrounding the potential future indictment of the former President.  You addressed this a little bit yesterday, but can you get — has the White House been briefed on any security concerns or is involved in any operational planning to ensure — investigating threats or otherwise ensure homeland security?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any specific briefings or — or specific threats.
 
As I said yesterday, we — we always monitor this.  Even absent the context of — of those comments, we’re constantly monitoring this — as you would think we should, particularly in the wake of what happened on January 6th.  But I’m not — I’m not tracking any individual or specific threats or any specific or operational moves by — by the federal government. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.  And then we’ll go back.
 
Q    Thanks.  John, does the President plan to invite Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington for a visit?
 
MR. KIRBY:  There’s nothing on the schedule right now for that.
 
Q    And more broadly, on the Russia question, is there another way to look at President Xi’s visit other than a show of support for President Putin?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think, clearly — look, take a couple steps back here.  I mean, this is a relationship that has been burgeoning of late.  There two countries have — have grown closer.
 
It — but they are both countries that chafe and bristle at U.S. leadership around the world, that chafe and bristle at this idea — I know it’s — it sounds like a wonky term, but this rules-based order inter- — this international rules-based order, which so many countries helped to establish in the wake of World War Two.
 
These two countries, they don’t like that much.  And they like to challenge it.  And they — and in China’s case in particular, they certainly would like to challenge U.S. leadership around the world.  And in — in President Putin, President Xi sees a potential ally in that effort. 
 
For President Putin, he sees in President Xi a lifeline of sorts for a war that he’s conducting that has clearly not gone in the — anywhere near the direction he wanted it to go and a military that is clearly failing on the battlefield.
 
So, it’s a bit of a marriage of convenience, I’d say, less than it is of affection.
 
And, again, we’ll — we’ll see where — we’ll see where this goes after this — after this meeting.  But these are not two countries that have, you know, decades-long experience working together and full trust and confidence.  It’s a burgeoning of late based on America’s increasing leadership around the world and trying to che- — and trying to check that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Lalit.
 
Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about the comment of India protests against — there was an attack on the Indian consulate in San Francisco yesterday.  The doors were broken.  The windows were broken. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
 
Q    And graffiti was (inaudible) the wall.  Is the President aware about it?  And I haven’t seen any action being taken by the San Francisco police yet.
 
MR. KIRBY:  We — we certainly condemn that — that vandalism.  It’s just absolutely unacceptable.  The State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service is working with local authorities.
 
I can’t speak for the San Francisco police, but I can say that the Diplomatic Security Service is working with local authorities to properly investigate.  And obviously, State Department is going to be working, from an infrastructure perspective, to repair the damage.  But it’s unacceptable.
 
Q    Now that you have a U.S. ambassador to India confirmed by the Senate, it has been around two years now that you didn’t have an ambassador to India.  Can you look back and say how did it impacted your ties with India not having an ambassador on the ground in Delhi?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It always helps if you have a Senate-confirmed ambassador in a country, particularly one that’s so important, like India, to us in the region and around the world.
 
But we didn’t let that stop us.  President Biden has prioritized that bilateral relationship.  And even though — without an ambassador, we — we certainly had a very competent chargé there and a very competent career staff in the embassy that were able to continue to advance our foreign policy interests in this bilateral relationship and did so quite effectively.
 
But, obviously, having an ambassador is always important, and we look forward to that — to having (inaudible).
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Way in the back, behind Alex.
 
Q    Karine, thank you.  What is the administration doing specifically to counter the growing Russia and China relationship?
 
MR. KIRBY:  What we’re focused on is revitalizing our alliances and partnerships around the world and advancing our foreign policy goals around the world and in working to strengthen the foreign policy objectives and the mutual security objectives that we share with so many other countries. 
 
I mean, last week, on Monday, the President was in San Diego to unveil, with Prime Minister Sunak and Prime Minister Albanese of Australia, this AUKUS deal.  This is a — an opportunity now to help Australia get their own nuclear-powered submarines.  That’s just one example. 
 
That’s what we’re focused on.  It’s not about — it’s not about countering them; it’s about advancing our goals. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Peter.
 
Q    Thanks.  John, Russia and China — it seems like this — these two superpowers are teaming up now against the U.S.  Why did President Biden let this happen?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Peter, these are two countries that have long chafed, as I said to Jeff — long chafed at U.S. leadership around the world and — and the network of alliances and partnerships that we have.
 
This is not — this is not something that these two countries just cooked up since President Biden got elected.
 
Q    But — but he was —
 
MR. KIRBY:  It is something that they have been —
 
Q– since he’s been President, he has talked tough.  He tried to pressure Putin and Xi to act right or risk their standing on the world stage.  Does he see now that they don’t care?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think if you ask a lot of Russians, they certainly care.  I mean, this — their economy is — is barely being propped up by some pretty radical measures by — by Mr. Putin.  Their military has been roundly embarrassed inside Ukraine, and they continue to lose ground there. 
 
And as for China, again, take a look at the way the President has really revitalized and restored alliances and partnerships that were let go, if not ridiculed, in the previous administration.  We have prioritized them. 
 
And there’s no other nation around the world that has this alliance and partnership network that we do.  Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Indo-Pacific.  And President Biden has priotor- — prioritized each and every one of them. 
 
Q    Specific to these two leaders, though, do you think that Putin and Xi fear President Biden?
MR. KIRBY:  You’d have to ask them whether they fear or they not.
 
Q    Should they?
 
MR. KIRBY:  It is not about fear.  It’s about President Biden advancing our foreign policy goals around the world.  It’s about President Biden revitalizing these alliances and partnerships.  It’s about President Biden and what he’s doing to preserve our national security interests around the world.  That’s what we’re focused on. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Welcome back. 
 
Q    Thank you.  It’s been a minute.  Has the President spoken to Jeff Woodke or his family yet today?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think there’s been any direct communication by the President with respect to the family yet.  I mean, we’re just delighted — this news just broke, as you know — we’re just delighted to be able to get him back in our hands.  We’re going to make sure he gets the care he needs. 
 
And I’m sure there’ll be appropriate communications at the right time.  But as I said in my opening statement, we also — this is — I mean, six years, and they just got word today.  We need to give the family a little breathing space.
 
Q    And — sorry, really quick — your reaction to President Putin visiting Mariupol over the weekend? 
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, look, a couple of things there.  I mean, I certainly won’t speak to his travel habits, but Mariupol is far from the fighting.  It’s far from the frontlines. 
 
I hope he did get to see — I hope he did get to see the damage and the destruction that his troops did to that city.  And I heard in the press release that he was going to look at all the ways they rebuilding — they’re rebuilding Mariupol.  Ha!  How about the fact that they shouldn’t have to rebuild it because he shouldn’t have bombed —
 
Sorry.  He shouldn’t have — yeah, I was going to use a word I shouldn’t use here.  (Laughter.)
 
So, I hope he got to see what his troops, his military, and his war did to that city.  But we’ll — but we’ll let him speak to — to his — what he came away from. 
 
I would also tell you that it’s clear that he knows — he has to know how badly he’s doing inside Ukraine.  I mean, more than 50 percent of the territory they took from Ukraine in the first weeks and months of the war, the Ukrainians have already taken back. 
 
And the only real active fighting right now is around Bakhmut.  And here we are on — what is it today, the 20th? — and Bakhmut is still not in Russian hands.  Now, they’re fighting over it; the Ukrainians aren’t giving up on it. 
 
And all the while, we are working to make sure — today, we’re announcing another package of assistance — $350 million worth of assistance, largely ammunition — to Ukraine.
 
While all that’s going on, we’re working to make sure that Ukraine is well suited and well postured to defend themselves in the weeks and months ahead. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Phil.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, John.  Two quick follow-ups on China.  In your description of the relationship between the two — “convenience, not affection,” Russia viewing China as a “lifeline” — do you guys view Russia, at this point, as a client state of China?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I would say there’s — in that particular bilateral relationship, they certainly are the junior partner. 
 
Q    And then, in terms of the lines of communication — the President has talked about this; you’ve talked about it repeatedly — being critical to the relationship — the bilateral relationship with China — which lines are not currently open?
 
There was reporting last month about the military — mil-to-mil lines were not open; obviously, economic lines are open.  Seems like the Secretary of State —
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re hoping to get the economic lines open.  The military-to-military lines are not open.  And that’s — and that’s a problem. 
 
That was, as you know, one of the things we were hoping Secretary Blinken would get thawed for us, because they are frozen.  And, of course, that trip didn’t happen yet, so those lines are still not open.
 
But, look, through diplomatic channels, we still have the ability to speak with the Chinese.  And we are.  As I said, we’re working with them on a potential trip by Secretaries Yellen and Raimondo. 
 
And as I said earlier, the President will absolutely speak with President Xi at the appropriate time.  That’s still open. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Hey, John, can you — thanks, Karine.  Can you talk more about the effort to release Jeff Woodke?  Was the White House directly involved in negotiations?  Were there any concessions?  What — what exactly changed in the last little bit?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We were — our team here at the NSC was — was involved in this.  Of course, Mr. Carstens, the Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs over at the State Department, was keenly involved.  You saw that the President personally thanked the FBI Hostage Fusion Cell for their work, as well as just the work across the interagency; as I said in my opening statement, the intelligence community, other diplomats as well.  There was a lot — that was a team effort to get him out. 
 
There were no concessions made.  There were no swaps here.  This was just hard, grueling, deliberate work by diplomats and other experts directly with the — with the government of Niger to get him home.  And hopefully he’ll — I mean, he’ll be home soon.  But we’re looking forward to that.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, a couple more —
 
Q    Staying — staying on the continent, Kamala Harris goes to Africa —
 
MR. KIRBY:  She does.
 
Q    — later this week.
 
MR. KIRBY:  She does.
 
Q    The First Lady has.  The Secretary of State has.
 
I wonder what — you know, at the end of — Biden plans later this — this year.  I wonder, at the end of the day, sort of, what message you hope to send to those nations, to the continent.
 
And is it a direct foil, a direct, you know — you know, to China — to China’s role in the region?
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, I — the message is the same that — that the President delivered when we had the African Leaders Summit here in December.  And that’s that Africa matters, the continent matters, and our relationships across the continent all matter. 
 
And — and we work on those relationships one at a time, because every country on the continent is different, has different needs and — and different expectations of American leadership. 
 
And that’s why the President, at the end of that summit, assigned Mr. Carson to be the Special Envoy for Implementation. 
 
And you’re seeing us now move out on that.  You mentioned the Vice President’s trip.  The First Lady was just there.  I mean, we are actively following through on the things we promised we would do at the end of that Africa Leaders Summit. 
 
So this is very much about Africa — African leaders, African nations — and not about anybody else. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Aurelia?
 
Q    Thank you so much.
 
Q    Can I ask you a follow-up question on Africa?
 
Q    I have a question on India and China.  There is a report from U.S. News saying that the U.S. provided intelligence to Indian military, and that helped them repel a Chinese incursion that happened last year.  Can you confirm that?  And does it mean that, you know, generally speaking, there is more intelligence sharing with India?
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, I can’t confirm that. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, James.
 
Q    Karine, thank you.  Admiral, thank you.  Two questions focused on China.  First, on the Xi-Putin visit, you and other senior officials have been vocal in recent weeks about your insights into consideration by the Chinese of providing some kind of direct or lethal assistance to the Russians.  And that’s why you’ve issued your public warnings against them doing that. 
 
One of the little-noted aspects of this relationship that I think is important came back in September when Putin and Xi last met in Uzbekistan.  And in his public comments, President Putin stated that they were eager to address the concerns about the Ukraine war that the Chinese had raised. 
 
So, I wonder if you have any insights into the nature of those Chinese concerns and what they may have communicated to the Russians about that.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I do not.  I don’t.
 
Q    The second question is on the Chinese-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Since that deal was announced, has the United States been able to observe any changes in that relationship, in its security implications for the region, et cetera?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think it’s too soon right now, James.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, two more.  Joey.
 
Q    Yeah, thank you.  You said there were no concessions made for the release of Mr. Woodke.  Does that mean there was no ransom payment at all?
 
MR. KIRBY:  That’s right.  That’s what that means.
 
Q    And Secretary of State Blinken was in Niger last week.  Did he negotiate at all for his release during that trip?
 
MR. KIRBY:  He certainly had discussions with leaders that he met there about Mr. Woodke, as you would expect him to.
 
Q    And where is Mr. Woodke right now?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into the specifics of his location.  He’s still on the continent, but he’s in U.S. — he’s with U.S. government officials.
 
Q    Okay, thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Do you know if the Chinese government has contacted Kyiv regarding its 12-point plan?  And what’s the Ukrainian government reaction to the plan itself?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I certainly would refer you to comments that President Zelenskyy has already made.  I’m not going to speak for him or his administration.
 
To the best of my knowledge, I know of no conversations between the Chinese and Kyiv with respect to this so-called 12-point proposal.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Ed.
 
(Cross-talk by reporters.)
 
Go ahead, Ed.  Go ahead, Ed.
 
Q    Yeah, thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you.  So, we saw the Chinse, as alluded to here, broker a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  And now the Chinese said they want to broker peace in Ukraine.  What role would President Biden play in any negotiations with them?
 
MR. KIRBY:  He’s already talked to that.  He’s already said very clearly that when it comes to a negotiated settlement, if it comes to a negotiated settlement — and I’ll say it again, no reason for it to; Mr. Putin could just pull his troops out, be done — but if and when it comes to that, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. 
 
And we will do — and the Ukrainians will find in us a strong and willing partner to help President Zelenskyy if and when he’s ready to negotiate.
 
But the starting point for us has got to be him.  The Ukrainians have to be heard.  Their perspectives have to be understood.  They have to have a voice in this process.
 
And so, it’s fine for the Chinese to go out there and say they want a ceasefire.  We’d all like a — we’d all like to see the fighting stop.  Who wouldn’t? 
 
But if it stops now, without any consideration of the Ukrainian side, without any discussion between the Chinese and the Ukrainians, without any accession by them to an idea of a ceasefire, it basically freezes in place what Mr. Putin has been able to achieve on the ground inside Ukraine.  It’s dwindling, but he still has occupied territory in Ukraine.  And that’s just unacceptable.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Last question.
 
Q    What’s the level of concern —
 
Q    Thank you.
 
Q    Real quick.  What’s the level —
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.
 
Q    Just real quick.  What’s the level of concern about the growing influence of China around the world then?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Well, we’re certainly mindful that China has tried to expand their influence all around the world — in the Middle East, in Africa, in Latin America. 
 
They can speak to their foreign policy goals should they wish to; I can only speak to ours.  And our goals are not about countering or — or being a block or an obstacle.  There’s no effort to contain here.  It’s about advancing what President Biden believes are the appropriate foreign policy goals for this country, for the American people, and for the best interests of our allies and partners.
 
And again, I go back to what I said before: No other nation in the world — none — has the — a network of alliances and partnerships that the United States does, has as many friends around the world as the United States does who are interested in pursuing the same goals.
 
Secretary Austin, just a week or so ago, held the 10th Ukraine Defense Contact Group, more than 50 nations — again, more than 50 nations at each and every one. 
 
And those are voluntary participation events.  It’s not like we’re browbeating people to show up to agree to contribute to Ukraine. 
 
That’s — that’s the power of American convening leadership.  And you don’t see that power out of either Russia or China.  These are two countries who do not have that same network of friends and partners. 
 
And one of the reasons why that relation- — (Ms. Jean-Pierre begins to call on next reporter) — sorry —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s okay.  (Laughs.)
 
MR. KIRBY:  He got me all — he got — he got me —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s in the zone.  (Laughter.)
 
MR. KIRBY:  No, no, he got me all lathered up.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  He’s in the zone.  He’s in the zone.
 
Q    You’re on a roll, man.
 
MR. KIRBY:  You got me all lathered up now.
 
But one of the reasons why you’re seeing that tightening relationship is because they recognize that they don’t have that strong foundation of international support for what they’re trying to do, which is basically challenge American leadership around the world.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, last question.  You got the last question.
 
Q    Thank you very much.  The President travels to Ottawa this week, and the past President had a difficult relationship with Prime Minister Trudeau.  Does the United States feel that is — that episode is in the past and — or does that relationship need tending with Canada and Canada’s leadership?
 
MR. KIRBY:  We’ll have more to say later in the week about the trip to Canada.  The President is very excited about doing this — going up there and really going to Ottawa for no other purpose than the bilateral relationship. 
 
He has a terrific relationship with Prime Minister Trudeau — warm and friendly and productive. 
 
There’s an awful lot on the — on the plate there, from — everywhere from strengthening NORAD to climate change to, obviously, migration challenges, economic, and trade.  I mean, there’s a bunch of things.  We’ll have more to say later in the week.  But the President is very excited about this.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Admiral.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.  Appreciate it, everybody.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thank you.
 
Okay, just a couple things, and then we’ll get going. 
 
As you all know, earlier this month, President Biden released his budget, which will the following: invest in America; lower costs and cut taxes for working families; protect and strengthen Social Security, Medicare; and reduce the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over a decade — all while ensuring that no one making less than $400,000 per year pays a penny more in new taxes.
 
The day after the President released his budget, the House Freedom Caucus released their MAGA budget proposal, which is a five-alarm fire for hardworking families.
 
Each day this week, we will zero in on how the MAGA budget proposal would be a disaster by endangering public safety, raising costs for families, shipping manufacturing jobs overseas and undermining American workers, hurting seniors, and weakening national security and our ability to outcompete China.
 
Today, we’re showcasing how the MAGA budget proposal would endanger public safety.  And here is how it will do that: make our border less secure by eliminating funding for more than the 2,000 CBC agents and officers; defund the police — not fund the police, but defund the police by eliminating funding for 11,000 FBI personnel and 400 local law enforcement positions; allow an additional 150,000 pounds of cocaine, nearly 900 pounds of fentanyl, nearly 2,000 pounds of heroin into our country; slash rail safety inspections leading to 11,000 fewer rail safety inspections days next year alone; jeopardize our air safety by shutting down air traffic control tower services at one third of all U.S. airports.
 
And that’s just the start of it.  That’s just the beginning.  So we look forward to sharing more every day this week.
 
One — one last thing, and then we’ll get started.  We send our best wishes to everyone celebrating Nowruz across the United States and around the world, from the Middle East, to Central and South Asia, and to Europe.
 
The Nowruz holiday brings loved ones together around the Haft-Sin table to reflect on the year that has passed and renew hope for the year ahead.
 
This year comes at a difficult time for many families when people is — when people — when the hope is needed more than ever — including for the women of Iran, who are fighting for their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
 
The United States will continue to stand with the women of Iran and all the citizens of Iran who are inspiring the world with their conviction and their courage.
 
And together with our partners, we will continue to hold Iranian officials accountable for their attacks against their own people.
 
With that, you want to kick us off, Zeke?
 
Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  First, a moment of personal privilege here.
 
I just want to express our apologies in the press corps to the folks watching at home for the display we saw earlier.  Our responsibility is to them.  We’re here to ask questions on their behalf, to hold their government accountable because they can’t all be here.  You know, this isn’t about us.
 
So, with that, for you: There were some calls over the weekend, last couple of days, from small- and mid-size banks calling on the federal government to insure deposits above $250,000.  Is that something the President would be supportive of?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have any new announcement at this time for you. 
 
And appreciate that, I should say.  I appreciate that.  I think the American people appreciate that because that is an important message to send to all of them who are watching.
 
But as you know, right now, Zeke, our goal is to ensure the financial system is stable. 

Q    The American people wants you to be fair, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is their focus of Treas- — that is the focus of Treasury and the bank regulators.
 
And as you saw, due to our actions this week at the direction of the President, Americans should be confident of their deposits.  We’ll be there when they — when they need them.
 
And — and so, again, that’s what our focus is going to be.  We don’t have any new announcements at this time.  But clearly, we want to make sure that our financial system is stable.
 
Q    And just briefly on a different topic.  Congress has sent the President the COVID origins bill.  Does he intend to sign that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I spoke to this last week.  We’re reviewing — we’re certainly reviewing it.  I just don’t have anything to share on the President signing the bill at this time or next actions.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  And I’ll join Zeke in what he said earlier.
 
What does the White House make of former President Trump calling on supporters to protest his potential indictment?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, it’s an ongoing investigation.  We do not comment on any ongoing investigations from here.  We’ve been very consistent on that.  So, certainly I’m not going to break that — kind of break our protocol here, so I won’t — I won’t comment from here.
 
Q    I’m not asking about the potential indictment itself.  I’m asking about the former President calling on supporters to protest —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that —
 
Q    — the possibility that he might be indicted.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Understood.  Understood.  I wanted to say that at the top.
 
So, look, the President has been very clear when it comes to Americans who want to — to protest: They should do it peacefully.  And that is something that is incredibly important that the President has always continued to say, but I don’t want to get into, you know, hypotheticals from here.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.
 
Q    There’s one other thing related to this that isn’t hypothetical, because now House Republicans are requesting to speak with the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, about his ongoing investigation into former President Trump.  Is that, in the view of the White House, a proper use of federal taxpayer dollars to investigate or try to find out what a local prosecutor is doing?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m just not going to speak because that — they’re un- — that is an underlying connection to — to the — to the investigation.  Just not going to comment from here.
 
Look, our — the President is going to continue to focus on what the American people need, their priorities.  We’re going to continue to focusing — to focus on lowering costs.  We’re going to continue to focus on the President fighting for Medicare, Social Security, ACA.  That is what the President is going to do.
 
Look, if Republicans — and the President has said this over and over again — if they — Republicans want to work with us in a bipartisan way to deliver for the American people, to continue to build on the successes that we have seen in the last two years when it comes to the economic policy, building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, he’s willing to have that conversation.
 
Q    And we saw what the President proposed on Friday regarding changes to how the FDIC oversees banks and executives at banks, specifically.  Has he been in touch directly with any business leaders?  Or who was it here at the White House that may have had conversations with Warren Buffett, for example, about the banking crisis?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so I’ve seen the reports of — on Warren Buffett that you all have been reporting on.  Don’t — don’t have anything to read out or to lay out on any conversation.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.
 
Q    And the President himself otherwise?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just — just don’t have anything to read out on conversations that the President may have had with anybody from the business sector or outside of — outside of the — of the White House.
 
What I can say is — and we’ve said this many times before — he has been kept regularly updated by his economic team, by the Chief of Staff.  And that continues.
 
Thank you.
 
Go ahead, Mary.
 
Q    To put a — a follow-up on Ed’s question about the former President’s message to his supporters.  You know, given what we’ve seen in the past when the former President has urged his supporters to “take our nation back,” are you concerned and worried as an administration about the threat of violence?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we — we are always prepared; I can say that from here.  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals or any potential scenarios.  But we are always preparing.
 
Q    And on the issue of banking, there’s some reporting that Warren Buffett has been in touch with the administration, you know, playing a role in sort of helping to advise as you address the banking crisis.  Can you confirm that?  Can you comment on any conversations with Warren Buffett?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — I think Ed just asked that question —
 
Q    Oh, I’m so sorry.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — Mary.  (Laughs.)
 
Q    Can you (inaudible) a little bit more?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I just don’t have anything for you at this time.  I can confirm that — that I have not had a conversation with Warren Buffett.  (Laughs.0  But, no, I just don’t have anything to read — to read out at this time.  No problem.
 
Q    Just following up on the broad question about banking, can you give us a sense of next steps in this?  You’ve expressed confidence that the banking system is strong, but there’s still some jitters out there.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Understood.  Look, the President has already called for Congress to make it easier for regulators to do the following: clawback compensation, impose civil — civil penalties, and ban executives from working in the banking industry.
 
He will also — going to call on Congress and bank ral- — regulators to strengthen the rules for larger banks so this doesn’t happen again.

As you know — and I’ve said this many times before — in 2018, we saw that the previous administration rolled back some of the tough requirements put — put under — put in place under the Obama-Biden administration.  And so — which was — which was put in place to strengthen the financial system. 

So — so, the administration is — again, is going to actively look into what regulations or laws should be strengthened to prevent this from happening again. 

But, look, the actions that we saw this weekend, the actions that we have seen over the past 10 days or so should give the American people confidence that the — that, you know, depositors will have — their money will be there when they need it. 

And so, again, we have done everything that we can to make sure that we hold the — we hold the managers of these ba- — of these banks accountable and — and that this does not affect and we don’t put on the hook the taxpayers or the American people.

Q    Is the President worried or is the White House worried about the politics of this, in terms of banks getting bailouts and average Americans, so to say, not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President made a commitment to make sure — and you heard — you heard, also, Secretary Yellen speak to this last week — and ba- — making sure that they’re not put on the hook for this, right?  Making sure that we make — that the investors, as I just mentioned, the managers, are — you know, are held accountable. 

And so, the President has made decisive force- — and forceful actions to strengthen, again, the public confidence in our banking system.  No taxpayers’ money is being used or put at risk in — with these actions that have been taken over the last 10 days or so.  And our banking system remains sound. 

That is something that you heard from Secretary Yellen directly herself just last week.  And this is all done because of the President’s direction that he asked the regularly — the regulators to take a look at it.  He asked the Treasury Department to take a look at it and make sure that we make these decisive actions.

And, again, we just saw this — some decisive action this weekend.  And so, we want to make sure — and we’re doing this to make sure that the Americans are confident — American people are confident in the work that this administration is trying to do to make sure that — that we meet the demands, that resources for depositors are met.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does the President believe that the actions of the last 10 days, which have been fairly extraordinarily — extraordinary in scale and scope, are enough?  That we’re past this, we’re through this, the system is going to be good to go from here on out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, when you think about the accountability that the President put forth just on Friday, which focused on ensuring that senior bank executives are held fully accountable, it builds on our work to ensure key executives that — that ran Silicon Valley, for example — Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank are removed and investors in these two banks are — take their losses. 

But, again, Congress should act, should make it easier for regulators to claw back those compensations that I mentioned, impose civil penalties, and ban executives from working in the banking industry again. 

So, look, we — the President took the necessary actions to meet the moment that we’re in now.  He believes that Congress co- — needs to continue to act.  We’re going to continue to have those conversations. 

Of course, there are things that we can do without Congress, which is what we’re seeing the regulators do.  But this is a — this is a partnership.  This is — also, we have to do this in hand with Congress.  So, of course, more should be done and can be done. 

Q    And then just one quick follow-up.  Should — do you guys view this — you’ve said the issue of confidence several times, in terms of how people are perceiving this right now.  Do you view this primarily as a confidence issue, not a system issue or some bigger problem in terms of the banking sector?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we want to make sure — I think it’s important — the President believes, as President of the United States, as we’re seeing what occurred these last, again, 10 days or so — I’ve lost count — but — that Americans should have confidence.  Right?  They should have confidence in the banking system.  They should have confidence in the actions that the regulators have taken, that — again, at the direct- — the direction of the President. 

And, as you asked me, “Should there be more work to be done?”  Absolutely.  We should not let Congress off the hook.  They should take actions in making sure that — moving forward, that our banking system continues, that we’re doing what — taking the actions to make our banks and banking system secure. 

So, again, more actions need to be taken, for sure.  The President has — has taken actions to deal with the moment that we’re in. 

I’ve said this before: What we’re seeing with these — these banks are distinct to those banks.  But — but we’re in a different place than we were in 2008 because of — because of the — because of the regulations that we saw fr- — in the Obama-Biden White House.  And so, that matters as well.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    To follow up on that, Karine, you said that there are things that the White House or the administration can do without Congress.  Do you have a timeline on this, on when the- — we’ll see that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, no, it’s a —

Q    — will it be days or weeks or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s a good question, JJ.  Look, we’re already seeing some of that underway as regulators have taken action over the last few — few years to reverse the last administration’s deregulation.  And that is because of, again, the actions under this President.  And so, we’ve seen that.  But again, we cannot take Congress off the hook.  And the regulators are going to take — continue to do what the President asked of them, again, these past two years. 

But again, Congress has to act.  We need to make sure that they do their part in this as — as the President is ma- — taking actions to give the American people confidence. 

Go ahead. 

Q    Does the President view Jerome Powell’s stewardship of these events as at all a risk to his position as Chairman of the Federal Reserve?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  The President has confidence in Jerome Powell.

Go ahead.

Q    Shares of First Republic Bank have declined in recent days.  Is the administration considering further steps to support that bank?  And do those options include, potentially, the FDIC taking over the bank?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, that’s something for the FDIC to speak to.  I’m not just — I’m not going to comment on any hypotheticals from here.

Q    And Senator Warren was on a number of Sunday shows yesterday.  She has said the Federal Reserve should stop hiking interest rates in an effort to control the high inflation, given the circumstances that we’re in. 
 
What’s the President’s level of concern that another rate increase this week could further weaken the banking industry and potentially threaten some of these smaller and mid-size banks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I understand the question.  As it relates to the Federal Reserve, we’ve been very clear: They are independent.  They will make — the President believes that.  The President has been very clear on that.  And they are going to make their decision — their monetary policy decision, as it relates to the interest rate, as it relates to dealing with inflation, which are clearly both connected.  But I’m just not going to — we’re not going to comment on that from here.

Go ahead.  I haven’t called on you.

Q    How’s the — switching gears to climate a little bit.  How is the White House dealing with the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that came out today?  Are there plans to change anything that the administration is doing, or just carry on the programs and plans you have right now?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, have not spoken to our team about the reports.  We would need to — to go back and — and get their assessment on — on the report that you just mentioned that came out.  So, just don’t have anything to share at this time.  But happy — happy to come back to you on that.

Q    And in terms of preparations for any protests or rallies, what do those preparations look like?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into any — any details from here.  I think I answered this question just a little bit to your colleague.  And I just said we’re al- — we’re always prepared.  But certainly not going to get into hypotheticals.
Go ahead.

Q    What’s happening with the Cuban baseball defector?  And are there any concerns about how that might impact any relations with Cuba?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share at this time on that question.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  While we’ve been in here, there’s been a couple of stories that have started to come out about the Economic Report of the President.  I think there’s an AP story and a New York Times story.  Do you have anything more to share on when that report is coming out and any of the toplines from it?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share at this time.  When we’re ready, we certainly will share that with all of you. 

Okay, go ahead, Courtney.  Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I wanted to ask you — state leaders are campaigning for abortion access amendments to be put on the ballot in 2023 and 2024.  One example that’s gaining some steam is in Ohio.  Is the administration doing anything to support this effort or tracking those ballot initiatives, given that you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can you go back to what you said before you said Ohio?  What — what did —

Q    Yeah.  Ballot initiatives.  There’s leaders that are trying to put ballot initiatives for 2023 and ’24 for abortion access.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Abortion ac- —

Q    To expand abortion access.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To abortion — expand —

Q    Kind of like what we saw in Kansas.  Gaining traction to do that in other states.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look — look, we — the President has been very clear about what — especially the day that Roe was no longer the — the law of the land — that we needed to do everything that was possible to make sure that we protect women’s rights — women’s rights to healthcare.  And he’s been very clear about that. 

I don’t have any specifics to say on those particular potential pieces of legislation.  But, clearly, we welcome legislation that’s going to support that, that’s going to support women having — being able to make their own decisions on their healthcare. 

And it is shameful — it is shameful that we’re seeing extreme elected officials out there talking — talking about national ban on abortion.  And we’re going to continue to call that out. 

We should not be talking about taking away the freedoms of Americans across the country, of women across the country.  And so, we’re going to continue to be very clear about that. 

But, certainly, we would support legislation that helps expand the access for women.

Q    And if you could provide an update on the case in Texas on mifepristone.  I know that you’ve gotten that question a couple of times about how you’re preparing.  We still don’t, obviously, have a court order.  But can you provide an update for people who are listening who are worried about this decision and how it might affect their care?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I want to be very careful.  It’s a — it’s a — as you know, the decision has not happened.  It’s a — it’s an ongoing litigat- — litigation.  But I’ve spoken at this podium before how unprecedented if — if the decision, you know, were to ban a pill — this has been around for more than two decades, that’s in more than 60 countries. 

But again, this is about the FDA’s authority to make it — its independent, evidence-based decision on drugs. 

And so, those decisions on what medication can be used in our country should not be determined in court, and they should be determined based on their safety, science, and the data. 

And so, I want to be very clear.  But — so, we’ll wait.  We’ll await steps here and speak on this once a decision has been made. 

But again, you know, the President is going to continue to be very vocal when it comes to protecting women and their rights to choose for themselves, for their own body, on — on how they want to proceed and move forward with healthcare.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Aurelia.

Q    Thank you so much.  Tomorrow, the President will take part in this White House Conservation in Action Summit at the Department of Interior, where he will — and I quote the guidance — “highlight the…administration’s actions and historic investments” for the environment and nature.
 
But just a few days ago, he greenlighted the Willow project in Alaska, so this — it looks like he’s sending conflicting signals here. 
 
So can you maybe elaborate on what his approach is on the environment and what he’s telling especially young activists who protested the Willow project?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I — you know, I would disagree with that.  As — as we have said before, the step that the Department of Interior had ta- — had taken was because of certain legal constraints.  So we have to remember that.  These were le- — this was part of a legal kind of decision, as I explained last week.  And tomorrow’s event is about building on the President’s historic climate and conservation record, which the President is very proud of. 

If you think about what the President has done — protected more lands and waters in his first year than any President since JFK.  He — just last week, he declared the entire U.S. Arctic Ocean off limits to new oil and gas leasing.  And so — and the Interior Department also announced it’s preparing new regulations to protect 13 million acres in Alaska. 

And so, you know, the President is going to continue to fight for climate — to protect our climate and take those actions.  He’s made the largest-ever investments in conservation and restoration of our lands and waters. 

And so, the President is very proud of his record, and he certainly will never back down from it. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Do you have any details of the Arts and Humanit- — Humanities Award Ceremony tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do.  I do have some information to share with all of you.  That’s the awards that are happening tomorrow. 

So — give me one second here. 

So, he’s going to — the President is going to host, in the East Room, a ceremony at the White House to present the 2021 National Humanit- — Humanities Medals and the 2021 National Medals of Arts.  First Lady Jill Biden will attend the ceremony as well. 

We will have more on the recipients of the awards later today.  But don’t have anything to preview.  But, certainly, we’ll have more to share.  And this will be, I believe, the first one in this administration in the past two years. 

Okay.  I’m trying — who have I not called on.

AIDE:  One more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  One more?  (Laughs.)  Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  I wanted to ask about — President Trump is going to give a rally in Waco, Texas.  This is the 30th anniversary of the standoff between Branch Davidians and the FBI and the ATF in Waco.  Is the Biden administration concerned about anti-government activity in Waco around the rally?  Are there security concerns that President Trump may use this anniversary to foment anti-government sentiment at that — at that event?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you know, I can’t speak to what the former President is going to do or say.  What I — I’m not tracking any — any security concerns.  So, don’t have anything more to share beyond that. 

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

3:22 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Cast of “Ted Lasso,” and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John<span class="dewidow"> </span>Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:16 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It smells lovely in here.

Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It does.  It smells like, I don’t know, potpourri or something.  It smells lovely.

Welcome back to those who traveled with us out west.  It was a really great trip.  Three — three days of wonderful activities.

Okay.  So, tomorrow is one of the President’s favorite holidays and many of my colleagues’ as well, as I’ve been hearing all day long.  And so, it’s St. Patrick’s Day, as you guys know. 

And it’s also, fun fact, my mom’s birthday tomorrow.  So —

Q    Aww —

Q    Wish her a happy birthday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  That’s what I was about to do.  I know she’s watching, so you guys have to behave.  My mom is watching.  Happy birthday, Mom.

So, President Biden will host Leo Varadak- — Varadkar — sorry — Varadkar, Taoiseach of Ireland, here at the White House for a bilateral meeting and St. Patrick’s Day celebration, continuing a longstanding St. Patrick’s Day tradition here at the White House.

To kick off the celebrations, Taoiseach and his partner, Mr. Bennett [Barrett], will join Vice President Harris and the Second Gentleman for breakfast at the Naval Observatory, where they will be serving Eggs St. Patrick’s, of course.  Apparently, that’s a thing.  It’s going to be exciting.

Later tomorrow morning, the President will meet with Taoiseach for a bilateral meeting.

In the afternoon, the President and Taoiseach will go to the Capitol for the annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon.

And in the evening, the President and Taoiseach will return to the White House for the St. Patrick’s Day Shamrock Presentation ceremony and reception, including a special performance from Ireland’s own Niall Horan.

Niall is a multi-platinum-selling singer/songwriter who has toured the globe, including with One Direction.  Going to keep my comments to myself on One Direction.  I don’t know who they are.  Sorry.  (Laughter.)  Many of you, I’m sure, do.

But —

Q    They gave the world Harry, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  (Laughs.) 

AIDE:  And Niall.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Um, okay.  But I know a few members of my team are truly excited about that, especially Allyson.  You guys all know Allyson, one of our wranglers.  She’s been thrilled this past couple of days.

So, and all — anyway, St. Patrick’s Day, we’re all excited to be celebrating that tomorrow here at the Biden White House.  And so, I’m sure you guys will all be celebrating with us and the rest of the country.

But today I have very sad news — a goodbye to one of our day ones, one of our OGs, members of our team, Kevin Munoz, who’s sitting right here.  Many of you know him.  He was here day one, obviously — day one-ers — of this administration.  And since Kevin joined the Biden world in 2019 for the campaign, he has affectionately been known as our “Florida man” for his knowledge of all things Florida.  If you have any questions about Florida, Kevin is your guy.  That is his home state, of course.

And Dr. Munoz.  And we — we affectionally call him “Dr. Munoz” for his leadership during the early days when we were still in the throes of the COVID pandemic, and Kevin took that on without complaint and with clear brilliance and really led us through that path of — of what was happening very early on in the administration.

And — and as you know — and again, just to add, he embedded himself into the — into the core team of the White House Response Team on COVID and with their str- — strategic decisions and how to move forward on COVID-19.  And Kevin has just been, again, brilliant and fantastic in that role.

Those were difficult days, as you all know, working around the clock, and Kevin was exactly the right person for the job.  He thrives in the pressure cooker, and has been a strategic and effective communicator on some of the most complex and critical issues we have faced as a country.

Kevin has also been an important spokesperson for us — for us on issues of deep importance to the Latino community, and also LGBTQ Americans.  And he has helped reach Spanish-speaking Americans across the country as a strong and effective bilingual communicator. 

Kevin is wicked, wicked smart and has a huge heart.  He cares about all of these issues, and he cares about his colleagues.  And he certainly cares about the work that we have been doing here these last two years, and we will miss him dearly.  And — but he won’t go far.

And also, his birthday was yesterday.  So happy birthday, Kevin.

But we love you, and we will miss you.  And thank you so much for your dedication and for your service.

With that, Darlene.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions on banking.  So, the Treasury Secretary was on the Hill this morning testifying that the system remains sound and people can be confident about their deposits.  When the President addressed the situation on Monday, he said that he was “going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks” to make sure that this type of failure is less likely happen in the future.

At this point, can you be a little more specific in terms of precisely what the President is looking for from Congress and the banking regulators on this issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, to answer the sec- — the first question, I guess: We have seen bipartisan support on a piece of legislation — the Warner [Warren]-Porter bill.  And so we appreciate those folks putting their ideas together and putting that on the table.  So we’re going to work closely at that bill and other regulatory changes as well.

As you all know, the Obama-Biden administration put in place tough requirements after the 2008 financial crisis to make sure that this sort of crisis would not happen again. 

But unfortunately, in the last administration, in 2018, some of those rolled back some of — some of those regulations that would have been incredibly important as we move forward.  So as the President said, Congress and regulators must strengthen those rules for larger banks so that this doesn’t happen again.

And so, again, there’s the legislation that we are encouraged to see.  And — and we’ll, you know, continue to work with Congress on what else — what else can be done.

And — but, as we know, we can’t — there’s quite a bit that we can do administratively.  But without Congress, there’s not — without Congress, we can’t fully deal with this issue. 

So, as — your question on the regulators — you know, already underway, the regulators at — that the President appointed over the last few years, reversing the changes that we saw in two thous- — 2018, under the last administration, as I just mentioned.  But that — again, but we need Congress to take — we can’t let Congress off the hook, and they need to take action.

So, it’s going to take both the Congress and regulators to strengthen those rules, and so that’s what we’re calling on to do.

Q    And secondly, there are reports that a group of banks and other financial institutions are working on a $30 billion or so plan to shore up First Republic Bank in California.  Can you say what role the U.S. government has in terms of trying to pull this rec- — rescue package together?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to comment on any specific actions or any specific institutions from here.

Because of the actions that the — that the regulators took over the weekend at the President’s direction, depositors know that they are safe and — and banks have access to resources to meet those — to meet those depositors’ needs but — and demand, but I’m not going to get into any specific situations from here.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Mary.

Q    A question on TikTok.  Over 100 million people now use this app.  What is your message to them about why you’re so concerned about this platform?  What is the President’s greatest fear about TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve talked about this many times from here before.  The President has spoken about this.  Look, we are — want to make sure that our administration —

(A cellphone disrupts the briefing.) 

Okay?  We’re okay over there? 

Q    Just indigestion.  (Laughter.)

Q    (Inaudible) TikTok.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, budget TikTok.  (Laughter.)  Smart. 

Okay.  So, look, we’ve expressed concerns over China’s potential use of software platforms that could endanger or threaten America’s safety and their national security.  So that is the President’s concern.  That is why we have called on Congress to take action. 

We see a bipartisan piece of legislation that you know that we are supporting.  It’s called the RESTRICT Act, as you all know and have been covering.  And so, that’s the President’s main priority: to make sure when it comes to their safety, when it comes to their security, when it comes to our national security, that those things are protected. 

And so, that has been the President’s focus over the last couple of years.

Q    You know, last month, the President said he wasn’t sure if the U.S. should ban TikTok when he was asked about this.  Now the administration seems to be hardening its stance.  You’re backing this legislation, as you mentioned.  You know, we’ve learned — now warning that a possible ban could be at risk here.  What changed?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, when it comes to CFIUS, which is — I’m not going to get ahead of CFIUS.  They’re the ones who are reviewing this, reviewing this particular software and app — TikTok, obviously. 

So, not going to get ahead of their process.  There’s a process here.  We try to stay away from that process. 

Again, going to support the bipartisan legislation that I’ve just spoke to.

Look, the bottom line is that when it comes to potential threats to our national security, when it comes to the safety of Americans, when it comes to their privacy, we’re going to speak out.  And we’re going to be very clear about that, and the President has been the last two years. 

And so, we’re asking Congress to act.  We’re asking Congress to move forward with this bipartisan legislation — the RESTRICT Act, as I just mentioned — and we’re going to continue to do so.
Q    And just one more on this.  You know, China says that the U.S. hasn’t presented evidence that this app threatens U.S. national security.  They say that this is simply about suppressing foreign companies.  Is there evidence that the U.S. has that has been presented?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can say is: CFIUS has a process that they’re going through.  We’re going to let them go through their process.  We have concerns, as we’ve said many times before, about this particular software so- — platform — software platforms.

And — and so we take the national security very seriously, the President takes that very seriously — the safety of Americans very seriously, the privacy of Americans very seriously.  And so, we’re not going to get ahead of the review. 

But, certainly, we, again, support this bipartisan legislation that we’re coming — that we’re seeing out of — out of Congress.

Q    Just continuing on the questions about the banking sector.  So the Biden administration has expressed a lot of concern in the past about consolidation in other sectors.  You’ve spoken about meatpacking, shipping, ocean shipping, oil companies.  Are you worried that this crisis surrounding several regional banks could lead to a consolidation, a concentration in the larger banking sector?

And — and then I’ll have another one.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, promoting competition in our — in the American economy, we see that as a priority.  You se- — you hear the President say these words I’m about to repeat right now, which is, “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism.”  And so, that is something that you’ve heard the President say multiple times.

His executive order on this particular issue, promoting capita- — capitalism — sorry, competition — pardon me — specifically encourages the Justice Department — in consultation with the Fed, the FDIC, and Comptroller of the Currency — to revitalize merger and oversight. 

So, again, this is something that the President believes in.  He — he believes that we have to have capitalism and you can’t have capitalism without competition.  And that isn’t capitalism.  And so, I’ll just leave it there. 

And it isn’t — again, the last thing I would say is: It’s an important part of our American economy.
Q    But, I mean, the question is: Are you concerned, and what can you do about it?  You know, to ev- — as — as consumers are now making decisions, having seen what happened with SVB and with Signature, what’s happening now with First Republic, you know, what tools do you have to push back against a further concentration in this critical sector?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as it relates to specific banks and institutions, you know, I would — I would — I would refer you to the relevant banking regulators.  So I’d leave that there. 

And that’s why the President — but, more broadly, that’s why the President took the actions that he did over the weekend.  Remember, he directed his Treasury Secretary and the NSC director to come up with a plan on how to deal with what we were seeing with SVB, with the Silicon Valley Bank.  And so, they took action. 

And now, what we — what we believe and what you heard from the Secretary today, which is decisive and forceful actions were taken by the government to strengthen public confidence in our banking system.  So, there sho- — there should be confidence in our banking system.  No taxpayer money is being used or put at risk with this action. 

And lastly, she said our banking system remained sound and that Americans can feel confident that their deposits will be there when they need them.  This is — this week’s actions demonstrate our resolute commitment to ensure that depositors savings remain safe. 

Again, this is something that happened and occurred at the President’s direction.  And we want to make sure that Americans do indeed feel confident.

I’m not going to speak to any specific bank, as you just asked me about the particular bank in California.  We, clearly, are going to be monitoring.

Q    Okay.  And then just on the international front of the banking sector.  You know, we’ve seen trouble now with Credit Suisse.  The Swiss authorities are stepping in, offering credit line.  What had been discussed there was also a further consolidation.  So, the biggest bank in Switzerland, UBS, stepping in to aid Credit Suisse. 

You know, would you have concerns about that on a global scale if you start to see this movement, you know, kind of happening globally?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re monitoring the situation.  I know the Treasury has been in touch with their own Swiss — their Swiss counterparts, which is important.  And so, we’re glad that the Swiss — Swiss central bank provided reassurance in the form of a loan facility yesterday. 

But I will say that what we’re seeing currently with the Credit Suisse is a distinct issue.  And it’s a problem — and its — and its problems are not related to the current economic situation, the current economic environment. 

Again, this is a distinct issue that we’re currently seeing, and we’re having this — the Treasury Secretary is — the Treasury, I should say, more broadly, is having conversations with their counter- — counterparts.

Q    And sorry to belabor the point, I just want — want to see what the Biden administration’s policy on this is.  Do you discourage further consolidation in banking globally or in the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer — I would refer you to the Department of Treasury.  They have been in — in close contact with their Swiss counterparts, as it relates to this particular issue, this particular bank. 

But, again, I want to be very clear: What we’re seeing with the Credit Suisse is a distinct situation.  It is not — it is not — it does not speak to the current economics — economic environment that we’re in.
Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You — you referenced the Dodd-Frank rules just a few moments ago.  Do you believe that Silicon Valley — (clears throat) — excuse me.  Do you believe that Silicon Valley Bank’s failure could have been averted had those Dodd-Frank rules not been rolled back during the previous administration?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, right now — and the President said this in his remarks on Monday, that we — we got to get a full accounting of what happened.  We need to know exactly what happened so we know who to hold accountable here. 

Right now, his economic team — the President’s economic team is focused on stabilizing the financial system and protecting depositors, not investors.  We’ve been very clear about this. 

But again, it is not 2008.  The banking system is far more resilient, on a better foundation, thanks to the tough requirements that were put in place by the Obama-Biden administration.  And I just said this moment — moments ago: In 2018, we saw what the Trump administration did.  They did roll back some of those tough requirements. 

But again, we need to see exactly — do a full — full review, get a full accounting of what occurred so we can make sure to hold those to account.

Q    And the administration moved to ensure all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank through the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund.  So, will that be the policy going forward for other bank failures? 

And in terms of future legislation, does the administration support changes to the existing $250,000 cap on FDIC insurance limit for checkings and savings accounts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, I’m not going to get ahead or get into hypotheticals on what — what the future is going to hold. 

And — and I said this moments ago as well, which is: Look, we need Congress to act, and we need Congress to take a look of what else can be done.  That’s why we’re supporting the legislation — the bipartisan legislation that I just mentioned.

Look, the President — as I mentioned also earlier, the President appointed — appointed regulators over the past two years to reverse the changes that we saw in the last administration.  But, again, Congress needs to act.

As far as the $250,000 deposit insurance limit, we have — we have more — more to say on the specific regulatory changes in the next few days.  I’m not going to get ahead of — of what the regular- — the regulators are going to decide moving forward.

Q    But that’s something that you guys are looking at?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not — I’m just not going to get into specifics or get ahead of what they’re — what they’re currently looking at or what we’re going — what they’re going to be announcing.

Q    And then, just on a different topic.  In terms of the video that you guys released of this U.S. drone that was intercepted by a Russian fighter jet, can you tell us if the President was involved in the decision to release that footage and why he or the administration felt it was important to get that out to the public?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, this is something that, I believe, the Pentagon believed it was important to get that out so that the public can see.

I don’t have any — I don’t have any internal conversations to read out about — about how it came to be.  I know that there is — you know, there’s — many times during this mi- — this administration where we feel it’s important to have transparency and to show the American people exactly what occurred.  Just don’t have any internal conversations to lay out for you at this time.
Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, thank you, Karine.  What is the White House’s reaction to environmental activists critical of the Biden administration’s approval of the Willow oil project?  They argue that the President has undermined his own goals on climate change in approving this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things there.  Look, the President — you know, when it comes to — you’re talking about the Willow project?

Q    Yeah, the Willow oil project.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the President kept his word when he — when he can — where he can by law.  Right?  That is important to note. 

And as the Interior Department said, some of the company’s leases are decades old, granted by prior administrations.  The company has a legal right to those leases.  The department’s options are limited when there are legal contracts in place. 

For example, the DOI’s Solicitor under President Clinton and law professor at US [UC] Hastings said, “They have lease rights, and that can’t be ignored.”  That’s a big figure on the scale in the favor of development.

And so I’ll — I’ll leave it there. 

But, again, the President is delivering the most aggressive climate agenda in the U.S. history.  And that is going to be his continued — his continued commitment to the American people.

Q    And so, is it the position of the White House that there was no other option other than approving the permits for the project?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I just laid out there was — there were — those — the lega- — there was a legal right to — they had legal right to those leases.  Right? 

And he — the President is going to do what he can under the — as the law permits. 

And so, again, this is a President who has delivered on the most aggressive climate agenda in the U.S. history.  And he’s going to continue to do that.

Q    And do you have a reaction or a response to the two lawsuits filed by conservation groups against the government seeking to stop the project?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m not going to comment on any lawsuits at this time.

Go ahead.

Q    On Ukraine.  In the coming months, does the administration have any plans to ask Congress to pass an additional aid supplemental for Ukraine beyond the $6 billion that the President asked for in his budget request?  And are there concerns about whether the political will to do so on the Hill is eroding?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, thanks to the bipartisan congressional support for Ukraine that was passed in September, we believe we have the resources we need through the end of this fiscal year.  And I think that’s important.  Again, that was done in a bipartisan way. 

So, of course, we’re going to continue to elevate whether any additional resources are needed, based on the conditions that we’re currently seeing on the ground that we do — that we see as we move forward on the ground in Ukraine. 

But, again, we appreciate the bipartisan support that we saw in September.  We believe that it’s going to go through the end of — end of the fiscal year. 

And, again, we’re — just everything that we have done, as it relates to Ukraine, has been done in a bipartisan way.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You said the White House tries to stay away from the CFIUS process.  But has there been any communication between the White House and CFIUS on the issue of TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have any conversations to read out at this time. 

Q    So you’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have any.  We — this is a process that’s done on its own, separately.

But certainly, I don’t have any conversation to read out.

Q    And then just another one.  Are — is the administration planning for different contingencies as it relates to the case over the abortion pill, particularly as yesterday it seemed the judge — the judge seemed receptive to the argument that the pill is unsafe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be careful here.  I’m not going to get into any litigation that’s currently happening, get — stay out of — or put — say anything that might get in the way there. 

But this is about FDA’s authority to make its independent, evidence-based decision on drugs.  This is what this is about. 

Decisions on what medication can be used in our country should not be determined in a court.  They should be determined based on their safety, science, and the data. 

And so, the bottom line is that mifepristone is safe, and there’s no question about that.  We know that because it’s been around for two decades.  It’s in more than 60 countries across — across the globe, clearly.  It is — it has been exhaustively shown to be safe, with real data on countless occasion, and it has been used in this country, again, for more than 20 years. 

So, we’ll wait for the next steps.  I’m not going to get involved in what the judge said yesterday.  We’re going to see where this goes.  And — and we’re not going to say much more from here.

Q    I understand.  I just — on that, there was some criticism about the White House after the draft decision of Roe v. Wade — or the opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade — that they felt the White House had weeks to prepare for the — what became the overturning of that opinion.  And activists and even some Democratic lawmakers felt that the White House did not have a robust plan in place to respond to that.  So, I’m wondering: In this case, is there planning underway here at the White House in the — in case this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s been discussion —

Q    — this decision goes the other way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — here at the White House about what could happen next in case the judge decides to make this really unprecedented — potentially unprecedented decision. 

But I just want to go back to the Roe v. Wade and what are — and the criticism that you just said that we received.  And I would dispute those.  I would dispute those criticisms, because on the day — because on the day that it occ- — it happened, you heard from the President.  He laid out some executive actions from — from this White House on how to move forward. 

This is a President — and the Vice President — has been very vocal on making sure that the health of women are protected across — just across the country.  We’re talking about millions and millions of women.  And he’s going to continue to do that.  That is not going to change from this White House. 

And we’ve continued to take action since then through the HHS and other — and DOJ and other parts of his administration.  This is an issue that’s important to this administration. 

And, again, what can potentially occur here is — is, sadly, you know, unprecedented.  And this is a — this is going to put all — everything that we have seen since June, when Roe and — when Roe v. Wade was — was taken away from women, puts women’s lives in danger.  And now we’re seeing anti-abortion legislation across the country — again, dangerous to the health of women. 

And we’re seeing, you know, national Republicans talking about a national ban.  Again, that is dangerous to women.  That’s something that the President is going to continue to speak out against.

Go ahead, Kristen. 

Q    Karine, thank you so much.  The NSA Director General has called TikTok a “loaded gun” because so many Americans rely on it both for social media and its — they get their news from TikTok.  Does the President, does the administration agree with that assessment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get ahead of any — any comments that’s been made on TikTok at this time.

Again, CFIUS is looking at — is doing a review.  We’re going to let them do their review.  We’ve been clear about our concerns — express our concerns with the software, this particular app, because we — the President believes that it’s important to — to protect the privacy and the safety of Americans.  It’s important to protect our national security.

But I’m not going to get ahead of the review. 

Again, we’re going to show — we are — we’re showing and we’ve been very clear in supporting the bipartisan legislation.

Q    Let me try it this way: Does the President think that Americans should be on TikTok?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to — to that. 

What I can speak to is what the President believes that he needs to do, which is making sure that the safety and privacy of Americans are protected.  And he’ll speak to that.

But I’m not going to speak to actions that the American people should take or not take.

Q    I just want to follow up on the video that was released of the drone.  Given that it clearly refuted the initial accounts that were offered by the Russians about what happened, is there a broader impact on U.S.-Russia relations?  In other words, has it made an already incredibly tense relationship worse?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do you mean is it going to lead to escalation?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, a couple of things there.  And we’ve been clear, the Pentagon has been clear, my colleagues at NSC has been clear as well: The actions by Russian pilots in international airspace were reckless and dangerous.  We have raised those concerns directly with Russian leadership.  And we will continue to exercise our rights in international airspace. 

Clearly, we do not seek armed conflict with Russia.  We maintain direct lines of communication for reasons like this to minimize risk of escalation. 

But, again, we do not seek armed conflict with Russia.  And so I’ll leave it there.

Q    One more, if I could, on the Willow Project.  In addition to the environmental groups, there are a lot of young voters who are criticizing the President greenlighting an oil drilling venture in Alaska.  What is his message to those young voters who feel like this is a betrayal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is a — the message is this: This is a President that has delivered on the most aggressive climate agenda in the United States history, and he’s going to continue to do that. 

And he has — he has the receipts for it, right?  He has conserved more land and water in the first year than any President since JFK.  He has fully closed off the U.S. Arctic Ocean to new oil and gas leasing.  He has secured record investment in climate resilience and environmental justice.  And his economic agenda is fueling an unprecedented clean energy manufacturing boom that is bringing energy costs down, reducing America’s resilience on oil, and finally putting us back on track to meet our clean energy projects. 

Again, this is a President who has done more on climate change than any other President in history.  And he’s committed to it, and he’s going to continue to do so.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Will any White House officials be meeting with the President of Taiwan when she’s here in a couple of weeks?  And is there still concerns that there could be fallout for her meeting with Speaker McCarthy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, first of all, I don’t — I don’t have a — I don’t have a trip to — I don’t believe the trip has been announced or Taiwan has announced any transit at this time. 

There’s a couple of things I do want to say, because I know this has come up a couple of times.  And so, any — any potential transit that Taiwan might be making, certainly I would refer you to Taiwan. 

I will say that transits of the United States by high-level Taiwan officials are consistent with the longstanding U.S. practice.  The unoffic- — unofficial nature of our relations with Taiwan in U.S. policy, which remains unchanged. 

Every Taiwan President has transited the United States.  President Tsai has transited the United States at least six times — about six times since taking office in 2016, and done so without incident. 

Such transits are undertaken out of consideration for the safety, comfort, convenience, and dignity of the passenger, and are in keeping with our One China policy, which remains unchanged. 

Transits are not visits; they are private and official — and unofficial. 

So I will also note that high-level Taiwan officials have typically met with members of Congress, which is a separate and co-equal branch of government, during past transits.  But I believe that Taiwan has not yet announced a transit at this time.

Q    And a quick one on banking.  Is there any actions that the White House is taking right now, before Congress can pass any new legislation, to prevent further contagion, further banks from failing, and that potentially bleeding into the economy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as I mentioned, as I — as you heard from the President directly over the weekend — and he talked about this on Monday — he directed his NEC and Sec- — Treasury Secretary to — to work with the bank regulators to take action. 

And you heard from — directly from the Secretary of Treasury today about what those actions were able to do to give confidence to the American people, making sure that taxpayers do not have to pay, are not responsible for what investors did, and making sure that our banking system continues and remains sound. 

And so, those actions that — that the government took —

Q    But anything since the weekend?  Anything since the weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I can tell you this: that we have — we have said that there’s going to be — more will be said on this once we find out how we — how this occurred and getting to the bottom of exactly what happened. 

The President thinks that’s very important to do.  He spoke about that on Monday. 

So, I’m not going to get ahead of that. 

In the meantime, Congress needs to act.  It’s important for Congress to act.  There are things that we can do in the administration.  But in order to really deal with this issue, we have to act. 

That’s why — that’s why — we’re not in 2008 because of the actions that the Obama-Biden White House took.  But, again, many of those actions that were taken for — to — after what happened — occurred in 2008 were rolled back by the last administration. 

So, we have to actually address those issues, and so we’re asking Congress to do just that. 

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  President Biden has said before that he himself does not have TikTok on his phone.  Do you know if any of his grandchildren or any other family members who he spends time with has it on their phones?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I do not know. 

Q    Can you find out?  I mean, he spends time with them, so they —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear you, he spends time with them.  But — I hear you.

Q    — and he’s been influenced by them before to make Tik Toks, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear — I just — it’s just — it’s just not something that I’m aware of and I’m just not going to speak to.  They are private citizens.  I’m just not going to speak to what they have on their phones or not. 

Q    Got it.  And on the Polish fighter jets: Just last month, the Russians warned that if the UK provided fighter jets to Ukraine, it would have serious military and political ramifications for the entire world. 

I know that John Kirby stressed that this was a decision by Poland.  But how does President Biden think that decision will impact the war and also potentially impact NATO?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as — as my colleague at NSC said, Admiral Kirby, it is a sovereign decision that is made by a country.  It’s their decision to make.  Poland has been providing, as you know, a significant amount of security assistance to Ukraine, as more than 50 nations around the world, alongside the United States, has done as well. 

And so, look, we are committed.  And we’ve — we’ve said this before.  And because of the President’s leadership, you’ve seen — you’ve seen NATO be unified, you’ve seen the West be unified to — committed to making sure that Ukraine is able to — the people of Ukraine is able to fight for their democracy and for their freedom. 

Remember, this is a war — as you all know and covered, this is a war that Russia started.  They are the ones that are invading a sovereign nation.  And so, we believe it’s important, along with our allies, to — to help Ukraine the best that we can. 

And so, we’re going to continue doing an historic amount of security assistance, as we have done, and to make sure that they have what they need to continue to fight for their democracy and their freedom. 

Q    I hear what you’re saying about the decision-making, but does the President think the decision will only impact Poland and Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can you say that again?  What do you mean a decision with Poland?

Q    Well, it was Poland’s decision, right?  But now that they are delivering these fighter jets, how will that impact NATO Allies and the war, given what Russia has warned about providing fighter jets just last month?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have said it is important for our partners, our — across the globe, to do everything that they can to — to help Ukraine.  And so, that hasn’t changed, you know.

And as you saw, the President was in Poland recently, had a one-on-one intera- — engagement with President Duda.  And you saw their commitment by both leaders to continue to do everything that they can, that we can to give Ukraine what they need. 

And the President was — President Duda was very, very thankful to the President for everything that we have done.  We are thankful to President Duda being — you know, being right there at the border alongside Ukraine, having to — having to be one of the closest ally that have to — that has to make sure that Ukraine has what they need, but also — also be part of that alliance that continues to provide the security assistance that Ukraine needs.  I’m not going to — again, it’s a sovereign decision.  It is their decision to make. 

But you have seen a strong alliance, a strong partners, a strong West.  NATO is — has come together to do everything that we can to make sure that the people of Ukraine have — have the security assistance that they need on the ground to fight for their freedom. 

And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    And then, just quickly: Did President Biden know that that was President Duda’s decision before he announced it yesterday during that press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we were informed by — by their decision, by the Po- — by Poland to provide the jets to Ukraine.  So, we continue to closely coordinate with our allies and partners, including Poland, as we provide assistance to Ukraine. 

Yesterday, Secretary Austin, as you probably know, the tenth — hosted the tenth Ukraine Defense Contact Group in which countries around the world continue to step up, support Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia — Russian aggression.  And that’s what you’re going to continue to see.

Q    Thank you.

Q    In the back, Madam?

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I’ll go — go ahead.  And then I’ll keep going.

Q    Thank — thank you.   There were some new figures out today showing the highest maternal mortality rate in half a century, or a little more, in fact.  And, of course, that puts the U.S. right at the top of wealthy countries, in terms of maternal mortality.  Does the White House, you know, have any plans about this?  That’s all.  Thank you.

MS.  JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I have a statement here that we wanted to share with all of you. 

Look, the data that came out today show for far too long pregnant and postpartum women have gotten the short — have been short-shifted here, which is exactly why the President and congressional Democrats are working to improve their access to healthcare, to lower healthcare cost, and to significantly increase investments in improving maternal health. 

But meanwhile, what we’re seeing from the other side, what we’re seeing from Republicans, are doing the — they’re doing the complete opposite, which is consistent and on brand for them: working to gut healthcare for Americans, repeal Affordable Care Act, and make deep cuts to Medicaid, which is the last thing we should do, given that 40 percent of women have Medicaid coverage at the time of delivery. 

It is incomprehensible, and it is incredibly dangerous what we’re seeing from our Republicans colleagues in Congress.

The most powerful country in the world should not be accepting this as a reality.  This is a crisis, and we are taking action.  The President and the Vice President will continue this fight to ensure pregnant and postpartum women and all Americans have the care they need to stay healthy.  And that’s the commitment that you’ll see from this President.

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, two questions.  First, on the abortion pill and the Texas case.  What happens to disadvantaged women, particularly in the Black and brown community, if this pill is abolished or not allowed in that state?  What happens?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going get ahead of the decision that the courts are going to be making anytime soon, today — who knows — a couple of days.  Going to stay out of that.

But we’ve been very clear.  We’ve been very clear that what is — what could potentially happen is unprecedented.  We’re talking about a pill that’s been around for two decades, it’s been in more than 60 countries across — across the globe, that is safe.  And this is something that the FDA should decide on what’s safe and what could be — what could be beneficial to women’s health.

So, yes, if that — this were to occur — again, I’m not going to — want to be very careful here — this would be devastating to those — to that very group that you just listed out, April.

Q    So are you questioning his definitional qualification of what’s safe — the judge?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not questioning anything at this time.  This is something that the judge has to decide.  I want to be very careful.  This is an ongoing litigation.  But what could happen would be unprecedented.  And the President and this administration — you’re going to continue to hear us speak — speak up for women across the country.

Q    And next question.  Shanquella Robinson.  Ben Crump has sent a letter to the White House about this case.  This young woman was killed in Mexico in October of last year.  The suspect is in this country, along with those — back here — along with those who were present during the br- — the deadly beating.  Okay? 

He sent a letter asking for extradition of the suspect to Mexico for the Mexican authorities to deal with, or, if not, take jurisdiction of it here and deal with it.  What’s next? What’s the White House willing to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just first say our hearts go out to Miss Robinson’s family and friends.  It is devastating, what occurred.  And, certainly, the — the tragedy is just devastating. 

And we’ve been following the news here.  But because — because there’s an FBI investigation underway, there’s very little that we can say.  We got to — as you know, we are very careful about criminal investigations or any investigations that are currently happening through DOJ — in this particular case, FBI.

But our hearts go out to — again, to the families. 

And I would have to refer you to the DOJ and the State Department on this.

Q    So, let me — let me ask you this: So, since there’s an FBI investigation, does that mean nothing happens until the investigation is complete?  Or, I mean, could — I mean, the United States has extradition — extradition treaty with Mexico.  Is it — is all of this contingent upon the FBI investigation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is there’s an investigation going on, so this is something that the FBI has to speak to.  So that’s why I’m referring you to the Department of Justice. 

And it’s also an issue of the State Department.  Again, so, would refer you to the State Department, as it relates to another country, and the diplomatic conversations that occur there. 

But again, this is something that we’re clearly following here.  And our hearts go out to her family.

Q    And last question on this though: Are there capabilities for the United States to take jurisdiction over this if it doesn’t go — if the suspect is not extradited back?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, April, I understand the question, and I appreciate the questions — all important questions to ask of me.  But, again, there’s an ongoing investigation, so I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

Q    But this is about process, not necessarily the investigation.  Do — does the United States have —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But there is —

Q    — the capability —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — but there is a process that’s currently happening because of the investigation, so I would refer you to the Department of Justice and also the State Department, as there are — you know, this is a diplomatic issue that needs to be handled on that end.

Q    Karine, you have time for, like, two more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.  And then — I’m sorry, and then I’ll go to the back.

Q    I know you were asked about this last week.  At that point, you all didn’t have an answer.  I wonder if you do have an answer now as to whether or not the President will sign the COVID origins intelligence bill that was unanimously passed.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, it’s — so, we are — thank you for the question.  I know I was asked about it, I believe on the plane on Monday, as you just mentioned. 

So, we’re looking at it.  We have continued to share information with members of Congress. 

And, as you know, just months after the President came into office, he asked his intelligence community to double down and to take a look of the — of the origins — of the COVID origins because we believe it’s important to get to the bottom of this.  And to get — and also, if — once we have — once the intelligence community has made the — made the assessments, clearly, we would share that with the public.

As it relates to the legislation, we’re going to continue to — we’re going to take a look at it.  And, certainly, we’ll have more to share.

Q    But you haven’t made a decision whether he will sign it or not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, we’re — we’re just taking a look.  We’re taking a look into the — into the bill. 

Go ahead, Cristina, in the back.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Can you confirm if the administration is considering redesignating Temporary Protected Status to Nicaraguans and what that would look like?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we don’t have anything to share on that at this time.  Any announcement, as you know, when it comes to Temporary Protected Status, that is something that is housed under the Department of Homeland Security.  And they — they designate — that would be something for Secretary Mayorkas to designate.  And so, I just don’t have anything for you.

Q    Are there conversations?  Any —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security.

Q    And then, one more question on the — on the video.  Is there a red line for — for Russia?  Is there a point where these aggressions become an act of war?  And I — are they aware of that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as I said earlier, we have had — the lines of communications with Russia has been open.  We’ve had those conversations with — with — with Russia.  And so, I’ll — I’ll leave it there.  And we’ll continue to make those communica- — the — have those communications. 

We’re not looking for escalation.  I said that moments ago.  And — and I’ll just leave it there.  That is not what we’re looking for with Russia. 

I’ll try to take more in the back. 

Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about travel requirements.  The U.S. lifted the requirement for COVID-19 tests for travelers flying from China.  Do you have any update on the vaccine requirement for international travel in general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any updates at this time.

Q    And a second question, on parole.  The U.S. has had a humanitarian parole program that you opened for the four countries from Latin America.  That program is being challenged in court in Texas.  Can you talk about the implications of that case?  I know that that type of parole has been a tool that the President has used repeatedly in the last two years, not just for the southern hemisphere but for other humanitarian crises.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, so as we — as you know, that parole program that we put into place is working.  It’s working.  The — it’s — it’s gone down — those four countries crossing over — coming — coming to the border has gone down by more than 95 percent.  And so this is a — this is a program that the President was able to — to utilize because of the tools that he had in front of him. 

Remember, Congress is not acting.  Republicans refuse to take action.  The President put forth a comprehensive immigration reform bill on day one, and they have refused to work with us. 

So, again, the President put this — put this program together.  And, again, it’s working. 

And instead — instead of con- — Republicans in Congress or Republicans working with us on fixing this issue or dealing with a real issue — the border — they want to repeal a program that is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing. 

So this is a political stunt by them.  This is something that they’re not serious about, and it is unfortunate. 

Look, we’re going to secure the border and do the work.  You’ve heard from — from Mayorkas on this.  Do the work — Secretary Mayorkas on this — do the work to continue to do that.

But we need Congress to act.  We need Republicans to seriously come to the table and deal with it.  Repealing a program that is working is — just doesn’t make sense.  And it’s a political stunt. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know — I know I have to go.  I’ll take one more. 

Go ahead, Karen. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  You laid out a very detailed schedule for the President tomorrow with the Prime Minister of Ireland, but it did not include a two-and-two press conference.  Can you say why not and whether that might be added to the schedule tomorrow?  This is kind of — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I think you’ve —

Q    — becoming a pattern with a lot of the world leaders who are coming to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look —

Q    — the White House.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ve spoken to this many times when it comes to diplomatic —

Q    (Inaudible)  bringing it up in the briefing that it’s not a part of the schedule. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — right.  And my — I am — again, I brought it up many times, and I gave an explanation.  These are diplomatic conversations that happen with the — with — with the countries that are visiting, and it is something that is decided in that way. 

But there will no — there will not be a two-plus-two tomorrow, as you just noted.  But, again, this is in coordination with — with the country that come to visit here at the White House.

You’re going to have an opportunity, or your colleagues will have an opportunity to ask questions during the — the pool spray of the Oval — at the Oval that — that happen every time a — a — a head of state visits.  So that is an opportunity to be able to pose a question to the President or — or the head of state that is visiting the White House at — on that day.

But, again, this is coordinated.

Q    Karine, he never answers questions during those pool sprays.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s not true.  He has — he’s answered.

Q    Very seldom.

Q    We get shouted at.   

Q    We get shoved out. 

Q    We get yelled at.  “Press, thank you!  Thank you!”

Q    Will you commit to having him answer a question tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not — here’s —

Q    We get yelled at during those. 

Q    The press is normally shouted down when we’re in the Oval Office.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But —

Q    (Inaudible) shout at us to get out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But here’s — I — I hear you guys.  I hear you guys.

Q    (Inaudible) for the one-on-ones. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I hear you guys. 

Look, the two-plus-two is something that is done in coordination with the country that is visiting.  That is not something that is unilaterally decidal — decided.  That is something that is in discussion with the other country.

I was asked about the two-plus-two.  I was also — I also was adding that there is an opportunity where press will be in the room with the two leaders.  I cannot speak to if — who’s going to take questions or who’s not going to take questions. 

As you know, this is a President that takes shouted questions often.  But the two-plus-two is not a unilateral decision.  It is a decision that happens with the visiting country in coordination with them. 

With that, guys, I’ll see you.

3:02 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route San Diego, California

2:24 P.M. EDT
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  I got a quick thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over to Jake. 
 
So, good afternoon, everyone.  As you all know, we’re headed to San Diego, California, where the President will meet with — with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia and Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom and discuss the Australia, United Kingdom, United States — or AUKUS — partnership.
 
National Security Advisor — as you’ll see, standing to my right — is here to talk a little bit about the AUKUS announcement coming today and take any of your questions.
 
Before I turn it over to Jake: This morning, we announced that the Vice President will travel to Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia from March 25th to April 2nd to strengthen our partnership throughout Africa and advance shared efforts on security and economic prosperity. 
 
Building on our progress at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, which President Biden hosted on — in December, the Vice President will expand access to the digital economy, support climate adaptation, and strengthen business ties.  She will also discuss our commitment to democracy, economic growth, food security, and managing the efforts of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as engage with young leaders, business representatives, and members of the African diaspora. 
 
Now I’ll turn it over to Jake Sullivan. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Thanks, Karine.  I know you guys have all participated in various background briefings and other seminars and advanced graduate courses on the ins and outs of AUKUS.  So, since you all have your degrees in AUKUS, I’ll be brief.
 
I’ll just say that we’re excited to be on our way to San Diego to meet with Prime Minister Sunak and Prime Minister Albanese to formally announce the — what we’re calling the optimal pathway, the pathway that will make AUKUS a reality. 
 
When the leaders met virtually in September of 2021, they committed to work out the details of the AUKUS submarine partnership within 18 months.  And that was September 15th of 2021; it’s now March 13th of 2023.  We’re two days ahead of schedule.  So, we will humbly accept all of your congratulations and positive vibes for that. 
 
But — but, in all seriousness, the fact that we have done this in 18 months — this amount of ambition, this amount of detail — to have a multi-phase approach to deliver on the promise of AUKUS reflects not only an enormous amount of hard work, but leader-level engagement to make this a priority and to ensure that the right level of resources, attention, and commitment were there to deliver.
 
What the leaders will lay out in a trilateral meeting today and then for the public is a multi-phase process that begins over the next few years and begins immediately with the training of Australian sailors, engineers, technicians, and other personnel to be able to take on the responsibility and stewardship of nuclear propulsion. 
 
And a few years down the line in the 2020s, you’ll start to see the regular rotational deployment of U.S. and UK subs in Australia. 
 
And a few years after that, in the early 2030s, the delivery of three Virginia-class subs from the United States to Australia over the course of the 2030s, with the possibility of going up to five if that is needed. 
 
And then, the final phase will be the not just design and development, but the actual deployment of a new boat — a new conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine, the SSN-AUKUS, which will be built with a UK hull and American technology, with significant investments in all three industrial bases: the U.S. industrial base, the UK industrial base, and the Australian industrial base. 
 
And I would reinforce that for that Virginia-class sale to Australia, the Australians are not only paying for those boats, they are also making a proportional contribution to the U.S. submarine industrial base — to lift it so that we can accelerate the production and accelerate the ongoing maintenance of Virginia-class submarines over the course of the years ahead. 
 
Just taking a step back, what AUKUS represents is a larger long-term investment by the United States in core alliances in the Indo-Pacific and also the actual concrete reflection of President Biden’s strategy of linking allies in the Atlantic with allies in the Pacific.  And it also reflects his commitment to ensuring that there is burden-sharing among our allies, as we’ve seen in the way that Europe has stepped up in the war in Ukraine, as we’ve seen how Japan has stepped up with its defense budget. 
 
Here, too, we’re seeing other partners step up and shoulder their share of the burden not just financially and in terms of resources, but in terms of actual capability to bring to bear to safeguard security and stability. 
 
Final point I would make is: The United States has played a historic role in the Indo-Pacific of helping safeguard security and stability to the benefit of all countries in the me- — in the region.  And I mean all countries. 
 
And the United States believes that working closely with its allies and partners to ensure that we have the requisite capabilities for the next 50 years, as AUKUS will deliver, will help us continue to serve that important stabilizing role to help continue to safeguard peace and stability in this vital region of the world.  And you’ll hear that message from the President directly today.
 
The President will also have the opportunity to meet bilaterally with each of Prime Minister Sunak and Prime Minister Albanese to cover a wide range of issues, obviously beyond just the submarines.  And he’ll look forward to the full agenda involved in — in those two sessions as well. 
 
And, with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. 
 
Q    So, Jake, you didn’t mention China in your opening remarks here.  What message does the further development of AUKUS send to China about the U.S. commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, about countering China’s own growing capabilities in the region?
 
And are there any concerns that this — about Australia’s, sort of, commercial warming of ties with Beijing over the last several months?  Is this — is the President going to raise that with Prime Minister Albanese to, sort of, urge more caution in, sort of, restoring economic ties between Australia and China?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  AUKUS represents, for Australia, not just a long-term investment in nuclear-powered submarines, but a long-term investment in its alliance with the United States of America. 
 
This is a decades-long — maybe a century-long commitment.  And it reinforces the fundamental view, we believe, in Canberra that the United States and Australia, standing shoulder to shoulder for the purposes of safeguarding peace and stability — not to provoke, not to go try to fight wars, but rather to deter conflict and to promote peace and stability — that Australia is stepping up to make that bet. 
 
So, we have, in fact, the opposite of concerns about the orientation of Australia right now.  We think today is going to be a reflection and celebration of the deep investment our two countries are making in one another for the long term. 
 
And oftentimes, when we talk about the long term, we talk about the next several years.  In this case, we’re talking about the next several decades.
 
Then, with respect to the PRC: In my opening comments, I made the fundamental point that President Biden is going make today, which is that the United States has played a historic role over decades in the Indo-Pacific to help ensure peace and stability, to ensure that there would not be the repeat of major-power conflict that we saw in decades past.
 
That was not an inevitability.  That was not a foregone conclusion.  That was the result of the United States helping to build and safeguard an operating system that has worked to the benefit of all countries, including ASEAN, the Pacific Islands and, yes, the PRC. 
 
And so, AUKUS represents a look forward coming off of that look backward, meaning that continuing to invest in these kinds of capabilities over the coming decades will help us continue to play that role alongside key allies and partners that we have played for the last several decades. 
 
That’s the message he’s going to communicate today.  It’s not directed at any one country.  It is an affirmative message and agenda to all the countries in the region and, frankly, to the wider world as well.
 
Q    I have a follow-up on that, Jake.  I have a follow-up on that.  And we’ve seen President Xi make more moves on the world stage.  He’s going to Russia again, calling Zelenskyy, getting involved in Saudi Arabia and Iran.  How are you guys interpreting his moves?  And also, how would you define the U.S.-China relationship right now?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, when it comes to the report on President Xi potentially calling President Zelenskyy, we have been encouraging President Xi to reach out to President Zelenskyy because we believe that the PRC and President Xi himself should hear directly the Ukrainian perspective and not just the Russian perspective on this.  So, we have, in fact, advocated to Beijing that that connection take place; we’ve done so publicly, and we’ve done so privately to the PRC.
 
We have spoken with our Ukrainian counterparts.  Today, I saw the news accounts.  They have not yet actually gotten any confirmation that there will be a telephone call or a video conference.  We hope there will be.  That would be a good thing because it would potentially bring more balance and perspective to the way that the PRC is approaching this.  And we hope it would continue to dissuade them from choosing to provide lethal assistance to Russia, which is obviously something that we have warned about.
 
With respect to the recent understanding that was reached between Iran and Saudi Arabia and Beijing, as John Kirby said on Friday, this is something that we think is a positive, insofar as it promotes a goal the United States has been promoting in the region, which is de-escalation, a reduction in tensions.  That’s a good thing. 
 
And we were in close touch with Saudi Arabia as they were approaching and engaging in those talks.  And they were keeping us apprised of their progress along the way.  So, from our perspective, even as we put a lot of muscle into — diplomatic muscle into trying to help promote de-escalation, as with the Yemen truce, having other countries like China promote de-escalation is not fundamentally averse to U.S. interests.  Frankly, it’s, in a way, rowing in the same direction. 
 
And we — we’re not in a position, of course, to be a mediator between Saudi Arabia and Iran, given our relationship with those two countries.  We never have been and we aren’t today in such a position. 
 
In terms of the U.S.-China relationship, I would just say that President Biden laid out his vision for this following his meeting with President Xi in Bali.  It’s a relationship where we believe there is competition and we welcome that competition, but there is no need for conflict.  There is no need for confrontation.  There is no need for a new Cold War.  And we will look to work with China in areas where it’s in our mutual interest and the wider world’s interest to do so. 
 
That fundamental set of premises and propositions that President Biden laid out in Bali remain operative for us today.  And, you know, it’s remains to be seen whether Beijing is prepared to continue down the course that our two leaders said then, but we think that would be in everyone’s best interest.
 
Q    I mean, you talk about “competition not conflict” over and over again, but there’s been a lot of rhetoric in both China and the U.S. in recent months that — that, kind of, looks in the direction of conflict.  There’s been a lot of different tension points in recent months.  And I’m wondering, first of all: Are you concerned that this big new military agreement announcement today possibly adds to that?  And secondly, what is the administration doing at this point to get back to the competition conversation?  And are you concerned about, especially as it comes to U.S., the increased hawkish rhetoric about China?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Just in terms of the announcement today, we have been transparent, predictable, clear, principled in how we’ve approached AUKUS from the beginning.  This is not an announcement we’re springing all of the sudden out of nowhere at this moment.  This is an announcement that has been literally 18 months or 17 months and 29 days in the making. 
 
And we have, in fact, consulted closely with allies and partners and countries throughout the Indo-Pacific on it, and we have directly engaged with China to explain to them what AUKUS is and what it is not. 
 
So, we feel very comfortable with the way that we have approached the AUKUS partnership, because we think it is actually a model for how a country can be transparent and predictable in trying to contribute to peace and security and to safeguard that peace and security in the Indo-Pacific. 
 
In terms of the rhetoric, a lot of the rhetoric you’re referring to has come from voices, of course, not within the U.S. administration.  That is obviously a part of being in a democracy. 
 
President Biden sets the terms of this relationship, but he sets the tone for this relationship for the U.S. government.  And you’ve heard him speak directly to it in a clear and consistent and principled way, and we’ll continue to do that. 
 
Q    When do you expect that President Biden will speak to President Xi again?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, we have said that when the National People’s Congress comes to a close, as it now has, and Chinese leadership returns to Beijing and then all of these new officials take their new seats — because, of course, you now have a new set of figures in substantial leadership positions — we would expect President Biden and President Xi to have a conversation. 
 
So, at some point in the coming period — I can’t give you a date, because there’s no date set — but President Biden has indicated his willingness to have a telephone conversation with President Xi once they’re back and in stride coming off of the National People’s Congress.
 
Q    Jake, is there a gap in communications with China related to military affairs?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, we don’t have the kind of stable, steady, predictable, uninterrupted military-to-military communications channels that we think would be responsible and most effective for ensuring that there is no miscalculation, no accident, no mistake, no possibility for unintended escalation.  We would like to see that. 
 
But we do have plenty of channels to engage in senior levels with the PRC to be able to ensure that we’re communicating each other’s understanding, intentions, priorities, and that we’re reaching a decent understanding with one another. 
 
Q    And just to clarify, you said you — the U.S. has spoken to China recently about the AUKUS deal or was this way back in 2021 when it was first announced?  I’m just trying to get a sense of it — if you all have speak to them —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  We’ve spoken with them along the way.
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  The subject of AUKUS has been — has featured in conversations between U.S. and China officials over the last 18 months.  But we are specifically briefing them about this announcement so that they understand the terms of this.
 
Q    And do you feel like they understand — they don’t see it as an escalatory action in — or —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I can’t speak to how they see it.  All I can speak to is how we have approached the issue, how we have been transparent and clear and straightforward —
 
Q    Jake?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  — all along the way on the issue.
 
Q    Sorry.  On President Xi’s visit to Moscow and what you just laid out on the lethal aid, we haven’t heard much from the administration on this since the Munich Security Conference.  Do you think calling them out publicly then sort of sufficiently deterred them?  Or what’s the status of what you’re seeing on that right now?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t characterize that — what their intentions are, what their decision-making process is.  All I can tell you is that we have not yet seen the transfer of lethal assistance of the weapons from China to Russia for use on the battlefield in Ukraine, but it’s something that we’re vigilant about and continuing to watch carefully.  
 
And as I personally said before, we think it would be a big mistake for China to do that because Russia is using those weapons to kill civilians and commit war crimes.  And China should want nothing to do with that.  
 
Q    Are you worried that a Putin-Xi summit is raising that likelihood of them actually making that decision?

MR. SULLIVAN:  It’s something that we will watch for.  Obviously, Russia has its own interests in trying to pull other countries into this conflict if it can, but our position is the same whether or not they meet. 
 
It would not be in China’s interests, from our perspective, for them to supply weapons to Russia for use on the battlefield in Ukraine, but that’s a sovereign decision China will have to make for itself.
 
Q    There were some reports out of Iran about a possible prisoner swap between the U.S. and Iran.  The NSC has sort of shot down those reports, but I wonder if you’d give us an overall assessment of where that may stand at this point.
 
MR. SULLIVCAN:  There’s no deal.   And the last thing that we want to do is give false hope to families that have been waiting for a long time for their loved ones to come home.  So, all we can do is be as straightforward as possible.   And there is no deal at this time.  
 
We continue to engage the Iranians to try to get the unjustly detained Americans home as soon as humanly possible, but I just can’t predict when that will be.
 
Q    Do you expect the global banking system to come up, particularly with Prime Minister Sunak, in his one-on-ones today?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m not sure.  I presume that President Biden will share with Prime Minister Sunak the steps that he has just taken.  Prime Minister Sunak obviously is reading about them, probably watching them on — on television.  But he’ll have the chance to share it in person, and — and Prime Minister Sunak can share his perspective as well.  
 
But — but President Biden feels confident about the steps that he’s taken.  
 
Q    One more on NATO.  You met with the Finnish President last week — last — last week, yes.  What’s the path forward for their NATO membership?  And do you — are you confident this can be secured by the summit this summer?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I believe there is no reason it can’t be secured by the — by the summit this summer for both Finland and for Sweden.  And we will remain in close touch not just with the Finns and the Swedes, but with the Turks.  
 
I will be meeting with my Turkish counterpart, the Turkish national security advisor, tomorrow in Washington, and we’ll have the chance to talk about this issue, as well as about 127 other issues that are, you know, relevant to the U.S.-Turkey relationship.  
 
Q    Is he in Washington?  Jake, is he in Washington?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t know if he’s there today, but I’m seeing him there tomorrow.  
 
Q    Can we just get your reaction briefly to — the North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile tests, I guess, today — today, our — their time; yesterday, our time.  Does it represent a new capability and what are the level of U.S. concerns here?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  The North Koreans first tested a submarine-launched missile capability in 2016.  They’ve been refining it.  They’ve been trying different iterations of it.  Over the course of the past 24 hours, you’ve seen them announce the launch of two missiles out of a submarine. 
 
We’re still studying it, making an assessment of what it means in terms of their capabilities.  But, of course, we’re not going to let any steps North Korea take deter us or constrain us from the actions that we feel are necessary to safeguard stability on the Korean Peninsula. 
 
Q    The Saudi government is starting its own airline or starting an airline, and they want to buy a bunch of Boeing jets.  Is that something the U.S. government has been involved in?  Are you part of those discussions?  And do you think it would be a good thing for the U.S. economy if all — all those jets were purchased?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think it would be a very good thing if the Saudi airline purchased Boeing.  But I’ll leave it at that for now until they make an announcement.
 
Q    Thanks, Jake.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
Q    Can I ask — Kevin McCarthy is going to meet the Taiwanese President in the U.S. instead of going to Taipei.  Do you think this is a good idea and sort of prevents what we saw as a fallout when Speaker Pelosi — then-Speaker Pelosi went to Taipei?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I’ve seen reports of this, but I haven’t seen anything officially announced, so I will reserve comment.
 
Q    He’s confirmed it off the record that he — he has those plans. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  So, I — I will reserve comment until we hear from the Taiwan government — or from the Taiwan authorities how they want to proceed.
 
Q    Thanks, Jake. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Jake. 
 
All right, I just have one more thing at the top.  My ears are — my ears need to pop.  Okay.  
 
Okay.  So, since we’re headed out to San Diego, I just wanted to say a couple of things that — one of them is that we are — we are closely monitoring the heavy rain and flooding in California, including the breach of the Pajaro River Levee, as the state prepares for the impacts of another atmospheric river over the next few days.
 
The President issued an emergency declaration for the state of California on Friday and spoke to — spoke with Governor Newsom as well over the weekend.
 
FEMA continues to coordinate with both California and Nevada as well to address these — their needs. 
 
FEMA has deployed Incident Management Assistance Teams to the California Emergency Operations Center and has established an incident support base in California to prepare and stage supplies. 
 
The Army Corps of Engineers has also been delivering sandbags to California, and Urban Search and Research — sorry, Urban Search and Rescue teams remain on standby to support if needed. 
 
And we will continue to keep you all updated on these efforts.  Just wanted to — since we’re headed out there, I wanted to give you all a little bit of what we’ve been doing over the last couple of days.
 
With that, Zeke, you want to kick us off?
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the banking intervention taking over — taken yesterday on the part of the administration, does the — the President today said he wanted stronger rules — strengthened rules on the banking system.  What exactly is he proposing? 
 
And does the need for that action last night prove that the 2008, 2009 reforms failed in their efforts to prevent the emergence of new too-big-to-fail banks, because these banks were deemed by the government to be too big to fail?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this: The President’s economic team right now is focused.  And you heard from him directly on destabilizing the financial — on stabilizing, pardon me, the financial system and protecting depositors, including small businesses and workers while avoiding costs to taxpayers. 
 
And so, the Fed also took temporary actions to provide the market with certainty that banks have the ability to meet the needs of all of their — all of their depositors.  And the Treasury Department remains in close touch with regulators to work together on next steps. 
 
The President also said it is important for us to look into what — exactly what happened, and so that’s something that clearly the regulators and the State — the Treasury is going to continue to do.
 
As far as 2008, look, the President’s — the President said the actions that have been taken should — should give Americans confidence.  That’s in- — incredibly important.  That’s — should be a message that was taken from the President this morning.  And so, that is clearly important of the banking system so that they know the banking system is safe and their deposits will be there when they need — when they need them. 
 
Overall, the banking system is far more resilient and on better foundation than before the financial crisis.  Again, this is not the two- — this is not 2008. 
 
The Obama admin- — Obama-Biden administration put in place tough requirements to — to ensure banks have more capital and sufficient liquid assets, depositors have more protection for their deposits, and regulators have the tools to supervise larger institution and deal with disruption. 
 
So, the Fed has taken, again, temporary actions to assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all depositors.  And like the President said, Congress and the banking regulators, like I said, should — should strengthen the rules for — for banks to protect American jobs and small businesses. 
 
And so, we’re going to — we also need to learn what else — just kind of look into what else.
 
Q    What are those rules —
 
Q    Republicans are saying this is a bailout.  Is that — how —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, this is not a bailout. 
 
Q    — would you respond to that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, this is not 2008 at all.  The funds — the funds are from fees on banks and not taxpayers.  So this is very different than what we saw in 2008.
 
Q    How do you prevent bankers at SVB from getting bonuses, potentially?  And is that something that you’re looking into preventing formally?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve seen those.  We’ve certainly have — we’re looking into that, I can say.  And that’s something that — clearly, we’ve seen the reports on that today. 
 
There’s a couple of things I want to add to that.  Give me one second. 
 
And so, again, he said this morning — and I just repeated this a couple of times: We need to figure out the full — the full accounting of what happened and why so that those responsible can be held accountable.  So that’s something that you heard from the President.
 
And the management of these banks are already been — or will be fired.  So that’s the second thing.
 
And investors in the bank will not be protected and will take massive losses. 
 
So — so, I don’t want to comment on enforcement.  That’s not something that we’ll do from here.  And so, just going to leave it there.  But clearly, that is something that we’re looking into. 
 
Q    And can you give a just general tick-tock of how all this went down this weekend?  I mean, the President was in Delaware.  Did he get — was he briefed?  Was there a sort of big decision meeting or anything like that you can share?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I can you a little bit of a timeline there. 
 
So, look, the President was briefed regularly by his Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and NEC Director Lael Brainard, starting Friday morning and over the weekend into Sunday evening, leading — leading to his action to speak to the American people this morning. 
 
He was updated by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, along with Zients and Lael Brainard, on Sunday afternoon. 
 
As you know, the President — Biden has spoke, as I just mentioned at the top, with Governor Newsom on Saturday about efforts to address the situation.  So he had that conversation on Saturday. 
 
And the President stayed in regular contact with other senior staff throughout the weekend, as is the case every day.  And he’s continue — continuing paying close attention to what’s occurring today after he made his announcement today. 
 
Q    So given —
 
Q    So the government —
 
Q    — given the massive bill, how do you reassure taxpayers they aren’t going to be on the hook for this money?  And how do you keep the Americans’ confidence in the banking system?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first of all, the President speaking to this this morning, I think, is incredibly important, hearing from the President on this issue. 
 
The FDIC is using the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is funded by fees not — not on banks, not taxpayers.  The DIF — the Deposit Insurance Fund — is more than enough to cover any Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank deposits that cannot be paid using funds from the banks or the sale of their assets. 
 
This means no matter what amount of DIF funding is needed to cover SVB and Signature deposits, it will not come from the taxpayer dollars.  And so, that is something that we are — we are making sure that the — the American people understand — again, giving them that confidence that this is not 2008.  This is very different.
 
Q    But on that — on that decision, with these two banks, the President has made an announcement that all deposits in the banks are going to be guaranteed and backed by the federal government.  Is that setting a precedent going forward that that will be the guarantee if any other bank fails?  Or at a certain point, does it go back to the $250,000 FDIC level?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, two things.  On the — on the precedent, look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to comment on other institutions.  We’re just focusing on what we have.  Today, our focus is, again, stabilizing the financial systems, protecting depositors, including small businesses and workers.  Treasury and the bank regulators continue to monitor the broader system.
 
And I know you’re asking about the cap — that 250K cap.  So, just a couple of things there.  You know, this weekend’s actions were about, again, stabilizing the situation that we’re currently seeing with these two banks.  We — there were multiple announcements yesterday, including a temporary, non [new] Fed program, which will help ensure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their dep- — depositors.  And that will help prevent banks from getting a — from getting into this situation.
 
So, that’s how we’re seeing that piece as well.
 
Q    But so, how do you then justify — if you’re insuring for Silicon Valley Bank, how do you justify if a Midwestern bank fails, then not doing the same for, you know, people who might have less money invested?
 
And then, also, how concerned are you guys that this will spread beyond just this one bank?  With all the tech layoffs and all that, the tech sector is being hit really hard, is there concern this is going to spread broader than that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, overall, you know, again, we’re trying — right now, the actions that we’re take — we’re taking is to stabilize the financial system and protecting the depositors, including small businesses and workers.  So that’s what you’re seeing — that’s what you’re seeing from the actions today. 
 
But overall, the banking system is far more resilient and on a better foundation than before the financial crisis, and I think that’s important to remember.  This is not 2008.  And so, that’s why the President took these actions. 
 
Again, this is not going to be on the taxpayers.  This is the — this is going to be part of the — the insurance funds that the banks pay into.  So, just want to make sure that we’re keeping that clear. 
 
And so, the President, again, spoke to the American people to continue to give that confidence.
 
Q    Can I ask a non-bank question?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. 
 
Q    The event — the gun reform event tomorrow.  Could you talk a little bit about that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, I have something for you here.  So — so we’ll have more to share a little bit later today.
 
The President will speak about his continued efforts to reduce gun violence devastating American communities like Monterey Park, where, as you all know, 11 people were killed and 9 others injured in January.
 
And, you know, too many lives are — have been — have been taken by gun violence.  There are too many empty chairs at the kitchen table that we have see- — that we — you all reported over and over again. 
 
The President, as you know, has taken some actions — executive actions to deal with this issue — to deal with gun violence in America, including the historic piece of legislation that he signed that is on — on gun violence.  Something that we hadn’t seen — the first one in a generation — in 30 years. 
 
But he believes we need to do more.  So, you’ll hear him talk about that.  You’ll hear him call — talk — call on Congress to take action and not to stop where he stopped, that we need to continue.
 
But again, the President took executive — really, some historic executive actions in his first two years of the administration, and it is now far along — it’s taken too long for Congress to take — to take action on — on commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning — banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on the streets. 
 
And so, we owe this to the lives that have been lost, the families who have lost their loved ones.  Again, sitting around the kitchen table and missing that — missing their loved one who was — who taken by gun violence.
 
Q    You mentioned the flooding at the beginning.  Is there any consideration or conversation about adapting this trip, since the President is out in California, to address it?  Or is — or is it too soon to think about that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, there is no change to his trip.  As I mentioned, he’s spoken to Gavin Newsom, the governor — I believe, on Friday — as I mentioned at the top.  And we are ready.  The federal government is al- — already assisting the state of California, and we’re ready to do anything else that might be needed of us.  So —
 
Q    Do any senior administration officials have exposure in the SVB Bank — SVB — like, debacle?  Do they have large deposits in the bank that you’re aware of?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That — that’s — I’m not aware of that. 
 
Anything else?
 
Q    Do you have any update on if and when the President will sign the COVID intel bill?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have anything — don’t have anything to share on the schedule on when he’s going to be signing that.
 
Q    And the ESG veto — any sense of when that’s coming?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have anything on that just yet.  No timeline on when the President is going to sign — going to —
 
Q    And on SVB —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — going to sign that.
 
Q    — can you say if the President reached out to any outside experts or Barney Frank or others over the weekend to talk about all this?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, when I spoke to him earlier today, he did said that — he did say that he spoke to economists.  He clearly spoke to his senior staff, stayed in touch with the Treasury Secretary and his NEC director. 
 
So, he was fully engaged in this over the weekend and really is going to continue to stay very zeroed in and focused on this. 
 
He understands how important this is for the American people, but he did have outside conversations with economists.  That’s something that he shared he wanted all of you to know as well. 
 
Q    Can you share the economists that he spoke with?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I didn’t — I don’t have names to share.
 
But — but, again, this is — the reason I’m sharing this is he wanted — I want you to know that he was fully engaged this weekend, since Friday morning, very much in touch with his senior staff, many — well, very much in touch with the Treasury Secretary and — and also just making sure that, again, taxpayers are not fitting the bill for this, that we came up with a plan to make sure that — you know, that these banks are held accountable. 
 
And, look, we have to — we have to look into exactly what happened.  But in the meantime, the — the banks are going to be held accountable. 
 
There’s funds that have been put into place because of 2008, because what — of what the Biden — Biden — Obama-Biden administration was able to do.  This is — again, this is not 2008, because of the actions that that administration took.  And so, we’re just going to move forward with that.
 
Q    And just to circle back on Zeke’s first question, can you point to any specific new regulations that — that the President would be looking at?  Or is he looking at specifically walking back the rollback of Dodd-Frank that we saw?  Or just any specifics you could offer would be helpful or a timeline for when we might know more specifics.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, as I was stating earlier, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama-Biden administration put into place tough requirements on banks to make sure that the crisis would not happen again. 
 
But, unfortunately, as you all know, in 2008 [2018], the last administration rolled back some of those tough requirements.  And so, as you saw this morning and you heard from the President, he called on both Congress and bank regulators to strengthen the rules to make it less likely that this kind of bank failure can happen again, to protect American jobs, small businesses. 
 
So, we’re going to actively have those conversations, work on this, and have conversations with experts and regulators. 
 
We need to review what happened exactly to further determine what the changes are needed to make it less likely to happen again.  But we have to get a — we have to get an accounting of exactly what happened so we can know how to move forward. 
 
Q    And how long do you think it will take to review it?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline on this.  Just know that the President and his team is — is — this is a priority for them.  And we’re certainly going to continue to look into what exactly happened and how do we — how do we respond and work with Congress on this as well.
 
Q    There’s a couple of fundraisers on this trip.  What should we read into —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A couple of what?
 
Q    Fundraisers on the trip.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.
 
Q    What should we read into that about —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the — to the DNC on any fundraisers that the President will be doing on this trip.
 
Q    And then, why is Natalie Biden on the trip?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, Natalie Biden is on — as you know, the President’s family tends to travel with him — right? — pretty often.  So that’s not uncommon. 
 
Natalie is on spring break.  And so, she joined her — she wanted to spend time with her Pop.  So, she joined her Pop on this trip. 
 
Q    Karine, on that question: When members of the President’s family travel with him when he’s on official business and they don’t necessarily have a role, does the President or members of his family reimburse the federal government for their travel expenses?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that’s — that’s a good question.  I would have to look into how it works for members of the President’s family.  I actually don’t know.  But I would look into that and get back to you.  I actually don’t know how that works.  You might know better than I.  I would have to look into that.
 
Anything else? 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Okay. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks.
 
2:59 P.M. EDT
 

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan En Route San Diego,<span class="dewidow"> </span>CA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Hi, everyone.  Sorry for the delay here.  We’re making sure that everyone was able to join the call and hop on. 
 
Welcome to our briefing on the upcoming AUKUS announcement.  As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributable to “senior administration officials,” and embargoed until tomorrow, Monday, March 13th, at 1:00 p.m. San Diego time and 4:00 p.m. D.C. time.  Again, that’s Monday, March 13th at 1:00 p.m. San Diego time and 4:00 p.m. DC time. 
 
For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the line today, we have [senior administration official], [senior administration official], and [senior administration official].  They’ll have some words at the top, and then, of course, we’re happy to take your questions. 
 
With that, I’ll turn it over to you, [senior administration official]. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [moderator].  And good morning, everyone.  Thank you for joining us.  And again, sorry for the little bit of delay.  So, we’ll just go quickly through some highlights, and then we’re obviously welcome and hopeful to be able to answer some of your questions. 
 
On Monday, at our naval base in San Diego, the President will host the prime ministers of Australia and Great Britain for our next phase in our AUKUS engagement.  And the President will share that just 18 months after our original AUKUS announcement, and that’s two days before the timeline we promised that we would report back, back in September 2021. 
 
We will announce we’ve identified the optimal pathway to provide Australia with a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine.  It’s a multi-phased approach that will deliver to Australia that capability far more quickly than even we thought possible when we originally and initially launched this partnership.  And it will result in all three nations lifting their game in their respective submarine industrial bases.  And it will involve a level of sensitive, sophisticated technological cooperation that is almost without precedent.  It’s only happened once with the United States and Great Britain, and that was 65 years ago. 
 
A year and a half ago, we announced AUKUS with two of our closest allies to take on the threats of the 21st century, just as we did together in the 20th century.  AUKUS’s primary objective is to uphold peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific and to deter and defend against rapidly evolving threats to the international order and system there. 
 
But frankly, it’s far more than simply a defense program.  It is arguably the most prominent example of President Biden’s commitment to invest in and modernize our alliances.  AUKUS builds upon the UK’s relatively recent strategic engagement in the Indo-Pacific and ensures it will be a lasting presence going forward and brings another European partner into our engagement in Asia.  It makes Australia a major contributor to Indo-Pacific security and stability, and it binds the three of us together in ways almost unimaginable for the foreseeable future. 
 
AUKUS, in many ways, headlines early achievement of President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy for connecting allies in the Pacific and the Atlantic to build collective capacity that leaves us all stronger and more stable. 
 
The United States, Australia, and the UK have briefed our allies and partners around the world, from Europe to Asia to the Pacific, on tomorrow’s announcement, and we will carry forward AUKUS openly and transparently. 
 
And, [senior administration official], over to you for some of the specific details along, with [senior administration official] as well.  Thank you, [senior administration official]. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  Before going through the optimal pathway, I want to emphasize that President Biden has a long history of commitment to non-proliferation, going back to his days as a senator.  And since day one of this effort or consultation period, we have prioritized non-proliferation.  We’ve kept the IAEA informed.  And, in fact, IAEA Director General Grossi has complimented us publicly on our approach and our transparency.  And AUKUS will adhere to the highest non-proliferation standards. 
 
Now, on the optimal pathway, there are three phases in Australia’s undersea capabilities.  And our combined deterrence posture to promote security in the Indo-Pacific will increase with each phase. 
 
Here’s how it will work.  Phase one is already underway with accelerating moves in the next few years.  U.S. and UK submarines will visit ports in Australia and that will increase, starting this year.  In fact, the USS Asheville is in Perth, Australia now for combined training exercises.  Australian sailors will increasingly embed in U.S. and UK submarine forces and nuclear power schools.  This has already started.  And in the coming months, there’ll be Australian workers in our shipyards.  And starting this year, Australia will be building up its facilities and infrastructure to house Australia as well as U.S. and UK submarines. 
 
Once Australia is ready, as early as 2027, we will establish a rotational force of U.S. and UK submarines in Australia — what we’re calling Submarine Rotational Forces West.  This rotational force will help build Australia’s stewardship.  It will also bolster deterrence with more U.S. and UK submarines forward in the Indo-Pacific. 
 
Now phase two will start in the early 2030s.  Once the Australians are trained and ready, Australia will buy from the United States three Virginia-class conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines with an option to buy two more if needed.  This will help systematically grow Australians’ capabilities and stewardship for nuclear-powered submarines and it will help ensure that Australia does not experience any capability gap when its current Collins-class diesel electric subs are retired in the 2030s.  This means that Australia will have a potent nuclear-powered submarine force in 2030s much earlier than many had expected. 
 
And now, phase three starts in the late 2030s, with work to facilitate it starting in the near term in the industrial base that [senior administration official] will talk about. 
 
Australia’s long term submarine will be a state-of-the-art platform that uses the best of U.S., UK, and Australian technologies.  It will be known as SSN AUKUS. 
 
SSN AUKUS will be based on the United Kingdom design for its next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, and it will incorporate critical cutting-edge Virginia-class technologies from the United States. 
 
SSN AUKUS will be built and deployed by both Australia and the UK.  The United Kingdom intends to deliver its first SSN AUKUS domestically in the late 2030s.  Australia intends to deliver the first SSN AUKUS built in Australia to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s. 
 
This is going to require significant improvements in industrial bases in all three countries that [senior administration official] will talk about.  We briefed Congress on this plan and see strong bipartisan support. 
 
And now let me turn to [senior administration official] for some additional comments. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thank you.  Good afternoon, everyone.  As you all know, this is particularly exciting insofar as our allies and our undersea capabilities are two unique advantages of the United States.  And this is an extraordinary way to bring those together to ensure Indo-Pacific security and stability and to deliver deterrence. 
 
I would underscore that there has been unprecedented interagency cooperation throughout these 18 months of dialogue, and Secretary Austin has personally had his hand on the tiller in making this all come together. 
 
As [senior administration official] briefly noted, across the U.S. government, we’ve also seen enthusiasm on the whole from our Congress as well.  And a lot of appreciation for the strategic benefit of this part of AUKUS. 
 
And then, finally, on the submarine industrial base, as you all know, the Biden administration made a substantial investment in that submarine industrial base last year with, of course, the hardy support of Congress.  You will see, as will be announced tomorrow, $4.6 billion being advanced for production and for maintenance over the next five years in our submarine industrial base.  And that would, of course, be from the United States. 
 
I’d like to briefly turn to what Australia will do, because Australia will also be contributing to our submarine industrial base, which is another manifestation of just how serious and critical this effort is that has been decided based on the principles of proportionality, fairness, and transparency.  And I just want to underscore they will be making a substantial contribution to the U.S. submarine industrial base. 
 
With that, we look forward to your questions. 
 
Q    Hello.  I have two questions.  First, just want to double check on the schedule that the new submarines will be built and delivered in the late 2030s in United Kingdom and built and delivered to Australia in the 2040s.  Are those going to be actually built in those countries?
 
And then, the other question I had was: Why move forward with Australia buying the Virginia-class ones, as opposed to the original plan, which was to make sure they built all of them themselves?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the first part of the second question and let [senior administration official] do the first. 
 
So, just to be clear, when we started this process, we had no preconceptions about where we would end up.  There was no clear understanding about how we would devise or divine this program.  And it is through working together — [[senior administration officials] — that we arrived at this integrated plan over 25 years that essentially provides Australia with capacity, no gaps, and seeks to fulfill the commitment that we laid out in September 2021. 
 
[Senior administration official]? 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  Chris, the buildout of the industrial base needed to produce submarines in the UK and Australia will start soon and — because it takes time to build out that industrial base and then to build submarines.
 
Yes, we expect that the first delivery of SSN AUKUS by the UK will be in the late 2030s.  And because the Australians don’t have an existing submarine industrial base, it will take them somewhat longer.  We expect Australians will have first delivery in the early 2040s, and we expect an ongoing trilateral cooperation on this submarine industrial base effort. 
 
Q    And when you say “deliver,” that actually means produced in those countries. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That’s right.  That’s right.  We expect there to be components that each country provides.  But we’re talking about the production and assembly of those submarines in the UK and in Australia. 
 
Q    Thank you.
 
Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask, first, there’s some concern that the U.S. doesn’t have the resources to be able to fulfill all the goals you’ve just laid out, to fulfill the needs of the U.S. fleet as well as your allies. 
 
And then what do you also say to the concerns raised about technological sharing, that there are these restrictions on defense technology and that it’s possibly slowing or could slow down this whole effort?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official].  Let me, [senior administration official], take that question.  The U.S. submarine industrial base is not where it should be and the Department of Defense is putting forward significant additional resources to lift the submarine industrial base.  They made an initial request to Congress, which was approved last year.  And there’ll be additional funds in this year’s budget. 
 
More will be needed and the Australians, will also contribute there.  So, this is a generational opportunity to lift the submarine industrial base for the U.S. and for the UK and to build one for Australia. 
 
On the tech-sharing front, we’re confident that we’ll be able to go forward with this work on submarines with Australia and the UK, including for one of the most sensitive technologies in the world — the naval nuclear propulsion technology that we’ve shared with the UK since 1958. 
 
There are additional technologies that will be involved.  And the AUKUS effort on advanced capabilities overall spans a wide range of those.  And we are looking at what changes to our current export control arrangements would be appropriate to ensure that we’re able to move at the speed of relevance in our cooperation with the UK and Australia on these areas. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official].  I would just add that Russia’s aggressive war on Ukraine has further underscored the need to invest in our defense industrial base writ large and for our allies to do so as well. 
 
AUKUS is just a manifestation of the need to do so.  Moreover, on technology sharing, of course, Australia is one of our very closest allies.  They have stood next to us in no shortage of events, and we feel very confident that they will take this unique capability in a responsible fashion. 
 
Q    Hi.  Thank you all for taking our questions.  A quick clarification and then a question.  On the Submarine Rotational Forces West, I was just curious if that’s going to be U.S. and UK subs under the same commander or if they would be operating separately just out of the same base?
 
And then my question is on the design effort to get to SSN AUKUS such that production lines can get started for late 2030 deliveries.  Who will be doing that design work and do you guys have any kind of timeline as to when that’s going to start, when that would need to be matured — that type of thing?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official], Megan.  On the question of SRF West, U.S. and UK submarines each will operate as sovereign assets of their respective countries under the command of respectively American and British commanders.  We do expect that there’ll be a significant degree of coordination in their activities and this is a critical aspect of not just U.S. and UK cooperation, but trilateral cooperation as we go forward. 
 
On the question of design, SSN AUKUS will leverage the design work that the UK has been doing for a number of years on what they called SSNR, which is going to be the replacement submarine after their Astute-class.  The British are now going forward with SSN AUKUS rather than SSNR, but the design work that they did will be useful and the discussions about how to effectively integrate Virginia-class technology into that have already begun and — with the result of the timeframe that we talked about before for delivery at late 2030s for the UK, early 2040s for Australia of these submarines. 
 
Q    And just to clarify, are there any dates where the design would have to be complete by X time so that the construction of the first boat would begin a certain date? I mean, do you have that timing yet?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have estimates of that timing.  And as the countries work together to develop this combined plan and take it to the next stage, we’ll have more precise estimates in coming months. 
 
Q    Okay, thank you. 
 
Q    Hi, guys, thanks for taking my question.  I wanted to ask if there is going to be another funding request to Congress and also how much funding are you expecting from the Australians.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is [senior administration official].  Look, as you know, we’ll be formally releasing the details of the defense budget tomorrow.  And as I noted, you will see, I think, a substantial request to continue investing in our submarine industrial base. 
 
As you know, from our national defense strategy, our undersea capabilities are a comparative advantage.  And I think both the administration and Congress have really recognized the criticality of making sure that we are continuing to invest in it. 
 
Regarding Australia’s contribution, I would just emphasize that it’s going to be a substantial contribution. 
 
Q    Yes, thank you very much.  Thanks for taking our questions.  Just to be blunt, is this program calibrated and these plans calibrated to counter China’s exponentially growing military capabilities?  Thank you. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, I’ll jump in here quickly and then let [senior administration official] and [senior administration official] jump in as well. 
 
So, look, each of our three countries have a clear determination to take the necessary steps to maintain peace and stability going forward.  It’s a mission that the United States and other allies and partners have accepted for decades.  And we believe that it is increasingly being challenged and under threat not only by developments in China, but other countries like North Korea and Russia, which shares a Pacific engagement as well. 
 
And so, for those countries that believe that this operating system in the Indo-Pacific have been so essential to the peace and prosperity that we’ve all enjoyed over the last 50 years, we believe that this is a prudent and proper set of investments that will help to continue that joint effort going into the future.  So, we think it is a responsible step.  It is a joint step.  It’s been taken after much consultation, and it is designed to address the increasing security challenges in the Indo-Pacific. 
 
[Senior administration official]?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, [senior administration official].  I’ll just add what is perhaps obvious to everybody.  The Australians acquiring and operating a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine is a substantial upgrade to the capabilities relative to their current diesel electric submarines.  And the purpose of this, the fundamental purpose of this is to enhance deterrence in support of security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. 
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And relatedly — this is [senior administration official] — I would just emphasize that we have seen from this administration over the last few months some game-changing defense posture initiatives with Japan and with Australia and most recently with the Philippines that have really shown a number of allies around the Indo-Pacific who are also enthusiastic about ensuring their stability and security. 
 
Q    Hi, thanks for taking my question.  It’s a little similar to the last one, just building that.  Just this week, Xi Jinping said in a rather unusually public rhetoric — he talked about the all-around “containment, encirclement, and suppression” of China.  Those are his words.  How would you reassure him that substantially building up the Australian Navy is not part of that containment and encirclement?  Or is it? Thank you.  
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, look, I would simply point to you that over the course of the last several years, we’ve seen a series of steps from China.  We’ve seen stepped up activities and provocations in the South China Sea and around Taiwan; more joint activities, naval air exercises with Russia in the Pacific; challenges to India along its border; wolf warrior diplomacy; economic warfare.  Remember, Australia has been the subject of virtually undeclared economic and commercial boycott now for almost five years. 
 
So, what we’ve seen is a series of provocative steps that China has undertaken under the leadership of Xi Jinping over the last 5 to 10 years. 
 
And so, I would reject the idea that what allies and partners, all of whom who have been committed to working constructively with China where possible, are taking steps that are somehow designed to contain China.  This is an attempt to defend and secure the operating system of the Indo-Pacific.  I think it is responsible and clear.  
 
As you know, President Biden spoke directly at Bali when he met President Xi.  The United States is determined to build a responsible, stable relationship between the United States and China.  We will continue to do that.  But we also believe that it will be necessary in that process to build that dialogue on a strong, stable defense platform and to do that with our allies and partners. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That’s all the time we have.  Thanks everyone for joining. 
 
As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributable to “senior administration officials,” and all the contents here are embargoed until tomorrow, Monday, March 13th, at 1:00 pm San Diego time and 4:00 pm D.C. time. 
 
Thanks again for joining, everyone. 

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the AUKUS<span class="dewidow"> </span>Announcement appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:46 P.M. EST  
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Friday.

Q    Happy Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We made it. 
 
Okay.  So, joining us today are two critical members of the President’s economic team and Cabinet, CEA Chair Cecilia Rouse and OMB Director Shalanda Young.
 
They need no introduction and have joined us in the briefing room before.  And so, I’m going to keep it short, but a couple things I do want to say at the top about the two of them.
 
Chair Rouse has led the Council of Advisers for two years as of Sunday.  This is her third tour of duty at the White House, and she previously served as dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.  She is also the first Black Woman to be CEA Chair.
 
Director Young has similarly led the Office of Management and Budget for almost two years.  She previously served as the Clerk and Staff Director for the House Appropriations Committee, and knows the Hill and Appropriations as well as anyone — maybe better than most.  Shalanda is the first Black woman to be OMB Director.
 
You may be sensing a theme here.  (Laughter.)  Stick with me for a second. 
 
But I do want to take a moment to note the historic nature of the moment that you see in front of you right now.  All three of us are historic firsts in our roles: the first Black women to serve as CEA Chair, OMB Director, White House Press Secretary.  The first Black women, right in front of you, for all of those three important, important key roles in the administration.
 
Now, that did not happen by accident.  It takes — it’s — it — it is thanks to this President — President Biden’s leadership and commitment to building an administration full of the best and the brightest.  And I am so proud to be standing with two of the best and the brightest in this administration.

So, with that, I will turn it over Director Young and also Chair Rouse.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thank you.  How do you follow that?  (Laughter.)

Just to pile on just a little: I have to thank Cece Rouse.  This is probably our last time getting to do this roadshow together.  And if you’ve ever talked to Dr. Rouse, you know that she’s an economist extraordinaire.  What — what you may not know is that, to many of us, she is a colleague that will be hard to replace.  And I will miss our working relationship. 

And I’m embarrassing her, because I did not tell her I would do this.  (Laughter.)  But I think when you’ve been of service, you have — your kids don’t see you a lot, it’s worth taking a minute just to say thank you. 

And I know the President will have much more to say later.  But I, as a colleague, just want to say thank you for your friendship.

And just in case you all didn’t see, the President rolled out his budget, his third one on — (laughter) — yesterday.  And it’s built around four key values.

First, giving families more breathing room.  What does that mean?  We’re talking about lowering prescription drug costs, lowering healthcare costs, lowering housing costs, lowering college costs, and lowering childcare costs.  And if you have a child in daycare anywhere around here, you will understand why families need that breathing room.

Second, the budget protects and strengthens Medicare and Social Security, all while some congressional Republicans have threatened to cut them.

The President has been crystal clear: These are more than programs; they are promises to American seniors.  That’s why the budget extends the life of Medicare trust fund by at least 25 years and rejects any effort to cut Social Security benefits.  That is off the table, full stop.

Third, this budget invests in America: boosting American manufacturing, making our communities safer, strengthening our national security, cutting taxes for working families, and much more.  That’s the way you grow an economy from the bottom up and the middle out.

And fourth, this budget reduces the deficit.  Remember, this is not new to this President.  He cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion his first two years in office.  And the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions more.

This year’s budget will reduce the deficit by nearly $3 trillion dollars over 10 years by asking the wealthy and big corporations to begin to pay their fair share and by cutting wasteful spending on special interests.  That includes by reforming our tax code to ensure no billionaire pays a lower tax rate than a teacher and a firefighter in this country.  That’s a clear contrast with congressional Republicans.

Look, they talk a lot about cutting deficits, but let’s get a few things straight today.    Under the previous administration, they passed a $2 trillion unpaid-for tax cut that was skewed to the wealthy and big corporations that absolutely exploded the deficit.  And over the past few months, they pitched plans that would add an additional $3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Now, this morning, we get another proposal from the House Freedom Caucus.  Let’s talk about what it says about what they value.

This is a plan that would have devastating consequences for our national security, cut the legs out from the middle class, endanger community safety, hurt our seniors, and cost manufacturing jobs. 
 
And here is the kicker: For all the talks of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility, this would reduce the deficit by zero dollars.  Not a single penny.  Also tax cuts for the super wealthy can stay in place.

So, the contrast here is pretty simple.  The President has laid out a detailed budget that will lower costs for families, protect Medicare and Social Security, and invest in America while reducing the deficit.  And the very next day, congressional Republicans come out with a plan that would sell the middle class out in order to protect tax breaks for special interests and the super wealthy while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit.

That’s a debate we’re eager to have.

Thank you.

CHAIR ROUSE:  Thank you for having me here today.

So, I want to use my opportunity to talk about the President’s Fiscal Year 2024 Budget that was released yesterday.  But I’ll spend a little bit more time with the new jobs data that came in earlier this morning and the look ahead.

So, first, I’ll start with the budget.  This budget builds on the solid economic gains of the first two years of this administration. 

The challenges faced by the American economy during the last time — these last two years have been extraordinary.  The dual human tragedies of COVID-19 and Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine continue to reverberate through every facet of our country.

Nevertheless, the U.S. economy has remained resilient.  The United States ended 2022 with an economy that was 5 percent bigger in real terms than it was just before the pandemic, the strongest three-year performance of any G7 economy.

Further, this morning, we learned that the employment rose by — employment rose by 311,000 jobs in Jan- — in February and that the labor force participation rate among prime-aged Americans rose 0.4 percentage points in January.  It has not been as high since 2008.

At the same time, we know that inflation remains too high.  However, even there, we see signs of easing as annual inflation, as measured by the CPI, has fallen for seven months in a row.  We’ll receive updated data on that on Tuesday.

Taken together, these data are consistent with a robust recovery, one that has put us on a solid position to conu- — continue on a path forward towards sustainable growth that is more broadly shared.

So, the President’s 2024 budget builds on this growth in two very important ways.

First, this budget is fiscally responsible, as Director Young just outlined.

Second, the budget takes steps to further support our workforce and invest in human capital, with policies such as paid leave and childcare that both increase our economic capacity and help to make it easier for workers to actually go to work and balance their responsibilities.

So, finally, a word about our budget forecast.   So, we finalized our forecast last November.  Since then, data have become available, including today.  And some of those data from — from 2022 and even earlier have been revised for technical reasons.

So, with every new release and revision of technical data, we’ve learned something new about the economy and have also revised our view of it.  We’ve continued to learn a lot about just how convention- — unconventional this recovery has been.

So, if I — I think that if — if you had told most conventional macro economists last June that we were about to get seven straight months of annual inflation reduction, they would have told us that the unemployment rate would have to rise over that time.

Instead, we’ve seen that the unemployment rate in February was the same as it was last June and the labor force participation rate is 0.3 percentage points higher.

I mention this to underscore that we’re in unprecedented times.  And if we were producing our Troika forecast today, we’d incorporate new data and information from the past few months.

As I’ve emphasized repeatedly, we’re confident we’ll get back to steady and stable growth.  However, the road there will continue to be a bumpy one.

But let me end where I began.  The strength of our recovery has put us on solid ground to weather economic shocks, and the President’s 2024 budget presents a fiscally fair and responsible approach to continue the progress we’ve made so far to invest in America and meet our future challenges. 
 
Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’ll take a couple questions.

Go ahead, Mary.

Q    Just wondering if we can get your reaction to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and whether you’re concerned that other banks may fail as well.

CHAIR ROUSE:  So — sure.  So, the most important thing that I will say here is that our Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Yellen, is closely tracking the developments with S- — the Silicon Valley Bank.

What I will emphasize as well is that our banking system is in — is in a fundamentally different place than it was, you know, a decade ago, and that the reforms that were put into place back then really provide the kind of resilience that we’d like to see.

So, we have every faith in our regulators, and we can see that today.  But Secretary Yellen is closely tracking.

Q    And one more on that same topic.  You know, the government obviously insures up to $250,000.  But this bank served a lot of tech companies that obviously had a lot more money in — stored with them.  So, how concerned are you that we could see a ripple effect just throughout this specific sector?

CHAIR ROUSE:  So, two things.  One, I’ll refer you to the FDIC for how they plan — intend to handle — we know they’re insured up to 250- — and how they’ll handle those with balances above that.

And the second, I just want to re-emphasize that we are in a fundamentally different position that — you know, with the reforms of the global financial crisis of 2007, 2008, we’ve put in place stress tests and other tools that our regulators have to provide more resilience to our banking system.

So, you know, Secretary Yellen is watching this closely.  Our regulators — we have every faith that they will be as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    One for each of you, if you don’t mind.  (Laughter.)
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  (Inaudible.) 
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Which one?  Which one, Phil?
 
Q    Director Young, you’re not escaping me today.  We got approps to talk about.

But, first, just to follow up on Mary’s question.  I think one thing that’s different in the wake of 2008, despite everything that’s been put into place in the wake of Dodd-Frank, is interest rate risk is at a level right now that perhaps banks haven’t been dealing with for a very long time.

Do you feel comfortable that the banking industry writ large is both cognizant of the risk and prepared for it in a different way than maybe SVB was?

CHAIR ROUSE:  So, what I would say is that our banking system has — understands these kinds of heightened risks, and that I have full faith and confidence in our regulators.

You know, Secretary Yellen has been in conversation with our regulators, with the Federal Reserve, with the Office of the Comptroller so that they can be monitoring the situation.  And they are very acutely aware of these risks, more than we are, and we have full faith and confidence that they — they will be tracking.  They have better tools than they had in 2008, and the banking sector has more resilience. 
 
Q    And then, Director Young, you mentioned the House Freedom Caucus proposal.  Look, I know you guys were able to reach a deal on approps in December.  If this is a baseline that House Republicans, which now control the chamber, are working off of, where do you see overlap here?  And I’m not talking necessarily about debt ceiling.  I’m talking about further-on fiscal negotiations that need to happen.
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  I think it’s a good question.  The first step is: This is why we do budgets.  This is why we put it in black and white, so the American people can look at what the President values, what Congress values.  And we owe it to them to lay that out clearly.  That’s why this President has been actually pretty strong about “show us your plan,” and it’s not just a talking point. 
 
This is why we have a budget process, because it is important that people see what you mean.  It’s easy to say “spending cuts.”  What does that mean?  Well, at least some Republicans have told us what that means.
 
Before today, we heard defense was off the table.  This says defense is on the table.  So I think they have to figure out if this is the plan for all of them.  Is this a few members?  We don’t know. 
 
That’s why the House budget process — they have to come up with a plan.  They have to show if this is a plan that the majority of their conference can stand behind. 
 
Because right now, the plan we have in front of us by some of them would cut critical programs when we talk about non-defense spending: education — Department of Education; Title I, IDA — bipartisan programs; transportation; housing vouchers.  Where are people supposed to live with the housing supply crunch?  Our national defense, while we are supporting Ukraine, while we’re supposed to be countering China.  Those are real key, stark differences. 
 
And, Phil, I think we’re in the point of the program where we both have to lay those out and make the case for the American people.  And that’s what we’re doing.  And the rubber hits the road in the appropriations process. 
 
And we’ll see if they can pass those bills that live by the outline that the Freedom Caucus has put out today.  It’ll be interesting to see.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steven.
 
Q    Thanks.  Director, if you could explain the President’s thinking and his commitment going forward to ensuring the continued solvency of Social Security.  His budget yesterday does not advance any plan to adjust the payroll tax for wealthier individuals.  You say in the document that he’s interested in working with Congress.  Can you explain whether that means that he hopes for a deal this year or in this Congress?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, the deal is, this President will not accept benefit cuts.  You talk to someone like my 94-and-a-half-year-old grandmother in South Louisiana.  You call and tell her — because I’m not — that some people in D.C., after she has spent about 40, 50 years working in this country, that some people want to cut benefits that she has paid into and earned her whole life.  What this budget says is this President is not interested in that conversation.  And his budget says: not on his watch. 
 
So, in contrast — I would say, in contrast, we have people who want to cut it.  And we think the existential crisis for Social Security is making sure that our American seniors know this President is going to stand behind them. 
 
Q    But, if I can just follow up, I mean, the — the thinking is that Social Security only has about 12 more years of solvency left.  This seems like a good opportunity — isn’t it? — with a divided government, for the President to make a proposal and hope for a compromise?  He doesn’t seem to be interested in doing that.
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Well, you assume the debate is from cutting no benefits and moving forward.  We’re trying to protect the benefits that are there now.  I wish we were at the point of the debate where we could sit down and come up with proposals to extend. 
 
Unfortunately, it is clear that some people want to go backwards.  We’re saying: This President, which he has said over and over, will not accept benefit cu- — benefit cuts in the Social Security program. 
 
So you’re assuming all players are starting from the same place.  They’re not. 
 
So this President has been very clear.  His position is we will protect Social Security. 
 
Q    But the President is not making a proposal here to extend the solvency of Social Security.  He’s proposing not to accept any benefit cuts.  But the Republican leaders say they’re not proposing benefit cuts. 
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Who are you going to listen to?  You’re going to listen to the Freedom Caucus who put out something different than what other people have been saying?
 
What we’ve said is — one thing — Monday, one thing is said; Tuesday, another thing said.  We’ll know if that is an ironclad commitment.  We hope it is.  But until we see a plan, excuse us for wanting to see it in black and white, and see that it’s supported by the majority of the conference. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nancy.
 
Q    Thanks.  Just following up on that.  In the budget, you did spend a lot of time talking about your proposals for Medicare, expressing concern about Medicare solvency and claiming that the proposals that you’re making will extend Medicare for another 25 years or so.  So why no proposal for extending Social Security’s solvency, which is almost as dire. 
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So — well, one, thanks for bringing up Medicare.  You’re right; we do have a proposal that would extend the life by at least 25 years.  And we hope our friends on the Hill will take us up on those proposals. 
 
And I’ve been very clear and the President has: We believe the greatest existential threat to Social Security today is those who want to cut it.  So, our position, his position is that is not on the table, not on his watch.  And that’s what this budget says. 
 
Q    So will the President have a proposal in the future for extending Social Security’s lifeline so that people like your grandmother will be able to get their full benefits come 10, 15, 20 years from now?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  I hope she’s with us — (laughter) — that long.  I really do. 
 
But what this President will do is make sure he is a backstop and will stop attacks on the program for people who want to cut it.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Kristen.
 
Q    I wanted to follow up on that.  But about Medicare, the proposal to keep Medicare solvent includes increasing taxes, which is something that Republicans have called a nonstarter. 
 
So, given that, where are the conversations happening about keeping Medicare solvent, given that it is dire and expected to run out in a matter of years as well — the trust funds?
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  So, remember, the budget writ large — this is a start of a conversation.  This is a —
 
Q    Republicans say it’s dead on arrival, though.
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, budgets — this is — this is the President’s job.  His job is — and Congress told all Presidents: Send us a budget.  Show us what you would do, what you value.  This President has done that. 
 
Now, it was — it was his choice to put forward proposals that extended Medicare, and he’ll work with anyone who wants to work with him to do that. 
 
Look, the net income tax was always supposed to go to Medicare.  We’re correcting something that should have happened a long time ago. 
 
Are we asking those making over $400,000 to pay more?  We are — to extend.  And it has a dual benefit.  It not only extends the trust fund life, it helps us reduce the deficit. 
 
So, we think it’s a good proposal, and we hope people take us up on it. 
 
Q    I wanted to follow up with you on the debt limit.  The President has been very clear he’s not going to negotiate over increasing the debt limit.  Will there be a parallel negotiation, though, with Republicans? 
 
In other words, would he agree to sign something that raises the debt limit unilaterally and then simultaneously have negotiations about potential cuts, which I understand you’re still waiting to see the details of?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Yeah, I’ve really tried in 20 years not to deal in hypotheticals in this town.  That is a good way to get oneself in trouble.  And I’ve been in a lot of funding debates over the years; they end differently every year.  But guess what?  They happen every year. 
 
So, I know there’s a lot more rhetoric around it with a new House majority, but we just work together and beyond — and most critics thought we could not find a path in a bipartisan basis in December, and we did.
 
Q    But is this a possibility, though?  I understand you don’t want to lock yourself into a parallel — into a hypothetical.  But is it a possibility that you would have parallel negotiations?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  I will say we talk — Democrats and Republicans — every year.  That is the only way to get government spending bills done.  So that happens every year, and we expect it to happen this year. 
 
Q    Can I ask you one more on SVB?  It is the 19th-largest bank in the U.S.  It went down in about 40 hours.  What do you say to Americans who have real concerns today about their hard-earned savings and money?
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  Yeah, absolutely.  And this is why we have the FDIC and other safeguards in place in our banking system.   And what I would say to them is that our Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Yellen; the bank regulators; those who will provide the guardrails and our safeguarding are closely watching and are prepared to use the tools that they need.
 
The FDIC stepped in very quickly here.  And that’s what they were doing is protecting the deposits of those up to $250,000.  And then they have a way to unwind the rest. 
 
So, I will refer you to the FDIC.  I will refer you to Treasury that is monitoring the developments in the system. 
 
But what I will say to it is our banking system is far more resilient than it was in 2008.  We learned a lot.  We’ve got better tools specifically so that we can protect that the important investments of (inaudible).
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve got to take some from the back, and then we’ll come back.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  I have one for each of you.  Picking up on that, you said you had full faith and confidence in our regulators.  Regulators are those that work for the government.  Do you have the full faith and confidence in the banking system writ large?
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  Our banking system is fundamentally different because of the changes that we put in place in 2008.  For example, they have to hold more capital, they undergo stress tests. 
 
So we know that we had to build more resilience into our banking system, which allows it to withstand these kinds of shocks.  So I do have faith that we have the tools to — for this sector and for our regulators to be able to absorb. 
 
But, you know, this is what we know today.  But we do know that our banking system is in a fundamentally different place.
 
Q    No worries about the contagion effect?
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  Again, we put in guardrails, which — and our regulators have much more visibility into the banking sector than they did a decade ago.
 
Q    And then, for Director Young: There have been a lot of talk in this room over the last — this week and then last week as well, about Mexico and how to deal with cartels, transnational trafficking, et cetera. 
 
There was additional money thrown into the budget — 800 million dollars’ worth — for ICE and CBP, more agents along the border, more money to take on fentanyl, et cetera.  Is it enough — is this an acknowledgement from the President that more needs to be done along the southern border and more needs to be done taking on these cartels?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Look, the President has been clear.  He has asked the Secretary of Homeland Security to let me know, let him know what is needed.  And that’s why we’re putting forth a robust request in fiscal year ‘24. 
 
But you’re right.  In December, the President told Congress, “I need more than I originally asked of you months before.”  And Congress gave us about half of what he asked for. 
 
So, we have to ask: If we’re all concerned about border security, are you going to resource the men and women at the border to do their job? 
 
So we did not get everything we asked for in December.  We’re going to try again with this budget.  We’re asking for about $880 million more in CBP. 

We’re asking for $4.7 billion in a contingency fund, acknowledging migration patterns change.  So, we’re going to have triggers.  If encounters hit a certain level, we’ll access more money.  We think that’s the responsible way to fund this. 

So, we’re going to ask for the resources we need.  And we continue to assess.  And we will let Congress know, like we did last year, if that situation changes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    So, I’m going to ask about the other thing today, the jobs report, if I could.  (Laughter.)  So, the average hourly wages in the jobs report is up 4.6 percent.  The CPI inflation is 6.4 percent.  That — its — inflation has been outpacing wages for about a year and a half.  When can Americans expect that to reverse — relief from that?

CHAIR ROUSE:  So, we did see that on an annual basis — we saw some wage — the nominal wages went up slower than what we expect.  We don’t have the CPI report for this month, but based on what we had in January.  But I will highlight that real wages in January were higher than they were seven months ago. 

So we understand that inflation needs to come down.  It’s why it’s the President’s highest priority.  We just got the Blue Chip forecast — it was just released today from Blue Chip forecasters.  They were expecting inflation to be easing to about 3.2 percent at the end of this year. 

We know that that is why it’s so important for the Federal Reserve to have the independence.  It is why the President is focused on lowering costs in his budget through the Inflation Reduction Act for Americans when it comes to healthcare, when it comes to childcare, when it comes to higher education.

But we are expecting to see this economy con- — you know, with the — the labor market is robust.  We’re expecting to see inflation ease over the year.  There may be bumps along the way, however.  We know that we can’t focus on any one month, but that — that is what most forecasters are expecting.

Q    And on jobs, real quick.  On jobs, manufacturing lost 4,000 jobs.  With the focus on manufacturing here, what happened?

CHAIR ROUSE:  So, again, it — so, yes, but we had one month, and we don’t like to focus on any one month.  And if we look at the manufacturing growth overall, they’re higher today than they were almost two years ago.  We’ve seen more manufacturing growth in the last two years than we have in previous recovery cycles.  What — again, I want to emphasize it’s really important not to over-focus on any one month of data. 
 
But if we go back to the President’s policies, if we look at the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the — the CHIPS and Science Act, those are — even the Inflation Reduction Act, in terms of the investments in the green energy transition: All of those are going to bring the kind of manufacturing jobs that we know are so important to both rebuilding the infrastructure in this country, which we — which is very important for building our economic growth, building our economic capacity, and will offer those kind of manufacturing jobs, which are so important for a lot of American workers, especially those without a college degree.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Phil.

Q    Thank you.  I have two questions for Director Young.  The first is: For the Pentagon, the President is requesting $842 billion.  That’s a 3.2 increase — 3.2 percent increase from last year, but inflation is at 6 percent currently.  So, how is that not a cut in real terms?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, remember, it matters what we spend the resources on.  This defense budget was built on the National Defense Strategy.  As you can imagine, we tend to get from Congress a lot of things that this administration did not prioritize.

So, frankly, we had room in the base in which to prioritize to make sure we we’re taking care of the highest priority items for our national defense.  So, that is the basic answer. 

It is about: Look under the hood.  We believe we have the resources, as I mentioned, to counter China in Defense and State Department and USAID.  And it’s the right level for doing the right thing. 

We don’t say — I know people like to compare percentages from non-defense and defense.  It’s about what the right level is to achieve what we’re trying to achieve.  So we worked in lockstep with the Department of Defense to make sure we were funding the top priorities around the globe.
Q    And then, you have said today and the President has also said on numerous occasions, that cuts to Social Security are off the table.  I’m wondering, though, for folks who are planning on retirement after 2035, when the Congressional Research Service estimates that that program could be approaching insolvency — you know, for folks who are expecting to retire, you know, in the next decades ahead, is — what is the President’s message to them?  Can they rely on this program?  Will it be around for them after they pay into it?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Remember, it takes — it’s going to take bipartisanship in order to deal with the longer-term issues here.  And right now, unfortunately, the debate is centered around the current benefits in the program. 

We have some — maybe it’s not the case, but we’ll see when their budget comes out.  But we have some who have said they want to cut Social Security.  That is why this President, in his budget, made very clear that he is not going to allow that to happen on his watch.  And that’s full stop. 

But absolutely, if people want to accept that as a reality and talk about further proposals, we’re happy to engage in that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just a couple more.

Q    Can I go back to Silicon Valley Bank for a second?  There’s the CEO — I believe Y Combinator — that has hundreds of its portfolio companies tied to the bank.  And the CEO said that this is a, quote, “extinct-” — “extinction-level event” for startups if regulators and lawmakers don’t act quickly to give it some liquidity.  So, I’m wondering if the administration believes right now whether that kind of intervention is needed.

I don’t know if I’m supposed to say the word “bailout,” but — (laughs) — but what is the — what is the White House thinking on that?
CHAIR ROUSE:  What I would say is that Secretary Yellen is closely tracking, she’s closely in touch with the Chair Powell, with the FDIC, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. 

And so, they are assessing the situation.  They understand the importance of the stability within our financial sector.  That is what their job is.  And they have the tools that they need to ensure that we maintain stability in the financial sector.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Francesca.  Just two more.

Q    The President proposed 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave as part of his budget.  What percentage of wages does he intend to replace?  And how does he plan to pay for the proposed program?
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, thank you for that.  When we talk about the President reducing the deficit by over $3 trillion, it assumes the investments in paid leave, it assumes the investment in childcare. 

We believe that when we reform the tax code and ask the wealthiest in this country and large corporations to pay what nurses and firefighters pay in this country, that we can do things like paid leave.  So, those programs are already baked in. 
 
So, our deficit projections — when we say $3 trillion, it assumes that we have paid for a 12-week paid leave policy.  So, we think we can do those investments fiscally responsible by ensuring that we have fairness in the tax code.

Q    But given that, in the past, lawmakers have discussed this for a very long time, they all — many Republicans and Democrats have said that they believe in a paid leave program but what they can’t figure out is how to pay for it.  Why not put forward a specific measure in this plan?
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Look, we are happy to talk about how to mix and match tax proposals and spending proposals.  I think the important thing to know is, in the budget, we’ve laid out several revenue sources, several tax policies.  And, you know, absolutely, if — if some of the proposals get mixed and matched with certain things, we’re open to that. 

I think the key thing to leave here with is: We’ve put a suite of proposals forward that have enough revenue — more than enough — to do paid leave and the other proposals that the President has put forward.  Because this President, rather than talk about fiscal responsibility, has actually put forward budgets that say we should pay for what we spend — and, as matter of fact, we should pay for what we spend and reduce the deficit at the same time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Great, thanks.  First, for Dr. Rouse, with regard to the jobs numbers today.  Are you concerned that rising interest rates is going to torpedo the progress in the labor market and that there’s a disconnect between how the Fed looks at this and how the White House looks at this?
CHAIR ROUSE:  So, what I would say is this —

Q    Please speak in the microphone.

CHAIR ROUSE:  Oh, sorry.  This jobs report — yeah, that does sound different — (laughter) — this jobs report reflects that we have an economy that remains resilient. 
 
And the President respects the independence of the Fed and understands they have a dual mandate.  So, their dual mandate is both price stability and maximum employment.  So, I have full faith that they are focused on those two goals. 

What I will say is that the resilience that we see in this labor market is — defies expectations of traditional macro economists.  And so, we are — you know, it’s not foregone that we have to see, you know, a big spike in unemployment in order to bring down inflation. 

As I mentioned before, I don’t think any macro economist would have expected we would have seen the easing over the past seven months that we’ve seen without seeing some give in the unemployment — in the labor market.

So, you know, we fully expect that — we know there will be bumps along the way.  But we fully expect that we will see a transition to an economy that is more stable and where there’s more sustainable growth. 

And, you know, our forecast, the forecasts of private invest- — for- — private forecasters suggest that inflation should come down meaningfully over the course of this year and we’ll eventually get back to a more stable situation.

Q    Do you think rates are too high?

CHAIR ROUSE:  So, what I would say is that we see an economy that is quite resilient —

Q    That’s not answering the question.  (Laughter.)

CHAIR ROUSE:  — and we still see — but we also understand that inflation is too high. 
 
So the Federal Reserve has to take the actions it needs to take.  And so, we have the confidence that they will do that while also trying to achieve that soft or soft-ish landing, which suggests that they will try to maintain momentum in the labor market, in particular, but in the economy while bringing inflation under control. 
 
Q    Just very briefly for Director Young.  You’ve been asked multiple times about the future of Social Security, and most of your answers have focused on Republicans wanting to cut benefits now. 
 
Keeping that context in mind, will the President make a proposal at some time during his administration to help ensure that Social Security will exist for people who are retiring, as was already asked, in 10 years?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, the President has supported proposals that would extend Social Security.  He has not walked away from those proposals. 
 
I’ll remind everyone this is the fiscal year ‘24 budget.  It is one year.  That does not mean that every policy that the President and then candidate supports will be reflected in one budget year.  And he absolutely has supported policies that would extend Social Security. 
 
Right now, unfortunately, we believe the — the thing he has to protect against most is those who want to cut it. 
 
So, you’re right.  This is about a contrast.  And we’re starting from a place of having to protect Social Security.  So that is what is reflected here.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Peter.
 
Q    Director Young, do you think there is any wasteful government spending?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Peter, this is why we have $1.6 billion to go after fraud, mostly in the unemployment insurance area.  You’ve probably heard the White House talk about this proposal.  It ensures — you’ve heard the President talk about making sure IGs stay on the beat; that is a difference from the last administration, who fired some of our IGs.  They go after wasteful spending and are very helpful pointing out to us and Congress what wasteful spending is. 
 
That is why you see that proposal to make sure that we go after fraud and waste in government programs and after crime syndicates who are abusing programs that should be there for those Americans who need it.
 
Q    So no — the criticism from Republicans in Congress is that this budget just makes the government too big.  You don’t think so?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  We would not have a $1.6 billion proposal to go after fraud and waste and crime syndicates if we didn’t think that there was some reform and cops on the beat, like the IGs, needed. 
 
So, I did not say that.  I said we have a proposal in which to go after it. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you.  Thanks, guys.  Thank you so much. 
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thank you. 
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I have a couple things at the top, and then we can go into questions. 
 
So, as you all know — and, I guess, you guys all saw — President Biden is meeting with President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission, which is happening currently as we’re standing here — as I’m standing here and you all are standing — sitting there. 
 
Transatlantic economic issues — (laughter) — I tried to be a little bit more smooth about that.  It was not smooth. 
 
Okay.  Transatlantic economies — economic issues will be the central focus of the meeting, including our Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan.  We also expect them to discuss our continued partnership to support Ukraine and the Windsor Framework.
 
Coming out of the meeting this afternoon, we hope to be able to begin negotiations on a targeted critical minerals agreement and a dialogue on subsidy transparency. 
 
We also hope to be able to jointly commit to a deadline for finalizing negotiations on the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum.
 
We announced yesterday, as you all saw, that the President and the First Lady are going to — are looking forward to and going to be headed to Ottawa, Canada, on March 23rd to the 24th.
 
And so, President Biden will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the U- — to the U.S.-Canada partnership and promote our shared security, shared prosperity, and shared values.
 
While there, President Biden will meet with Prime Minister Trudeau.  They’ll discuss a wide range of topics, including defense cooperation, strengthening our supply chain resilience, our efforts to combat climate changes, as well as regional and global challenges like supporting Ukraine, addressing irregular migration, and combatting the synthetic opioid crisis.
 
While there, President Biden will also address the Canadian parliament.
 
And as you all know, we will have more to share as we get closer to the travel dates.
 
One thing that I wanted to share or speak to this afternoon is basically what we have seen this past — this past couple of weeks.  So I just want to take a step back a moment and really call out the shameful, hateful, and dangerous attacks that we have been seeing on the LGBTQI community as we’ve seen this week, as I said, and also last week.
 
Look, it started with a speaker at a conservative conference calling for the eradication of transgender people, language that not a single national Republican leader has condemned. 
 
In Iowa and Tennessee, Republicans are now calling for legislation to attack gay marriage and protections for same-sex couples.
 
In Florida — just Florida alone — Republicans introduced 20 bills — 20 bills — on a single day to roll back the rights of LGBTQ community. 
 
One of those bills would give the state the right to remove kids from their parents just because that kid is transgender.  And just think about that.  Just think about a kid who is sitting at home in this community who is listening and hearing elected officials talking about how they want to take away their rights or how they want to even threaten their parents with felony charges for seeking healthcare for their children. 
 
These kids are sitting at home having to listen to people, who are supposed to protect them and their freedom, saying these horrific, ugly, despicable things. 
 
So, so far this year, we have seen more than 450 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced at the state level — you’ve heard me say that before — amounting to a record number of anti-LGBTQ bills in our country’s history.
 
Guys, today is day 70.  It is day 70 of 2023.
 
The same leaders that tout freedom apparently don’t extend their love for freedom if they disagree with who you are, who you love, or how you parent.  It’s government overreach at its worst, taking away rights from the vulnerable, all to distract from a deeply unpopular agenda that caters to the ultra-rich.
 
As the President has made clear time and — time and time again — you have heard him say this not just as President, but also as Vice President, also as — as a senator throughout his career — he believes that everyone in this country should live with the safety and dignity — with the safety and dignity.
 
There is no asterisk over the word “freedom” in this country.  We will not hesitate to call out this behavior.  If I have to do this or we have to do this or the President has to do this every week, we will. 
 
And I’ll just re- — I’ll just say what the President has said over and over again when it comes to LGBTQ community, when it comes to vulnerable comminutes across the country that are constantly being attacked: We have their back.  The President has their back.  And that will continue.
 
So, now the week ahead. 
 
This evening, the President will travel to Wilmington, Delaware.
 
On Sunday, the President will return to the White House.
 
On Monday, the President will travel to San Diego, California, to meet with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia and Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom and discuss the Australia, United Kingdom, United States Partnership, also known as AUKUS.  The President will also participate in bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Sunak and also with Prime Minister Albanese.
 
On Tuesday, the President will travel to Monterey Park, California.  The President will discuss his efforts to reduce gun violence.  Then the President will travel to Las Veg- — Las Vegas.
 
On Wednesday, the President will discuss his plan to lower prescription drug costs.  In the evening, the President will return to the White House from Las Vegas.
 
We will have more to share on St. Patrick’s Day, one of the President’s favorite holidays, in the days ahead.  (Laughter.)  As you all know, it will be a lot to celebrate on March 17th.
 
With that, Seung Min, do you want to kick us off?
 
Q    I have two quick questions. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.
 
Q    Will the President sign the legislation that would declassify information about the origins of COVID?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I know that it was just passed — if I remember — if I’m remembering correctly, it was just passed out of the House today.  Right?
 
Q    Correct.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So we’re taking a look at the bill.  We have continued to share information, as I’ve mentioned many times before, with members of Congress. 
 
And as you know, the first few months of the President’s administration, he — he — when he came into office, he directed the intelligence community to dec- — declassify information assessing COVID origins and to make that report public to — to Americans people — to the American people, because we know and he understands how important it is to get to the bottom of COVID ornges [sic] — we will — origins.
 
We will continue to use every tool to figure out what happened here, while also protecting classified information. 
 
Again, we’re going to take a look at the bill.  I just don’t have anything to share on how we’re going to move forward at this time.
 
Q    But the Senate also passed it unanimously.  So why would President Biden not — something that literally —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re —
 
Q    — got no opposition in Congress?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I totally understand.  It is the right of the President of the United States to look at the legislation that are — that is going to be coming before him.  And we’ll have more to share.
 
Q    And one quick question — clarification request on what he said earlier today.  He was asked about Saudi Arabia and Iran reestablishing diplomatic relations.  And he said, “The better the relations between Israel and their Arab neighbors, the better for everybody.”  Can you just clarify what he meant?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as it relates to Iran and Saudi Arabia, we are — we are aware of the reports and would certainly refer you to the Saudis as they are — clearly, came together with this plan.  And they will give — provide more details. 
 
But generally speaking, to your question: Look, we welcome any efforts to help end the war in Yemen and de-escalate tensions in the Middle East region.  That is one of the reasons why the President — you saw him travel in — over the summer to have those conversations.
 
De-escalation and diplomacy, together with deterrence, are key pillars of the policy that the President — that President Biden put out — outlined during his — his visit in July in the region. 
 
So, again, de-escalation of tension in the Middle East clearly is a priority, and he welcomes that.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Still on the Saudi-Iran deal.  You and other officials have often said that the JCPOA is just not a focus right now for the administration.  Is this still the case in light of the Chinese-brokered deal that renews ties between Saudi and Iran? 
 
And should China be able to expand the Saudi-Iran deal to bring Iran to return to JCPOA, would the administration support that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So our opposition, as we have stated the last couple of months, as it relates to JCPOA, has not changed.  It is not our focus right now.  It is not on the agenda. 
 
And I’ll just leave it there. 
 
We’ve been pretty consistent on that.  And so that hasn’t changed.
 
Q    Okay.  And a follow-up on Seung Min’s question.  Did the President just misheard the question?  I — I’m still confused with your explanation.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, there’s no confusion.  I just laid out how we feel about — how we feel about the de-escalating tensions in the Middle East.  We’ve been very clear about that.  The President laid out his plan, as it — during his trip — the pillars of the policy during his trip in July.  It’s just — that hasn’t changed.  And that still stands. 
 
Go ahead, Kristen.
 
Q    Karine, thanks.  I just want to emphasize: There’s high interest in knowing if he will find a bill to declassify the origins.  So do you think you’ll get an answer by the end of the day?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — we’re —
 
Q    Is that something —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to look at the bill.  I can’t give a timeline.  That’s something that — our team here has to take a look at the bill that has been pres- — that has, as you know, has been — gone through Congress, and just take a look at it and we’ll get back to you all. 
 
I don’t have a timeline on that.
 
Q    Okay.  I want to follow up on the comments you made at the top.  And you highlighted Florida as one of the places in which LGBTQI rights are under attack.
 
Today, Ron DeSantis — Governor Ron DeSantis said that “Florida is where woke goes to die.”  He also said of the COVID response, “We were right, and they were wrong,” in reference to this administration in the past.
 
One, can you respond to any of that? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, can — say — can you say the first one again?  The first question. 
 
Q    So, can you respond to Governor Ron DeSantis, in Iowa today, who said, “Florida is where woke goes to die.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I have to say.  When Republicans — extreme Republicans, these MAGA Republicans — don’t agree with an issue or with policy, they don’t bring forth something that’s going to either have a — a good-faith conversation.  They go to this conversation of “woke.”  But that is not actually policy.

That — what they — what that turns into is hate.  What it turns into is despi- — despicable policy.  And it’s just not the way we’re going to move forward. 
 
This is not protecting freedoms.  This is not having a good-faith conversation on how we can move the country forward.  This is about attacking — talking about attacking young kids and their parents because of how they view themselves, because of how they see themselves, because of how they want to live.  Kids and their parents.

What does that have to do with anything about being woke?  That is just hate.  And it is aw- — it is shameful.  It is shameful.  And we’re going to call it out.

And like I said, the President is going to continue to say we have the back of the — of that community or any vulnerable community.

Q    And do you have any response to him in saying, “We were right, and they were wrong”?  Obviously, Florida, one of the states that lifted COVID restrictions on the earlier side.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just remind you all — and you guys wrote about this very early on in the administration: When this President walked in to this administration, thousands of people were dying of COVID.  The last administration did not put forward a comprehensive plan on how we were going to deal with COVID, on how we were going to have shots in arms.

This President, along with Democrats in Congress, passed the American Rescue Plan, which actually helped turn the — the economy back on, because the economy was tanking; grow the economy so that we didn’t leave anybody behind; got people shots in arms; made sure that vaccines were available for free to the American people, making sure that more than 200 million people got vaccines — became fully vaccinated.

That’s what this President did.  This is how he moved forward to make sure that we’re — we’re sitting — all of you guys are sitting here or standing here, and we’re able to sit next to each other.  Most of us — majority of us don’t have masks on.  Many of us are — we are able to — who have kids, our kids are back at school.

When we came into this administration, schools were closed, small businesses were shutting down. 

So, you know, we just talked about the budget — the President’s budget plan, about his values — what he sees the value for the American people.  This is what we’re talking about.  We’re talking about how we’re going to deliver for the American people.

Q    And very quickly, Karine, on one more topic.  Democrats now are joining the calls for President Biden to go to East Palestine.  He has said he plans to go.  What are the plans for him to go?  Why hasn’t he gone yet?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ve been asked this question multiple times, as you know, Kristen. 
 
Look, the President, when — when the chemical spill happened on February 3rd, you saw the federal government act right away.  Within hours, you saw the EPA on the ground, DOT was on the ground, and the President made sure that we responded on the federal level so that the people of East Palestine were made whole again.

I don’t have a — I don’t have a trip to announce at this time.  Again, this has been a priority for the President.  He’s been updated very regularly.  He’s spoken to the governors of Pennsylvania, the governor of Ohio.  His team has been on the ground multiple times.  You’ve seen the EPA dir- — director — Administrator go down to — go down to the — to see the community, to see it for himself what has occurred.  That — he’s been there about three times. 
 
And you’ve seen multiple agencies on the ground also making sure that we make the community whole again, and also holding to account Norfolk Suffolk [sic].

Q    Understood.  But now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Southern, pardon me.

Q    — all of th- — now that all of that is in place, Democrats are saying it’s time for him to get down there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And he said, when he was asked the question, that he will be there.

Q    Will it happen (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline for you.  The President answered this question directly when he was asked a couple of days, and he said he’s looking forward to go down — going down.  Just don’t have a timeline to share. 

Go ahead, Tam.

Q    Yeah, thank you.  Do you have any update on when a decision will be announced on the Willow project?  And can you confirm that the President was participating in conversations on the project this week?  How actively involved has he been?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I think I confirmed — I don’t know, earlier this week, that he had discussions with the delegations of Ala- — in Alaska.  So, I did confirm that he has had those conversation. 

Look, as I said also on — on that day, that this process is led by the Department of Interior.  They’re the ones who make the decision — the Secretary of Interior — so I would point you, for any specifics or timeline or details on that, to Interior.

Go ahead, Tyler.

Q    Hi.  I know that Chair Rouse said that Secretary Yellen is actively engaged in the Silicon Valley Bank issue.  I’m wondering: Has the President been briefed on this?  Has he talked to Secretary Yellen?  What is his involvement today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s a good question.  I haven’t had a chance to — to speak to the President.  Just — as you know, this has been reoccur- — occurring over the last couple of hours.

What I can say for sure — and certainly, I’m going to let the economist who was in front of you all speak to this — let her words sit — but I’ll just follow up and say Treasury is certainly tracking this rec- — recent developments and remains in touch with regulators.

And so, for any specifics or details on that, certainly, I would refer you to Department of Treasury.  Just — this has been developing over the last couple of hours.  I just haven’t had a chance to speak to him about it.

Q    And then one quick follow-up.  I know two of my colleagues asked about this.  I think the reason that there’s confusion about the President’s comments earlier today is because he was asked about a relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and he brought up Israel.  Obviously, Israel is a neighboring country, but it’s not a party to this new arrangement.  Did the President just mishear the question?  Did you have a chance to ask him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have to be very honest: I didn’t hear the question that was posed to him, and I didn’t hear how he answered it.  So I would need to hear it for myself before I can give you an answer.

What I can say to you is what — more broadly, how we see the relationship and how important it is to de- — deescalate in the — in the region at this time and in the Middle East. 
 
And so that’s why the President — one of the reasons that — one of the things that was on the President’s agenda was just that when he went in July — he went to Israel, as you know; he went to Saudi Arabia, as you know.  And it was important — it was an important trip to have.

I just have to go back and see exactly what he said.  I just want to make sure I say it the ri- — I respond to you in the right way.

But what I can speak to is, more broadly, how he sees this relationship.
Q    And just one last quick one.  Obviously, on Monday, he’s going, as you said to California, in connection with the AUKUS deal.  This was something that particularly upset the French when it was announced months ago.  I’m wondering if the President plans any outreach.  I know he recently spoke with Macron —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I was going to say he rec- — rec- — yeah.

Q    — but ahead of this or after this event, if there’s anything he might do there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s a good question.  As you know, he spoke to President Macron just last week.  I don’t have any — any future or upcoming conversations to be had around this trip.

Q    Do you know if AUKUS was brought up on that call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know we had a readout.  I just don’t — outside of that, I don’t know if — I don’t have anything else to share.
Okay.  Go ahead, Phil.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One of my colleagues had a pretty extraordinary interview with an Iranian — or a U.S. citizen that’s been held in Iran now for several years, appealing to the President for his help in securing his release. 
 
I’m wondering if the President is aware of that interview happening from inside the Evin prison, and also if he’s willing to meet with the Namazi family in the wake of the plea from Siamak Namazi.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can say that we — look, we don’t have any meetings to preview at this time or today, but I can confirm that senior officials from both the White House and also the State Department meet and consult regularly with the Namazi family, and we will continue to do so until this unacceptable detention ends and Siamak is reunited with his family.

That is certainly the President’s commitment and our commitment here.

Q    All right.  Thanks, Karine.  I think you got a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Great.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hopefully, I’ll see you guys on the trip.  If not, next week.
 
Q    Do you have an update on McConnell?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have an update (inaudible).
 
Q    Have a great weekend.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You too.

3:42 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, OMB Director Shalanda Young, and CEA Chair Cecilia<span class="dewidow"> </span>Rouse appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

12:36 P.M. EST

MS. DALTON:  Okay.  Good afternoon, everyone.  As you all know, we’re on our way to Philadelphia, where the President will lay out his budget for the American people.

This year’s budget comes at a critical moment for our country and a time when the President’s economic strategy is working.  The economy has added 12 million jobs.  The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level in more than 50 years.  And we just had the two strongest years for new small business applications on record.

OMB Director Shalanda Young is here with me to say a few words about the budget and has time for just a couple of questions on this very busy day for her and on this short flight.  But I want to let you know that she and CEA Chair Cecilia Rouse will be in the briefing room tomorrow, so we’ll take all of your questions at that time as well.

Over to you, Shalanda.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  All right, it’s kind of a big day for someone who is Budget Director.  This is kind of our Super Bowl, so I’m very excited.

When you hear the President talk about budgets, he says, “Don’t tell me what you value.  Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

This is not about numbers on a spreadsheet, and we have to remember that.  And that’s why you’ll hear us talk about this budget being built around four values:

How do we invest in Americans.  That means everything from instituting paid leave in this country, boosting manufacturing, lowering taxes for working families, as a contrast to some of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Second value is protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, again, in contrast to some on the other side of the aisle who want to cut those programs.  We not only protect but we would lengthen Medicare by at least 25 years. 

We also reduced the deficit.  We do all those great things and still would reduce the deficit over 10 years by nearly $3 trillion.  That’s in contrast to those on the other side of the aisle.  You add up their various ideas, they would actually add $3 trillion to the deficit.

So we’re going to talk a lot this budget season about values, and we’re going to talk a lot about what the other side values.  And that leads me to: We’ve put out a plan today; they need to put out a plan.  They owe that to the American people.

This has all been tied into fiscal talks.  This President, remember, presided over $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction his first two years.  His budget adds to that, as I talked about, by showing how we can reduce the deficit by three more trillion.

And we welcome a debate on how we can be fiscally responsible, but we also have to do it in a way that doesn’t cut the legs out from working families.

So we’re going to show how we can invest in American people all while being fiscally responsible by asking the wealthiest to begin to pay their fair share in this country.

MS. DALTON:  Darlene, do you want to kick us off?

Q    Yes, I have one question for the director.  So, the budget proposal includes reversals to the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.  Does it also include the cost of extending the 2017 cuts that went to the middle class and are set to expire in 2025?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thank you for that.  Remember: 2025. We’re talking about a ‘24 budget.  But we do speak to the tax cuts from 2017 because we want to be crystal clear about our principles here.

This President has an ironclad commitment.  He will not support a penny of new taxes for those making under $400,000. Full stop.  That includes ensuring that they don’t lose out when these tax cuts expire.

But we do think there’s a way to do this in a fiscally responsible way.  Remember, those tax cuts were skewed to the wealthy.  Should — should that be?  Or should we focus on those under $400,000?  We think that’s where the focus should be.  And then we ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share.  We can actually make sure working-class families keep their taxes low while we do it in a fiscally responsible way and pay for that.

I know that is a novel approach to cutting taxes — paying for them — but we think that’s the way to do this.

MS. DALTON:  Nandita.

Q    And on — sorry.  Go — go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Just a quick question on what Republicans are saying and how they’re reacting to the proposal.  They seem to suggest that there’s very little common ground.  I was hoping to get your thoughts on, you know, the criticism, largely, that’s coming in, saying that the President is really not willing to make any spending cuts, but he is raising taxes and that’s all that they’re trying to do.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Well, what do you call “spending”?  They don’t call tax giveaways and loopholes that corporations and wealthy people have taken advantage of in this country for far too long “spending.”  What they call “spending” is food assistance for working families, childcare.  I have a 16-month-old.  Tell me what childcare costs, and — I don’t know how families are making it.

Don’t focus there.  That’s what we’re saying.  Close loopholes.  Take these subsidies away from Big Oil.  Do they really need to get $31 billion from the taxpayers?  If we close those loopholes, literally, with Big Oil and Gas — $31 billion.  Or do you cut food from families?  We think there is a choice. That’s what we call cutting wasteful spending.

Q    Director, just to sort of understand that better, in terms of sort of proposals that can find any kind of common ground and realistic GOP support, what do you think those are?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  So, remember, this President worked with congressional Republicans the last two years.  I know they don’t trumpet those — Bipartisan Infrastructure Law; bipartisan veterans act — the PACT Act, bipartisan; CHIPS and Science, bipartisan.

He has a record, even when Democrats controlled all of Congress, of working with Republicans.  Thirty — over thirty years in the Senate, he has a record.

Of course we’re going to work with Republicans; we did in December.  We know how to do this.  This is not novel.  We just did a bipartisan funding bill in December.  That’s going to continue.

Appropriations bills, which I worked on — I was a staff director of the House Committee for a long time.  We worked with Republicans to get government spending done every year.  Is it tough?  Yes.  But we always find common ground.

MS. DALTON:  Okay, I’m really sorry.  We got to leave it there.  She’s got a busy day.

If you can make it real quick —

Q    Just one question —

MS. DALTON:  — Akayla.  Real quick.

Q    — on — Speaker McCarthy and Leader McConnell have both said they don’t support tax increases.  Can the President still bring down the deficit without those tax increases and pay for all of these other programs?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Oh, I’ll take it back to high-level.  How — how do you suppose we, again, cut the leg out from the middle class and working families and not ask the wealthiest in this country to kick in a little more? 

Do oil and gas companies — closing that loophole alone saves $30 billion.  So we’re going to keep making that argument.

Q    But is there absolute hardlines —

MS. DALTON.  I’m so- —

Q    — for you?  Is there absolute hardlines, things that you think absolutely have to get done in the next budget?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  The next budget has — one, what do you call a budget?  If you’re talking about the appropriations process, of course, we have to work together.  We always do.  It’s bipartisan.  Has to be passed, some version of it, by October 1.  And, of course, we’ll find a way to get it done.

MS DALTON:  Thank you so much.

(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Thank you so much.  She’s so busy today.  She’s going to be back tomorrow in the briefing room, promise.

Q    Would you take one on Ukraine, Olivia?

MS. DALTON:  Yes.  Absolutely.

Q    Maybe a reaction to the very intense shelling last night and the use of ballistic missiles by the Russians?

MS. DALTON:  Yes, absolutely.  You’re referring to the nearly — the around 80 missiles that were launched across Ukraine last night really targeted, it appears, towards civilian infrastructure, which was heavily damaged with the apparent intent of cutting off heating, electricity, and other critical necessities to Ukraine.

We saw 11 Ukrainians lost their lives so far.  And, of course, that’s devastating a year into this — more than a year into this deadly war that Russia is prosecuting against Ukraine that has been so unjustified, unprovoked. 

You know, the United States continues to provide air defense capabilities to Ukraine and to make sure, in concert with our allies and partners across the globe, that we’re providing what they need to meet this moment.

But, of course, devastating to see these brutal, unjustified attacks on civilian infrastructure across Ukraine.

Q    Regarding this trip today, the President has been to Philadelphia many times to sell his agenda.  Is there a risk to focusing so heavily on Pennsylvania that the White House ends up neglecting other swing states, like Georgia, Nevada, and Michigan?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I’m not going to speak to elections, but I think you know that Pennsylvania is — this is a President who was born and raised in Scranton.  Pennsylvania is a second home.  I think you guys are going to be to Philly a few more times — (laughs) — this year, I would — I would venture to guess.

Look, we’re headed to a union hall today where working-class Americans are going to feel the impact of a budget designed to lower costs for working people, designed to bring back manufacturing jobs in this country and invest in America, designed to protect Social Security and Medicare programs that folks like these have paid into their entire lives.

These are the people who are going to feel the impact of the budget that we’re rolling out today.  And the President feels it’s incredibly important to speak directly to them.

Q    Can you tell us —

Q    Olivia, has the President reached out to Senator McConnell or his family to get an update on him?

MS. DALTON:  Yeah, I don’t have a call to read out.  But I do want to say that the President and the First Lady saw the news about Senator McCo- — or Leader McConnell’s hospitalization last night, and they are both wishing Leader McConnell a swift recovery and sending him their best wishes to get well soon.

Q    Can you tell us any —

Q    And another one —

Q    Sorry.

Q    Last night, Kevin McCarthy said that the President hadn’t even reached out to re- — to schedule another meeting for them to discuss the budget plans.  When does the President want to have this discussion with Leader McCarthy?  Why — why hasn’t he — he scheduled that yet?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I have to say: Look at what we’re doing today.  The President, after meeting with Speaker McCarthy, said he was going to put forward a budget; lay out his budget, which is a statement of values, as you just heard Director Young say, for the American people; and that he asked the House Republicans to put out their budget.

Today, the President is putting out a budget that reflects his values — values that will not be unfamiliar to you.  He’s talked about growing the economy from the bottom up and the middle out since the earliest days of his campaign.  And he’s continued to deliver on that progress through the last two years.  And today, he’s talking about how we build on that progress and carry it forward.

What he’s continued to call on House Republicans to do is put forward their plan.  So far, we have not seen that plan.  And I think you’ll hear the President continue to ask the House Republicans to lay that — that — that plan out for the American people to detail what their commitments are. 

And if they want to have a discussion, that has got to be the basis.  They’ve got to share what they’re willing to put forward with the American people and be transparent about that.

Q    Can you (inaudible) anything on the President’s travel to Canada this month?

MS. DALTON:  Don’t have any details on the travel to preview at this moment, but we hope to have more to share with you very soon on what he and —

Q    Dates?

MS. DALTON:  It will still occur this month, but don’t have any details quite yet beyond that.  We look forward to sharing with you very soon what he and the Prime Minister intend to discuss.

Q    Can you tell us anything more about Biden’s meeting with the President of Finland and, specifically, Finland’s bid to join NATO?

MS. DALTON:  Sure, I think you may have seen that the President dropped by a meeting this morning with the President of Finland and with NS- — NSA Sullivan. 

At that meeting, he reiterated our, you know, strong support for Finland’s swift accession to NATO, as well as our joint commitment to standing in solidarity with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s aggression.

Thank you.

12:47 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and OMB Director Shalanda<span class="dewidow"> </span>Young appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

(March 9, 2023)

10:08 A.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi there, everybody.  Thanks for hopping on.  This will be an on-the-record press call about the President’s fiscal year 2024 budget.

We are joined today by OMB Director Shalanda Young and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Cecilia Rouse.  They will each make some brief comments at the top and then we’ll get to your questions.

Again, this call and the materials that we provided prior to the call are embargoed until noon, Eastern time, today. 
 
And with that, I will turn it over to Director Young.

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thanks so much, Rob, and thanks to all of you for joining us on Budget Day.

This year’s budget comes at a critical moment for our country and a time when the President’s economic strategy is working.  The economy has added 12 million jobs.  The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level in more than 50 years.  And we just had the two strongest years for new small business applications on record.
 
The President’s budget details a roadmap to build on that progress and finish the job.  It’s built on four key values: lowering costs for families, protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, investing in America, and reducing the deficit by ensuring that the wealthiest in this country and big corporations begin to pay their fair share, and cutting wasteful spending on Big Pharma, Big Oil, and other special interests.
 
It does all of that while ensuring that no one earning less than $400,000 per year will pay a penny more in new taxes.
 
Let me say a few words about each of the values I laid out.

First, the budget builds on the Inflation Reduction Act, which some congressional Republicans are trying to repeal, and continues lowering costs for families.
 
We’ve been encouraged by the recent slowdown in inflation, but we know there is more work to do.  Families need a little breathing room, and that’s why the budget includes proposals to bring down the costs of everyday necessities.
 
It lowers healthcare costs, including by making permanent the expanded ACA premium tax credits that the IRA extended.
 
It lowers prescription drug costs by capping the price of insulin at $35 for a monthly prescription and strengthens Medicare’s newly established negotiation power.
 
And it lowers housing costs by increasing affordable housing supply and expanding access to affordable rent through the Housing Choice Voucher program to well over 200,000 more households.
 
Second, at a time when congressional Republicans have talked about cutting Medicare and Social Security, this budget protects and strengthens of these programs that seniors have paid into their entire lives.
 
It strengthens Medicare by extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by at least 25 years, without cutting any benefits or raising costs for beneficiaries.
 
And it rejects benefit cuts to Social Security and instead ensures that seniors and people with disabilities quickly and efficiently get the benefits they earned.
 
The budget also makes clear that the President is committed to working with Congress to ensure both of these programs remain strong, now and in the future.  But benefit cuts are not on the table.
 
Third, the budget invests in America and in working people. It will boost Ameri- — American manufacturing, provide national paid leave, cut taxes for working families, make our communities safer, drive medical breakthroughs in cancer, deliver for our veterans, and a whole lot more.
 
That’s the right way to continue growing our economy from the middle out and the bottom up.
 
And fourth, the budget builds on the President’s record of fiscal responsibility.
 
Remember, this President took office at a time of historically high deficits.  The previous administration passed a $2 trillion unpaid-for tax cut skewed to the wealthy and large corporations.
 
President Biden has taken a very different approach.  During his first two years in office, the deficit fell sharply.  And the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars more over the next 10 years.
 
This year’s budget cuts — cuts the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade by asking the wealthy and big corporations to begin to pay their fair share and by cutting wasteful spending on Big Pharma, Big Oil, and other special interests.
 
It does this in part by reforming our tax code to reward work, not wealth, including by ensuring that no billionaire pays a lower tax rate than a teacher or a firefighter, and by quadrupling the tax on corporate stock buybacks.
 
That’s a very clear contrast with congressional Republicans, who have put forward policies that would add $3 trillion to the debt over 10 years with more giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations.
 
Congressional Republicans keep saying they want to reduce the deficit, but they haven’t put out a comprehensive plan showing what they’ll cut.  Will it be Medicare or Social Security?  The Affordable Care Act?  Veterans benefits?  We don’t know until they put out a plan.
 
So we’re looking forward to seeing their budget so the American people can compare it to what we’re putting out today, this President’s vision.

With that, I’ll turn things over to Chair Rouse to talk about the budget’s economic outlook and forecast.

CHAIR ROUSE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Director Young.  And thank you for joining us today.
 
So, I want to use this opportunity to highlight three key elements to consider alongside this budget: the economic motivation behind the policies, the economic assumptions underlying our economic forecast, and the ways in which economic conditions have changed since then and the subsequent implications for this proposal.
 
So, this budget builds on the solid economic gains of the first two years of this administration.  The challenges faced by the American economy these past two years have been extraordinary.  The dual human tragedies of COVID-19 and Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine continue to reverberate through every facet of the country — from public health, to labor supply, to remote work, to global supply chains, to what consumers bought and for how much.
 
Despite these and other challenges, the U.S. economy has remained resilient.  The United States ended 2022 with an economy 5 percent bigger in real terms than it was just before the pandemic, the strongest three-year performance of any G7 economy.
 
This robust recovery has put us in a solid position today.  The unemployment rate is at a more than 50-year low.  Since President Biden took office, over 12 million jobs have been created, the fastest jobs recovery from a recession in the last three decades.
 
At the same time, inflation remains too high and policymakers have more work to do to lower it.  Nevertheless, we see some signs that inflation is gradually easing: Annual inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, has fallen for seven months in a row and is now a third lower than it was in last June.
 
The FY24 Budget builds on this solid economic growth in two ways.
First, as Director Young emphasized, this budget is fiscally responsible, reducing the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade.
 
Second, the budget takes steps to further support our workforce and invest in human capital.  Policies such as paid leave and child care will bring more workers into the labor force and improve productivity.  Investments in early education, mental health, and community college not only expand our economy’s productive capacity, but pay dividends for generations to come.
 
I’d like to close with a word about our forecast. 
 
The administration finalized its forecast last November.  Since then, more data have become available and some of the data from 2022 and even earlier were revised for technical reasons.
 
With every new release and revision of economic data, we have learned something new and tweaked what we thought before.

For example, I think if you had told most conventional macroeconomists last June that we were about to get seven straight months of declining annual CPI inflation, they would have told us that the unemployment rate would rise over that time.  But instead, the unemployment rate in January was 3.4 percent, or 0.2 percentage points lower than it was in June.  We’ll learn February’s unemployment rate tomorrow.
 
The economy looks healthier today than it did than in other ways too.  Job growth has averaged 356,000 per month over the last three months, and real GDP growth was 2.7 percent at an annualized rate in Q4 of 2022, both well above what private forecasters were expecting.
Of course, we’re not out of the woods, and we have much more work to do.  But we’ve also learned a lot since last November about just how unconventional this recovery has been.  If we were producing our Troika forecast today, we’d incorporate those lessons.
 
We will, however, incorporate those new data and the future ones that will come over the coming months when we update our economic forecast later this year as part of the Mid-Session Review.  We will also continue to pay close attention to outside forecasters, including from the private sector and from government entities such as the Federal Reserve.
 
As I’ve emphasized repeatedly, we’re confident we’ll get back to steady and stable growth, however the road there will continue to be a bumpy one.
 
But let me end where I began: The strength of our recovery has put us on solid ground to weather economic shocks.  Americans are back to work and the economy is stronger than anyone, including the federal government and private forecasters, imagined it would be when President Biden took office.
 
The President’s 2024 Budget presents a fiscally fair and responsible approach to continue the progress we’ve made so far to invest in America and to meet our future challenges.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you, both.  Moderator, we are happy to open it up to questions now.

Q    Happy Budget Day.  Thank you so much for doing this.  Republicans will look at the $5.5 trillion in tax increases in this plan and say that those will hurt growth.  What would your response be on that growth question and the impact these taxes would have on the economy with regards to the entire budget?

DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Look, clearly, when any administration offers up a budget, this is the start of a healthy dialogue.

When you look at this President’s view of the world and what this budget puts forward, it shows you what he values.  And that’s what this is going to be about that.  And we’re happy to have that debate with anybody: Who are you for? 
 
This President clearly believes that the way to grow this economy is investing in the middle class and working families, and that we have to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out. 
 
He doesn’t just say that; he believes it.  And all the policies built here, including our tax policy, is a direct reflection of his view that he has had since he was candidate Biden. 
 
So, absolutely, we will see tax policies here that say to the richest Americans and large corporations — you know, some of whom, until we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, paid no taxes — that you have to begin to pay your fair share.  And that way, we can continue to invest in working families in this country and we can continue to make sure the middle class can prosper, all while being fiscally responsible and bringing down the deficit by nearly $3 trillion. 
 
That’s what we’re going to talk about over the coming months.  And we’re happy to have that debate. 
 
CHAIR ROUSE:  Can I also say — this is Cecilia Rouse.  Can I just also follow up to say that, actually, the empirical evidence behind the impact of such tax cuts on economic growth is far from — really suggests that that’s not the conclusion.
 
If you look, for example, at the tax cuts from 2017, especially on the wealthiest, that really has had no impact that economists have been able to discern on economic growth.  It’s been exaggerated (inaudible).
 
Q    Hi, there.  Thanks for taking my question.  I’m curious: You all have been talking, the President has been talking for quite some time about the success he has had in reducing the budget deficit.  But you now see the deficits spiking back again to $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024.  How is that compatible with what the President has been talking about in terms of fiscal responsibility?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Look, let’s remember this President inherited historically high deficits from the previous administration: $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, not paid for.  And this President has presided over deficit reduction his first two years of $1.7 trillion. 
 
So, his record speaks for itself on being fiscally responsible, all while holding the key tenet that those making under $400,000 should not pay a penny more in new taxes.
 
And, look, as we effectively make the transition to stable and steady growth, which we’ve also talked about a lot over the past month, having wound down emergency programs from the pandemic and gotten our economy back on track, we would not expect to continue to see large deficit reduction year to year, just as we do not expect to see the rapid economic growth or job creation we saw in 2021 before.  All of this is expected, given how far we’ve come. 
 
The goal here is to look at the trajectory we are on.  With this President’s policies, what cannot be denied is: Over a 10-year period, we’ve put forward a path to see nearly $3 trillion in deficit reduction.  And that’s what we’re focused on as we transition to the stable and steady growth. 
 
And that’s in contrast to our friends on the other on the other side of the aisle.  You talked about a year-to-year bumps and bringing down the deficit by nearly $3 trillion?  Well, we’ve (inaudible).  They actually have a plan to raise the deficit by $3 trillion.  I’ll take our plan as fiscally responsible any day. 
 
Q    Hey, guys.  Thanks so much for doing this.  I really appreciate it.  Obviously, it was interesting to see the administration come out with the Medicare solvency plan.  I wondered: Did you guys consider doing something similar for Social Security?  I don’t see anything in here that would address that looming shortfall.  And if not, why not?  Thanks.
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Hey, look, I would love to be in the part of the debate where we can have serious discussions about proposals.  But let’s not forget: We are — the number one threat to Social Security and benefits for folks like my 94-year-old grandmother is those on other side of the aisle who said they want to cut benefits.  That’s why this budget takes the position that that is not on the table. 
 
So, when we talk about protecting Social Security, that’s what this budget does.  It ensures that this President’s vision is reflected, that folks who have paid into the system their entire working lives should not have the threat of benefits pulled from out — from under them.  And we are answering that call to make sure people know his position (inaudible).
 
Q    Yes, hi.  I have a question about closing Medicare loopholes.  President Biden himself exploited a Medicare loophole to avoid paying up to $500,000 in taxes on income in 2017 and 2018.  I’m wondering if the President has any plan to reimburse the Treasury Department for that amount that he’s not paid, given he’s proposing closing loopholes?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Let me be very clear about what President is doing on Medicare.  This President not only is protecting Medicare from those on the other side of the aisle who want to cut Medicare benefits from seniors in this country — not only did he say no to that, he has put forward the proposal, as you mentioned, to close loopholes that the wealthiest have exploited in order to not pay their fair share or anything close to it.  So, we’re going to close those.
 
We’re also going to ask the wealthiest to pay a little more to ensure that this program is around for at least 25 more years for our seniors who need it.  We make absolutely no apologies about putting these proposals forward, because it’s the right thing to do. 
 
Q    Hi.  The question was just if there was any opportunity in here for a compromise with the GOP and what your strategy is for getting this to a Congress that you don’t control.  Thank you. 
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Thanks.  Look, I spent the majority of my career working on Capitol Hill and budget negotiations.  This isn’t new.  I know we’re having a (inaudible) the two parties never talked.  We just talked to success in December, where we passed the government funding bill that was quite successful in investing in the American people.  So, we’re prepared to do that. 
 
I came from that environment, and we’re going to do it again.  And I have faith that bipartisan members, the majority of them, will find a way to deliver for the American people, because that’s the highest value beyond, you know, our own ideological differences. 
 
I think what you’re hinting at is: What is the connection to the debt ceiling?  There are some who want to use spending negotiations — which we should absolutely do, because we do it every year — as a threat, as leverage against lifting the debt ceiling.  That’s what we think is unacceptable. 
 
That should be handled without conditions, just like congressional Republicans did for the last President three times.  Do it for this President.  Do it for the country.  We’re saying, “Don’t wreck this economy over politics.” 
 
And there’s a time and a place to talk about spending.  We do it every year, and we’re going to do it again this year. 
 
Q    I have a question on Table S-8.  You’re showing a 7.3 percent in nondefense discretionary.  It’s double the amount of defense.  You talk a lot about parity.  Could you just explain why your increase for nondefense is so much higher and where that money is mostly going to?
 
DIRECTOR YOUNG:  Hey, Eric.  We’re putting forward a proposal on nondefense discretionary that is similar percentage — the same percentage as was passed by Congress in December.  So, we’re saying: If that’s what Congress came together to do in December, they should do it again this year from an investment level. 
 
And remember, we’re talking about two different bases.  We can absolutely talk about, you know, whether there should be parity and percentage.  The defense is $886 billion.  We think that’s the right level to be at for defense programs because we are basing and building that program from requirements, what is that national defense strategy. 
 
And we’re investing responsibly while reducing the deficit.  We’re more than paying for all of our proposals in nondefense and defense.  But defense was built based on what our national defense strategy is built on. 
 
In NDD, we also looked at what’s necessary.  We have almost a billion dollar increase in childcare block grants.  I think anybody will tell you: When you look at the childcare system in this country, that probably doesn’t even meet the mark on what we should be doing. 
 
So, there are a lot of needs in both defense and nondefense.  But I think the important thing to know is that all of our proposals are paid for and we’re doing this in a fiscally responsible manner. 
 
MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you all for joining again.  Reminder, this call was on the record and embargoed until noon, Eastern time, today, as were the materials that we provided to you prior to the call.  If you’ve got other questions, feel free to follow up with our team. 
 
Thanks very much. 
 
10:30 A.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Call by OMB Director Shalanda Young and CEA Chair Cecilia Rouse on the President’s FY24<span class="dewidow"> </span>Budget appeared first on The White House.

 
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:44 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Goodness. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A lot going on.

Q    I hope you answer my question because —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh. 

Q    — Afghan woman has expectation.  Thank you so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Well, the — the outfit certainly stands out, my friend.

Q    Thank you so much.  You make my day, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  It’s good to see you.  It’s good to see you.

Q    Good to see you, too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Well, good afternoon, everybody.  Good to see everyone.  Happy Wednesday.  And Happy International Women’s Day — a day where we recognize the achievements of women and girls and recommit ourselves to the work of delivering full equality. 

President Biden has made improving the status of women and girls a cornerstone of his administration, and we are focused on lifting up the rights of women and girls through every aspect of both our foreign and domestic policy. 

We all have a better future when women and girls are able to reach their full potential.  To mark the occasion, First Lady Jill Biden and Secretary of State Ant- — Antony J. Blinken will host the 17th annual International Women of Courage — IWOC — Awards Ceremony later today.

The ceremony will take place at the White House for the first time in the award’s history.  The annual IWOC Award recognizes women from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equity and equality, often at great personal risk and sacrifice. 

The First Lady wanted to bring the stories of these incredible women to the biggest stage we could — and that is, of course, the White House — and ensure that girls everywhere know that there are women fighting for them, transforming their communities, and building a better world for all of us. 

On a personal note, I am looking forward to participating and meeting the recipients of this year’s awards. 

And we have some other news for you.  The President’s budget, which we will release tomorrow, will cut the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next 10 years.  That’s nearly a $6 trillion difference between the President’s budget and congressional Republicans’ agenda, which would add $3 trillion to the debt. 

Some context here: President Biden took office after his predecessor signed a reckless and unpaid tax handout for the wealthy and large corporations, which added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit.  He also inherited a poorly managed pandemic response. 

The President has taken a different, respons- — different, responsible approach.  Thanks to his unprecedented vaccine — vaccination program and economic recovery, the deficit fell by one-point trillion dollars [$1.7 trillion] in the first two years of the Biden-Harris administration.  And the President’s Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the deficit by more than $200 billion over the next decade. 

Building on that record of fiscal responsibility, the President budgets cuts the deficit, again, by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. 

The budget achieves this while lowering costs for families, investing in America, and protecting programs Americans have paid into because it proposes tax reforms to ensure the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share while cutting wasteful spending on special interests — interests, like Big Oil and Big Pharma. 

That’s a stark contrast to congressional GOP proposals, which, again, add $3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years with handouts to the rich, big corporations, and special interest groups. 

And, Josh, it’s always good to see you.

Q    Always good to see you, too, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We always go — we always do this.  How are you?

Q    I know.  I’m good.  How are you?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, it’s Wednesday.  It’s International Women’s Day.  It’s a good day.

Q    Yeah, they run my house.  So — (laughter) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Are you a gir- — you’re a gir- — are you a girl dad?

Q    I am a girl dad.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Girl dads.  That’s a good thing. 

Q    Full-fledged.  Full-fledged.  She’s now BTS fan because of this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  (Laughter.)

Q    That’s another subject.  Let’s talk —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We may have broken them up, so — (laughter) —

Q    Let’s talk about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s go, Josh.

Q    — two news items.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    First, on the budget —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When Biden ran, the — he essentially proposed what fiscal watchdogs would say were policies that would add to budget deficits.  He’s now, kind of, making budget deficit reduction a cornerstone of his policy.  Why did this become more of a priority?  And what does he think this does for everyday Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as — as you just, kind of, alluded to and laid out, this has been a priority for the President.  When we talk about deficit — deficit reduction, when we talk about having — being fiscally responsible, this is something that the President has talked about since the campaign. 

And you hear me, just as I did moments ago, talk about the $1.7 trillion deficit that he did the first two years.  And it was important to the President, as he’s going to put forward his budget tomorrow and as we — as you’ve probably heard us to say, we see this as a value statement on what the President sees in the future of this country.  And so, he wanted to make sure it was fiscally responsible. 

And so, look, I think, when you think about the deficit — the deficit reduction and what we’re talking about and what it means for Americans — right? — this is important to Americans across the country, American families, when you think about lowering costs for families — right? — when you think about investing in growing the economy from the bottom up and middle out.

The President does not believe in trickle-down economics.  This is something that he’s talked about even during the State of the Union, where we know it doesn’t work. 

So, the President has rejiggered that thinking and wants to build — build an economy that matters for everyone, asking the wealthy to pay their fair share and cutting wasteful spending on special interest groups. 

And so, this is something that we think is important.  This is something that shows the American people that we take this very seriously when we think about the fiscal responsibly, when we think about how do we move forward not just for Americans today but for Americans — other generations that are going to be coming behind us.

That’s why we’re talking about the 10 — 10-year — right? — $3 trillion over a decade.  That’s going to matter.  And still doing that by growing the economy and making sure that we don’t leave anybody behind. 

So, that’s what is important to the President.  It’s — if you look at it holistically in his economic plan. 

Q    And then secondly, the Justice Department released this report on the police in Louisville, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, after the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor.  I was curious what the White House thought about the findings that the police there engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights.  And what obligation does that leave the Congress and the White House in terms of addressing these inequities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, specifically on the — the investigation that Department of Justice laid out, we know they are independent, so we refer you to any specifics of that particular investigation on their findings. 

But what I would say, more broadly, as we look at this from a 30,000-foot view: The President has said repeatedly he believes that a key part of building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is ensuring that there’s accountability when — when we see an officer violate the law. 

And this is something that we have been very consistent about.  You heard the President talk about this in the campaign and, certainly, in the last two years. 

That is why he signed an executive order to advance effective accountability, community policing.  And this is — remember, he put that forward when — this executive order — when Congress was not able to get the job done. 

And so, he took federal action, historic action, to make sure that he was able to deal with this on a federal level. 

So that executive order required federal law enforcement agencies to implement tighter use-of-force standards and to greatly restrict the use of no-knock warrants, and has a host of provisions to incentivize those and other reforms at the state and local level.

And so, I just want to say very clearly that the President has said himself Breonna Taylor’s death was a tragedy — a blow to her family, her community, and also to America more broadly. 

And the President continues to call for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to be sent to his desk that he will sign. 

The President also understands that Black women experience a disproportionate share of violence in this country, and he will continue to fight for legislation that advances police reform and making sure that we keep — that we keep Black communities safe.  

And so, that is going to be his commitment as he — as we continue into his administration.

Go ahead, Mary.

Q    A question on the economy.  The Fed is forecasting, of course, that unemployment may have to go up before they reach their goal.  Just wondering if the White House shares the view that unemployment might need to rise in order to keep inflation down. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, again, when it comes to the Fed, it is independent.  The President believes in its independence.  And so he believes in giving the Fed the space needed to make decisions on monetary policy.

As it relates to unemployment, and I’ve heard — we’ve heard the comments that have been made in Congress.  Look, when we look at the recent economic indicators and we look at the data, it is not consistent with a recession or even a precursory period. 

And the reason why: As you see, unemployment is at the lowest in 50 years, and that’s a record low.  More than 500,000 jobs were created last month, representing a very strong labor market.  GDP grew by 2.9 [2.7] percent just last quarter.  And real wages are higher than they were seven months ago.

So we believe that households are indeed very strong, in a strong position.  And household net is above the pre-pandemic levels, and measures of financial distress are below — are below the pre-pandemic levels as well. 

And so, the data and the indicators — those economic indicators that I just laid out — shows us that, again, we’re in a strong position as we move forward. 

Q    But how concerned are you that if unemployment does go up, that it may hinder that very economic message?  Because unemployment, as you just did, is often a bright point that the President points to.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I think — the reasons I laid out the economic indicators — they’re showing us that because of the President’s — because of the President’s economic plan, we — we see that his plan is working.  And I think that’s important to point out too.

We understand that there is concerns.  We always say there’s always more work to do, obviously.  But our economists believe that what the President has put forth as a plan to make sure that we’re building an economy from the bottom up, middle out is indeed working.  And we see that in the data when you look at the unemployment record low, when you look at wages going up.  And that is occurring because of the work that we have done. 

Now, is there more work to do?  Of course.  But, again, those indicators give us confidence. 

Q    And just a quick logistical question.  This is the second day in a row where the President hasn’t had any public events on his schedule.  What’s he up to?  And is there any sort of strategy to having him —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  “What’s he up to?”  “What is the President up to?” 

Q    — kind of out of the public eye before this big speech tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, yesterday, as I think we read out two heads-of-state calls that he had with — I believe with the Oman and also with President Macron.  We read those two calls out.  And so the President is always working, always making sure that he — not even always making sure, he does have the American people at the top of mind every day.  He is constantly meeting with his senior staff. 

And you will see him tomorrow for the big day as we roll out the President’s budget.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, thank you.  Could you confirm our reporting that President Biden is going to host the Australian and British prime ministers in San Diego on Monday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, don’t have anything for you at this time on the AUKUS.  And as soon as we have more information, surely we will — we’ll share that. 

And as you know, every Friday we lay out the President’s week ahead.  I just don’t have anything to preview at this time or to announce. 

Q    Okay.  And then I just wanted to see if there’s a reaction to Senator Manchin saying he’s going to vote against your nominee to lead the IRS.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me first say that our relationship — the President has a longstanding relationship with Senator Manchin that goes back years, certainly over a decade, and we respect our relationship with him.  We have done — we have been able to deliver for the American people historic, really consequential pieces of legislation. 

And so we appreciate the closeness and — and how we’ve worked well with — with Senator Manchin.

As it relates to our nominee: Danny Werfel is a public- and private-sector leader who has served under both Democratic and Republican administrations; of course, more than 15 years of governen- — government service.  He has — he served President Barack Obama, as some of you know, and President George W. Bush to lead some of our most complex management challenges of [as] the IRS Acting Commissioner and Office of Management and Controller at the OMB.

As you — as I just laid out, he’s worked for both a Democrat and a Republican, so has had that bipartisan experience as well. 

He’s well qualified for this position.  He was reported from — from finance with bipartisan support, and we urge the Senate to confirm him to this important role at an incredibly crucial time. 

Again, but we — we appreciate our relationship with Senator Manchin, which has been fruitful, especially as we speak to delivering for the American people. 

Q    And just finally, I saw that you had a comment out this morning about some broadcasting on the Tucker Carlson program on Fox.  And I was just curious if you had any broader comment about the ongoing lawsuit between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News, which has turned up evidence that there may have been falsehoods in the reporting that they did around the election, which Fox, I should say, has said that those are cherry-picked anecdotes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    But do you have a reaction to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I do have a reaction.  Look, we agree with the — the Chief of Capitol Police and the wide range of bipartisan lawmakers — you heard them all yesterday; you guys reported on it — who have condemned this false depiction of the unprecedented violent attack on cons- — on our Constitution and the rule of law, which cost police — police officers their lives.  And that’s what we saw on that day, on a very dark day: an attack on our democracy. 

And so we also — when — as it relates to the Tucker Carlson question, we agree with Fox Nation’s own attorneys and executives who have repeatedly stressed in multiple courts of law that Tucker — Tucker Carlson is not credible when it comes to this issue in particular. 

And we have — you know, NPR back in — back in September of 2020, they had the following: “You Literally Can’t Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox’s Lawyers.”

Again, in the Washington Post most recently, just last — just a day ago: “Fox [executive]: Hannity, Carlson shows are not ‘credible’ sources of news.” 

And so to have said what he said, when we — when we saw Capitol Police officers lose their lives, or police officers lose their lives, is just a — is just shameful.

Go ahead.

Q    Hey, thanks, Karine.  So, for over a month now, President Biden has been saying that this budget blueprint that he’s going to release is going to have $2 trillion in deficit reduction.  You guys are now saying it’s nearly $3 trillion.  So could you give us a sense of how you got there and why that number has increased?  Are there specific revenue raisers or spending cuts that you’ve now added that weren’t previously there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be mindful.  The President is going to put out his budget tomorrow.  Certainly not going to get ahead of the specifics on how that all looks.  I know you guys were asking me about math yesterday.  So I’m going to lay that out. 

We talked about — I did talk about quadrupling the tax on corporate stock buybacks is something that he’s already mentioned in the past, making the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share without raising taxes on Americans that are making less than $400,000, and ending wasteful subsidies for special interest groups like Big Pharma, which is — which are things that we have talked about. 

But as for the specifics in laying that out, we will be transparent with the American people.  And certainly, you’ll see that tomorrow.  And the President is going to go to Philly to speak to that. 

The changes that you saw from $2 trillion to $3 trillion: As we work through the budget process, the proposals that the President supported and wanted to include in this year’s budget added to nearly $3 trillion in deficit reduction. 

Again, I was just asked by Josh the importance that the President sees in making sure that we deal with the deficit in a — in a way that is important to the American people.  This is something that he’s talked about since the campaign.  And he believes in being fiscally responsible, and that’s what you’re going to see from the President tomorrow.

Q    And then, on this new bill relating to TikTok, the administration has now thrown its support behind this RESTRICT Act that would give the administration new powers to restrict or ban TikTok in the U.S.  Why did the administration decide that now was the time for congressional action?

And more broadly, what’s the strategy here?  Is there frustration with the status of the talks between TikTok and CFIUS?  And is this aimed at giving negotiators more leverage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, I have to say, we’ve talked about this many times, and we said we were working closely with Congress on — when it relates to TikTok. 

And, look, we commend the bipartisan group of senators, led by Senators Warren and Thune, who introduced the RESTRICT Act.  And as you — I’m sure you guys saw the statement from our National Security Advisor — the President’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, just yesterday.  And we want to make sure that the digital products and services Americans use every day are safe and secure.

And we have talked about this multiple times.  I think this came up a few times yesterday in the briefing room.  And we have said we were going to continue to have the conversation with Congress.  And we think this bipartisanship and moving this issue — this important issue to the American people forward is important.

And so, look, you know, we got to make sure that there’s a comprehensive way, an effective way to address this issue.

Q    Are you still hoping that an agreement can be reached between CFIUS and TikTok, or are you now looking to act unilaterally based on these new authorities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, we’ve talked about — we’ve talked about there was a CFIUS, you know, review on this, and we’re going to let that review continue and continue to foc- — let them continue to focus on their work.  But we’ve also said that we were going to work with Congress closely, and this is what you’re seeing — in a bipartisan way, which I think is important to lay out.

Q    And just a quick one.  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has now called on President Biden to allow the tennis player Novak Djokovic to compete in the Miami Open despite him being unvaccinated for COVID-19.  Do you guys have a response to that? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, on a question of regarding the vaccination requirement, I would refer you to the CDC.  They’re the ones who deal with that.  It’s still in place, and we expect everyone to abide by our country’s rule, whether as a participant or a spectator.

And as for what goes on specifically with the BNP Open, those are — those are questions for them.  It is a private entity, and so we will let them speak to that.  But again, this is something that the CDC speaks to.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  On the budget, just to follow up quickly on that, as you said, it will include a number of proposals for tax increases.  What are Americans supposed to make of that, given that a number of Republican lawmakers have said that’s already dead on arrival?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I was saying this a little bit at the top where, when you look at the budget, it’s a statement of the President’s values.  And if you think about the 81 million people who voted, they voted for a growing economy from the bottom up and the middle out.  They voted for investing in America and lowering costs for families.  They voted for protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare and reducing the deficit by more than $2 trillion over 10 years, by making the wealthy and the big corporation pay their fair share.

When you look at that last — the last point that I just made, that is something that Americans believe in.  And so, that is what you’re seeing.  When we’re saying that we’re going to, you know, make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share, the ones who are — the specific piece of the President’s policy is the 400 — more than — someone who makes more than $400,000.  That’s something that Americans believe, right?  They think the wealthy and corporations should indeed pay their fair share.

And so, that’s what you’re going to see.  This is nothing new.  This is something the President has spoken to many times, and we see support for that.

Q    Understood.  But, you know, given that the President has talked about the importance of bipartisanship, he is now dealing with a divided Congress, there doesn’t seem to be anything in those tax increases that are an olive branch.  Should people see this within the broader context of 2024, as he prepares for reelection?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I get — and you’re right, the President believes in working in a bipartisan way.  That’s why he’s been very clear.  If — if Republicans in Congress want to work with the President on lowering costs, lowering — lowering costs — right? — this is something that they ran on during the midterms, how they want to move forward in that way — the President is going to work with them.

If they want to talk to the President about how we’re going to reduce the deficit, he’s willing to have that conversation.  But that’s not what they’re putting forth.  And the President is going to fight for those things — right? — those programs that we — that they’ve been talking about cutting, Social Security and Medicare.  The President is not going to allow that on his watch.

Q    I want to just ask you about the footage that was released by Speaker McCarthy.  Speaker McCarthy said his decision to release the footage to Tucker Carlson was out of transparency.  What is your reaction to that?  And does the President want to see Speaker McCarthy release all of the footage broadly to other news outlets and the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I’m just — I’m not going to speak directly to that at this time.  That’s something that —
you know, that the January 6th committee and, clearly,
the DOJ is dealing with.  And so, I’m just not going to speak to that.

You know, that is something that the Speaker needs to answer from — from his colleagues and to the American people.

Q    Well, let me ask it this way: Does the President, does the White House feel the need to set the record straight about the footage that exists and what happened on that day in the wake of the footage that has been released?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say — can you say more?  Like, what do
you — like, set the record straight?

Q    Does the White House feel as though, basically,
all of the footage should be released so people can see it within its full context?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President believes we need to get to the bottom of what happened on a very dark day in our democracy.  The President has been very clear about that.  We need to get to the bottom of what occurred.  The footage that we have seen, the footage that the American people have seen is devastating. 

And what we saw was an attack on our Constitution, was an attack on our democracy.  And we should be calling that out.  And, you know, members of Congress — all members of Congress should be working very hard to get to the bottom of that. 

Q    Just finally, very quickly, has the President spoken to the families of those killed in Mexico and those kidnapped?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, I’m not sure if I’ve said this, but members of the administration has been in touch —

Q    Has the President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — with the family.  I don’t have a — I don’t have a call or a scheduled conversations to read out at this time.

Q    Does he plan to get in touch with (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything more to share.  Clearly, our hearts go out to the family members who lost — who lost a loved ones.  It is devastating, clearly, the news that we heard and the reports and what we know of the case thus far.  And so, our hearts go out to them.  I just don’t have anything to read — to read out. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I know you said you didn’t want to get ahead of the President and his speech tomorrow, but there are some details that are out there, so I wanted to see —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — if you would confirm some or all of them.  One is that the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Some.  All of them.  One.

Q    All of them —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not at all, maybe.  (Laughs.)

Q    — would be best. 

One is that the President is proposing a 5.2 federal pay hike, which would be the largest federal pay hike since Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, of course, you’re going to have to wait for the budget on that piece.  But what I can say more broadly is, you know, we value the federal — the federal employees and what they do for the nation day in and day out, and recognize their commitment and dedication.  And so, we think it is critical — it is critical to position federal government to better compete in labor market, to attract and retain a well-qualified federal workforce.

As the President has said, the strength of our organization rests in its people.  But I’m not going to — I can’t share — I can’t share everything, Nancy.

Q    Okay, well —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get ahead of the President.

Q    — can you share this?  (Laughter.)  A new 20 percent — well, I guess it’s not new because he has proposed something similar before, but a new 20 percent minimum tax for billionaires or people making over $100 million a year. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get ahead of the President at this time.  You’ll see the budget very shortly.

Q    Okay.  And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Very shortly.

Q    All right. So, zero for two.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  In less than 24 hours.

Q    So, back to the RESTRICT Act for a moment.  Is it the President’s intention to ban TikTok on U.S. phones if the RESTRICT Act passes and gives him that ability?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics of — of the legislation.  I’m just not going to do that at this — at this time. 

And, you know, what I will say — and we have called for this, and I think — you know, Kristen was asking me about working in a bipartisan way.  And you see that here, on a critically — in a critical issue, as we talk about our national security.  You saw Congress come together to deal with an app that we have said we have concerns with.

But I’m not going to get into individual pieces or authorities within the legislation.  And we’re just going to let it play out. 

Q    Should we take the administration’s position on the RESTRICT Act to mean that the White House does not believe that ByteDance has gone far enough to ensure that its American users’ data is safeguarded from the Chinese government?

ByteDance says it’s spent 1.5 million dollars — billion dollars so far to ensure that that information doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think this is an answer that I’ll give you more broadly, which is: We have said we have concerns with this particular app, TikTok.  We have said that as it relates to our national security, as it relates to, you know, individual Americans who use this. 

And we want to make sure that we protect Americans.  And we’ve always said protecting Americans is — especially as it relates to national security — is a priority for this President.  And that’s what you’re seeing.  You know, CFIUS is doing its review.  There’s bipartisanship in — in Congress.  And I think that’s an important way to move forward. 

Go ahead, Tam.

Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  I just want to — I know you don’t want to get ahead of the President’s budget —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — but just taking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The theme of the day.

Q    Yes.  Just taking this topline number of nearly $3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, still, the deficit is going to be huge over the next 10 years, and billions — or trillions of dollars will be added to the national debt. 

There are critics who I’ve spoken to who say that this budget, although a statement of priorities, doesn’t go far enough in dealing with the structural problems that the United States faces fiscally. 

So, I mean, the President has expressed concerns about the deficit.  Does he think his budget goes far enough?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, let’s let the President speak to his budget tomorrow.  We’ll lay that out, and he can speak to that. 

But you just said something, Tam, that is so important, which is: Yeah, you know, the last administration added $3 trillion — or $2 trillion to the debt when they put forward a, really, irresponsible piece of legislation that gave — that gave tax breaks to the wealthy, especially millionaires and billionaires.  Right?

That is something that we’ve had to deal with, and we have to really call that out.  And that continues.  That continues with this current — current Congress where Republicans are saying that they want to — you know, they want to cut or get rid of or repeal IRA — the Inflation Reduction Act — which would add to that deficit, because we know the Inflation Reduction Act actually lowers the deficit by more than $200 billion. 

So, we are trying to counter and really be fiscally responsible in what we’re seeing on the other side. 

And so, here’s the thing: The American people support what we’re doing, and there’s a choice to be made.  How do we move forward here?  How do we make sure that it is — what we’re putting forward in this budget is fiscally responsible?

That’s what you’re seeing from this President.  And he has said over and over again, in the last three years or more, that he wants to make sure that we are reducing the deficit. 

I’m not going to get ahead of the President tomorrow.  He’s certainly going to lay out his budget.  He will go point by point on how he sees this is — this is a budget that is important to the American people.  I’m just not going to get ahead of that. 

I think it’s — I think it’s good news that we went from $2 trillion, over a decade now, to $3 trillion.  And that’s because his team went through the budget and realized, “Hey, we can actually — this is going to be an extra trillion dollars in lowering the deficit in the next decade.”  And that shows how committed his team is and how committed the President is as well. 

Q    Just one other small question.  And I realize this was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Small?

Q    — probably asked yesterday.  But is the White House treating this as a major address?  Or is this a, like — you know, typically a budget gets rolled out, and it’s just like a big paper dump and maybe, like, a small speech in a small room.  And this is the President going to another city.  So are you treating this budget unlike other budgets?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think we — I think the way to see this budget is that the President wants to lay out in a transparent way to the American people how he sees us moving forward as it relates to the fiscal year, as it relates to the budget — and I keep saying this because it’s true — in a fiscally responsible way. 

And we hear Republicans in Congress talking about how they’re going to release a budget.  And we are calling on them to show us: What’s in your budget?  What — how is — is it going to be transparent?  Is it going to be fiscally responsible?

And the thing that makes us really speak to this even more is because they have talked about, as you all have reported, in, you know, cutting some programs that are incredibly — two programs and more — that are incredibly important to the American people: Social Security, Medicare, ACA, Medicaid.

That’s what they’re saying they want to move forward with.  And the President is saying, “You know what?  I’m going to continue fighting for the American people.  I’m going to continue fighting for taxpayers who have paid into these programs since they were — started their first job, some of them as teenagers.”

And so, we’re going to continue to call that out.  And this also plays into how the President is growing an economy that works for all.

So, that is important to the President.  He thinks it’s important to the American people.  And he’s going to lay that out tomorrow. 

Go ahead, Raquel.

Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  Two questions.  The first is about the Iranian warships in Brazil.  Is the White House communicating with the Brazilian government about these?  And did the administration raise concerns with the Brazilian government?  Because we know there was pressure for Brazil not to let the warships to dock there.  There are some calls also here for sanctions on Brazil.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this question has been asked a couple of times in the briefing room.  And we’ve pretty been — pretty much been consistent. 

Look, Brazil is a sovereign country.  They — they make their own decision on how they engage with any country, including with Iran. 

But more broadly, these ships have been designated for U.S. sanctions and have been used to facilitate illicit activities.  We have made clear to relevant countries that these ships have no business docking anywhere.

Hosting Iranian naval vessels belonging to a regime that is brutally suppressing its own people at home, providing weapons to Russia for use in its war of aggression against Ukraine, and engaging in terrorism, and destabilizing weapons proliferation around the world sends the wrong message and is in the — in a wrong direction.  So, we’ll always be very clear about that. 

But, again, as you know, Brazil is a sovereign country and they are allowed to engage — you know, make their decision on how they’re going to engage with another country. 

Q    One more question about the President of the European Commission, who is meeting President Biden on Friday.  And she’s expected to raise concerns about some of the green subsidies for American companies that are part of the Inflation Reduction Act because they hurt investments in Europe. 

And there have been some discussions with both sides in the last few months.  So how would you characterize the status of those negotiations?  And would the U.S. meet some of the Europeans’ demands?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple things.  I’m not going to — well, the first thing is I’m not going to get ahead of — of a visit that — with the Eu- — the European Union president.  I just don’t want to get ahead of what’s going to be on the agenda and — and what will come out of that discussion.  Certainly, we’ll have more to share as we get closer to Friday. 

Look, of course, our deepening — our — deepening our cooperation with EU to develop secure, high-standard supply chains and consistent with our objectives to increase domestic manufacturing will be the topic of conversations with — with President von der Leyen here, when she’s here on Friday.

The IRA’s benefits expand beyond the U.S., as you’ve heard me say before.  Investment will help drive down costs for clean technology, which will help our nation go further and faster in building our own clean energy economies. 

So, energy security is national security.  That’s the way we see it.  But I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the visit at this time. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  Medical experts say that a nationwide shortage of liquid albuterol, used for asthma and other lung conditions, is expected to get worse because there was a shuttering of a major manufacturer. 

This drug has been on the FDA shortage list since the fall.  But is the White House concerned about this right now?  And what does the White House see as the cause of this specific shortage that’s causing headlines right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would refer you to the FDA.  As you just stated, Karen, this is something that they’ve been monitoring since — since this past fall.  And as we’ve done, you know, with — periodically, with shortages of medical products, as you’ve — I know you’ve asked me multiple questions about other — other products — federal health officials are working closely with manufacturers, as we have done, again, with past products, and healthcare providers to alleviate any choke on the system.  And don’t — and don’t want to hesitate to take further action, if necessary, using all tools that they have available. 

But this is certainly something that the FDA is tracking — has been tracking for months now.  And we’re going to continue to have conversations with the manufacturers.  And we take — of course, they take — they take this seriously. 

Q    So there have been steps taken by the FDA and the administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is something that they’ve been tracking.  They’ve been having conversation with manufacturers.  And — and this is something that, of course, with — like any other product that has come — come up where there was a potential shortage or some questions of shortage, they’ve dealt with this.
Q    And, broadly, does the White House believe it’s the job of the administration to make sure that there aren’t shortages of vital medications like this? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you’ve seen us take action.  We’ve seen the FDA take action over a host of products, as I just mentioned, to talk to manufacturers to see what’s going on, to see how — how we can be helpful if at all possible, because we think it’s important.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A couple different topics here.  First, on the DOJ report: Does the President view the DOJ report on Louisville as an engine to revive any of the bipartisan police accountability measures that failed to materialize in Congress in 2021?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as I said at the top, we believe that — and the President has continued to say this over the last several months since that biparti- — since the — since the George Floyd Policing Act did not go through, he’s called on Congress to move forward with it. 

And when it didn’t move through, he took executive action to see what he would be able to do, using the tools in front of him on a federal level to act.

But he is going to continue to call on that.  He’s — he did most recently, and — and so that is not going to change.  It is up to Congress.  Congress needs to — needs to move forward in a bipartisan way so he can sign — sign that bill into law.

Q    And on the national security front: Jake Sullivan had said last month that while no call was currently scheduled between President Biden and President Xi, that he anticipated that the two leaders would speak in the not-too-distant future.  Did the comments from the Chinese foreign minister change the timing of that prospective call in any way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, there’s no call to preview.  We don’t have — we haven’t had — we don’t have one on the books at this time to lay out for you at — in this moment. 

And I kind of answered this question — well, I was asked this question about our approach and our relationship with China yesterday.  And I would say that it hasn’t changed.  It is one of competition, not conflict, and — and that’s how we’re going to continue to move forward with China. 

Of course, it is important to keep those open lines of conversation with the Chinese government.  You saw, yourself, with Secretary Blinken, when he was in Munich, he met with his count- — counterpart, Wang Yi.  And so that is what we want to continue to see. 

I don’t have a call at this time to preview.

Q    And then lastly —

Q    I have a question about Afghanistan —

Q    Sorry, the President said in — the President had said in an interview last month that he, quote, had “too many other things…to finish in the near term” before he starts a campaign.  The budget is a big one on that list.  What else does he want to finish in the nearer-term future?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you know, I think the State of the Union pretty much laid out how the President sees his work moving forward.  Yes, you know, the — the State of the Union lays out the state of the nation and where we are currently, but he also had a very forward way of seeing how we need to continue to grow the economy for Americans, not leave anybody behind.  How we — and you see — you’re going to see that in his budget, as you just laid out, which will — we’ll — he’ll speak to tomorrow. 

And, you know, he thinks it’s — it’s very important that he continues to do the work.  We have to build on the bipartisan infrastructure legislation.  We have to build on the Inflation Reduction Act. 

And the — and what I will say about the Inflation Reduction Act, in that — just recently, we heard from Eli Lilly, who was — who took — who listened to the call that the President put forth about lowering insulin costs for Americans, which they were able to do, which is building on what the President laid out in the Inflation Reduction Act, when you think about insulin — lowering that insulin cost to $35 for seniors, and now they were able to do it for — for all of their — for everyone, not just seniors. 

And so those are the things that the President wants to continue to do and wants to continue to see: how are we going to lower costs for American families, how we’re going to build an economy that leaves no one behind.

And what the budget is is just one part of that. 

MS. DALTON:  Karine, you’ve got about two minutes. 

Q    Afghanistan, please?  I’m asking for Afghan people, Karine.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have two minutes.  Okay, I’m going to — I’m going to — I’m going to try and got to the back. 

Q    It’s a big day for Afghan people. 

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

Q    It’s the Woman International Day, Karine.  Please.  

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I wanted to follow up on the bill I had asked you about a couple days ago, the Senate-passed bill on declassifying certain information about the origins of COVID.  Has the President made a decision on the bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I would — I would just refer you to the ODNI on that piece.  I don’t have anything else to share on that.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, quick question — two quick questions on the Mexican kidnapping.  Can you tell us if there are U.S. agents on the ground in Mexico cooperating to find these kidnappers?  López Obrador has said he doesn’t want intervention, so I’m just wondering what this working together looks like.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as I mentioned — well, first, let me just say: We’re saddened to hear about the two individuals — I think it’s important to say that — who were killed.  We send our condolences — I said this a little bit earlier — to their families and friends during this time.  We understand this is a difficult time for them. 

You heard the Attorney General say yesterday that the United States will be relentless in pursuing justice for the victims.  We will do everything in our power to identify, find, and hold accountable the individuals responsible for this attack. 

And we — you know, we continue to work in coordination with the Mexican government.  And we mentioned the U.S. law enforcement — FDA — I’m sorry, FB- — FBI, D- — DEA, and DHS — have been working closely with our — with the Mexican government.

I can’t speak to exactly who’s on the ground or who’s not on the ground.  I would refer you to those three agencies. 

But this is clearly a priority for us.  And we want to get to the bottom of this.

Q    And also, is the — would the President consider calling these cartels or naming them terrorist organizations, as some Republicans are calling for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, this — the — the FTO — the foreign terrorist organizations.  Look, designating these cartels as FTOs would not grant us any additional authorities that we don’t really have at this time.  So the United States has powerful sanctions authorities specifically designated to combat narcotics-trafficking organizations and the individuals and entities that enable them.  So we have not been afraid to use them. 

In the last few months alone, Treasury has announced a series of actions against cartels that are a danger to the public safety.  And we have also taken action that further enables Treasury to sanction foreign pers- — persons who knowingly receive property tax [that] constitutes — so it is derived from proceeds of illicit drugs trafficking activities.  And this means that drug traffickers can no longer use family or friends to hide their assets from the — from the reach of the U.S. government. 

So, again, we don’t believe that this will grant us any additional authorities.  And so I will leave it there.

And I will see you all tomorrow — oh, not tomorrow.  Friday. 

Bye, everybody.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

1:25 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:46 P.M. EST
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A couple things at the top, and then we’ll get started.
 
I wanted to start today by addressing the announcement by Mexican officials regarding the status of the four Americans attacked in Mexico.
 
We’re still working with Mexican officials to learn more and to have all Americans returned to the United States.  President Biden has been kept updated on this incident.  Senior members of the White House has — have also been engaged.
 
We extend our deepest condolences to their families and friends.
 
For the sake of privacy and out of respect to the families, we are going to refrain from further comment about those circumstances at this time.
 
I can confirm that U.S. officials are in touch with the families of the individuals.  But, again, we will respect their privacy regarding our conversations with them.
 
We appreciate the hard work of the Justice Department and the FBI, DHS, and DEA for their swift response to this awful incident and for their continued collaboration with Mexican authorities.
 
These U.S. agencies remain in close touch with their counterparts, and we expect that they will share more as they can.
 
Attacks on U.S. citizens are unacceptable, no matter where or under what circums- — circumstances they happen.
 
We will continue to work closely with the Mexican government to ensure justice is done in this case.
 
Since day one of this administration, we have been focused on disrupting transnational criminal organizations, including Mexican drug cartels and human strugglers — smugglers.  Pardon me.
 
In the past few months, President Biden signed an executive order giving the Department of Treasury expanded authorities to penalize cartel organizations and those who control or enable them.  And we have imposed powerful new sanctions against cartel organizations in recent weeks.  We remain committed to applying the full weight of our efforts and resources to counter them.
 
Right now, our immediate concerns are for the safe return of our citizens, the health and wellbeing of those who — who survived this attack, and the support which must be rendered to the families of those who — who do — who need it.
 
Now I want to move on to the news that we put out this morning.  As you know, President Biden put forward his plan to protect and strengthen Medicare by extending it for another generation.
 
The President’s Budget does this without cutting any benefits.  In fact, he lowers costs for seniors with lower out-of-pocket costs for drugs, a $2 cap on cost-sharing for generic drugs for chronic conditions, and lower behavioral healthcare costs, as well.
 
Instead of cutting benefits, as MAGA Republicans in Congress have suggested, the President’s budget asks the wealthy to pay their fair share and cuts subsidies to Big Pharma.

The President is pr- — is proposing to do the following: increase the Medicare tax rate on income above $400,000; close loopholes in existing Medicare taxes; and give Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices for more prescription drugs.
 
The President would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, and he will not cut benefits for any seniors.  But he will make sure Medicare is there for people who earned it through their work — hard work.
 
Also, as you saw this morning, we announced that President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will host President and First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit in the United States.
 
The visit will include a state dinner, will be the second state visit of the Biden administration — Biden-Harris administration.
 
Under President Biden, we have taken the U.S.-ROK partnership to unprecedented heights in a way that benefits our economies and our people, and strengthens deterrence in Indo-Pacific region.
 
For example, the ROK has invested tens of billions of dollars into the United States.  These are investments that will bring our country — our two countries even closer together, help strengthen our supply chains, and give our economies a competitive edge.
 
We have strengthened our defense and security partnerships bilateral to advance — bilaterally to advance deterrence and peace across the Indo-Pacific.
 
And we’ve supported ROK and Japan as they’ve worked to increase cooperation amongst each other, effectively strengthening the U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral partnership.
 
The United States-ROK alliance is more than a military or security partnerships.  It has grown into a truly global and future-oriented alliance.
 
Our countries also hold strong people-to-people ties.  The United States is home to a large number of Americans with Korean heritage, and our countries share more — many cultural interests, including in music, television, and movies.
 
This state visit will only strengthen our — deepen U.S.-ROK ties, and we are looking forward to celebrating the 70th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK alliance here at the White House.

I also wanted to say a few words on the continued attacks that we are seeing from Republican officials on women’s healthcare, like we have — we saw today — earlier today.

Republican state legislators in Florida proposed, today, a bill that would ban abortion before many women know if they are even pregnant, virtually eliminating a woman’s right to make healthcare decisions about her own body.

This ban would prevent not just the nearly 4 million Floridi- — Florida women of reproductive age from accessing abortion care after six weeks, but it would also impact the nearly 15 million women of reproductive age who live in states across the South with abortion bans and would no longer be able to rely on Florida as an option to access care.
 
We know that these bans are already having a devastating impact on women’s health.  In a case filed today in Texas, we unfortunately heard devastating firsthand accounts of women’s lives almost lost after they were denied the healthcare they needed.  Horrifying details of needless pain.  All because of extreme efforts by Republican officials to take away a woman’s ability to make her own healthcare decisions.
 
Politicians like Governors DeSantis and Abbott espouse, quote, “freedom for all,” unquote, while directly attacking the freedom to make one’s own healthcare decisions. 

Their rhetoric doesn’t come without consequences here.  The stories told today, in 2023, in the United States of America, are shameful and completely unacceptable.
 
Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, the President and the Vice President believe women should be able to make healthcare decisions with their own doctors and families, free from political interference.  Period.

They are committed to protecting access to reproductive care and continuing to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law.

And finally, I want to say a few words today about the actual date of the 58th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, which is today.

As you all know, the President traveled to Selma on Sunday to commemorate this important day so that history can’t be erased.  He talked about how the continued fight for voting rights is integral to delivering economic justice and civil rights for Black Americans across the country.
 
And today I wanted to highlight some of the historic gains the President has made on racial equity.

Two years into this administration, the President has done the following: brought Black unemployment to near-historic low; provided almost $6 billion to HBCUs; lowered prescription drugs and energy costs for seniors; nominated more Black women to federal courts than any — than any President before him; cut Black child poverty in half; and this administration is replacing lead pipes and delivering clean water across America.
 
There’s more work to be done.  And we understand, the President understand that we need to continue fighting to finish the job.

With that, Colleen, you want to kick us off?

Q    Sure.  Thank you.  So the President said that his budget is going to extend Medicare solvency for, I think, 25 years.  Can you walk us through the math a little bit on how that would work?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into — dive into the math here.  The President is going to lay out his budget, as you know, on Thursday, which will be very detailed and transparent, which is something that the President said he was going to do to make sure that the American people see for themselves how the President sees moving forward on the economy and doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

As you know, you’ve heard me say many times, we welcome Republicans to do the same — House Republicans to put forth their budget — and also in a transparent way.

So I’m not going to go — I’m not going to break it down into specifics here.  Again, it’ll be transparent, and you all will see it on Thursday.

But I’ll say more broadly, as it relates to Medicare and the announcement that we made — we made today: As you know, Americans have been paying into this particular program since their first job, some of them since they were teenagers.  And elected officials — we believe, the President believes — has a duty to ensure this lifes- — life- — lifeline is available for generations to come.

And so we’re going to do this.  We’re going to make sure that rich pay their fair share and by — cutting Big Pharma subsidies to lower costs for seniors and ensure Medicare’s durability aren’t big ask.  And we believe that this is an obligation.  This is an obligation that elected officials have.

And, again, you’ll see more of the President’s budget on Thursday.

Q    On immigration: So, we’re hearing that this idea to detain families in detention, again, is one of a lot of policies that are currently under consideration as Title 42 restrictions are going to possibly end on May 11.  So I wondered if you can rule out family detention or what can you say about the idea that, you know, families may or may not be detained — migrant families may or may not be detained at the border. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’m not going to go in on rumors that are out there or conversations that are happening at this time. 
 
The department, as you know — as you just noted, Colleen, the Department of Homeland Security is certainly to — is certainly continuing to prepare for the eventual lift of Title 42.  No decisions have been made. 
 
But we’ve been very clear on how we’re looking — how the President wants to move forward.  And he’s been clear from the start, from the beginning of his administration: by putting forth a comprehensive immigration reform.  And his approach has been making sure that we expand legal pathways for asylum seekers, limiting illegal immigration, addressing root causes, and also increasing border security.  That’s how the President has seen the process moving forward.  That has been his approach. 
 
And what he wants to do is build a system, build an immigration system that is secure, that is orderly, and that is humane.  And that’s how we’re going to move forward as we — as we, you know, look — look towards Title 42 eventually lifting.  As you know, it’s going to be as soon as May 11th.  And that’s going to be the President’s focus.
 
Go ahead, Mary.
 
Q    I understand no decisions have been made.  But, you know, the President, shortly after he came to office, put an end to this policy of detaining migrant families as a candidate.  He said, “We should not be locking people up.” 
 
You aren’t ruling it out either.  So why is this even being considered as a possible option now?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not com- — I’m just not going to comment on rumors that are out there.  I’m not saying it’s being considered.  I’m not saying any —
 
Q    But you’re not saying it’s not.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I’m not saying it is, and I’m not saying it is not.  I’m saying that I’m not going to speak to rumors.  There are rumors out there.  Clearly, the Department of Homeland Security is working through ways on how to move forward once Title 42 is lifted.  I’m just not going to get into speculations.  I’m going to let them do their work. 
 
And what I will say, and I just laid this out for Colleen: We have laid out over and over and over again putting forth policies on how the President sees the process moving forward.  Right?  He is going to use the tools that he has before him to make sure that we deal with an immigration system or we build an immigration system that’s, again, safe, orderly, and humane.
 
And we’ve increased — expanded legal pathways for immigration.  We have tried to limit — worked very hard to limit illegal immigration into this country by — also by making sure that the border was secure. 
 
Again, this is something that Republicans could work with us on.  He put forward an immigration policy — a comprehensive immigration policy — on day one.  But what we’re seeing on the other side is political stunts.  That’s what they want to do.  We’re not looking to do political stunts; we’re looking to deal with a real issue. 
 
Q    I imagine the President is looking for a way to tackle this issue that is safe, orderly, and humane.  Is there ever an instance in which he thinks detaining migrant families can be safe, orderly, and humane?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into — again, that’s diving into speculation that out — that’s out there, conversation — rumored conversations. 
 
What I can lay out to you is his approach.  And it’s been — we’ve been very clear on our approach these past two years. 
 
Q    Is there — just one more.  Is there a hope here that by — that the threat of family detention may be a deterrent?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is a rumored conversation that I’m just not going to weigh in even by answering that question.  I’m just not going to weigh into rumors that are out there.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    So, on the inflation question, Chair Powell has been testifying today, has sent some very, very strong signals to the market that, you know, rate increases could be coming. 
 
I realize you can’t speak about the Fed, but what is your sense about the questions that they were getting about the role that corporate profits have played in fueling inflation and whether that is, you know, an important factor to consider? 
 
And what would you say about just the January data, you know, in terms of waiting to see perhaps if there should be — if there would be — if that data is confirmed?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I just want to be very careful.  You stated it, but I have to state it from here that the Fed is independent, and we do not comment on their policy.  So I want to be very mindful. 
 
The President believes that it’s important to give the Fed the space needed to make decisions on monetary policy.  And so we’re going to do that.
 
As it relates to inflation, our economists have been very clear — view — as you’re asking me about data, they view the recent inflation data — or recent inflation, more specifically, and jobs data as well — as evidence that the President’s economic plan is working. 
 
We’re seeing inflation starting to moderate.  Inflation has come down than where it was almost a year ago.  If you look at it more globally and where — you look where we were a year ago, we have seen inflation moderate.
 
And so — and this is happening while the President has continued to grow the economy.  You’ve heard us say this many times: We’re an economy that comes — that grows from the bottom up, middle out. 
 
And so, that’s what we’re focused on.  We’re focusing on what we can do as well to lower costs for American families.  That’s what you’re going to see from the President’s budget on March 9th.  And that’s how — what you’re seeing from what we even announced today with Medicare, that is what’s important to the President as well.
 
As it relates to, you know, Chair Powell being — being –being on the Hill, doing the hearing, I’m just not going to comment on any specifics to that. 
 
Q    So your FCC nominee apparently has withdrawn their nomination.  Can you confirm that that has happened?  And what is your take on why?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So just a couple of things we want to say on that.  We appreciate Gigi Sohn’s candidacy for this important role.  She would have brought tremendous ta- — intellect and experience, which is why the President nominated her in the first place. 
 
We also appreciate her dedication to public service, her talent, and her years of work as one of the nation’s leading public advocates on behalf of American consumers and competition — with thanks to Chair Cantwell and others for supporting the work of this nomination. 
 
With respect to future candidates, though — I know many people are going to start asking me about that — we — we don’t have any updates to share at this time.  But again, we appreciate her candidacy and — and — for this important role.
 
Q    And then, just one quick one on foreign policy.  There’s reports out today that intelligence believes that a Ukrainian organization was involved in the Nordstream Two sabotage.  Can you tell us whether you think this was a subject that — did Chancellor Scholz and President Biden discuss that when they met at the White House? 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So what I can say is: Several — as you know, several of the European partners — our European partners — Germany, Sweden and Denmark — have opened investigations into what happened, and those investigations are currently ongoing.  So I’m not going to get ahead of them from here. 
 
Would refer you to the respective European countries for comments on their own investigation.  I’m just not going to go beyond the readout that we provided on Friday with the Chancellor’s visit here.
 
Q    Just circling back to immigration quickly, there’s clearly a policy process underway right now where the agencies that are lead on this are considering options based on the lifting of Title 42.  
 
I guess my question is: Has the President been briefed on the possibility of reinstating the migrant family detention policy?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any — any conversations to read out on the President’s — the President being briefed specifically on family detention. 
 
What I can say is — again, these are rumored conversations.  And as you just said, Phil, there is continued conversations, policy discussions occurring right now — as we’re speaking about the Department of Homeland Security, clearly, which is taking the lead on this — on how to move forward once Title 42 is lifted.  We’re going to let them do that process and do that work. 
 
But the President’s approach, again, has been very, very clear.  You’ve seen it over and over again.  You’ve heard him speak about it; you’ve heard me speak about it.  We want to make sure that we’re expanding legal pathways for asylum seekers, limiting illegal immigration, addressing root causes, and increasing order and security.  And we — border security, pardon me. 
 
And we want to do this as we build a system.  Our approach — our — our approach is to build a system that is safe, that is orderly, and that is humane, and that’s what you’re going to see from this President. 
 
Q    And then, on foreign policy.  Comments from Chinese officials over the course of the last 48 hours.  Xi Jinping warning comprehensive — we’re talking about a comprehensive “containment” and “suppression” by the West, led by the U.S.  The foreign minister with very direct comments today, warning of potential conflict and confrontation if the U.S. continues on the, quote, “wrong path.”
 
I’m wondering what your national security team or what the President views as the intent of the very direct comments from these officials.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can’t speak to the intent from Chinese official.  What I can speak to is how we’re approaching this.  The President’s approach to China has not changed. 
 
And, again, we’ve been very clear, we do not seek conflict, and we do not want conflict.  What we’re seeking is competition, and we’ve been very clear about that these past two years. 
 
The President will always defend American interests, as you all know, but he has been clear we want — we need to keep open lines of communication.  And we will manage this consequential — we see this as a consequential relationship that we will — we will continue to manage.  And the President, his team has been focused on doing just that. 
 
But I’m — I’m certainly not going to comment on the intent of Chinese officials.
 
Go ahead, Michael.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Back on the issue of Mexico and the four Americans that were kidnapped there.  What is the administration’s message to Americans who are currently in
Mexico or planning to go there?  Should they continue with those plans?  Or is it safe to go to Mexico?  What is the administration’s message to those folks?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we — we take it very seriously when it comes to — and have a commitment to provide U.S. citizens with clear, timely, and reliable information about every country in the world so they can make informed sta- — informed travel decisions.  As you all know, the State Department is clearly a department that is focused on that and give that information and do the travel advisory. 
 
And so when it comes to the travel advisory for this particular loca- — area in Mexico, that remains at Level 4: “Do not travel due to crime and kidnapping.”  We’ve been very clear about that.  The State Department, again, has put that out. 
 
We urge Americans to read these alerts before traveling.  And — and so we’ll leave it there. 
 
But, again, our commitment to this — we take this seriously to make sure that we — we do everything that we can so that Americans understand, you know, what is — what is safe and what to look out for as their travel — or when — or when they’re in a specific country.
 
Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does this situation in Mexico indicate that the U.S. needs to be doing more to tackle Mexican organized crime?  And if so, what?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the President from — the President — or, I should say, this administration from day one has made sure, as it relates to the safety — I know some folks have asked if we are concerned about these individuals actually coming and crossing the border and coming into the U.S. 
 
So, you know, DHS screens and vets every individual encountered at the border.  The President has secured record levels of funding for border security and management, including 2,300 — 23- — I should say, 23,000 border officials, which is a historic amount of border officials to help at — at — with the security process at the border. 
 
And we have stepped up coordination with government of Mexico to ensure security along our shared border.  As you know, the President was recently in Mexico City.  He met with — with AMLO to talk — that was one of the conversations that were had, that was part of the agenda. 
 
And so we’re going to continue to do that — those coordination.  And — and we’re going to continue to do everything that we can to secure the border.
 
Q    These individuals were reportedly going across the border to Mexico for medical care.  There are a lot of Americans who cross the southern border for medical care or for prescription drugs.  What is the advice to those individuals?  Should they avoid doing that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’m not going to speak specifically to — I know — I know it’s ongoing.  I know there’s a lot of comments out there as to what these four individuals were going to do. 
 
So I would say the federal law enforcement has been in touch — has been, you know, doing — leading this investigation — clearly in touch with family members.  And so I’m just going to be really careful on commenting why they were crossing the border.  Those are privacy cons- — private considerations. 
 
But, again, I just laid out moments ago, when Michael was asking me the qu- — the question about the Americans in Mexico or thinking about traveling to Mexico: The State Department puts out these alerts, has been — has tried — tries very hard to communicate what’s going on — this — their own safety — for their own safety in certain countries.  And I would — I would make sure that if Americans are thinking about traveling to Mexico, that they certainly heed the call from the State Department. 
 
This particular area, as I just mentioned, is at Level 4, and so folks need to be really careful. 
 
Q    And then, finally, one of your top spokespeok- — spokespeople we learned today is stepping down.  She played a prominent role on the pla- — past Biden campaign.  Should we take this as a sign that perhaps she’ll be serving on a Biden re-election campaign?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I certainly — as you know, I’m going to be very careful from here speaking about a re-elect or 2024.  But I do want to say some — some — some words about Remi.
 
Remi is a — is a good friend.  I have gotten to know her very well over the past three years.  As you know, she was on the campaign as — I think you just mentioned that.  And the President said himself she is — she has been an unfailing loyal fighter for him and for the team and — going back to the campaign, even before it launched.  And we are very sad to see her go.  She has a range of talents, as she possesses for a communication professional, and she is one of a kind. 
 
And we are sadly going to miss Remi.  And we wish her the best.  And there’s truly — truly no — no better colleague that I have gotten to know these past three years. 
 
Q    But no words about her next steps?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  You would have to ask Remi.  I can’t speak to her next steps.  What I can say is how wonderful she has been as a friend and a colleague these past three years.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Governor Newsom in California announced that he would halt state contracts with Walgreens over their decision to stop dispensing abortion medicine — medication.  I’m wondering if that’s a step the President would consider on a federal level.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — you know, I’ll say this: Our focus right now remains on continued access to medication that women and providers rely on for abortion care and miscarriage management.  That’s always — that’s what we have been very steadfast on.  That’s why the President issued his recent presidential memorandum in January that aims to preserve continued access to a safe drug that — and we’ll emphasize this again — is used for miscarriage management and abortion. 
 
So we understand the concerns faced by pharmacies, which is why the President’s memorandum emphasizes the administration’s readiness to support patients, providers, and pharmacies who want to legally access or provide this — this particular drug. 
 
So I do want to speak — to say one note about Walgreens: They clarified its position on working toward providing this medication where it is legal.  But I refer you to the companies of the — or the states for any follow-up. 
 
Again, we are — we have a focus and to make sure that women have access to important healthcare needs.  And the President is going to continue to fight for this.  You’ve heard the Vice President over the last couple of months also continuing to speak on this.  And that’s what you’re going to hear from this administration.
 
Q    The President — this announcement this morning on Medicare — largely paid for that extension through an increase in payroll taxes on those making over $400,000 a year.  Can we expect, since the President has also made Social Security a key sort of plank of his economic plan, that we should see a similar increase in Social Security taxes?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’m not going to get into — we shared Medicare today.  And we’ll shu- — we’ll share probably more parts of his budget in the upcoming day or two.  Just not going to get into specifics on that. 
 
But I will say the President’s commitment hasn’t changed.  What we see right now is that, you know, the biggest threat to Social Security are Republicans.  And you’ve heard them, you guys have covered them — what congressional Republicans have said, their relentless drive to — to cut these important programs for Americans, for — for our veterans, for our — our — you know, our seniors. 
 
And so, again, we look forward to seeing the — to seeing the Republicans share their plan with the American people since they have promised that they’re going to put a budget forward. 
 
But I’m just not going to get ahead of the President. 
 
I’ll say this as well: You know, the President is also open to proposals that extend Social Security trust fund — trust fund without cutting Social Security benefits.  That is something that we have spoken to and talked about.  So he’s open to that — those types of proposals.  But again, his — his commitment to fighting for Social Security hasn’t changed.
 
Q    And then, one last one.  Secretary Raimondo suggested that banning TikTok was a bad idea politically because you’d, quote, “literally lose every voter under 35.”  The administration’s review of TikTok has been going on for more than two years now, which is — which I think many critics have said suggests some level of foot dragging is —
 
Are these two things related?  Is the political concern what is preventing the administration from taking action?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I mean, this is not about a political concern.  This is about making sure that we do the right thing for the American people.  But I — you know, again, we’re working with Congress to address concerns posed by apps like TikTok.  I don’t have anything else to share. 
 
I know there’s legislation that’s being thought about or going to be put forward.  But we’re going to continue to work Congress on that. 
 
I just don’t have anything more to share.  We’ve been — I was asked this question yesterday.  We’ve been very clear on where we stand on this particular issue.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  On immigration, among the plans or the strategy for border security, how much does deterrence work — and using deterrence policies work into the strategy for the administration?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Can you say — can you say more?
 
Q    I mean, a lot of administrations in the past have used deterrence as part of their border security — border security strategy.  How much is deterrence and sending a message and then using policies that would deter migration going to be part of the administration’s policy moving forward from Title 42 — after Title 42?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I mean, if you look at what the President has put forward in the past — and, I mean, in the past several months with — you know, since the beginning of this year, when he expanded the parolee program, right?  That was a way to give an opportunity to folks who are seeking asylum to find a way to get to apply or to come to the U.S. in a — in a — in a legal — in a legal way.  Right?  When you think about what we were able to do, how we expanded that parolee program for Nicaragua and Cubans and Venezuela — Venezuelans and also Haiti — Haitians, it was a way to provide an opportunity to do that.  Right?  So then —
 
Q    But I’m talking about border security though.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but I — but I’m — but that was a deterrence from coming to the border and a way for them to stay at home and — and find a way and use the app to come to — into the U.S. 

And so, that is a way — an incentive, an option, a path, if you will — for them to use to — to — to figure out how can they — how can they do this in a legal pathway.

So those are humane ways of doing this.  Those are ways of making sure that we’re dealing with border security.

As far as, you know, the word “deterrence” and — and policies specifically to that, like hard — hard policies specifically to that: Look, the Presi- — the President has been very clear on his approach.  He wants to make sure that we do this in an orderly way, a humane way, and do it in a way that is — that still expands legal pathways but also deals with illegal migration.

Don’t have anything more specifics on that — on the “deterrence” language that you’re asking me about.

What we’re — what we’re going to do is put forth policies and use the tools to do just that: to build that system, that border system that was, by the way, decimated by the last — by the last administration.

Q    So, in terms of that, of the system being decimated, now you’ve had two years to rebuild the system.  You’ve been working on the eventual end of Title 42 since the beginning of the administration — working with groups on a plan.  How confident should Americans be, come May, that the system will work?  And that — how confident should they be that the — the administration is prepared and the system won’t be overwhelmed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just give you a few data points on what we’ve been able to do — right? — which is migration from Honduras.  If you look at migration from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, where our root causes work is focused on, is down by 71 percent since 2021.  That is the work that this administration has done.

I just talked about migration from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti.  That is down by 90 — more than 95 percent since we expanded the parole program.  That was just — parolee program — which was just a month or two ago.  And that was, again, the President is using the tools that he has in front of him to deal with a real issue. 

Again, Republicans are not doing anything.  They’re doing political stunts.  And the President is actually taking action. 

Now, he put forth a piece of legislation on his first day in this administration — a comprehensive immigration policy legislation.  We would love to move that forward.  But until then, we have to use the tools that we have in front of us to get this done.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Just following up on China.  Is the President concerned that a cold war with China is veering into a hot war?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So the President, actually, was asked this recently, and I’ll — I’ll — you know, I’ll let his words stand.  I think he was asked this about a week or two ago.  So, won’t get ahead of the President or won’t say more than what the President has stated.

Look, we have been very clear on our approach.  It’s not changed.  We want an approach of — of competition, not conflict.  And we believe we are more prepared to outcompete China and protect our national security.  And that is because of the work that this President has done from day one of this admini- — administration.

And if you look at many of our efforts towards China, there have been — it’s been — it’s been pursued in a bipartisan fashion.

But I’m not going to — the President was literally asked this very similar question, so I’ll — I’ll refer you to his comments.

But again, our approach to China has not changed.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  So cartels kill Americans on this side of the border with drugs, and now they’re killing Americans on the other side of the border with guns.  Why is President Biden so comfortable with cartels operating so close to the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let’s be very clear.  Let me take on the drug part here because — since you brought this up.

Because of the work that this President has done, because of what we’ve done specifically on fentanyl at the border, it’s at historic lows — historic levels that we have been able to record a number of personnel working to secure the border because of what we’ve been able to do, seizing that fentanyl.  We’ve done it in a historic way.  That’s because of what this President has done. 

I just talked about 23,000 federal agents that have been able to be — that we’ve been able to hire and put at the border to secure the border.

On top of that, historic sanctions going after traffickers and other financiers are helping disrupt fentanyl supply chains throughout their flow to the U.S. 

And we’ll — we — we’re really expanded access to treatments like — that are saving lives, if you think about it, which prevent overdoses, expanding as — as are fentanyl test strips.  And through the removal of the X-Waiver, anyone registered to prescribe controlled medications can now prescribe lifesaving medication to treat addiction.

So, again, we are seizing fentanyl at record historic levels because of what the — because of the — of what the President has done to secure our border.

And, look, we’ve also coordinated — made sure that we’re coordinated our — our relationship with Mex- — with Mexico to deal with what we’re seeing as it relates to violence, as relates to cartel.  That is something — a relationship that we’ve continued to build with Mexico, an incredibly important partner.  You saw that when he went down for the summit in Mexico City. 
 
So, the President is dedicated to this and is doing the work that we’re actually seeing at the border, again, when you — we think about fentanyl.

Q    But to the violence aspect of it: Now Americans are being slaughtered.  Would President Biden be taking the same approach if it was al Qaeda or ISIS operating just across the border from an American city?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President takes this very seriously.  He takes this very seriously.  The FBI and other agencies have been on top of this from day one.  And so that’s what he’s going to continue to do. 

When it comes to Americans’ lives and when it comes to their — the safety of Americans, the President is always going to make sure that that is a top priority.

Q    Would President Biden ever consider using the U.S. military to disrupt cartel operations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m just not going to get into the military and how it’s being used.

Go ahead.

Q    I want to go back to the question about the FCC nominee.  Gigi Sohn has a statement to the Washington Post in which she says that her nomination failed because of what she calls “unrelenting, dishonest, and cruel attacks.”  She calls it “a sad day for our country…” when — “…and our democracy when dominant industries, with assistance from unlimited dark money, get to choose their regulators.”

Is that what’s happened here?  Is that why the nomination failed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can speak to is her candidacy and how important it was for this — for this critical role that she was nominated for.

The President clearly nominated her because — and I said this — she was — she was tremendously — she has tremendous intellect and experience.  And we thought and we, you know, believed that she was — she would be a — a great — a great — is a great candidate and would have been an excellent political official in this role.

And so, it is, clearly, unfortunate.  We’re sad to see — to see this happen. 

But again, we are very thankful to her dedication to public service, her talent — and not just for this past year as she was going through the process but also the last several years as a national public advocate on behalf of American consumers.

Q    Let me ask you one more question since the President announced his plans for the Medicare surtax today.  That number of $400,000 — in the past, it’s referred to individuals.  Is that, going forward, the plan?  Or is it — is it married couples filing jointly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — nothing has changed from where we have been in the past.

Q    Okay, thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Just another follow-up on immigration.  Not asking about the detaining migrant families at all or any rumors around that.  But just given what we’ve seen from the White House in recent months, including the new asylum rule, is this basically an acknowledgment that without legislation from Congress, the policies that the President previously opposed, he now thinks are necessary in conjunction with some of those legal pathways that you mentioned?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So let me just — there’s a couple of things that I want to say about that.  A lot of people have compared what the President is doing as either extending what Trump did or being very Trump-like, and I just want to make sure that that is not — that is not what is happening here.

What we saw in this last administration — the administration before us — was a gutting of the immigration system.  That is what they led with, and that’s what they did. 

And a couple of things that we had to fix in this administration these last two years:

Trump tried to deport DREAMers; we went to court to protect them. 

Trump ripped babies from their mother’s arms; we’re reuniting those children with their families, with 600 families reunited thus far. 

Trump funneled billions of dollars from military to build a useless wall, and what we did is we stopped that wall construction and returned the money to support military schools and also equipment.

 Trump banned asylum, forcing more people to try to enter unlawfully.  We’ve expanded legal pathways for immigration, and unlawful migration is down.  I just gave two pieces of data to show that.

Trump tore down America’s refugee system.  And what we are doing — we’re rebuilding it and have a set of goal of resettling up to 125- — 125,000 refugees this year alone.

Trump cut off critical assistant to stabilize the Western Hemisphere, and we restarted that assistance to help address the root cause — causes, like economic collapse, that are driving people to flee.

Migration, again — and I mentioned this stat already — migration from countries where — where we — we’re seeing root causes — where there — our root causes work is focused — is focused down by 71 percent since last year.

So, that is — so, that is what we have been able to do in this past two years and how we have been able to try to fix something that the last administration has decimated.

Q    But given the pieces that are still in use or have been revived, is — is that sort of an acknowledgment that they are now necessary or deemed necessary —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, absolutely not.

Q    — by this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, absolutely not.  From day one, the President has put forth a bill that would expand legal pathways for imm- — for immigration, increased border security, making sure that we limit illegal immigration.

The President is using the tools that are before him to try to deal with an issue that we’re seeing here.

We have said over and over again: If Republicans in Congress would come and work with us to deal with this issue, we can get it done, we can get it fixed, instead of the political stunts that they’re doing.

Okay.  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions on foreign policy.  In addition to poisoning schoolgirls in Iran, now it’s been reported that (inaudible) detention sites.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has asked for an investigation by the U.N. and accountability.  What does accountability look like from the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me just first say, we’ve seen these disturbing reports — deeply disturbing reports and — that we’ve seen from your — one of your colleagues here’s network.  And so what we want to say from here is that we welcome the call from our Senate colleagues for the U.N.’s independent international factfinding mission on Iran to investigate. 

Unfortunately, the Iranian regime has a long history of engaging in such practices to stifle dissent and exert control.  The cruel, violent suppression of peaceful protests and abuse of protesters that the — that CNN reported shows that Iran’s leadership fears its own people. 
 
The eyes of the world are on Iran.  The human rights abuses inflicted by its government must not go without consequences.
 
The hundreds of protesters already killed at the hands of Iranian state authorities deserve — and their family should see this as well — is justice.  The torture and mistreatment of political prisoners must cease.
 
The United States is standing with our partners and allies around the world.  And we’ll continue to pursue accountability for anyone involved in these abuses.
 
Q    And, second, you released a readout of the President’s call with the Sultan of Oman.  In the last paragraph, you said that he welcomed the historical role (inaudible) of the — of Omanis in securing the release of American hostages in Iran.  But does he refer to the previous mediation, or are we talking about a fresh push to release the new — the current hostages now?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share about that. 
 
Anytime — as you know, anytime there is a — there are American hostages held, we’re always very careful on speaking to any — the process.  We want to be mindful for — for security reasons.  So I’m not going to go beyond what the President laid out and — what we laid out in the readout with — on this call today.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Karine.  Does the administration feel the Mexican government is doing enough to combat violence in its own country as well as Americans who are visiting?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that we are working closely with the Mexican government.  As you’ve seen, we’ve — we’ve — we’ve announced coordination that we have with the Mexican government as it relates to the violence and cartel.  We’ve announced that already. 
 
You’ve seen the President — both presidents, President AMLO and President Biden, speak to this very recently in — in Mexico City. 
 
Don’t have anything else to share.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.
 
Q    Would the administration support be designating cartels as terrorist organizations, as some senators have —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have any policy or announcements to make from here.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  Last night, Tucker Carlson cherrypicked video surveillance from the January 6th insurrection, severely downplaying the events of that day.  He said the mob was orderly and meek and that they were tourists instead of insurrectionists.  What’s your response to Carlson and to Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who granted him access to that video?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Anybody who watched that video would strongly digree [sic] — disagree.  Anybody who watched that video in a — with their own eyes, in a real way, and saw what happened on that day would — would disagree with what was just stated. 
 
The President has been very clear: January 6th was the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.  And we should be focused on making sure that never happens again. 
 
And so, we are certainly — we agree — I know Minority Leader and — and — Senator Schumer have already said this, and would hope that keeping the Capitol and Congress safe and secure remains congressional leaders’ number one goal.  And that should be our focus, and that should be what should be considered here. 
 
And, again, it was one of the darkest days of our democracy.  And all you have to do is watch those videos and see how horrific it was, see how sad it was, see an attack on the Capitol, which should not be happening in 2020. 
 
And we got to get down to the bottom of what happened.  Again, it was an attack on our democracy.  And I’ll just leave it there.
 
Q    So is Speaker McCarthy irresponsible for handing over the video?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I answered your question.  I answered your question.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  So, with the more direct language — I’m going to ask you about China.  With the more direct language from the Chinese president and the foreign minister, is there a concern that the administration line that they want competition over conflict is seen as weakness by the Chinese?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not sure how it’s seen as weakness when we are more prepared to com- — outcompete China and protect the national security, under this President and because of the — of the work that he’s done. 
 
Q    Well, they — they had —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to keep going.
 
Q    — the Chinese —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to keep going.
 
Q    — but they had the spy —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to keep —
 
Q    — the spy balloon.  
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve answered this question multiple times.
 
Go ahead.  
 
Q    Thank you.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Karine.  On — on the White House considering reinstating the family detention, advocates are already calling it shameful.  Democrats on the Hill have called it unacceptable.  And a number of Democrats and immigrant advocates are calling for the White House to publicly deny those reports.  What’s your response to them?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  My response is these are rumored conversations that I’m just not going to speak to. 
 
We’ve laid out very clearly over the past several months, over the last two years, how — our approach to this — our approach to dealing with immigration. 
 
Again, we’ve been very clear.  We ex- — we’re expanding legal pathways for asylum seekers, limiting — eliminating illegal migration, addressing root causes, and increasing border security.  That’s our approach. 
 
And we are — want to make sure that we’re building a immigration system that is — that is orderly, that is safe and humane.  That is what the President is — has been doing.  And that’s what he’s going to continue to do. 
 
I’m certainly not going to, again, weigh in on any rumored conversations from here. 
 
I’ll be back tomorrow, guys.  I’ll see you tomorrow. 
 
Q    Thanks, Karine. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.
 
2:31 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:51 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Happy Monday.   Okay. 

So, I think many of us would agree that parents should not have to pay extra to sit next to their child on a flight.  It’s just common sense.  But as recently as a month ago, no U.S. airlines guaranteed fee-free family seating. 

Now, after the Biden administration pressed airlines to improve customer service, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and Frontier Airlines have stepped forward to guarantee that parents can sit with their young children without getting nickel and dimed.

Today, the Department of Transportation rolled out a new family seating dashboard, as you’ll see right here, highlighting which airlines guarantee fee-free — fee-free family seating and those that don’t.  This is an added feature to the existing dashboard, which already includes services for delayed and canceled flights. 

The dashboard makes it easier for parents to avoid these junk fees.  And we’re not stopping there.  DOT is working towards making this a requirement across the board.  This is just the latest example of effective presidential leadership driving actions that benefit American consumers, workers, and families.

President Biden is leading, Americans are supportive, and coo- — corporations are responding, as you can see.

Also today, the Department of Agriculture is taking a number of actions to support American farmers and ranchers, increase transparency, and lower food prices.

Let’s start with “Product of USA” labels.  Currently, this label on meat, poultry, egg products can be used even if the product was not actually raised in the USA.  We believe that labels should be u- — only used on animals born, raised, and processed here in the United States.  And now, USDA is proposing a rule to accomplish just that.

This increased transparency will support American farmers and ranchers and make it easier for all of us who — all of us know where our food really comes from.

Second, the USDA is announcing $89 million in new investments to help establish and expand independent meat processors.  This will create opportunities for small businesses and rural communities, and create fairer markets for family and farmers, which brings down prices at the grocery store.

And lastly, USDA is taking action to increase competition and innovation in important seed markets, like corn.

These actions show the administration’s commitment to promoting competition for farmers, ranchers, and American consumers, and deliver on the President’s competition executive order.

With that, Chris, you want to kick us off, please?

Q    Sure.  Two questions on the D.C. crime situation.  Does the White House have a response to the city council wanting to pull back that proposal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you all know, we litigated this about two days last week, right here in this very room.  The President expressed concerns on certain provisions of — of the D.C. crime bill.  And as — as we can see, the D.C. Council’s process is still ongoing, so we won’t — we won’t comment on that any further.

Q    So, also, when we were discussing this last week, you cited Mayor Bowser’s opposition to the crime proposal.  But she also says that the override is an indignity and that Congress has meddled in its affairs.  Why didn’t the President or the White House give her a heads up that the President wanted to sign this override legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  She also said that she understands why the President made this decision.  But what —

Q    So, the question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — wait.  Let me — let me — let me get into it.

Q    I — I haven’t even asked the question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But you just asked a question.  Let me finish your question — the first question what you asked, which is: First of all, she also said that she understood why the President made this decision.  Our team, the off- — the intergovernmental affairs team is in constant communication with her team and was last week. 

Don’t have anything to preview or any specific discussion that occurred, but they are in constant communication.

Q    Okay.  So the question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    — why didn’t the White House or the President give Mayor Bowser a heads up that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just told you that they’re in constant communication with the team, including last week.

Q    Okay.  And they — and the White House told —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not — I’m just not going to get into specifics.

Q    Okay.  So, not going to address that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I can tell you that our intergovernmental affairs office was in contact with her office last week.

Q    Okay.  That doesn’t exactly address the question, but I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just telling you that we were in contact with them.

Q    And secondly, has — why, if the White House cites Mayor Bowser’s opposition to the bill, why do they want to do something that she considers an indignity to her city?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that again.

Q    If the White House is going to cite Mayor Bowser’s opposition to the crime bill to say why the President should sign the override legislation, why does the White House want to do something that the mayor considers an indignity to the city — that’s something that she opposes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But she also didn’t — did not approve of the piece of the legislation as well.

Q    But the process by override, she says, is an indignity.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s step back for a second.  We talked about this for two days last week, and still going to tell you exactly what I said last week, which was: The President — the bill was headed to the President’s desk, and the President made a decision.  And we let all of you know what he was going to do and how he was going to move forward.  That’s it. 

He was — he wanted to make sure that he delivered for the 700,000 residents of D.C. in a way that was — in a way that was protecting the residents here.

This was brought to him.  This is not something that we put forward.  This is a decision that was brought to him.  And he wants to be very clear and communicate with the people of D.C. and with all of you on how he was going to move forward.

Q    Okay.  One more legislative question.  There’s resolution going forward allowing — that would bar retirement plans from offering ESG considerations.  The President says he’s — or the White House says he’s going to veto that.  Do you have any plans for that veto?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share on that.  I believe we have not received the bill yet, so just don’t have any — any timeline on — on the ESG bill at this time.

All right.  Hi.

Q    Thank you.  A couple questions about East Palestine, Ohio.  Norfolk Southern, they announced a set of new initiatives they claim will enhance safety: a new power mechanism to help with braking and acceleration, additional devices that can monitor hot bearings.  Is the White House satisfied with these reforms?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what we’re trying to do — and we’ve been very clear, the EPA Administrator has been very clear, Secretary Buttigieg has been very clear — what we’re doing is to make sure that the community in East Palestine is made whole again.  And we’re going to hold Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] company accountable.  They made this mess, and they need to clean up this mess.

We are pleased by the bipartisanship that we’re currently seeing in Congress to put forward some true commonsense safety measures.  That is something that we want to continue to move forward.

As far as it relates to the company, we are going to do everything that we can to hold them accountable.  As you know, we set up a fund to support the families and to support the community getting back economically on their feet in the future. 

So that is going to be our focus, and that’s how we’re going to move forward.

Q    You say you want to hold them accountable.  Norfolk Southern, they’re responsible now for four train derailments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    — in less than five months.  Is the administration comfortable with them taking the lead on self-regulation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, it’s notable and unacceptable.  That’s what we are — we’ve been very clear about that.  That is why the ETSB [NTSB] is doing an investigation that is currently happening.  That is something that occurred with the — with the first derailment.  We saw, within hours, Secretary Buttigieg go into action and respond by making sure that the investigation started.

The same thing on Saturday.  The investigation has been — for — NTSB is — was just — is — was just called to move forward this morning.  And so that’s what we’re going to see.  We’re going to have investigation.  We’re going to see exactly what occurred.

But in the meantime, we have to hold them accountable to make sure the community is made whole again.

Q    So, are there any plans for President Biden to visit East Palestine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share on a planned visit for the President to Ohio.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Speaker McCarthy is planning to meet with the leader of Taiwan in California.  Does the White House have a reaction to that?  And are you advising him at all ahead of that meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t believe Taiwan has announced any travel for the president of Taiwan.  Taiwan’s presidents have traveled to the United States in the past.  So I would refer you to Taiwan for anything specific on that.

And certainly, I would refer you to the Speaker’s office on any potential meeting that he may be having with the President.  I just don’t — from what I understand, nothing — no announcement has been made.

Q    Is it the White House preference that a meeting like that would take place in California as opposed to Taiwan, to
avoid —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m just not going to comment on something —

Q    — the crisis that happened last time —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I totally —

Q    — with Speaker Pelosi?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I totally hear your question, Jeff.  It’s just not something that I’m going to comment on since it hasn’t — it doesn’t seem like it has been announced at this time or any travel has been put forward. 

Q    All right.  And one other topic.  Former President Trump said over the weekend in his CPAC comments mul- — multiple things.  One thing he said to his supporters was, “I am your justice.  And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”  Does the White House have a response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, because of — he is a 2024 candidate and we are covered here by the Hatch Act, I’m just not going to comment on those — on the words that he — the speech that he made — the speech this weekend.

Q    I just wanted to follow up on something one of my colleagues asked about last week.  There were protests this weekend in Iran related to the poisoning of the — the alleged poisoning of the schoolgirls there.  If the administration has any updates in terms of what they’ve seen or any investigations that may be underway at this point in time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, Phil, we are closely following this concerning — deeply concerning situation that we’re seeing currently in Iran.  The continued poisoning of schoolgirls across — across Iran is — is unconscionable. 

There must be a credible, independent investigation, accountability for those responsible.  If these poisonings are related to participation in protest, then it is well within mandate of the U.N.’s independent, international fact-finding mission on Iran to investigate. 

Women and girls everywhere have a fundamental right to education.  Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that when women and girls receive an education and are able to contribute to their economies, it benefits society as a whole. 

So, the possibility that girls in Iran are being possibly poisoned simply for trying to get an education is — is shameful.  It is unacceptable.  And our thoughts remain with the victims and their families.  And, again, it is unacceptable and unconscionable.

Q    And then, just one more.  There were reports over the weekend that there are two Ukrainian fighter pilots that are in the United States right now training on simulators.  I’m wondering if we’re supposed to read that as the potential for new capabilities the U.S. may send or, kind of, what the genesis of that decision-making was.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President has already spoken to F-16s, as you all know, and nothing has changed.  For — what the President said is there — it is not on the table for now.  And so, that hasn’t changed.  So, I’ll leave that there. 

Q    Can you speak to the incident involving four U.S. citizens in Mexico who have come under gunfire and have been kidnapped and how the administration may be able to get information out of Mexico or what the status of that is right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I have a statement here that I want to read out to all of you. 

We are closely following the assault and kidnapping of four U.S. citizens in Matamoros, Mexico.  These sorts of attacks are unacceptable.  Our thoughts are with the families of these individuals, and we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. 

U.S. law enforcement is in touch with Mexican law enforcement.  The Departments of State and Homeland Security are also coordinating with Mexican authorities.  And we will continue to coordinate with Mexico and push them to bring those responsible to justice. 

And, again, our hearts with — are with the families.

Q    Any early indications as to the circumstances or any efforts to try to locate these Americans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have anything to share outside of what I just laid out.  Clearly, we want to be really careful here.  There are privacy concerns.  And so, I don’t want to share too much about the information on how we’re moving forward or even the individuals.  We just want to be really mindful on that.  But clearly, we’re on top of this.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Does the President have a meeting scheduled yet for him to sit down with Speaker Kevin McCarthy about the budget or the debt?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, right now, we don’t have a meeting to preview or scheduled right now at this time. 

I’ve said this before: Our teams — their team and our team have been in constant communication since the first time that they met.  Just don’t have anything to preview. 

As you know, the President is going to be putting his — putting forward his — his budget on March 9th.  And we have called on Republicans in the House to do the same: to be transparent, to lay out exactly what it is that they — they — how they want to move forward with the fiscal year. 

One of the things that we have — we have heard from them is how they want to continue — or want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA.  And so, we want to see: What is it that they want to do?  How do they see moving forward in a fiscally responsible way?

As we know, the President has been very clear.  He’s going to continue to fight for Social Security.  He’s going to continue to fight for Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA. 

Again, we want to see — we’re going to put our budget forward, and we want to see what they’re going to do. 

Q    But no timeline on when that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Don’t have —

Q    — sit-down might take place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.

Q    Could it happen this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — for this week, we don’t have anything right now scheduled at this — at this time. 

Q    And, originally, the Treasury Secretary said that she could keep extraordinary measures going through June.  Then the CBO later said: Actually, it might be July through September.  When does the White House believe that things get critical when it — as it relates to the U.S. debt?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We basically follow what the Department of Treasury said.  The Secretary said “through June,” and that’s where — that’s what we’re — that’s the timeline that we’re looking at.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’re reporting today that the manufacturing sector is showing signs of weakness.  Obviously, manufacturing jobs are a priority of your administration.  Are you concerned at all that momentum is slipping there and that that could be — have to do with higher interest rates?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we’re going to continue to make sure that we deliver on the President’s economic policy — economic plan.  And having seven- — more than 700,000 jobs that have been created under this President shows that commitment and shows how the President’s economic policy is working. 

Look, that’s why the CHIPS and Science Act is so important.  And you’ve heard over and over from these different manufacturers who are coming back to the U.S., who are — who are building these manufacturers, creating jobs. 

And so, we’re going to continue to work closely — closely with them and — and make that a priority.  That doesn’t stop. 

I don’t have any concerns right now to share with you, but we are — again, close to 800,000 jobs have been created under this administration — manufacturing jobs.  And that is — that is a commitment that this President has had to make sure that we’re bringing manufacturers back to the U.S. 

Q    And you said last week you’d check on the license plate on the Beast, whether it says “Taxation Without Representation.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — oh, my gosh.

Q    Any update on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — my — I would — I would — my homework is not on par today.  (Laughs.)  We have checked in; just haven’t gotten an answer on that just yet.  And so, we are — we are diving in and trying to get an answer to all of you. 

Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Staying on local matters: The D.C. Council chair said today that he thought he had the power to rescind the sending of a bill to the Senate for its review.  Was there any communication between the White House and Council Chairman Mendelson’s office prior to his press conference today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, our team was made aware earlier this morning.  As you know, when it comes to any — how the Senate — the mecha- — the mechanics of the Senate move forward, that’s something for the Senate.  I encourage you to ask them and how that will work and how that will move forward. 

But, yes, we were given — we were given a heads up this morning. 

Q    The Senate intends to move forward with its vote on the resolution.  The President still intends to sign it.  Is that right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If — look, again, we’ve made ourselves very clear.  If the — if the bill comes to the President’s desk, he will sign it. 

Q    One other question on this.  I don’t think you’ve been asked this — this directly before.  But, you know, last week, you said that the President viewed what the D.C. Council did as “unacceptable.”  You specifically talked about how the bill would reduce penalties for carjacking and you even mentioned sexual assault.

So the question for you is why the President would still support D.C. statehood.  If the Council is going to pass bills that the President finds unacceptable, why would the President empower the Council to have the power of a state legislature that he couldn’t check?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because he believes — and he has for some time now — that D.C. should be a 51 state.  They should have a statehood.

Again, the reason why the President — we’ve been — we responded to this and answered the question of if he was going to sign it or not is because it was coming to his desk, as we know from last week.  And so, the President communicated that.  We communicated that.

But it doesn’t change — it doesn’t change that he encourages Congress to put — to pass a bill that makes D.C. a state, and he will sign it.  He believes that — that cities and — and states should be able to govern for themselves.

Q    Last point on this.  You know, advocates of D.C. statehood say that what has happened here in this episode is the effort has been set back significantly, that essentially what the President has done is he’s given juice to opponents of statehood.  And statehood opponents say that this episode is proving them right, that the D.C. government should not be self-governing without Congress’s involvement.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we don’t dis- — we — we disagree.  Right?  We believe D.C. should be a statehood.  I mean, we’ve been very clear.  The President has been very clear. 

Again, D.C. is not a state.  It’s not a city.  The reason why this bill was coming before the President is because that is the case.  Right?  It’s not a state.  It’s not a city.

So, doesn’t mean that it stops our support for their statehood.  Doesn’t mean that the President has changed his mind on that.  We still support that and want to see that happen.  And we’re going to — we’re going to continue to encourage Congress to move in that way.

Go ahead.

Q    One on — there’s a bank that’s having some issues right now called Silvergate.  I’m wondering if you guys are monitoring that.

On Friday, they shut its crypto-focused payments network, Silvergate Capital.  And they said in a filing last week that they may have to evaluate their viability after a $1 billion loss in the fourth quarter.

Is there anything the administration is doing to monitor that or stepping in — that sort of thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are aware of the situation and monitoring the reports.  Won’t comment on Silvergate specifically.  But it is obviously only the latest company in the cryptocurrency field to experience significant issues. 

In recent weeks, banking regulators have released guidelines on how banks should protect themselves from risks associated with crypto.

As you know, this is a President that has repeatedly called on Congress to take action to protect everyday Americans from the risk posted by digital assets, and he will continue to do so.

So, I won’t speak to this particular company, as we have not on other cryptocurrency companies.  But we’re going to continue monitoring the reports.  And, clearly, we’re aware of the situation.

Q    Thank you.  And can I just ask briefly on the Fed Chair search — the Vice Chair, excuse me, search: Is there any update you can give us?  And, in particular, Senator Warren is a critic of Chairman Powell and has called on the administration to appointed a Vice Chair that is effectively a counterweight to Chairman Powell in decisions on interest rate hikes.  Do you have a view on that?  Are you, in essence, trying to counterweight the chairman in this process?  And where’s the process at right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the President’s process or lay out what — what he’s thinking or how that process is going to move forward.  What I can say is: This is a priority for this President. 

I don’t have anything to preview on any specific candidates or announcements.  But, clearly, we’ll see — we’ll have something in the ne- — near future.

Go ahead.

Q    I wondered, Karine, if you could comment on some efforts in Republican states, like Florida and Texas, where they’re cracking down on undocumented immigrants. 

In the Florida legislature, there’s a proposed bill that looks at requiring private companies to do more to check the immigration status of their employees.  In Texas, there are lawmakers considering a bill that would deny undocumented children access to public education.  Does the White House have any comment on these efforts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I haven’t seen these bills.  What I can say is — and as you know — on the first day of this President’s — the President’s presidency and his tenure — first day of his tenure, he said very, very clearly that he took immigration reform very seriously.  And he showed that by action, by putting forward a piece of legislation that was comprehensive, that dealed with the immigration issue that we have seen in this country for some time in a real way.  And he asked Congress to take action as well.

And so, I can speak to that.  I can speak to how the President wants to move forward in a way that we’re protecting — we’re protecting our border in a secure way, which is why he’s taken actions — whether it’s the parolee program, whether it’s putting 24,000 federal agents on the ground — and making sure that we’re doing this in a safe and humane way. 

And so that’s what I can speak to.  That’s the way the President wants to move forward.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    The Texas bill says that they would deny undocumented children access to public education unless the federal government pays for it.  If this moves forward in Texas, is this something that the administration would consider intervening in?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m just not — I’m not — I’m not going to get a- — I haven’t — not — I haven’t seen that piece of legislation, haven’t talked to our team.  I’m just not going to get ahead of any state, local legislation.

What I can tell you is what the President has put forward and what he has — how he sees this process moving forward on the federal level is be- — coming — coming together with Congress, Congress coming together with us, Republicans actually taking real action and not doing political stunts, because that’s what we see in these states, is continued political stunts and not really dealing with an issue that they can.

If we came in a bipartisan way, we can actually deal with — with the immigration concerns in this country.  But they refuse to do that.

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to follow up on the issue about the four U.S. citizens kidnapped in Mexico.  Has the President be informed?  What was his reaction, if you can share anything about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can tell you the President is aware and has been informed.

Q    And Ambassador Salazar is meeting today with President López Obrador in Mexico.  What — what message does the administration wants to convey, or what is the priority for that meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you know the President went to Mexico most recently for the summit, met with the Mexican President and also the Prime Minister — Prime Minister Trudeau.  And they laid out their commitment to — to work together on issues that matter to — to the region, whether it’s immigration, whether it’s national security. 

And I think that summit sent a very loud message to — to the people of Mexico, to the people of the United States, and also Canada.

As you know, just to take a step further, the President is going to be meeting with the Prime Minister some- — later this month to continue more of that conversation that they had. 

Don’t have anything to preview or to lay out about the meeting that Salazar is having with the President of Mexico.  But we see Mexico as a close ally, an important partnership that we have in the region.  And, clearly, we want to continue it to grow.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Looking ahead to next month, April is the end of continuous enrollment for Medicaid.  How concerned is the White House about these millions of Americans that could lose health insurance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, that is something that is a concern to — to the White House, which is why we have continued to work to make sure that healthcare is affordable for Americans. 

You’ve seen us do that with Inflation Reduction Act.  You’ve seen us do that with other policies coming out of the administration. 

We will — clearly, you’ll see the President’s budget on March 9th that will speak to some of this.  Don’t want to get ahead of what the President is going to — going to lay out in his fiscal year budget.  So I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead, Zolan.

Q    The President has said that his plan on the budget would reduce the deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade.  How did the administration land on that number of $2 trillion?

And then, does that mean that the President does believe the current path of growth in the national debt is hurting the economy?  I’m trying to gauge his concern level around the growth of debt, given that we’ve heard about that $2 trillion number so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I’d say is: The President understands his fiscal responsibility.  He understands how important it is to lower the deficit, which is why he was able to do that the first two years by $2.7 trillion. 

And so, by him saying that he’s going to do that by a trillion dollars over the next 10 years shows — continues to show that commitment.  And so, that is incredibly important. 

And we have said: If Republicans want to have a real conversation about how to lower the debt, then he’s ready to listen.  He’s ready to hear what they have to say. 

That’s why we have said we’re going to put our budget forward on March 9th, and we’re — we’re waiting to see what they’re going to do. 

So far, their proposals have been to add $3 trillion to the debt, as you think about them giving a tax break or giveaways to millionaires and the rich and the wealthy, as — as they talk about wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, ACA.  That’s what they’re bringing forward. 

And we’re saying, “You know what?  We’re going to protect those really important programs.”  And — and we’re going to put forward, he’s going to put forward a fiscal budget that is going to be responsible. 

I’ll say a little bit more about — about this week.  He’ll — as you know, he’s going to deliver remarks in Pennsylvania.  And he’s going to show his plans to invest in America; continue lowering co- — lowering costs for families; protect and strengthen Social Security, Medicare; reduce the deficit; and more — as you just asked that question.

And so, you can expect to hear more from us in the days leading up to Thursday.  We’ll have additional information on some of those pieces as we head into — into Thursday. 

Q    And can you just quickly explain the reasoning for traveling for the budget rollout?  You know, going to Pennsylvania for this — obviously, that’s an important state when it comes to the forthcoming election.  Why — why travel to roll out the budget?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get into elections.  But as you know, the President is — that is — Pennsylvania is very close to his heart.  He sees that as a — as his, I don’t know, second home. 

And — and so, we believe when we go out there and travel and do — and go to places like Pennsylvania and other states, it’s an opportunity for the President to talk directly to the American people. 

This is important — right? — when you think about the fiscal year budget.  You think about how the President is going to lay out his plan for the American people.  He thinks it’s important to do that and make sure that — you know, that he does it — talks directly to — to the people — to the American people out there.  And that’s what you’re going to see him do. 

And so, he’ll just happen to be doing it in Pennsylvania, a place that we traveled to a lot, as you all know — those who — those who travel with us. 

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  I want to ask you about energy policy.  So, if the President had allowed the Keystone Pipeline — the Keystone XL — to go forward, it would have been operating today or very close to being turned on today.  Any regrets about canceling that project, and any consideration of reversing any energy policies for a more balanced approach going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President has been very clear about how he — how he’s approaching the energy space.  You know, he does it in a way that is responsible.  He does it in a way that delivers for the American people. 

There’s nothing new here — the decisions that he’s made.  At the same time, you know, having one of the most mo- — one of the most important, historical climate — when it comes to climate change — investments and policies, that does — that is not going to change on how the President moves forward here. 

It is — when — when he walked into the administration, he talked about how climate change was one of the important crises that we needed to address, and that’s what you’ve seen from this President the last two years.  And that’s not — his decisions are not going to change that. 

Q    But even with the — there was a leaked memo that showed that energy — if we had charged less for certain drilling oil permits or royalties in a part of Alaska, then there would be more energy security. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to speak to leaked — leaked memos from here.  That is not something that I’m going to do.  I believe the leaked memo is from the Department of Interior, that you’re speaking to.  Just not going to do that.  I encourage you to reach out to Department of Interior. 

Q    To the back, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Way in the back.  Way in the back.

Q    Yes, thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the person behind you.

Q    Behind me.  Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.  Someone new.  Someone new, James.  Someone new.

Q    Thank you.  I appreciate that.  Taurean, with Spectrum News, by the way.  Karine, thank you so much. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    One on the note of the budget proposal.  This is happening — he’s unleashing or unveiling this proposal under the shadow of the debt ceiling and, you know, since — February was the last time, according to House Speaker McCarthy, the President sat down with the Speaker to talk about some type of deal. 

McCarthy says he rejects, you know, a clean increase without some concessions or spending cuts.  Is the President going to come back to the table with McCarthy to talk about it? What’s the plan here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He never came to the table to negotiate on the debt ceiling.  That was not something that occurred.  That is not something that’s happening.  We’ve been very clear we’re not negotiating around the debt ceiling. 

This is something that Congress needs to do.  It is their constitutional duty.  It is something that has happened 78 times since 1960.  It is something that happens in a bipartisan way. 

They should not put the full — full faith and credit of this country hostage — should not keep that hostage. 

And so, this is something that we believe that should happen without — without conditions.  And so, that’s how — that’s how we’ve been moving forward.  We’ve been very, very clear about that. 

I just talked to one of your colleagues about the thing that we are happy to talk about — is how to lower the deficit.  We are happy to have — the President would look forward to having a conversation — a real conversation — with House Republicans on how to do that because he has been successful in doing that.  $1.7 trillion the first two years. 

And he’ll — he’ll share more with his budget on March 9th.

Q    Secretary Yellen, though, has been sounding the alarm.  She says we’re about three or four months away from, you know, true disaster here.  Is that not at all concerning that, you know, there can’t be some deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And that should be concerning to House Republicans.  It should be.  Because this is something that has been done, again, multiple times over the last several decades.  And this is something that is their constitutional duty to do — is to lift the debt ceiling. 

And it’s been done in a bipartisan way.  They did it three times — three times under the last administration.

Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Somebody old?  (Laughter.)

Q    Thank you so much.  Oh, wow.  I just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wow, James.

Q    I’m a group of one.  I am just referring to myself.

Q    Well, I’m going to take that, because I think I’m plenty old.  (Laughter.)  I have two questions today.

First of all, the Taiwanese president — how does the White House feel about her proposed visit to the U.S.?  What outcomes do you hope to see from it?  And will any administration officials be meeting with her?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, right now, there is no — there’s no planned travel, so I’m not going to speak to a travel that has not been planned. 

And I — I stated earlier, it is not the — it wouldn’t be the first time that Taiwan — a Taiwanese president has traveled to the U.S., but I’m just not going to speak to a travel that has not been locked in yet. 

Q    Okay.  This old lady has a second question — (laughter) — about the International Women of Courage Awards.  You’re giving an honorary award to the women and girls of Iran.  Who’s going to be accepting that on their behalf?  And what sort of message does it send if they can’t be here, they can’t participate?  You know, what — what is the point of doing this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we think it’s incredibly important to do this.  First of all, one of the reasons that we’re doing it here at the White House is we wanted to bring those stories of these incredible women to — to the White House, to a big — to a bigger stage — right? — to the biggest stage that we could. 

And we’re doing it right here at the White House, which we think is incredibly important for women around the world, but also women here and young girls here, to hear the stories of these incredible individuals.

Girls everywhere need to know that there are women who are fighting for them, transforming their communities, and building a better — a better world for all of us.

And so, we think it’s critical.  We think it’s important.  We think it needs to be seen.  And we are really thrilled to see this on Wednesday. 

Don’t have anything more to share.  We’ll have more to preview in the next day or two.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just to circle back on something you said earlier about D.C., you said D.C. — “It’s not a state, it’s not a city.”  What did you mean by that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Meaning that — what I’m trying to say is we — it’s not a — it’s not a statehood.  It doesn’t have statehood.  Right?  And I’ve said this before; I said it last week.  Nothing new.  I’m not saying anything that’s new here. 

And because it’s not a statehood — right? — the President was — had to make a decision.  This bill was brought — because this bill was about to be — to be taken to his desk.  And that’s the only reason this is happening. 

And so, again, the President is going to continue to support D.C. statehood so that we can see it — we can see it govern for itself.  That’s what he believes.  He believes that cities and states across the country should be able to govern on its own.

Q    And can you just give us — I know this was a decision made last week, but, obviously, it affects hundreds of thousands of people here in the district.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Seven hundred thousand people.  Yeah.

Q    What was the President — was there a policy process around this — this decision?  When did the President know about it?  Did he speak with the mayor himself?  Were there any sort of conversations?  Or, you know, how did he come to this decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a timeline to lay out for you on the process and how it occurred.  I don’t have a conversation to preview for you with the — with the mayor.  As I mentioned before, our offices here — not just the intergovernmental affairs, but other White House offices — are regular — in regular touch with the mayor and her office and her staff.  But just don’t have anything to lay out. 

But, look, the President knew he had to make a decision.  He had conversations with his team, and he made that decision.

Go ahead, in the back.

Q    Following up — following up on that, there’s another D.C. — D.C. Council disapproval resolution that is pending related to non-citizens voting in local elections.  Is there an update on the President’s position, something more definitive on whether he would sign that bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can tell you — and I was asked this last week — the President does not support allowing non-citizens to vote in federal elections.  That — he’s been — we’ve been clear about that from here.

As it relates to that particular vote or that particular bill, I don’t have any updates from here to share — to share with you on that.  And we’ll update you as soon as — if we have anything — if that changes.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about the Willow project in Alaska.  What’s more important to President Biden: improving energy security or reducing fossil fuels?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first of all, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.  Right?  We can try to be — do both.

Q    Well, he said in 2019, “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel.”  So, this project will just be dead, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I can say about that.  The President did meet with the Alaska delegation last week at the White House.  He always appreciates me- — speaking and meeting with the full delegation and understand what their concerns are.  So, I’ll leave it there. 

And when it comes to that specific decision, that’s something that the Secretary of Interior is going to make, so I’m not going to get ahead of where she’s going to be. 

But the President has met with the delegation, and I’m just going to leave it there.

Q    Okay.  And another subject: How worried should Americans be about China spying on them here at home? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And what do you mean specifically, Peter?

Q    Well, there were the Chinese spy balloons, and now there are these Chinese spy cranes — the Wall Street Journal is comparing them to Trojan horses — in use at 80 percent of U.S. ports.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me first say that what the American people could be assured of is that this President is going to protect them and making sure that we put our national security first when it comes to — when it comes to anything that they feel could be — could threaten that.  And so — and the President has shown that.  He’s shown that over and over again.

So, on — on the cranes, don’t have to — don’t have any comment on that specific reporting.  I would refer you to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense who have been tasked with Congress to study this particular issue. 

The National Security Council, in close coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and members of the intelligence committee, have been actively working to address potential cyber vulnerabilities across the marine transportation system.  This includes enhanced coordination across the federal government and engagement with key stakeholders in the maritime industry. 

And just last month, the administration issued a worldwide maritime port vulnerabilities advisory underscoring the potential threats posed by foreign manufacturer of port equipment. 

So, again, this is something that the President takes very seriously.  And we’ll always take action to make sure we protect our national security.

Q    And if this is a Department of Transportation lead, does Secretary Buttigieg have experience with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — it’s — it’s not just —

Q    — Chinese espionage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s not just the Department of Transportation.  It’s also Department of Defense.

Q    Okay.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Has the President had a chance to look at the Parents Bill of Rights bill that’s being proposed by some House Republicans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t speak to what the President has reviewed or not reviewed at this time.

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    So, last week, the Department of Justice acknowledged that in 2020 they’d used — the FBI had used 702 authorities to illegally spy on a member of Congress.  Can you tell us who that member of Congress was?  Has that member of Congress been briefed by the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the Department of Justice.  Just not going to speak to that from here. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the budget that’s coming out later this week, you’ve referred to it as the fiscal year budget, which it is.  It has also been talked about in the last couple of months as it relates to the debt ceiling.  And we’ve heard the President in the recent months as well talk about the need to “finish the job.”  He talked about it at the State of the Union, mentioned that phrase today. 

Should we view that budget that’s coming out — I know you won’t get into specifics, but in terms of this fiscal year document, in terms of needing to take on the debt ceiling, or in terms of something much bigger than that — a job that the President wants to finish in the upcoming two, maybe six, years?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So when he talks about finishing the job, he talks about looking at the first two years of his administration and what he’s been able to accomplish.  You hear the President speak to how he has built an economy or wants to continue to build an economy from the bottom up, middle out.

You think about the pieces of — the historic pieces of legislation that he’s been able to get done.  We were talking about — someone just asked me about the manufacturing jobs.  Almost 800 manufacturing jobs have been created under this President.  That’s because of his — his policies. 

You think about the Inflation Reduction Act, which lowers costs on healthcare, lowers costs on energy.  It’s going to change many people’s lives.  If you think about insulin and capping that at $35 for our seniors.  All of those things are incredibly important, and he wants to build on that. 

But then if you move forward and you fast-forward and you look at just November and what happened in — during the midterms, the American people were very clear.  They want us to come together and continue to deliver for them.  They want us to continue to fight for their freedoms.  They want us to continue to make sure that we lower costs. 

And so, that’s what the President is talking about.  He wants to — he’s asking and saying to Congress, “Come work with us, Republicans.  Why don’t we come together and work in a bipartisan way so we can finish the job?” 

And that was the message that the President said in front of Congress at the State of the Union to finish what he started.  That has been historical, and that is going to be transformational for — for families across the country.

Q    And secondly, a month ago, on February 6th, I had asked you about TikTok, whether it was a national security risk.  And you had noted that there was an ongoing CFIUS review at the time. 

Just last week, there was a conversation about this as well.  And you said that it is a, quote — or you talked about the, quote, “potential national security risk.”

So, is CFIUS — just, if you could clarify: Does the White House believe that TikTok is a potential national security risk, or is that what CFIUS, when that process works itself through, will determine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, there’s a CFIUS investigation, so we try not to dive in too much because there is a CFIUS process that’s going — going — that’s ongoing, and we want to let that process go forward.

But we have been very clear on our concerns like — with apps like TikTok.  I’ve said that before.  You’ve heard us say that from here.

We know certain countries, including China, seek to leverage digital — digital technologies and Americans’ data in ways that can present national security risks.  And so that has — that has been our statement.  That is what we have said for the past several months.

But, again, it’s under — it’s under CFIUS’s — the committee is moving forward on looking into this.  So we try not to get too far ahead of that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you so much.  On the budget, just following up on Zolan’s question.  By traveling to Philly, the President is obviously making a big thing out of his budget, but we know that many Americans find it difficult to really understand what he’s doing with the economy.  It’s not very concrete.  And a budget is, as you said, like big figures — trillions, billions — and not — maybe not relatable.  So what’s his strategy to make it a little more real for, you know, the American people?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get ahead of what the President’s going to say.  He’s going to give remarks.  He’ll lay that out in front of the American people on how he sees the fiscal year moving forward, how he sees the budget for the American people.  And he’s going to be transparent.  He’s going to lay that out and be very specific. 

We’ve talked about how he wants to invest in America.  Right?  He talks about how he’s going to fight for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA.  Those are things that Americans understand very personally, especially if you think about these programs that they pay into. 

And so that is going to be very important for him to lay that out.  But it’s not just that.  The President is going to be fiscally responsible.  You all will see this.  He’ll commute direct- — communicate that directly with the American people. 

But we want to see what are the House Republicans going to do.  And we’ve been very clear about that.  Because what they want to do is the complete opposite of what the President is trying to do.

We want to fight for programs that’s important to taxpayers, important to our seniors, important to veterans.  And they want to take that away.  Think about Social Security, again, Medicare.

And so you’ll hear directly from the American people, but — from the President.  But in the last couple of weeks and the last several months, the President has laid that out.  You heard it at the State of the Union.  He’s been very clear on what he believes in, on how he sees the economy growing, and how he’s going to continue to fight for Americans.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On student loans, the President said last week that he’s not confident that the Supreme Court will decide to clear his plan.  So I’m checking if you have an update on what the alternative is if his student loan plan is struck down.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re co- — he’s also said we’re confident in our legal authority.  And I think that matters.  And, of course, we’re not going to know where the Supreme Court is going to ultimately decide on what direction they’re going to go. 

But what you saw from the SG last week was a very strong defense of the President’s plan.  And right now, the plan that we have before the Supreme Court is the plan that we have for the American people.  And we believe that, again, we have the legal authority that the other side does not.  It doesn’t — it does not have the standing or the merit to really move forward with what they’re trying to do.

And it is unfortunate.  It is unfortunate that you have certain elected officials across the country that are trying to prevent nurses and doctors and teachers from getting this type of benefit. 

We’re talking about 90 percent of Americans who are going to — who are part of this program, that are considered for this program, make less than $75,000 a year.  Ninety — 90 percent. 

And so it’s going to give — it’s going to give that extra breathing room, as you hear the President speak to.  And we think it’s very important.  And the President is going to continue to fight, just like you saw the Solicitor General do last week.

All right.  Wow.  Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about a bill that passed the Senate last week on declassifying the origins of COVID-19.  The bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.  What’s the President’s position on it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just — I was just talking to my colleagues about that.  I need to connect with the National Security Council to speak more on that.  But, yes, that just was flagged for me coming out — before I came out.

Go ahead, Brian.

Q    Thank you very much, Karine.  King Charles is going to go through a coronation ceremony on May 6th.  Foreign countries and foreign governments have been notified about that.  Will the President attend?  Will President Biden attend King Charles’s coronation ceremony?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to — we don’t have anything to — to announce at this time about travel to the UK or a delegation at this time, as well.  But I can say that the United States will be represented at King Charles’s coronation.  And I expect that we’ll have more information to share on that soon.

Q    And if the President doesn’t attend, should it be seen as a snub to the monarchy or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not at all.

Q    — a snub to King Charles?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not at all.

Q    Why not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s going to be present- — U.S. presentation.  Just don’t have anything to share at this time. 

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, thanks.  There was a report last week about how Ford’s F-150 Lightning — their electric EV truck — is contributing to high pollution and deforestation in the Amazon.  Does President Biden regret endorsing that truck back in 2021?  And has anyone talked to Ford about how they should source aluminum for the frame from a different mine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, does — do not regret that and don’t have any conversation to read out at this time.

Q    Okay.  And then, just real quick —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I know you’re probably going to say Hatch Act is restricting you in this, but is the President annoyed, frustrated with Marianne Williamson for jumping in the race ahead of him?  Did he want to clear field to run against the Republican nominee in 2024?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just not tracking that.  I mean, if I had a — what is it called? — a little — a little globe here —

Q    Crystal ball.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — a crystal ball that I can tell you.  But I — I —

Q    A Magic 8 Ball.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A Magic 8 Ball, whatever.  (Laughter.)  If I could feel her aura.  I just — (laughter) — I just don’t have anything.  I just don’t have anything to share on that.

(Laughs.)  Gosh, you guys are making me laugh now.  (Laughter.)

Okay.  In the back, with the — the mask.

Q    Thank you.  With regard to the budget, do you know — can you speak to if there’s been any — any argument against pursuing renewed COVID — renewed COVID funding within the President’s budget?  And if so, what (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s budget at this time.  You’ll hear directly from him on Thursday.  I mentioned how there — we’ll have some parts of his budget that we’ll kind of lay out for all of you ahead of Thursday.  I’m just not going to get ahead of the President at this time.

Q    Oh, Karine, I’m here.

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

Q    I wanted to ask you about the protests over the weekend near Atlanta.  Dozens of people were arrested protesting the so-called Cop City.  Is the President aware of this?  And is the White House worried about this escalating?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — say that again.  What was the protest?
Q    The protest was — it’s a facility, a training facility that’s being constructed for police officers.  It’s called Cop City.  It’s near a Black residential area.

The protesters are concerned that this is going to lead to escalation of police militarization.  There have been 23 that have been charged with domestic terrorism, but there were 35 people arrested.  So the concern is, is the Wh- — is the President aware of this?  Is the White House concerned about this escalating?

And then, I also had a follow-up.  The Georgia attorney general has said that some of the people that have been arrested were from outside of the United States — from Canada, from France, from an international group — that were here just to undermine American public safety. 

So is the White House tracking this?  And how worried is the White House about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, we have not been — I’ve not heard any discussions about this protest over the weekend, so I would have to go back to the team and see where we are, where we’re standing, and — and our response on that.  Just — this is the first time I’m hearing on — about this protest over the weekend.  So I just would have to come back to you on that.

All right, Steven.

Q    Okay, thank you, Karine.  A Saudi Arabia human rights question for you first, and then I’d like to ask you about Russia sanctions.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, there’s a 72-year-old U.S. citizen named Saad Almadi who is in prison for a series of tweets he wrote when he was in Florida.  He was given a 16-year sentence in October, and you commented on the case then.  The Saudi appeal system decided to review the case and last month decided he needed an extra three years in prison, despite the White House condemning the sent- — the original sentence.

His son told me it was “a middle finger to President Biden” and that he wants his father to be declared wrongfully detained. 

There’s been some bipartisan reaction to this.  Congresswoman Ilhan Omar told me that it’s, quote, “atrocious and unbecoming for the Biden administration not to declare him wrongfully detained.” 

So, does President Biden have a reaction to the new sentence?  And is there reaction to (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have been in — monitoring the case of Mr. Saad Ibrahim Almadi.  As you know — I think I’ve mentioned this before; not just myself, but my National Security Council colleagues as well — since we learned of his arrest and have been in regular contact with his family, we have brought up and raised our concerns regarding this case at senior levels at the Saudi government. 

So, that is something that we’ve been very vocal about and brought up, again, to government officials.  And exercising our belief, exercising the freedom of expression, including through social media, should never be criminalized. 

I’m not going to get into the process here in — and how we move forward.  That’s something that the State Department, as it relates to these types of issues —

But we’ve made ourselves very clear, and we made ourselves clear as well to the Saudi government.

Q    So it’s — it is fair to say President Biden is upset about the new sentence?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that we have raised our concerns.  And I’ve spoken to — spoken to this particular individual a couple of times from this podium.

Q    Thank you.  And regarding Russia’s sanctions, I’m wondering if you could share the reason why President Biden hasn’t sanctioned the Russian billionaires Vladimir Yevtushenkov and Yelena Baturina.  How — how is he handling the conflict of interest there, given his son was a business associate of these two people?  And can you confirm that, as sitting Vice President, he dined with Baturina in Georgetown? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not speaking to anything that’s related to his son from here.  If you want to have — if you want to ask a question about Hunter Biden specifically, I would refer you to his family. 

And as it relates to any sanctions, I’m not speaking to individual — individual persons that are from Russia. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I want to ask you about COVID origins.  I understand the administration is trying to get to the bottom of this.  I just want to ask you if the final conclusion might look like.  Is it going to be — look like each institution that is looking into and investigating come up with their own conclusions?  Or will the administration will have one final
perspective on the origins?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, the intelligence community is looking into this.  This is something that the President has asked since the — since a few months into his administration.  And so, they’re redoubling down their efforts.  They’re looking into the origins of COVID. 

Clearly, it’s important.  We believe, he believes it’s important to get to the bottom of this, especially as we look ahead to the future and trying to prevent any future pandemics.

I’m just not going to get ahead of the intelligence community.  They’re working through this.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    Okay.  Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you tomorrow.

Q    Thank you. 

2:42 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:09 P.M. EST  

(Reporters laughing.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Why are you guys happy?

Q    Because it’s all ladies in the front row!

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The ladies in the front row!

Q    And it’s Friday.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my gosh.  So, then I’ll just start in the back, then.  (Laughter.)

Q    Nooo —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the guys — (laughs) — (points to back row.)

Well, Happy Friday.  And, yes, it is an all-ladies crew in the front row.  I wonder if there’s history-making here today.

All right.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Happy Friday.  I’m not sure what’s going on with Andrea here.  You got it?  You’re good?

(Video on cellphone plays.)

Q    Somebody has got audio.

Q    I’m so sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, it’s Andrea.  She’s trying.  She’s trying, folks.

I don’t see you very often.  And when I do, you cause a ruckus.  (Laughter.) 

Okay.  So, today, President Biden awarded the Medal of Honor to a true hero of our nation, Colonel Paris Davis, for the gallantry he displayed at great personal risk that went above and beyond the call of duty during combat operations in Vietnam. 

You all heard President Biden tell Colonel Davis’s story in powerful remarks, but I just want to say that Colonel Davis represents the best of America.  Despite being wounded while leading his men in combat, he refused to leave the battlefield until all the members of his team were evacuated. 

His bravery and devotion to our country during this battle has been recognized before in the form of a Silver Star and a Purple Heart.  But until today, he never received the recognition for his extraordinary acts — and well-deserved recognition, obviously — which is a Medal of Honor. 

We are proud to welcome Colonel Davis to the White House today as a Medal of Honor recipient.

Today, the Biden-Harris administration is announcing its 33rd security assistance package for Ukraine using presidential drawdown authorities as we continue to surge weapons and equipment that Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian aggression. 

This package includes more ammunition for U.S.-provided HIMARS and howitzers that Ukraine is using so effectively to defend itself, as well as ammunition for Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, armored vehicle-launched bridges, and demolition mu- — munitions and equipment.

The United States will continue to rally the world to support Ukraine.  We have seen incredible commitment from our allies and partners, and applaud the more than 50 countries, including Germany — as you all know, Germany’s Chancellor will be here at the White House momentarily — and that have come together to provide Ukraine with military assistance.  These contributions are making a significant difference, enabling Ukraine to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Russia alone could end this war today if they wished.  They could end this war today.  Until they are willing to do so, we will continue to strengthen Ukrainians’ military on the battlefield so that they will be in the strongest possible position at any future negotiation at the table. 
 
Now, before we go to questions, I have a little bit of the week ahead, and I’ll lay that out for you.

On Sunday, March 5th, the President will travel to Selma, Alabama, where he will commemorate the 58th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.  The President will deliver remarks at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and participate in the annual commemorative bridge-crossing event.

In his remarks, President Biden will talk about the importance of commemorating Bloody Sunday so that history cannot be erased.  He will highlight how the continued fight for voting rights is integ- — integral to delivering economic justice and civil rights for Black Americans. 

In the evening, the President will return to the White House.
 
On Monday, the President will headline the 2023 International Association of Fire Fighters Legislative Conference.
  
On Thursday, the President will release his budget.  The budget will show how the President plans to invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, reduce the deficit, and so much more.  We will have, of course, more details to share with all of you next week.

On Friday, the President will welcome President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission to the White House.    The leaders will review the strong cooperation between the United States and the European Union to support Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and democracy, and to impose costs on Russia as — for its aggression against Ukraine.

 They will also discuss U.S.-EU coordination to combat the climate crisis through investing in clean technology based on secure supply chains.

The leaders — the leaders will take — will take stock of the joint Task Force on Europe’s Energy Security that they established one year ago, which has helped the EU reduce its independence — or dependence, pardon me, on Russian fossil fuels and accelerate its green transition.

They will also discuss other international security challenges, including our work together to address the challenges posed by the People’s Republic of Russia [China].

With that, Colleen, good to see you.  It’s been a while.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You have the floor.

Q    Karine, it is your 100th press briefing today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my gosh.

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sure you’re thrilled.

Q    Congratulations.  (Laughs.)  How — how do you feel about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, my gosh.  All right.  Well, cheers.

Q    Cheers.

So, moving right along, I wanted to ask about the D.C. crime — criminal code.  Again, we’re — we’ve been hearing that some of the House Democrats feel like they got thrown under the bus a little bit by the President’s decision not to step in on the effort to stop the overhaul — which is a lot of negatives, I understand, but I think you know where I’m going. 

So, I wanted to know, you know: Did the President give them a heads-up on the decision?  Was there any sort of back-and-forth about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, let me just say that the White House notified the — notified the members at the House retreat, as you know, back — that was earlier this week — or is still happening — in Baltimore.  So that’s number one.

Number two, I do want to lay out that the President and the administration has a very close relationship with House Democrats and Senate Democrats as well. 

We have worked together.  The President has worked very well with the members on delivering bold, historic pieces of legislation in his first two years of his administration and is very proud of the relationship that he has with them.  And our teams are constantly in communication with them. 

And so, I’ll leave that there.  This is a very strong, important relationship for all of us here, including the President. 

I also want to state that, look, the President supports D.C. statehood.  That is something that you saw in his SAP for this particular D.C. crime bill.  And if Congress sends him a bill making D.C. a state, he’ll always, always be sure to sign it, because he’s been talk- — he’s been talking about that for the last two decades. 

But, you know, vetoing the bill headed to this — his desk now won’t make — make D.C. a state.  And so, those are the things that the President is really — has been very clear about when it comes to D.C. and their statehood. 

And so, I’ll leave it there.  But as it relates to the House, as it relates to Senate Democrats, it is a very important relationship to — for us and, clearly, very important. 

And with the Senate Democratic Caucus, as you know, when he met with them yesterday, he provided what he was going to do and made it very clear to them, and they had that discussion. 

Q    I just also want to ask — so, you know, Biden and the Democrats have talked a lot about the need to stem, you know, rising crime, but also the need to reform a criminal justice system that still disproportionately affects, you know, Black Americans. 

So why not engage in some sort of compromise or why not let the D.C. bill — because, you know, the mayor vetoed the criminal code but she also proposed some changes that she thought would have made the system, sort of, better on the whole. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just want to be very clear here.  And if you look at the D.C. bill itself — and I know that there was a little bit of — I was asked a couple of questions of what else does it do besides armed carjacking.  And I don’t normally go line by line on — on legislation, especially legislation that we haven’t introduced.  But I did talk to the team, and we have a couple of things that I just want to lay out for all of you and — on what the D.C. bill does.

It reduces maximum penalties for offenses like murders and other homicides; armed — armed home invasion burglaries; armed — armed carjackings, as I mentioned; armed robberies; unlawful gun possession; and some sexual assault offenses. 

And so, look, the President has been very clear we need to do more to reduce crime, to make communities safer, to save lives.  And that’s why he put together — he put forth his Safer America Plan that does just that — that we believe does exactly that.

So, the way that we see this bill, it doesn’t actually reform policing practices.  That’s not something that it does — reform like the ones the President has put forward at the federal level — you know, about the executive order.  When it couldn’t be done on the Senate side, making — doing — moving forward with police reform, the President put forth a historic piece — piece of — an executive order to get — to try to do what we can at the federal level. 

And so, we believe that this bill does not actually do that. 

Q    Question on the meeting today with the German Chancellor.  Not long ago, both Chancellor Scholz, along with President Macron, reportedly told Zelenskyy that he would, you know, soon have to make difficult decisions urging the start of peace negotiations.

Does the President see that as a sign that the united front that he has worked so hard to maintain, you know, may be not that united that much longer?  And how much does he see today’s sit-down as a chance to just urge Scholz to stay the course and stick with this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President is looking forward to — for a productive meeting with the German Chancellor.  They first met — I don’t know if some of you have been tracking this — but they first met when he became German Chancellor early last year — I believe, on February 7th — soon after he, clearly, took office.  And they met here at the White House. 

And over the past — the past several years, they’ve seen each other at the margins of the G7, at the summit in Germany; at NATO; at the G20 Summit; and have talked by phone regularly. 

And so this is a — clearly, a relationship that has been — that has been growing over the last year.  And so, you know, what we’re seeing, what he’s — how we see this meeting is a bilateral cooperation to talk about a range of issues, global security, economic issues.  And at the forefront of the — of this meeting that they’re going to have — this bilat that they’ll pretty soon, it will be on Ukraine.  And that coordination is going to continue. 

You saw the President in Warsaw.  You saw him in Kyiv.  You saw him having a bilat with the B9 and — well, a meeting with the B9, a bilat with the President of Poland. 

And all of those — all of the actions and the meetings that the President has had over the last just several months is showing, I think, the strength — the strength of — of the union, the stren- — the strength of the EU, the strength of their — what you’re seeing with the NATO Allies and Europe and the West.  And so I think that’s going to continue.  We believe that’s going to continue. 

Remember, when — when Russia, when Putin first started out on this war, he thought that NATO would be divided.  He thought that the West would be divided.  And we just have not seen that.  If anything, we’re seeing more coordination and more support for the people of Ukraine, for President Zelenskyy, and the efforts that they’re doing on the ground to defend their democracy.

Q    But you are seeing signs that their approach may start — is starting to look a little bit different, right?  You say over and over again here, the President says, you know, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”  And yet, you do see some allies saying, you know, “It is time to get — to get to the — to the negotiating table.”  They’re concerned that they’ll be able to do this for as long as it takes, as the President says.  So does that not spark concern and worry amongst the President, around —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But — but, look, Mary, we want this war to end.  We do.  We want this war to end.  But it doesn’t look like Russia is going to do that, right?  And it is up to — they could.  They could end this this war today, but they’re not. 

And so what we’re going to continue to do is support Ukraine the best way that we can.  We just announced, I just laid out a PDA, our 33rd drawdown since this war started.  And we’re going to continue to do that, continue to give them the support that they need on the ground. 

And, look, you’ve heard President Zelenskyy talk about peace and wanting — wanting to move forward with peace.  But at the same time, we have to make sure we strengthen their hand, when those negotiations happen, that they are in a place of strength.  And so that’s what you’re seeing from — from this President.  That’s what you’re seeing from the allies across the globe. 

And you’re going to see the President meeting with the German Chancellor today.  We’re going to continue to show that — that supportive front, that coordination.  They’re going to have that discussion.  And you saw that last week when the President was — was in Eastern Europe. 

Q    I guess, just — it’s a sort of a housekeeping matter, but has the President had a chance yet or does he plan to speak with former President Carter or members of his family, given that I don’t think they’ve spoken yet since the news of his hospice care?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, there’s — I don’t have a call to preview or to announce.  As you know, and I’ve said this many times before and I think you — many of you have reported this, that they’ve known each other since 1976.  It’s a — it’s a relationship that has spanned many — many decades. 

The President, certainly, and the First Lady — their hearts are — are with the — are with President Carter and his family. 

I don’t — I just don’t have a conversation to preview at this time. 

Q    But given the importance of that relationship, is it something — you know, it seems odd that it hasn’t happened yet, I guess.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I mean, look, we — you know, the President, when it’s time — when it’s time and appropriate, certainly that conversation will happen. 

I just don’t have anything at this time to preview.

Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    So, an EU official just said that the two sides are working toward an agreement in principle on a very limited agreement that would create a free trade-like status for the EU that would put it on par roughly with Canada and Mexico, in terms of the IRA.  Can you say anything more about your hopes for reaching some kind of a deal — at least on a very high level — when von der Leyen arrives next week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I don’t want to get in — ahead of — of that meeting.  Clearly, that’s going to be another important bilateral meeting, focusing on the coordination, of course, on Ukraine and other important security issues and economic issues, as you just laid out, that both sides care about — right? — the American [European] Union and, clearly, the United States.

As it relates to the IRA investments, the clean energy future will be invented and built and made in America.  That’s how we see the IRA’s investment.  The President will never back down from putting American jobs and American leadership at the heart of his strategy.  Taxpayer dollars should go to support American jobs and American innovation. 

But the IRA’s benefits expand beyond the U.S.  Our investment will help drive down costs for clean energy, which will help other nations as well.  That’s how we see this important law that the President clearly fought tooth and nail for.  And it’s going to go further and faster in building their own clean energy economies.

I’m not going to, again, get ahead of a meeting that’s going to happen next week.  But the President — and we have been very clear on how important we feel the Inflation Reduction Act is. 

And, again, we’re always going to make sure that we support American — American jobs and, clearly, American tax dollars.

Q    But I think the question is: How important is it to you to remove this irritant in the relationship at a time when you’re looking at a protracted war in Ukraine, potentially China delivering lethal aid?  I mean, is it important to shore up the alliance and, at this point, remove irritants like this trade issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the — clearly, the relationship is important to this President.  You have seen him, across two years, rebuild our relationship with our allies, something that was almost decimated in the last administration. 

We have a President who understands the importance of those types of foreign leadership relationships, who had them for many years before becoming President. 

And so, of course, we want to make sure there’s a good working relationship.  And we’re — you’re going to see — you’re going to see him continue to do that. 

Again, I don’t want to get ahead of what the agenda is going to be or what’s going to be discussed with the — with the EU next week. 

But what I can say: It’s an important conversation that will conti- — that they will have.  It’ll focus on, clearly, Ukraine, that continued coordination and support for the Ukrainian people, as they are bravely fighting for their democracy.

Q    And then, just one on the domestic front, on the budget.  To what extent are you expecting the care economy and all those proposals that got, you know, removed from the previous pieces of legislation to come back?  Will we see those items come back in one by one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s budget.  It’s going to be released next Thursday, March 9th. 

But clearly, the President remains committed to — to fighting for paid leave and childcare policies.  That is something, clearly, he fought very hard for it in the beginning of the year, as we were trying to move forward with that piece of legislation. 

And so — and we believe fighting for what I just mentioned — paid leave and childcare — is going to help grow the economy, is going to help give American families and Americans across the country a little bit of a breathing room. 

But, again, I’m just not going to get ahead of the President’s — of the President’s budget that will be out next week. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just following up on Colleen’s question on the D.C. crime bill.  The House Democrats who are expressing anger and frustration, they are in part saying that they wish they had known sooner what the President’s position would be.  As you know, a whole bunch of House Democrats already voted against the bill.  Why didn’t the White House make this position clear before that vote had taken place in the House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, when we put out the SAP — I think it was around the State of the Union; I think that’s when the SAP came out — we were very clear on where — in what — where the President was, which is making sure that he continues his commitment to D.C. statehood.  And that’s what you saw in that SAP, in that support for D.C. statehood. 

And at the time, you know, many times — many of — even earlier this week, many of you were asking me — I think your colleague was asking me which direction the President was going to go.  And he never made that clear in that SAP. 

And I think as it was becoming — we always let — we always let the process in Congress go through — right? — whatever mechanism they take, however it moves forward.  So we never — we’re always very clear and careful about that. 

But as it now looks like it was going to come to his desk, we wanted to communicate where we were going to go.  We wanted to communicate how the President was going to move forward with — with this particular bill. 

And we did.  And we — we laid that out. 

He — we’re explaining that now — why he — he is moving forward in that way. 

And the White House and congressional Dem- — Democrats, as we have known, have come together on many different things to deliver for the American people, and the President wants to continue to do so. 

Q    But I guess, you know, the President supports D.C. statehood; he’s been clear about that.  But he’s not going to veto this bill from Congress, which does amount to Congress sort of meddling in D.C. own governance.  Right? 

So how do you square that circle?  Both things can’t be true.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, we believe both things can be true.  Look, right now, D.C. is not a state. 

This is coming to the President.  Right?  This is something that’s coming to his desk, and he has to take action. 

I just laid out, a moment ago, to Colleen why we felt that this bill doesn’t actually deal with police reform.  This President has been someone, for many years, many decades, who has always put the safety of American, American families, certainly across the country, first.  That’s why he put together his Safer America Plan that lays out 100,000 cops in communities to work with communities, to make sure that communities feel safe. 

The COPS — the COPS plan, that is something that the President started as senator.  It’s something — it’s actually a policy that Republicans want to not fund and take that away — take away — away an option to make communities safe. 

So this is something that the President cares about very strongly.  And the way that we see it is that this is coming to the President’s desk.  This is not a legislation that he put forward.  D.C. is not yet a state, even though he supports D.C. statehood.  And he had to make a decision. 

And, look, again, we let the process move forward in Congress, and we felt this was the time to make that decision.

Q    And I just had a quick follow-up on East Palestine.  Senator Manchin said this week that the President visiting there would give confidence to the residents. 

Obviously, I know you guys haven’t announced anything — no plans right now for him to go there — but do you think it could make a difference for the President to go, even if all that accomplished was to give some sort of reassurance to many of the residents there who are still very worried and upset about what happened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I believe you heard from the President just yesterday, who said that he is — he’s planning to go there at some point.  What he’s going to do is he — we’re going to — when that happens, he’s going to — we’re going to coordinate with state and local officials to make that trip occur. 

Look, what the President has been focused on is making sure that we make the community, the people of East Palestine whole again, to make sure that they get what they need to feel safe, to make sure that they feel like their community is healthy again. 

That’s why the air — that’s why we made sure that the air is safe, right?  That’s why we made sure the water is safe. 

But he understands how the community feels about what happened and what occurred in their — in — you know, in their community these past couple of weeks. 

That’s why HHS, FEMA — FEMA, DOT, EPA have been on the ground, and it’s been a multi-agency effort to make sure that they get what they need, to make sure that they have that safe air, that safe water, as I just mentioned. 

And the last part of that is we’re going to make sure that Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] is — is held to account for the mess that they created.  And that’s what you’re seeing.  You’re — you’ve seen the EPA Administrator; he was just there for a third time. 

And so, the President is committed.  He’s keeping abreast — or updated on a daily basis on what’s going on on the ground.  He’s talked to the governor of Ohio, he’s spoken to the governor of Pennsylvania, the senators multiple times to make sure that they are getting everything that they need from the federal government.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You mentioned the SAP that the administration put out on February 6th.  But it’s not a broad statement about D.C. statehood.  It specifically says that the administration opposes the resolution that would dismantle the crime bill.  So when was this policy reversed?  And why weren’t House Democrats notified about the reversal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, from — I’ll say this: There was never a change of heart on where we were with — with the SAP. 

The SAP, the way that it’s laid out, speaks to the President supporting D.C. statehood.  That is what — that is where we were.  That’s what we were at the time.  Wanted to make sure that we, again, lifted up where the President has been for the past decades, making sure that D.C. — you know, fighting for D.C. to become a state. 

And we actually say in the SAP that if — you know, if — you know, if Congress wants to move forward in that way, we should pass H.R. 51, make D.C. the 51 state.

And so, we never laid out where we — where the President was going to — was going to go once that — once it came to his desk because we wanted to allow Congress to move forward in a way that they normally do with a mechanism — when a — when a piece of legislation moves forward. 

And so, we never said anything at this time.  Now we’re communicating very clearly.  Now that we know that this legislation is going to be in the President’s — at the President’s desk, we’re making very clear and communicating that — where the President is on this — on this legislation.

Q    But do you — wait, I’m sorry.  It specifically says the word “opposes.”  So is it that the administration wasn’t aware of the content, the specifics of the crime bill, and now you are aware and the President says he doesn’t support some of the changes that the D.C. Council put forward? 

Because when you released the SAP, I’m assuming, maybe incorrectly, that you were very aware of what the Council was proposing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We were aware what the Council proposed — were proposing.  What we’re saying was that we wanted to make sure that we continued the President’s — the President’s continued push for — for statehood.  And that’s what we did.  That’s what we did in the SAP.  And that was what was the most important thing that we believed.

There was no veto threat in the SAP.  There really wasn’t.  We may have — it may have been — I just read it while you were asking me.  We didn’t oppo- — we opposed it, but there was no veto threat. 

So I want to be really clear about it.  It stated our support for D.C. statehood, but it did not indicate what the President would do should the bill come to his desk.  It did not say that.  It did not lay that out. 

Now we’re communicating that very clearly.  We communicated with the House Democrats days ago, when they were in Baltimore.  And — and again, I said this — I said this to MJ.  I remember many of you asking where we were going to go.  And I said we don’t have any — we don’t have a decision yet, we don’t have anything to share on this — on where the President is going to be with this particular bill.  And now we are, because we know that it’s going to come to his desk.

Q    There must be some state laws that the President also disagrees with that have to do with crime.  And he obviously doesn’t have the power to do anything about that.  I’m trying to square his decision to use his power to do something in D.C. while he’s also saying, you know, the federal government shouldn’t — should allow them to be their own state.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because D.C. is not a state. 

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this bill —

Q    — he can, and therefore he should?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  D.C. is not a state.  So therefore, the bill is coming to his desk, so he has to make a decision.  It’s as simple as that, Weijia.  Right?  Because D.C. is not a state. 

Now, he wants D.C. to become a state.  We’ve been very clear about that.  He has said that for decades that he believes in D.C. statehood.  But it’s not a — it’s not. 

And so, therefore, because D.C. is not a state, when bills like this come — occur, it goes to the President.  And he has to make a decision.  And that’s where we are.  It’s as simple as that. 

Now, if D.C. becomes a state, yes, the President believes that it should be governing — a city should be governing on its own.  That’s what he believes. 

Q    But until then, they shouldn’t. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But D- — Weijia, D.C. is not a state.

Q    Right.  But, I mean, he has the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    He has the — I’m asking because he does have an option to veto.  That is one action he could take. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.  But, again, this is a President that believes in keeping communities safe.  He believes in keeping the 700,000 residents in D.C. safe.  And so, he’s taking that action because it’s coming to him. 

We didn’t put this legislation toge- — forth.  This is not our legislation.  This is a legislation that is coming before the President of the United States because D.C. is not a state.  It’s just not. 

So, he has to make a decision, so he’s going to make a decision that will — that will help the residents of D.C., that will deliver for the residents of D.C.  And it’s as simple as that.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    I’m seeing two, perhaps, parallels here in the discussion about the SAP, which is the statement of administration policy.  Isn’t it really boiling down to: There was one train here that was saying that the administration opposed this, and then, really, when the recognition takes place, this would make the President look anti-“tough on crime,” that the wheels stopped, and now you have a new position?  Isn’t that really what happened here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you what happened is that there was no change of heart.  Yes, in the — in the language — I just read it as — read it again, as Weijia was talking — was asking her question — there was the word “opposed,” but we never indicated — which is not unusual; it is not unusual for a SAP — in the SAP for the President to not indicate if he will veto or if he will sign.  It is not unusual to do that. 

Now that we know that it’s going to come to his desk, we’re communicating that very clearly.  The President communicated that with all of you yesterday.  And so, now we have made a decision on where we’re going to go with this particular piece of legislation.

Q    In — in a bigger sense, because, you know, those of us who cover this read these things all the time.  The general public may not even know what we’re talking about here. 

But it seems like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m pretty sure they are not.  (Laughs.)

Q    Yes.  So, there — but there was a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m pretty sure this is —

Q    — there was a bureaucratic push in one direction on this.  And then, when it reached a certain point — and crime is a big issue in America in certain cities.  We saw it reflected in the election in Chicago.  We know it’s a concern.  It’s been a concern in the city that many of us live in here.  And then, boom, the President has to make a decision, and he’s going a different direction than the administration setup.  Isn’t it really just that simple?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t say it’s that simple.  First of all, let me just step back for a second.  This is — when you look at crime and the rise of crime over the last couple of years, this is something that the President inherited and he took action — right? — with the Safer America Plan and making sure that he did everything that he can, using the tools that he has in federal government, to put forth a plan that will keep communities safe. 

I talked about the 100,000 cops, to put them in communities, working with communities to make sure communities feel safe.  And that’s not just that.  There’s the COPS program, right?  And we’re going to see, from the President’s budget, how his commitment to that — his commitment to cops.

What we are seeing is we saw D.C. Council put forth a piece of — a piece of legislation.  They’re not a state.  They went through their processes, right?  They went through their mechanics.  It ends — it ended up in Congress.  We put out a SAP saying: Yes, we oppose it, but also we support D.C. statehood.  That’s what it says in our SAP.

But we never indicated from that where the President was going to go, because we were also letting that process play out in Congress. 

Now that we know that it’s coming to the desk of the President, the President — we’re communicating where the President stands on this piece of the D.C. crime bill, this piece of legislation.

Q    The other sharp turn, quickly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    On East Palestine: Not going to go.  Not visiting.  No plans to visit. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not at this — not at this time, as you —

Q    Okay.  But the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — heard from the President.

Q    — himself says, “Okay, I’m going to go there at some point.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  At some point. 

Q    Okay. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep.

Q    So there’s a political, critical mass that has been building, and it would appear that this is one of those national events where people will not be satisfied until the President himself goes there, even if you have all of your important Cabinet-level officials go. 

So it also appears as if, “Not going to go.  Not going to go.  Okay, now we’re going to go.” 

So what are the factors that will be required for the President to go?  Is it a specific deliverable that he can bring?  Is it a specific invitation from local officials?  Is it a certain kind of window where he will feel comfortable to go?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, he already got a — an invitation from the governor.  I think you heard the governor said he’s welcome to come to Ohio.  He’s been to Ohio many times before during his administration.  So, it’s not unusual for him to go there. 

Look, I don’t have anything to preview.  The President was asked a question.  He answered it very honestly. 

And once we have more to share as to if there is a trip ahead, you know, we’re going to coordinate — it would be coordinated with the state and official — officials on the ground.  And we’ll certainly lay out what that current —

Q    But you see the change?  I mean, the President himself said, “No, I have no plans to go.”  And then yesterday said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    — he’ll go “at some point.”  So I’m just trying to get at —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think he was —

Q    — what is the switch?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — he was asked a direct question.  And he’s been — he’s been updated throughout — being regularly updated on — on what has been happening on the ground by his team, by the local and state officials in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  And, you know, I will just leave it there. 

We know the President.  He answers a question very honestly.  And he prob- — he said, you know, “Sometime in the future, I will probably go.” 

But I don’t have anything to share.  We don’t have a plan for the President to go at this time.  We don’t have anything to preview to all of you at this time.  It’s just a — he has — he was asked the question, and he answered it honestly.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Just on the D.C. issue, just one point of clarity. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

Q    Does the President view this as a one-time interference in D.C. affairs?  Or does he hold out —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s a hypothetical.

Q    — the possibility that that could happen again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s a hypothetical that I can’t answer from here.  This is — there was a specific issue that came before us —

Q    If another bill comes —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and the Pres- — and the Pres- — yeah, but it’s — you’re — you’re asking a hypothetical —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that I can’t answer at this time.

Q    Senator Menendez urged the President yesterday to appoint or nominate a Latino American to the — as Fed Vice Chair.  Can you say — I know you don’t want to get ahead of the process, but can you say publicly whether a Latino American is under consideration for Vice Chair?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not going to get ahead of the process.

Q    Hey.  A couple of questions.  One is, I wanted to ask for the administration’s response to Walgreens saying that they won’t distribute abortion pills in states where Republican governors have asked them not to.  I want to know what you all are thinking.  And are you concerned that other pharmacies who have been threatened with potential legal action will follow suit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I have a statement here that I want to read out to all of you:

So, elected officials targeting pharmacies and their ability to provide women with access to safe, effective, and FDA-approved medication is dangerous and just unacceptable. 

We’ve said this before, I’ve said this before: Pills — this pill that has been on the market for more than two decades — more than two decades — and is regularly used for both miscarriage and management and abortion, as also it’s used in more than 60 countries. 

The Department of Justice has already independently issued an opinion related to this issue that is at odds with this dangerous effort. 

This is — this is all a part of a continued effort by anti-abortion extremists who want to use this arcane law to impose a door — a backdoor ban on abortion. 

The administration will continue to stand by the FDA’s expert judgment in approving and regulating medications.  And in the face of barriers to access and concerns about safety of patients, healthcare providers, and pharm- — pharmacists, we will continue to support access to this critical medication within the limits of the law, which is why the President issued his January — a recent presidential memorandum that aims to preserve continued access to a safe drug that — and will emphasize, again, it is used for miscarriage management and abortion. 

So that is what we wanted to say on the Walgreens front.

Q    So it sounds like you all think it’s dangerous.  Are there any sort of mechanisms that you see for continuing to provide access in those cases? 

Has the White House been in touch or the administration been in touch with Walgreens?  I mean, it’s a huge pharmacy —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    — throughout much of the country. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, totally.  I totally understand, which is why we’re saying this is, unfortunately, unacceptable and dangerous. 

Look, the Department of Justice is — independently issued a — an opinion related to this.  I’m not going to get ahead of that, or I’ll just, you know, make sure — you know, refer you to that. 

But I’m just not going to have anything more than what I just laid out.

Q    Shifting gears totally.  I wanted to ask you about inflation.  The Fed said today, actually in its semi-annual report to Congress — it suggested that more rate hikes would be needed to curb inflation.  And I know you all have been fairly confident that inflation is slowing and that this would all lead to a soft landing.  I’m curious if you will still feel that a soft landing is possible.  And if so, can you help me understand why you are so confident in that assessment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And we have said that it’s — it — there’s going to be a — it’s going to go into a steady and stable growth, and sometimes there’ll be some ups and downs.  Right?  We have been very clear about that.  I think the last — Brian Deese’s last briefing, he actually laid that out for all of you. 

Look, the way that we see it, and the reason why we feel very confident in this, is that the President’s economic agenda — the way that we see it and others have as well is that it’s — it’s making progress to bring inflation down.

You have inflation that’s down by 30 percent from last summer.  But we always understand that there’s more work to do. 

The whole — and we also understand that the way that we got here is because of COVID-19, it’s because of Russia’s war against Ukraine.  All of those things have disrupted global energy, food supplies, and caused inflation to spike around the world. 

But the President is going to continue to do everything that he can to lower costs.  You’re going to see his March 9th budget in less than a week, at this point.  And he — we lowered — we — he — we helped to lower gas prices by a buck-sixty.  It is now at a — by a buck-sixt- — -sixty a gallon from its peak from Putin’s war.

The real wages are higher than they were seven months ago.

And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  Let’s not forget, when we — when we think about the — the pieces of legislations that were passed under this President — capping insulin by 35 bucks per month for seniors on Medicare — those are the things that matter. 

Now, we see pharma companies like Eli Lilly doing — doing the same, but for all Americans — capping at 35 bucks. 

Those are the things that we’re going to continue to work on to lower — to lower costs for people. 

And — and so, again, you’re going to see the President’s budget next week. 

But the data — the data shows us how inflation is — has been moderating over the last six months.  And we think that’s —

Q    But it’s been persistent —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — important to speak to.

Q    — too, though.  I mean, it’s been —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah —

Q    — I would say, rather sticky.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And well — and that’s why we say we have more work to do.  We’re not saying that we don’t have more work to do.  We say this — every time we talk about inflation, every time we talk about the economy, we say that there’s more work to do.  That’s why the President takes extra steps, like the IRA — takes extra steps to make sure that we bring down costs for the American family. 

But the data shows it has indeed moderated.  And so, that’s what we look at.  That — to your — to your question — original question — that — what gives us some encouragement that — that we will get to that steady and stable growth.

Go ahead.

Q    I just want to go back to the bilateral.  Last time Chancellor Scholz was here was just a few weeks before the start of the war.  Back then, in the lead- —   

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, (inaudible).

Q    — in the lead-up to the invasion, there was really an effort by the President to sort of gather up support, unite the allies, and be prepared to sort of react as quickly as possible with sanctions, with help to Ukraine.  Are these similar conversations happening right now between the U.S. and European allies, other allies, to be ready for the possibility that China sends weapons to Russia and to be ready to act quickly the way they were ready to act quickly a year ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first of all, as you know, they had a G7 call just last week.  The President was in — in Ukraine, and he was also in Poland.  There’s constant communication with our allies that the President is having.  It doesn’t — it doesn’t — they’re not one-offs here.  They are — they’re consistent, and they’re continuous.  And so, I just want to be very clear there. 

And look, you know, we have said this over and over again: We have not — you know, we have not seen any — we have not seen any — any — we have not seen China do anything yet, as it relates to lethal — lethal weapons.  And we believe that Russia’s war in Ukraine has put China in a difficult position to actually — you know, to actually move forward in that direction. 

Every step China takes towards Russia makes it harder for China with Europe and other countries around the world. 

But, you know, I want to be really clear on that piece.  But you — as I — as I’ve mentioned before: Secretary Blinken met with Wang Yi just recently in Munich and made himself really clear.  They had a very clear conversation.  And keeping that communication — that line of communication open is very important to us as well.

But, again, we haven’t seen China take that action yet.  But we’ve been very clear and had conversations with China.

Q    If I could, another one on the IRA.  This meeting of with Chancellor Scholz is one of several meetings with European leaders. 

When President Macron was here for the state visit in early December, the message of the administration was: We are in listening mode.  We are hearing the concerns of our European allies, and we’re having discussions. 

Has there been any progress?  Any change?  Or is this still hearing/listening mode?  And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I spoke to this a little bit.  These relationships are clearly important to us.  They’re — we’re still in listening mode.  We’re still in discussion.  And just don’t have anything more to share on what’s next with that.

But we think — we think the, you know, Inflation Reduction Act is incredibly important to the American people, to our taxpayers.  We’re always going to make sure that we support American jobs and American innovation.  The President will never back down from that.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    Tennessee’s governor signed two anti-LGBTQ bills into law on Thursday: one that bans many drag performances from taking place on public property, another bans most gender-affirming care to transgender youth.  What does the White House make of these laws?  And is there anything you can do or planning to do about these laws?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this: The American people are focused on so many issues.  We just talked about economy.  We just talked about inflation.  We’re talking about safer an- — safer communities and schools, and good healthcare.  All of the things that you all ask me every day.  And you all know that’s what the American people care about. 

That’s what — even when they went to vote in November, those were the issues that mattered the most to them.  But instead of doing anything to address those real issues that are impacting American people, right now you have a governor from Tennessee has decided to go after drag shows. 

What sense does that make to go after drag shows?  How is that going to help people’s lives who are thinking about the economy, who are thinking about making sure their kids are going — are going to be safe when they go to school or their communities are safe?  But that’s what he wants to focus on.

So it’s part of a larger pattern from elected officials who espouse freedom and liberty but apparently think that freedom of speech only extends to people who agree with them.  And that’s what we’re seeing from what’s happening in Tennessee and other places, as well.

So, you know, don’t take my words for it and — of — on this issue.  The governor himself hasn’t been able to — if you think about this particular issue, he hasn’t been able to cite any examples, anything to show that drag shows in public spaces are a problem.  He hasn’t.  He hasn’t laid that out at all on why this is an issue for American people.

So I’ve said this before from here.  I said this, I believe, last week, and we’ll — we’ll keep saying it — that these ridiculous policies aren’t just unnecessary, they are dangerous.  They are — they vilify our fellow Americans and — at a time when LGBTQ Americans are facing higher risk and violence, mental health issues. 

And it is unacceptable.  It is completely unacceptable for a governor to be moving in this way to be — with such a bill.  And is — it is also unfortunate.

Q    And what’s your message to the LGBTQ youth in the state, as well as drag performers?  What’s your message to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So the President always has been very clear when it comes to vulnerable communities, like the LGBTQ community, that he has their backs.  And he has a record to show that.  He has a record that — that shows that he supports this community and will continue to be there for the community as — as long as it takes.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to go back to something Ed asked you just the other day when you were talking about safer communities — and that is the issue of cartels.

The Attorney General was asked whether or not he’d be open to labeling the top cartels in Mexico as foreign terrorist organizations.  He said he didn’t oppose the idea.

Just yesterday, Bill Barr — his predecessor — Merrick Garland’s predecessor — went a bit further, saying that the U.S. should have a military presence inside Mexico.

So now it’s the two most recent Attorney Generals — one in a Democratic administration, one in a Republican administration — basically saying, “We can do more about this issue going forward.”

So a couple of questions along that line.  Does the Biden administration need to reassess its posture as it relates to taking on these cartels?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get ahead of what the Department of Justice said, of what Merrick Garland said.  As you know, they — they move in an independent way.  I’m just not going to get ahead of any policies that may be coming out from the Department of Justice.  And I’ll just leave it there.

Q    What about Bill Barr suggesting that maybe we put a military presence or have a military presence inside Mexico?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment to —

Q    Has the President —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment on what Bill Barr has said.

Q    But has the President ever thought about that idea or considered that idea?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — but you’re asking me to comment on Bill Barr, who was the Attorney General during Trump’s administration.  I’m just not going to comment.

Q    What about the —

Q    Karine, the pool has to gather.

Q    — general idea though?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, okay.  Hold on.

So, the pool has to gather.  What’s the plan?

MS. DALTON:  The Scholz visit is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, the Scholz visit.  Okay.  All right.  So, what are we — what are we doing?  (Laughs.)  We need to wrap it up?

MS. DALTON:  Wrap it up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  We got to wrap it up.  Sorry, guys.  Have a great weekend.

Q    Thanks, Karine. 

Q    Happy 100.

1:55 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

5:04 P.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hi, everyone.  I hope everybody is having a good evening.  Thanks so much for joining us on our background briefing on Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany’s visit to the White House tomorrow.
 
I just want to run through a couple of ground rules before we get going here.  The call is going to be on background, attributable to a “senior administration official.”  This call is not held under any embargo. 
 
Not for attribution, but for everyone’s awareness — for those on the call, our speaker this evening is [senior administration official].
 
And we don’t have a ton of time this evening, so I want us to jump right in.  And with that, I will hand it over to [senior administration official].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, [Moderator].  And hey, everybody.  I know John Kirby did a full rundown on the Scholz visit at the podium today.  So will be fairly limited in my opening comments, and then happy to take a couple of questions. 
 
As everybody is tracking, tomorrow, President Biden is going to welcome Chancellor Scholz of Germany to the White House.  Scholz was just here over a year ago in February, and obviously a very different geopolitical landscape that we are facing now than when he was first here.  He was also here several weeks after he had been elected and taken office. 
 
And so, this meeting really is a good opportunity for the two leaders, a year in, to take stock on the further deepening of our bilateral cooperation over the last year.  And in particular, to assess where we are with the war in Ukraine a year on. 
 
President Biden obviously had a good working relationship with Chancellor Merkel when she came in, who he had known for many years, and I think very quickly has developed a strong partnership with Chancellor Scholz over the last year-plus that the Chancellor has been in office. 
 
Last year, Chancellor Scholz and Germany, of course, had the chairmanship of the G7, which ended up being a very pivotal, critical time for the G7, given everything that we were seeing in Ukraine, and also gave a lot of opportunities for the two leaders to engage over the last year. 
 
So, they saw each other, of course, on the margins of the G7 summit in Germany last summer.  They saw each other at a number of NATO summits that we have had, as well as the G20 Summit in Bali.  And they have spoken by phone regularly, including three times, I believe, in January, focusing on security assistance and our continued coordination on Ukraine. 
 
This visit, of course, comes as we have just marked the one-year anniversary since Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine. 
 
And as I mentioned, one of the overarching objectives for the President heading into this conflict was to build and maintain transatlantic unity, as well as broad international support.  And I think feels that we have worked hand in hand with Germany, both bilaterally as well as through the Quad, the Quint, the G7, in partnership with the EU, and also within the NATO Alliance, as well as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. 
 
The meeting that the two leaders are having tomorrow is very much a working visit.  We’re expecting it to be a one-hour meeting or so.  There will likely be a significant one-on-one component, which I think is a reflection of the close relationship between the two leaders and the opportunity for the two of them to be able to have in-depth and face-to-face conversations. 
 
Ukraine, I think, will be a major topic of conversation in this meeting.  The President, of course, was just in Kyiv.  Chancellor Scholz also had the opportunity to meet with the Zelenskyy in person, along with President Macron, in Paris last month.  And so, this will be a good opportunity for the leaders to be able to exchange notes on their recent meetings with the Ukrainian President and their assessment of where things stand in the war, one year on. 
 
We also anticipate that the leaders will touch base on a number of other issues that are on our shared global agenda.  Both of them focused on the upcoming NATO Summit that we’ll have in Vilnius in July, as well as other global issues, including the challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China. 
 
So very much looking forward to his visit, and very much expected to be a productive conversation between the two. 
 
So let me leave it there, and I’m happy to take some questions.
 
Q     Hi.  I wanted to see if you can talk some more about the concerns that China could provide lethal aid to Russia and how that has provided the impetus for the meeting tomorrow or — and how that might be a topic of conversation for the meeting tomorrow. 
 
And also, you know, for a one-hour long meeting, you know, how long do you think it will just be the two of them?  And where in the White House do you expect them to meet?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks very much.  I — in terms of where they expect to meet, I would assume that a significant portion of the meeting will take place in the Oval Office.
 
In terms of how much of that will be one-on-one versus an expanded bilateral is going to be very much a decision made by the two leaders.  So, hard for that to predict. 
 
In terms of China, it was not a driving focus for this meeting.  Like I said, the overarching purpose of this meeting was a chance for the two leaders to be able to coordinate specifically on Ukraine, as well as to touch on a broader set of foreign policy challenges.  But I think it certainly is possible, within the context of a conversation on Ukraine, that the China aspect would come up. 
 
So far, we haven’t seen that — that China has provided lethal aid to Russia — but obviously it’s very much a situation that we’re tracking. 
 
Russia’s war in Ukraine has put China in a difficult position, and every step that China takes toward Russia makes it harder for China with Europe and with others around the world.  It’s a distraction for China and a potential blow to their international relationships that they don’t need or want. 
 
And we have been clear with China from the beginning about our concerns and the implications of providing this kind of support to Russia. 
 
Chancellor Scholz spoke to his parliament earlier today and similarly said publicly that he was very much cautioning against Chinese support for Russia’s war in Ukraine and calling on Beijing to use its influence with the Kremlin to encourage Moscow to withdraw from Ukrainian territory. 
 
So, I think this is another aspect of our approach to Ukraine where we’re aligned with the German view.
 
Q     Hi, thank you so much for doing this, [senior administration official].  I wonder if you can say a word about, you know, the — in the run-up to the start of the war, the U.S. and the G7 allies and others had a whole package of sanctions ready to go, basically, when the war started.  And you’re — you know, obviously, you’ve been working through subsequent packages of sanctions.  Are you doing similar prep now to get ready for this possibility that, you know, there is evidence that China is providing lethal aid to Russia? 
 
And can you tell us — you know, we understand that you are reaching out to allies.  Can you just put some more color on that?  Like, you know, will that be a significant — sort of preparing for a next load of sanctions?  Is that a significant part of what will be discussed tomorrow?
 
But can you also say what other countries you had reached out to specifically on that?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so I’m not going to be able to get into full detail about all of the conversations we’re having.  But obviously, a situation that we’re tracking and obviously something that we’re talking about, especially with our partners in Europe.  And as I mentioned, I expect it will be something that the two leaders will discuss tomorrow.
 
In terms of your question on sanctions, you know, we’ve already taken action against third-party actors who support Russia’s war against Ukraine.  And we’ll continue to do so. 
 
And if you look at the recent G7 statement that came out on the anniversary, that also made clear the commitment and the current action of taking actions against third-country actors materially supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. 
 
So very much something that we’re engaging on diplomatically with our partners and something that we’re already actively taking action on and continuing to discuss.
 
Q     Hi, thank you for taking my question.  So you mentioned about — they’re going to talk about the challenge posed by China.  Does that mean that President Biden will ask Germany to play a bigger role in the Indo-Pacific region?  And with the announcement of providing arms sales to Taiwan, the recent one, will that encourage — would you worry that — or have concerns that China is going to use that as its excuse to provide weapons to Russia as a revenge move?  Thank you.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I’m not the China expert here at the NSC, so I’m not going to get into the details of China and Taiwan and some of the broader implications, and really can only reiterate what I had said previously, which is that we’re going to continue to have conversations with our allies and partners about the concerns that we have.
 
I think, very much welcome Chancellor Scholz and others who are similarly conveying concerns to Beijing about supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine; calling on Beijing to use their influence with the Kremlin to encourage Moscow to withdraw from Ukrainian territory; and as all of the leaders in the G7, Europe, of course, then, and including Japan, noted, the fact that we are taking actions against third-country actors materially supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. 
 
So, assume that the conversation that they have will be very much along those lines.
 
Q     Hi, thank you so much for taking my question.  I just wondered, are you expecting Chancellor Scholz to bring up Germany’s concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act?  I mean, obviously, Germany is a big automotive producer and Europe, in general, has been concerned about the effects of that legislation on its auto sector.  And if they do bring it up, is there anything that President Biden has to tell them about how the U.S. is going to be addressing those concerns?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s certainly possible that Chancellor Scholz will choose to raise the Inflation Reduction Act in their meeting.  I think President Biden’s message is going to be along the lines of what we have been saying and doing, which is continuing to consult closely with our allies and partners on the implementation of the IRA, as well as on European plans to further incentivize clean energy development. 
 
I think our view very much is that the IRA’s benefits expand beyond the U.S., in terms of helping drive down costs for clean technology, which will help other nations go further and faster in building their own clean energy economies. 
 
Our belief also very much is that energy security is national security, and hope that other countries follow the U.S. lead and pass their own IRAs.  And we want to coordinate with them as they do it. 
 
Chancellor Scholz, of course, is in coalition with the Green Party, which has long been making the case on the importance of climate change, and, I think, will welcome the increased U.S. focus on the climate crisis and on taking active steps to try and address that crisis. 
 
We, of course, set up a task force with the European Union, and we’re continuing to work through that process as well.
 
Q     ZDF German TV.  Thank you very much for doing that, [senior administration official].  Question: During the Munich Security Conference, we heard from many Eastern European countries that they would like Germany to play a bigger role in coordinating the efforts and being their — I would say — advocate a little bit more.  Is that something that the Biden administration would support and ask for in a meeting with the Chancellor?
 
And number two, if I may —
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sorry, just on that — playing a more active role in being an advocate on what specifically?
 
Q     Basically coordinating with the Eastern European countries within NATO, specifically the Baltics and some other Eastern European countries.  It’s a little bit difficult with Poland right now.  We heard it specifically from the Baltic countries. 
 
And if I might add one more, which is: How eager are you to have Germany have a national security strategy that it can work with?  We have been waiting, I think, for this for more than a year now.
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I — thanks for both of those.  I think both of those questions are ultimately better directed against the German government or to the German government rather than here. 
 
I, you know, on the question of the role that Germany is playing, in terms of its neighbors, I will let Berlin speak to that.  Certainly, we’ve had very good coordination with the Europeans generally, as well as with Germany specifically, in response to the war in Ukraine. 
 
The President, of course, engaged with the B9 NATO eastern flank allies during his meeting to Warsaw. 
 
And I think it’s going to be in everyone’s interest to continue this close coordination, especially in the run-up to the Vilnius Summit.  And obviously, it’s in our interest to have strong relations within all countries in the alliance. 
 
And on Germany’s national security strategy, again, a decision for the German government to make.  Obviously, sitting here in the U.S. National Security Council, it’s a structure that has worked for us, but we’ll defer to Germany for them to make their own decisions on their internal bureaucratic processes. 
 
I will say that we’ve had excellent coordination throughout this administration with the Chancellor’s government, including very regular communications between us here at the National Security Council, the Chancellery’s office, the two national security advisors are in regular contact, as well as good communication between our foreign and defense ministries as well, particularly on these Ukraine-related issues.
 
Q     Thank you so much, [Moderator].  I really appreciate you giving us the time to get an understanding of the visit.  My question to you is: Will Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa be touched upon, given also the fact that Germany has been ramping up to put together its own Africa strategy?  So, if you could speak to that: Will the two leaders spend some time to talk about this very important voting bloc at the U.N. and other areas where they may have an overlapping interest on the region?  Thanks, [Moderator].
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, as I said at the top, I suspect that the bulk of the meeting is going to focus on Ukraine, just given the outsized role that the Ukrainian conflict is playing in terms of European security at the moment.  So, it’s a one-hour meeting, and I think a lot of it will focus on Ukraine. 
 
As I also said, I think it is possible that the leaders will touch on some other shared global foreign policy interests.  So, it is possible that Ukraine — or that that Africa could come up in that context.  Hard to — hard to say, but certainly possible that the leaders could touch on that.
 
Q     Hi, thank you for taking my call — my question, I’m sorry.  During today’s White House briefing, John Kirby said that tomorrow there will be an announcement that the U.S. is providing another round of assistance for Ukraine.  I’m just wondering if you can provide or give us some details.  You know, what kind of assistance are we talking about?  Is it humanitarian assistance?  Are we talking about weapons?  What exactly are we talking about here?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I don’t have the exact transcript of what John Kirby had said.  [Moderator], I don’t know if you’re tracking that. 
 
We certainly have continued to roll out a series of security assistance packages to Ukraine, as well as ongoing provision of economic and energy and other types of assistance. 
 
So, I don’t know specifically what John Kirby was referring to, but I think, in general, yes, we are continuing to provide security assistance packages to Ukraine and have been continuing to announce them and roll those out on a fairly regular basis.
 
MODERATOR:  Michael, stay tuned for tomorrow.  As Kirby said, we’ll have more detail.  More to come.
 
Q     Hi.  Yeah, let — honestly, the other reporters pretty much asked all the questions I was going to ask.  So let me just toss this one out there: You folks gave Emmanuel Macron of France a steak dinner.  Why not do the same for the German Chancellor?  Did that come up as a possibility?
 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is very much a working visit.  You know, there’s a — I’m not going to get into — to all of what is done or is not done in terms of state visits.  I — this certainly is not intended in any way as a commentary on the relationship that we have with Germany. 
 
This is, in fact, the second time that the German Chancellor is going to be in the White House in just a year.  And I’m hard pressed to think of other leaders that have spent as much time here in the White House this early in the administration or have spoken to the President as nearly frequently as the two of them have. 
 
So both of the leaders wanted this to be a working-level meeting, wanted it to be very much a “get down into the weeds” focus on the issues of Ukraine.  And so, this is very much in keeping with both — what both of the leaders were interested in having and what they thought was going to be essential to get the necessary work done on our shared focus.
 
5:26 P.M. EST

The post Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official Previewing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Visit to the White<span class="dewidow"> </span>House appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

3:06 P.M. EST

Q    Hey, hey.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, hi.  Hey, Steve.  Hi.  Feel like I walked in on a conversation. 

Good afternoon, everybody.  We have Admiral John Kirby here today.  He’s going to give a preview of German Chancellor Scholz’s visit tomorrow and take any foreign policy questions you all may have.  And after that, we’ll continue the briefing. 

Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Karine.

Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. KIRBY:  Tomorrow, as you know, President Biden is going to welcome German Chancellor Olaf Scholz here to the White House to discuss our bilateral cooperation on a range of global security and economic issues. 

The President looks forward, of course, to welcoming him back here to the White House where they last met February of 2022, soon after the Chancellor took office.

Over the last year, they’ve seen together — they’ve seen each other on the margins of the G7 Summit in Germany, at NATO, at the G20 Summit, and, of course, they’ve talked on the phone regularly.  They most recently spoke last week as part of the G7 leaders call on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion. 

The visit comes as we mark one year since that invasion started, and we’re proud of the collective efforts that we’ve taken together to provide Ukraine with the capabilities they need.  And we’ve worked hand in hand with Germany and the Quad, the G7, and allies and partners all over the world, including through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, to do exactly that. 

We’ve closely coordinated our support to Ukraine throughout this conflict, including through joint announcements in January to provide infantry fighting vehicles and tanks. 

Germany has provided significant air defense support to Ukraine, including a Patriot battery; the IRIS-T air defense system, which is an infrared seeking system; and five multiple — multiple launch rocket systems. 

As you all know, Germany is also a close NATO Ally and host to our largest U.S. military force presence in Europe, which has been pivotal this year as we have again tried to reinforce our NATO Allies and bolster the eastern — eastern flank of NATO and the deterrence there. 

A large portion of U.S. training of Ukrainian forces occurs at our bases in Germany, and our German colleagues have also conducted their own training of Ukrainians also in Germany. 

And just last week, we worked together to rally global support at the U.N. for Ukraine’s resolution on a just peace. 

And we’ve also been supportive of the Chancellor’s efforts to implement policy changes to respond to the changed security environment, including increasing Germany’s defense spending and rapidly transitioning from Russian energy sources. 

I’m sure the leaders will discuss their recent engagements with Ukrainian officials, including the President’s trip to Kyiv and meeting with President Zelenskyy, as well as Chancellor Scholz’s meeting with President Zelenskyy in Paris last month. 

We anticipate that the two leaders will also exchange views on the upcoming NATO Summit and other global issues like the challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China.

All in all, we expect that this will be a true working visit between these two leaders, and we’re looking very much forward to getting some things done. 

We also announced earlier this afternoon that President Biden looks forward to welcoming, next week, President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission here to the White House on Friday, the 10th of March.  Another working visit. 

We expect their discussion to cover a range of international security challenges, of course including support for Ukraine.  They will also discuss U.S. and EU coordination to combat the climate crisis and clean tech, and take stock of the joint task force on Europe’s energy security that they both established a year ago. 

Just one quick follow-up here.  I think you also saw that, today, the President released the administration’s National Cybersecurity Strategy.  This administration has taken an aggressive approach to strengthening our nation’s cybersecurity since day one, and this strategy builds on the President’s work over the last two years in that regard. 

The strategy released today will set forth a new vision for the future of cyberspace and the wider digi- — digital ecosystem.  It will rebalance the responsibility for managing cyber risk onto those who are most able to bear it, including large enterprises and the federal government, and away from those who can and should not have to bear it, including local governments, Tribal territories, small businesses, even individual citizens. 

The National Security Strategy, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other major administration initiatives are moving the nation toward a more equitable economy, a clean energy transition, a stronger democracy, and a more competitive workforce. 

With the National Cybersecurity Strategy, we will protect all of these investments by increasing our collective security and systemic resilience.  That strategy and the factsheet are now available on WhiteHouse.gov, and I hope you guys go take a look at it. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, Steve.  You got it.

Q    John, with Ukraine preparing for this offensive, are the two leaders going to discuss accelerating military assistance to Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  I think for — without question, Steve, they’re going to talk about the kinds of capabilities that Ukraine continues to need in the weeks and months ahead. 

You’ll see us tomorrow — just unilaterally, the U.S. will have another round of assistance for Ukraine come in tomorrow.  And it will include mostly ammunitions and munitions that the Ukrainians will need for the systems that they already have, like the HIMARS and the artillery. 

So, I can’t predict a specific outcome tomorrow.  I wouldn’t look for that.  But certainly, they will be discussing additional support for Ukraine going forward.  And we know that —

Q    Do you have a number?  Do you have a number for tomorrow’s announcement?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, just stay tuned.  And we’ll have more detail on that later. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Thanks.  Just to follow on Steve a little bit, do you expect a discussion of or announcement of Germans moving tank shells or ammunition production to the United States?

That’s been kind of an issue that’s floating out there because it’s more difficult, I think, to produce in Europe because of regulatory and other issues.  And so, it might come here.  And I’m wondering if — 

MR. KIRBY:  We’ll have a full readout of the meeting after it’s over.  Again, clearly, they’re going to talk about Ukraine and how we can all work together to help support them as quickly as we possibly can with as much as we can. 

But I don’t have anything specific on that proposal. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Karine.  Hi, John.  Iran is reported to be enriching uranium up to 84 percent of weapon-grade level.  What is your response to that?  Is there any consequences for them?  And how does it complicate any chances of going back to the JCPOA?

And I have another question.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not in a position to confirm those reports.  Clearly, one of the reasons why, when this administration took office, we wanted to get back into the Iran deal was because without the Iran deal in place, Iran was free to continue enrichment and free to further decrease the breakout time to weeks and months from what had been more than a couple years.  And that’s why we wanted to get back in the Iran deal.

The Iran deal right now is still not a focus of the agenda.  As Iran continues to supply military equipment and capabilities to Russia so that they can continue to kill Ukrainians, as they continue to crack down on protesters in their own country, and as they continue to support terrorists throughout the Middle Eastern and Levant. 

So it’s just not a focus for the administration right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    And after the settlers — Israeli settlers attacked the village of Huwara in the West Bank, next to Nablus, the Israeli Finance Minister has called for the wipeout of this village.  Is this a language acceptable from one of your closest allies?

MR. KIRBY:  No, it’s not.  And we’ve already talked about that.  We’ve spoken to that.  That’s not acceptable language. 

And we continue, as always, to urge both sides to take no steps and certainly not to participate in rhetoric that are only going to escalate the tensions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Mary, go ahead.

Q    On the Blinken-Lavrov meeting, this was obviously the first time that they’ve spoken face to face since Russia invaded.  Why did the U.S. feel now was the right time to have this conversation? 

And also, the Russians say that it was at Blinken’s request.  Is that correct?

MR. KIRBY:  It was a pull aside.  They were in the same room at the G20 in New Delhi, and Secretary Blinken took the opportunity available to him to — to make three key points. 

One, we want — we don’t want Russia to suspend their participation in New START, because that treaty makes both our country safer.

Two, we want Paul Whelan back.  We got a proposal on the table.  They ought to take it.

And three, we’re going to continue to support Ukraine.

Q    China, though, was not on that list.  Is there a reason why it didn’t come up?

MR. KIRBY:  It was a 10-minute pull aside; it wasn’t a pre-scheduled long bilat kind of a meeting.  I mean, it was — it was an opportunity that Secretary Blinken took advantage of.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    To follow up on a couple of topics on that — in that neighborhood.  Any evidence that China has been any — made any further decisions or actions, either way, whether to provide lethal aid to Russia?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve seen no indication that they’ve made that decision. 

They haven’t taken it off the table, Peter, but we haven’t seen any indication.

Q    It remains as it was then. 

Let me ask then if I can: The President said to us a couple of weeks ago, when he was speaking about the aerial objects there, that he expected to “speak soon” — was his language — with President Xi.  Is there any update on that?  Any formal outreach?  When would that take place?

MR. KIRBY:  Not — no former outreach that I’m aware of, Peter.  And no call on the schedule. 

Q    Okay.  Then just one last one to punctuate.  Several months ago, the President promised Saudi Arabia would suffer, quote, “consequences.”  That was his language after the Saudi-led OPAC une- — OPEC unexpectedly announced it would cut production.  Is it fair to say now, this many months later, that that’s not going to happen?

MR. KIRBY:  I addressed this the other day when I was at the podium here with Karine a few days ago.  We talked about this.  There’s — first of all, there — there already had been consequences because, as you know, Congress took action to limit arms sales to Saudi Arabia. 

But we noted on Monday — whenever it was that I talked to you about it last — that they had visited Kyiv, they agreed to contribute $400 million of energy infrastructure support to — to Kyiv, to Ukraine.  We found that a welcome development.  We’re focused on the future right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Patsy. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, I have a question on the cybersecurity strategy.  But first, on Taiwan: The administration has approved $690 million potential arms sales to Taiwan that includes hundreds of missiles, including for F-16s.  Can you clarify the administration’s goals to provide these weapons?

And can you address concerns whether you’ll be able to fulfill this package considering the U.S. defense industry is already struggling to fulfill munitions request for Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that there’s anything to clarify.  I mean, this — this most recent announcement on arm sales is very much in keeping with our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that Taiwan has sufficient self-defense capability.  These munitions designed for F-16 aircraft will exactly help do that. 

And as for the impact of it on what we’re providing to Ukraine, there won’t be.  The — completely two different systems the way this is — I mean, arm sales is a whole different process and methodology than what we’re doing for Ukraine, which is largely through presidential drawdown authority, where you’re basically taking stuff that are already — that are already on your shelves and providing it to Ukraine directly.  So, it’s a completely different process, different system altogether.

Q    So, but is it the same — is it the same kind of munitions but just provided by a different practice?  I’m sorry, I don’t understand.

MR. KIRBY:  The — the types of — I don’t want to get into too much detail here from the podium, but the types of munitions are the kinds of munitions that will allow Taiwan to continue to modernize their fleet of F-16s.  So, it’s largely designed for F-16 delivery.

Q    Okay.  And on cybersecurity.  Would the new cybersecurity strategy allow the administration to authorize U.S. agencies to implement hack-back operations to networks of criminals or foreign governments to preempt attacks on U.S. networks?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t think we’re going to get into the tactics here from the podium on something like cybersecurity.  I mean, I’d encourage you to take a look at the strategy.  It’s pretty fulsome.  It covers a wide range of issues, largely bringing back onto the federal government a responsibility that we think is more appropriately us and that shouldn’t be laid at the feet of small businesses and individuals as well as the Tribal territories, and also gives us more tools and more flexibilities with going after bad actors.

And I think I really do need to leave it at that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Zeke, go ahead.

Q    Thanks, John.  Just on — to follow up on the Blinken-Lavrov meeting, is there any discussion or consideration of what it would take for a conversation between the President and President Putin?  Is that off the table?

MR. KIRBY:  The President — the President already
spoke to this several months ago, I think, when President Zelenskyy was here.  He said if Mr. Putin were to be sincere and dedicated to actually sitting down and talking about peace, the President would consider talking to him.  But there’s been no change to that.

Q    And then, back on Ukraine.  The Russian government in the last 24, 48 hours has been pre- — publishing reports about alleged Ukrainian saboteurs in its territory fighting with them.  Is there any U.S. government assessment of that and the veracity of those claims?

MR. KIRBY:  Seen the reports.  Can’t confirm them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Ari [Aurelia].

Q    Yeah, thank you so much.  One other question on the visit of Chancellor Scholz.  According to my excellent colleagues from Reuters, the administration is, you know, consulting with allies regarding further sanctions against China if China decides to deliver weapons to Russia.  And Germany comes to mind, given their very close, you know, business relationship with China.  So do expect that to be a topic and maybe a difficult topic in the conversation tomorrow?

MR. KIRBY:  I certainly would expect, in the context of talking about what’s going on in Ukraine, that the — that the issue of third-party support to Russia could come up.  They have reached out, as you know, to Iran.  They’ve reached out to North Korea.

But I don’t want to get ahead of where we are here.  We haven’t seen the Chinese make this decision.  We don’t think they’ve taken it off the table, but we haven’t seen them make a decision to go forward.

We’ve communicated privately, certainly publicly, our concerns about that.  We believe it would — it’s not in China’s best interests to move forward in that regard.  And they should see it the same way.

I just don’t think it’s helpful right now to hypothesize about what — you know, what consequences might result.  Secretary Blinken has talked about the fact that there would be ramifications, and I think that’s probably better if we just leave it at that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Raquel, in the back.

Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  Hi, John.  So, President Zelenskyy just spoke with Lula now.  And he just tweeted that they discussed diplomatic efforts to bring peace to Ukraine — with Ukraine.  And he invited Lula to come and visit Ukraine.

Do you believe that any efforts to mediate peace at this time could be successful?

MR. KIRBY:  Only if President Zelenskyy is — and his government are fully brought into the process and fully supportive of it.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Zolan.

Q    Thank you.  I have a question about refugee policy, as well.  The President often — the President was — praised Poland for assisting refugees during his trip.  When it comes to the United States, we often hear about the United for Ukraine program. 

There was also for — between April 11th and April 21st, about 10,000 Ukrainians who came in across the border were not covered by TPS or United for Ukraine but parole that’s set to expire next month.  Is the administration considering — I don’t — any option for — to extend that legal status?  And if it’s not extended, what would happen to those 10,000 Ukrainians in the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  Let me take the question.  I’ll take that question, and we’ll get back to you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Tam.

Q    Is there any chance that we could get you in the White House to reconsider not having a 2+2 press conference with Scholz?  We would love for there to be the regular 2+2 press conference.

Similarly, are you planning to hold one of these press conferences when President von der Leyen visits?

MR. KIRBY:  So, I think Karine addressed this issue — yesterday?  And I don’t have anything to add to what she told you.

This is a working visit.  And it’s very — the agenda, which is tightknit because it’s just not an expansive — he’s not going to be meeting with the President all day.  It’s a — it’s a tight visit, working-level visit on pretty significant issues.  And it just wasn’t part of the schedule for either leader here to do a press conference.

And it’s not, as I understand it — and I’ve not been here for long — but we don’t always do that.  I mean, sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t.  It depends a lot on the agenda and the schedules by both leaders.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you very much.  Hungary has further delayed a vote on ratifying Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

Q    — this time by two weeks.  Are you concerned about this delay?  Are you confident that Hungary, at the end, will accept expansion of NATO?

And since Turkey says it’s not ready to approve Sweden’s membership in NATO, would President Biden support Finland’s admission first, before Sweden’s? 

And one question on yesterday’s meeting between —

MR. KIRBY:  Hang on, before you — because I’m going to forget.

So, first of all, what we are confident is that Finland and Sweden are going to be great NATO Allies.  Two modern militaries.  We know them well.  We operate and train with them all the time.  They’re going to be welcome additions to the Alliance.  The President remains confident that they’re going to be NATO Allies.

Now, we’re also encouraged by the fact that there are still discussions going on between Turkey, Finland, and Sweden, as well as with Hungary.  We’ll let those nations speak to the specifics of their concerns and the process.

But the President is confident that these two countries deserve to be in NATO and will be in NATO.

And as for your second question on the choreography, what matters to us is that both nations become NATO Allies.  The Texas two-step that goes into doing that, that’s — that’s not our main concern.

Q    The second question — I’m not sure if it’s to you or to Karine.  The First Lady, Jill Biden, met with Poland’s First Lady, Agata Kornhauser-Duda, yesterday at the White House.  Could you give some details about the meeting, how it happened?

MR. KIRBY:  Karine, do you want to take that?  Do you want me to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, John.  Go ahead.  (Laughs.)

MR. KIRBY:  No, it was a terrific opportunity for the First Lady to meet with the First Lady of Poland and to be able to thank her personally for all the support that Poland has given to our men and women in uniform who are operating out of Poland right now, as well as the just incredible humanitarian work that Poland has done for Ukrainian citizens. 

I think we’ve talked about this, but, essentially, they have all the rights of Polish citizens.  Their kids can go to school.  They can get jobs.  They can qualify for healthcare.  And they’re living in homes — Polish homes.  Families are taking them in. 

We’re talking about more than a million and a half refugees.  That’s the kind of generosity that the Polish people are demonstrating. 

And it was really important to the First Lady to be able to — to thank the First Lady of Poland directly on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Peter.

Q    Thanks, John.  So, a bill requiring the DNI to declassify the COVID origins intel passed the Senate.  If it passes the House too, would President Biden sign it?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President’s decision-making, Peter.

But, look, we — a couple of things to keep in mind.  Right after taking office, the President declassified and had — and made public the DNI’s initial findings here about the source of COVID.  So, he already very swiftly and unilaterally put information out there.  That’s one.

Two, the intelligence community continues to assess the origins of COVID.  I know I’ve seen press reporting about some preliminary findings that — of a classified nature.  But there’s still no consensus. 

And that’s why the President has directed the team to stay at that work because he wants to know.  He wants to know as best we can know what the origins were so that we can work to better prevent a future pandemic. 

Q    But we’ve got the FBI Director saying, “Most likely a potential lab incident” in Wuhan.  If — if a foreign country came to the United States and killed 1.1 million Americans with guns, would the President just let that slide?

MR. KIRBY:  Nobody is letting anything slide.  That’s why the President wants the intelligence community to work so hard to — to get to — hopefully, to get some — to some answers that — that we can rely on.

Right now, there’s just no consensus.  It’s hard to take a look at what the President has done here — in terms of declassifying and making public information already; in terms of the constant and consistent briefings to members of Congress in a classified and unclassified setting in just recent weeks on what the origins of COVID were; and on his tasking, again, to the intelligence community to keep at that work — and come away from that thinking that he’s not taking this seriously. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Three more. 

Go ahead.

Q    As many as 900 schoolgirls appear to have been poisoned in Iran.  Does the U.S. have any information about what could be behind those poisonings?  And if it was the government, is that something that could prompt American sanctions?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s deeply concerning news coming out of Iran, these — what could be the poisoning of — of young girls that are just going to school.

The truth is, we don’t know right now what caused those ailments.  We see reports that the Iranian government are investigating it.  That’s the right course of action.  We want those investigations to be thorough and complete, and we want to be transparent. 

Little girls going to school should only have to worry about learning.  They shouldn’t have to worry about their own physical safety.

But we just don’t know enough right now. 

Q    Would the U.S. take that investigation at face value? Or would you try and conduct your own —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, let’s just — let’s see what the results are here first before we make some kind of snap judgment.  We don’t really know what’s going on with respect to these hundreds of — of schoolgirls. 

And we — I think where the President is is “we need to know,” and the world needs to know.  Certainly, the families of those little girls need to know. 

So, let’s — let’s see where it goes before we make some snap judgments.  But obviously, very deeply concerning reports.

Q    On Paul Whelan, was there any progress made in the conversation between Lavrov and Secretary Blinken?  Have they signaled any willingness to release him?

MR. KIRBY:  It was a short conversation where the Secretary had an opportunity to remind Minister Lavrov that we want Mr. Whelan back, he belongs with his family, and that there is a proposal on the table.  We want the Russians to take it.

I really — for reasons I’m sure you can understand, I don’t want to get into what the back-and-forth was on that or detail the conversations that we’re still trying to have with the Russians about getting Mr. Whelan back. 

Q    Just briefly, on Ukraine aid, should we expect anything on that in the budget next week?  Or will that just be toplines on defense —

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s budget announcement. 

Q    Thank you, John.  China and Belarus conducted high-level talks yesterday and expanded their defense partnership.  Is the White House concerned that China may channel weapons to Russia via Belarus?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we have not seen the Chinese make a decision with respect to providing lethal weaponry.  We don’t believe they’ve taken it off the table, but we don’t believe they made a decision to do that.  So, I really don’t think it’s helpful to get ahead of where we are here in this process.

We’ve communicated to the Chinese our concerns about this.  It’s really not in their best interests, and they should believe the same thing. 

So, let’s — let’s just not get ahead of where we are. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, Janne, and then you have the last question.

Q    Thank you very much.  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, John.  I have two questions.  What is the President Biden’s reactions about North Korea recently Hwasong-15 ICBM launching (inaudible) large rocket launchers?  Do you have any comment on that?

MR. KIRBY:  We have reacted in real time to each and every one, Janne.  I think you know that. 

And in — in response to the most recent ones, we conducted some — some exercises with our ROK allies.  We’re continuing to stay vigilant on and around the Peninsula.  And, of course, we’ve publicly condemned these launches, as had our U.N. colleagues.

Q    And Ukraine.  Ukraine requested arms aid from South Korea.  Does the United States want South Korea to provide weapons other than ammunition to Ukraine?

MR. KIRBY:  We want all nations to support Ukraine to the best that they can, and we don’t want any nation to help Russia kill more Ukrainians.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

MR. KIRBY:  But it’s a sovereign decision.  Each nation has to — I’m sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, it’s okay. 

MR. KIRBY:  I’m —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m waiting.  I’m like — (laughs) —

MR. KIRBY:  No, yeah, yeah.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You got it.  You got it.

MR. KIRBY:  We — now you made my — I forgot my train of thought. 

These are sovereign decisions.  And we want every nation to act in accordance with what they believe they can handle from their own national security perspective. 

The South Koreans have already been very helpful.  They’ve been attending these Ukraine Contact Defense Groups, and we’re appreciate — we appreciate that and we’re very grateful for that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was trying to catch your rhythm, but I got —

MR. KIRBY:  That’s all right.  I haven’t got much rhythm today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, last question.

Q    John, given what you were saying earlier, that the administration doesn’t think China has taken off the table sending weapons to Russia and — but that you haven’t seen any movement towards doing that, how serious then do you think China is about sending weapons to Russia?

MR. KIRBY:  Difficult to know, Carol.  We actually don’t know the answer that question.  Certainly, we were concerned enough to bring it up privately with our Chinese counterparts and publicly with all of you and the Vice President speaking to it in Munich.  Took it — we took that seriously. 

But what their next step is or — and what’s going to affect that, really that’s a question only they can answer. 

The President’s strong belief — and he said this himself — is that this is not a move that would be in the best interest of the Chinese and their standing in the international community, which we know, you know, they highly prize. 

More critically, we don’t believe that they should see it as being in their best interest. 

Q    But it sounds like, from what you’re saying, that you don’t want to lean into the idea of threating sanctions.  Is that because you don’t think that they will ultimately move in that direction?  I’m just trying to get a sense of why there’s a — seems to be a little bit of a hesitancy to talk in detail about how the U.S. could sanction China.

MR. KIRBY:  Secretary Blinken has been clear that — that —

Q    He mentioned it, yeah.

MR. KIRBY:  — that there will be consequences.  And he mentioned that sanctions could be one of those consequences. 

So, I mean, we’ve — we’ve laid out that — you know, that there are tools available to not only the United States, but to our — our allies and partners, should — should China move in that direction.  But, you know, ultimately, it’s their choice to make, and we really strongly urge them to make the right choice here. 

Okay.  Thanks, everybody. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Admiral. 

Q    Thank you, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Ms. Karine.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Okay, I have one thing at the top, and then we’ll get going. 

I just wanted to follow up on yesterday’s good news from Eli Lilly heeding the President’s call for companies to lower their prices and cap their insulin costs at $35. 

Data today shows that Americans in all 50 states, especially in communities of color, will benefit from the President’s cost-cutting actions. 

Through the Inflation Reduction Act, close to 4 million sectors — pardon me, seniors on Medicare with diabetes are protected.  Seniors started to see their insulin costs capped at $35 per month this past January, saving some seniors hundreds of dollars this past — hundreds of dollars for a monthly supply this past January.  Combined with Eli Lilly’s announcement, which is the largest insulin manufacturer, we’re making serious progress to cut insulin costs for approximately 26 million Americans living with diabetes. 

The data today shows that these cost-living [cost-saving] measures will also disproportionately impact communities of color, as Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native adults have higher rates of diabetes in the United States than whites — white Americans.

And, of course, this also builds on the tireless work the President has done to lower healthcare costs for Americans, and call on — that call on — that call that was heeded in North Carolina, where they announced an agreement to expand Medicaid today.

The President has been calling for all remaining states to expand Medicaid programs.  And today, North Carolina became the 40th state to answer that call.

Expanding Medicaid improves quality of life for Americans, and we thank Governor Cooper and bipartisan work in the North Carolina legislature to expand access to quality healthcare.  We are excited to see the state move quickly to get half a million North Carolinians covered, which is incredibly important.

Zeke, before I go to you, I forgot to tell Peter to welcome back and congratulations on being a dad.  And how is baby Karine doing?  She’s doing good?  (Laughter.) 

Q    Ha!  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Ed — (laughs) — Ed had, like, this delayed reaction. 

Q    It’s — I — I do have a lot of hard questions for her when I get home.  (Laughter.) 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Are they hard or are just — are they seriously hard or — (laughs) —

Q    You tell me. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t want to say the next word that I want to say to that.  (Laughter.)  Okay, I’m —

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Zeke, the floor is yours.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  And welcome back, Peter. 

The President just tweeted a couple of — maybe two minutes ago regarding the D.C. Home Rule, saying he would sign the resolutions, if they pass the Senate, to overturn the changes to D.C.’s criminal code. 

The President has spoken a bit about his support for D.C. statehood in the past, but, you know, why does he believe that he should step in where the D.C. — where the residents of D.C.’s elected representatives, you know, pass these changes — why does he believe that his — he should substitute his wisdom and judgment for theirs?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, just to double down and triple down on what the President has said for decades, which is that he believes every — every city should have their — the right to self-government.  That is — still is the same case.  That hasn’t — that hasn’t changed anything.  He has long believed that D.C. statehood should be something that the residents of D.C. should be allowed.  Again, that hasn’t changed. 

But this is different.  The way that we see this is — it’s very different.  This is — the D.C. Council put changes forward over the mayor’s objections.  And the President doesn’t support changes like lowering penalties for carjacking.  So this piece is different.

But, again, it doesn’t change the administration strongly supporting H.R. 51, which would have made D.C. the 51st state.  That is something that he still very much supports.  And we’re going to continue to call on Congress to provide a swift and orderly transition to statehood for the people who live here in D.C.

Q    I was hoping you could explain a little bit why this is different though.  Just because it’s different — the President believes that every city should have the right to self-government except if he belie- — if he disagrees with the outcomes of their — of their governing process? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, one thing that the President believes in is making sure that the streets in America and communities across the country are safe.  That includes D.C.  That does not change.  That’s why he puts forward a historic piece of — a historical plan that he hopes Republicans in Congress would support, which is his Safer America plan.  That is something that the President has led.

When you think about keeping communities safe, when you think about making sure that we’re also protecting our law enforcement and making sure that we have law enforcement in communities that continue to keep communities safe, that’s something that he has led on. 

So when it comes to what this proposal brings forth, which is, you know, really lowering penalties for carjacking, that’s not going to — he doesn’t believe that’s going to keep our communities safe.  So the — if the bill comes, he’s going to take action, as he said.

Q    Just another stab at this, because the principle of the matter — the President is making a principled statement that he supports a city self-governing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think two — I think those two things —

Q    — and then — and then, he’s over- — trying to overturn — overturn their governing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Those two — those two things can both — two things could exist at the same time, right?  We’ve heard that throughout our lives, right?  When we hear — when we hear things that we may not disagree — we may not agree with, that they both could exist at the same time, which is: The President still thinks that D.C. should become the 51st state.  That is something that he has supported for decades, not just these last couple of years.

But there is — he feels, as President, he has the obligation as well to keep America’s cities safe, to keep communities safe.  And this is one step and a way to do that.  That’s it.

Go ahead, Justin.

Q    Sorry, I just want to loop back on that really quickly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, is the principle here that the President believes in self-rule and autonomy, except if he believes that D.C. is passing laws that would leave its residents not safe in some way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — I don’t think — I don’t think it’s every piece of legislation.  This is going to come to his desk, and he has a decision to make for the people of D.C.  Right?  He has — he actually has a decision that is going to be put in front of him on —

Q    Well, it’s not just a decision now.  It’s a precedent that he’s setting.  You know, in the — in the SAP that you guys issued, it said, “Congress should respect the District’s autonomy to govern their local affairs.  For too long, Washington residents have been deprived for representation and the principle of taxation without representation.”

There is obviously a sort of immediate question about whether these changes done by the D.C. Council are smart or good policy.  But there’s also a principle about when the President would intervene to overrule the elected representatives. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I get the que- — I get the question, Justin.  I really do.  And what I’m saying to you is that the President supports D.C. statehood.  That has not changed.  That is something that he has supported for the past two decades or more.

Certainly, he’s — he was very clear about that during the campaign.  We’ve been very clear about that the last two years.

The President is being put — this piece of legislation is being put forward to him that’s going to become law, clearly — right? — once he signs it.  And it’s a decision that he gets to make — right? — to protect communities — to protect communities across the country.

And this is a way that he believes that he can do that.  He believes, by signing this into law, that it will protect communities.  And so, that matters.  That matters.

We — you all were asking me —

Q    But it matters more than the self-governance issue.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m saying — I’m saying both things can exist at the same time.

Q    I’m not sure that they can — (laughs) — if I’m being honest.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — no, no.  Look —

Q    Either “you can make decisions for yourself” or “I will make decisions for you that I believe are in your best interest.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But he’s — he — the decision that he is making, he’s making — he’s making it for the people of D.C. — right? — by making sure —

Q    But he’s opposed to that.  He just said that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, but — no, I understand that.  But he — this is being presented to him, right?  This is being presented to him on signing this into law.

And if you look at what is being presented to him, the mayor actually disagreed with what the D.C. Council put — put forward.  And so now this is an opportunity to protect the community.  That’s the way the President sees this — to protect the community.

Q    Okay.  I wanted to ask about the Willow project.  Can you talk to some — kind of detail the extent to which the White House has been involved in deliberations about this project at this point?  And is it accurate, the reporting that White House officials have been telling folks that they’re looking at banning drilling elsewhere in exchange for offering approval of at least part of this project?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to share on that.  That’s a decision that’s going to be made by the Secretary of Interior.  That’s for her to decide.  I’m just not going to get —

Q    So the White House is not involved in this —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m just not going to — I would refer you to a decision that is made by the Department of Interior.  That’s her decision to make.

Go ahead.

Q    Could you tell us a little bit more about what the President talked about at the lunch?  Did they talk about the debt ceiling?  Did they come up with any legislation they want to get done this year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you all know, the President went — went over to the Capitol, met with the Senate Democratic Caucus, folks that he has known for many times and have worked — we’ve worked really closely with them over the past two years on delivering historic pieces of legislation that’s going to really continue to grow the economy and build the economy, as the President has said many times, from the bottom up and middle out.

So they talked about an array of issues — important, critical issues that matter to the American people.  Debt ceiling, as you know, is always something that’s at the forefront, especially as what we’re seeing House Republicans are trying to do, trying to hold our economy hostage.

And we’ve been very clear.  We’re not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling because this is something that is a constitutional duty that Congress has, and they need to move forward and lift the debt ceiling.  That is something that is not negotiable.  And we’ve been very clear about that.

The President next week is going to put forward his budget on March 9th.  He’s going to lay out how he sees it — how he sees his responsibility to be fiscally responsible, if you will.  And we’ll see that from the President.

Now, the President has also said if there is a real conversation that congressional members want to have about how we continue to lower the deficit, that’s something that he’s willing to do, which he has actually done over the past two years — $1.7 trillion.  You heard him say during the State of the Union that his plan is going to — is going to lower the deficit by another $2 trillion.

So, I’ll leave it there as to their — what has been clearly important to the American people and what has been discussed.

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, just back to the crime bill.  If the President was planning to sign it, why did the administration put out that statement saying that he opposed it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I want to be very clear about this.  And I think I have.

Look, the President does not support the D.C. Council — the changes that they — that they put forward over the mayor’s objections.  And those changes, like lowering penalties for carjackings, he thought was — was unacceptable.

And so, he wanted to make sure that, again, we’re keeping communities safe.  And this is — he believes, you know, the D.C. community deserves that; they deserve to feel like — as if they are going to be safe.

And we’ve talked about — just last week, we talked about how the President inherited an increase in crime when he walked in, into this administration.  And this is a President who has led on that, who has led on making sure that we keep — that we put forward public safety and law enforcement policies to make sure that we keep our communities safe.

And so, he’s done that through the American Rescue Plan.  And he’s — he did that with his Safer America plan.  Again, you know, Republicans have refused to fund this plan.  And so, he’s going to continue to make sure that he puts Americans first.  And that’s how he’s seeing this — this particular piece of legislation that’s going to come before him.

Q    And can I ask about a moment in the President’s speech last night in Baltimore?  He was talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene, and he mentioned a mother that had lost two of her sons to fentanyl.  He said, “The interesting thing is that the fentanyl they took came during the last administration.”  And then he seems to laugh.

The mother is demanding an apology.  And I’m wondering if he regretted how that came out.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you know, I want to be very careful here because this involves a mom, as you just stated, who lost two sons.  And when it comes to this President, I believe the American people knows who he is fundamentally, because he’s been around for some time, and they have watched him go through grief, they have watched him deal with really personal loss. 

And so, this is a President that understands that.  He expressed sympathy for her last night.  And his heart goes out to any person — any person who has to go through that type of trauma, that type of hurt.

I will say, his words are being mischaracterized by someone who is regularly discredited for things that she says that are, really, conspiracy theories.  And those lies are being parroted by a certain network.  And — and, you know — and, you know, I’ll just leave it there.

I’ll say one more thing — is that conservative parents on fentanyl — of fentanyl victims have been very clear.  They have blasted the congresswoman for these dishonest kinds of statements and kinds of attacks.

But again, our hearts go out to anyone who loses — who loses a person that they love.

And this is something that you’ve heard from this President over and over again when — when that has occurred and has been presented to him.

Go ahead. 

Q    Retired U.S. Army Colonel Paris Davis is receiving the Medal of Honor tomorrow, which is nearly 60 years after his commanding officer first recommended that he get it.  The paperwork for his recommendation disappeared at least twice.  Does the White House think that race was a factor in why his honor took so long?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we were going to have some — some information to share with you on the Medal of Honor recipients.  We’ll have more of — we’ll have that tomorrow.  So we will go through who’s going to be getting the Medal of Honor.  I don’t have anything to share specifically on anyone at this time.  I just don’t want to get ahead of the team. 

But I’m happy to answer that question tomorrow once we have more information to share.

Q    And if I could also ask an immigration question.  The governors of Indiana and Utah have proposed that states be allowed to sponsor immigrants — what types of jobs they need to fill.  Is this something that the President would be interested in exploring with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any — any policy — policy preview to share from here or any reaction to that at this time. 

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    I just want to follow up on Kevin’s first question about the D.C. crime law.  Again, and just to be clear, the White House put out a statement saying that the President did not support it.  But now from the podium, you’re saying that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, not — the President as well, right?

Q    Well, the — yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not just me. 

Q    Right.  Fine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    You, the podium — you represent the President but fine.  To be clear, why —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but you heard directly from the President.  I just want to make sure —

Q    Understood.  So let me —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — that that is — that is clear. 

Q    So I’m following up on his statement.  Even better.  It makes it even better for me.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That — right? 

Q    So why would the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s what I’m saying.  (Laughter.)  It makes it even better.  You heard it directly from the President.

Q    I’ll ask you cleanly: Why would the White House say he does not support it and then he would say he is not vetoing it — instead, he is signing it?  Which is to say, why should Americans believe the White House when it says it doesn’t support something if the President is going to sign it no less?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand the question, Peter.  I’m just telling you, at this moment where we are currently with this piece of legislation that is going to be coming — this — that’s coming from the Senate, that’s going to be coming to the President’s desk, he will — he will sign it. 

And, you know, it is because what is different about this — signing it — is it, as I mentioned before, the D.C. Council put forward — was put forward over the mayor’s objections.  And the President wants to make sure that communities, even in D.C. — the Americans in D.C. feel safe. 

Q    So let me get to the second half of that question, which is: Why should Americans believe the White House when it says it doesn’t support something, when the President is going to sign it no less?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think what the American people, who I’ve — I just mentioned is to — to one of your colleagues, I think the American people know who Joe Biden is.  I think they fundamentally —

Hold on.  No, let me — wait.  You got — you have your eyebrows moving and leading in, so I just wanted to make sure you give me a second to answer. 

Q    I haven’t spoken, so go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I’m just — you have this — this — you get — you get really excited, Peter.  So I just want to make sure.  I — I —

Q    These are exciting briefings.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Oh, my gosh, they’re so exciting.  Thrilling.  Thrilling. 

No, but in — with all seriousness, look, the — the American people know who Joe Biden is.  He’s been around for some time, right?  They fundamentally know who he is as a person. 

The President, especially these last two years, have always, always put the American people first.  And that’s what they should know.  That’s what they should take away that he’s putting, in this case, the safety of the people of D.C. first, and he is always going to do that. 

Q    Let me ask you one separate question —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    — if I can then.  I apologize.  Thanks for letting me follow up.

The President — yesterday, from the podium, you said that there was “no other plan”; the President was focused on the plan that exists, as it relates to student loan forgiveness right now before the Supreme Court. 

The President told us on the lawn yesterday, we’re “confident [we’re] on the right side of the law, but… not confident about the outcome of the decision yet.” 

So because the President himself said that he is not confident of the outcome of the decision, what is the White House doing?  Or why is the White House not preparing a plan B to help those who have student loans know what they need to do to prepare themselves if it’s rejected by the court?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because we’re confident in our legal authority. 

Q    Well, he just said he’s not confident in the outcome, though, so it doesn’t matter —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because — but who —

Q    — if you’re confident in your authority.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But who — but, of course, who would know how the Supreme Court is going to go?  No one knows how the Supreme Court is going to rule.

Q    Well, you have a pretty good sense because it’s a 6-3 conservative lean right now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But it doesn’t mean that we can’t be confident in the merit, in our standing, and we are.  We’re confident —

Q    So we’re going to have faith because of the — I’m just — I didn’t meant to interrupt, but you’re going to have faith that — that your argument is the one they — that the law supports, even if you don’t think they will support it, and not make an alternative plan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is — and that the President does not know how the Supreme Court will rule.  That’s — of course, we do not — we never know on any case how the Supreme Court is going to rule. 

What we are saying is that the solicitor gener- — general did an amazing job, we believe, in — in really defending the program that the President has put forth.  And he laid —

Q    So if you’re someone with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But do you see — you see why I —

Q    No, I get it.  No. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me — let me finish.  No, let me —

Q    All right, I thought you were finished.  I’m listening. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me finish. 

Q    Of course.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is why I was saying earlier, because —

Q    My eyebrows moved.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — you tend — yeah, there you go.  (Laughter.)

Q    I know. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What — (laughs) — what this — what the SG made very clear yesterday, and we believe this — and I actually spoke to the President about this this morning — is that our opponents don’t have the standing or the merits on their argument.  That is — that is because she put forth such a forceful, forceful argument for the President’s plan. 

Q    I guess I’m asking because we’re hearing from those who have student loans right now, who are wondering, if this is rejected, they have to make a plan B. 

So simply put, what is the message to those Americans who have loans right now?  Because whether or not the White House thinks it’s going to get through the court, it may not.  What should they be doing actively right now?  Or what can they anticipate from you on their behalf?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what they can anticipate from us on our behalf.  And they — and many of those millions of borrowers received an email from the Secretary of Education yesterday, basically stating that we have their backs.  So we are going to continue to fight —

Q    For two months, right?  You would —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re —

Q    — extend it for two months, he told us.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to — well, there’s two parts to that, right?  We’re going to extend it for two months, depending on the decision — right? — that’ll be two months after the decision — or January 3rd — 30th.  Right?

So that is what we’ve put up —

Q    June 30th?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Ju- — I’m so sorry.  June 30th.

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’re correct. 

But our messages is — to your other question that you asked — is that we’re going to have their backs.  We are going to continue to have their backs, as the President has had the backs of Americans whether you’re in a red state, blue state, rural America, urban America.  We will have your backs and continue to make sure that we fight for you so that you are not left behind.  And that is what this plan is about. 

Q    Thanks for indulging me.  I — (inaudible), sorry. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — well, you’ve been in — a lot of indulgement.  Oh, boy. 

All right, Ed.  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Just — just three actually.  (Laughter.)  Would — there is a separate House Republican — congressional Republican proposal that would override legislation allowing non-citizens to vote in Washington, D.C., elections.  If that passes the Congress, would the President sign it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can say that the President does not support that.

Q    Okay.  The reversal here comes in the wake of a handful of senators facing reelection in 2024, saying that they were seriously considering supporting this legislation or had planned to vote for it: Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, Angus King. 

Some might look at this and say the President is choosing to give political aircover to vulnerable Democrats in 2024 and make a point on criminal justice issues that he has had an opinion on since the 2020 election when there was a disagreement in the Democratic Party about whether or not to support defunding the police or whether to be tougher on crime and continue to support police agencies. 

So, is the President playing 2024 politics with this local Washington, D.C., issue at the expense of his longstanding, decades-long support of D.C. statehood?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I — what I’ll say here is — I’m not going to get into 2024 analysis or political punditry from here.  We are covered — I am covered, we are covered by the Hatch Act, as you know, and so I’m not — certainly not going to get into analysis from here. 

I will always be very clear about what the President believes.  The President believes in making sure he continues to deliver for the American people.  That his — that is what he wakes up thinking about every day, and you see that in his historic pieces of poli- — policies and laws that are now in effect, and it’s going to continue.  That’s our — our focus at this time.

Q    Related to this, you — a few weeks ago, we talked about whether or not the White House would ever swap the D.C. license plates.  And you said you’d get back to us on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, yeah, you did ask me that.  I — I — I still have not gotten back to you.  We — I will — I will work on that.

I think we actually were trying to dig in and get some information.  We just haven’t popped any further information at this time. 

Q    And as he left the meeting, he said — about Ohio — he was asked about East Palestine and supporting legislation that’s in the works.  He said, “I will be there soon.”  Is there a plan for him to go?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any trips to preview for you at this time.  The President also — if I — if I’m remembering correctly — moments ago, he also talked about how, essentially, this has been a priority.  He’s talked to governors, the governor of Pennsylvania, governor of Ohio, the senators at –multiple times throughout these past couple of — couple of weeks.

As you know, when it hap- — when the derailment happened on February 3rd, hours later — within hours, we had folks on the ground from the EPA making sure that we were dealing with this chemical spill and making sure — and since then, we have had a multi-agency reaction to this, an operation on the ground, making sure that the community in East Palestine was getting what they needed to get back on their feet and to make them whole. 

And we’re going to — you’ve heard this from Secretary Buttigieg, you’ve heard this from Administrator Regan — we are going to make sure that we hold Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable and make sure that they clean up their mess. 

I’m going to go to the back because I haven’t done that.

Go ahead.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the 58th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery March, also known as Bloody Sunday, we know that President Biden will be in Selma on Sunday to give remarks. 

Last year, Vice President Harris gave remarks and traveled.  Why was it important for the President to go this year?  Is there anything you can preview about his speech, whether he’ll talk about voting rights or even an issue that’s important to Black — the Black community, which is the censoring of Black history in the classrooms?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll have more to preview about Sunday, hopefully, tomorrow.  So we’ll work on that to make sure that we have some — some — something for all of you to preview. 

But the President what — did do the march back — if I’m — if I remember correctly, back in 2019, with then John — with then icon, leader — clearly, a hero — John Lewis.  And he had an opportunity to go to the bridge, had an opportunity to go to church and do this with then-Congressman John Lewis, as I just mentioned. 

And he — it was an honor for him to do that.  This is someone — if you think about how the President got involved in politics, it was very much connected to the civil rights movement.  So this is important to the President. 

Bloody Sunday, as we know, is a part of our history that is tragic, that is clearly deadly, that led to — that helped lead to the Civil Rights Movement, getting voting rights done and on the books, and to protect a group of Americans who — to give them the right to make sure that they felt safe and gave them the right to vote.

So, clearly, this is something that’s incredibly important.  He looks forward to going to Selma — Selma on Sunday, again, on a historic day that we should not forget — a part of our history that we should just not forget — and continue — continue to remember those who fought very hard for — for — for the rights of many Americans.

Q    My other question.  The COVID-era SNAP benefits expire this week.  Some policy experts have expressed concern that many households, especially Black and poor and minority communities, will not have enough funds to pay for their groceries.  What is the White House’s message to those who are concerned that they won’t have enough funds to pay for their food?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, this is a White House, as I’ve stated many times before, that really cares about all Americans and making sure that no one is left behind.  And we see that.  We’ve seen that time and time again in the President’s, you know, pieces of policies and legislation. 

And that’s what the President is going to continue to do, whether it’s policy that’s coming out of an agency that we are really dealing with communities that are dealing with a hard time, especially as we’ve — as we’ve seen the last three years of COVID. 

That’s why the President passed the American Rescue Plan, to get us back on our feet, to deal with — to deal with communities and families who were not able to put food on the table or help them put food on the table; making sure that our kids were being taken care of; as — as schools were closed, making sure those schools were being open.

And so this is — again, from the first piece of legislation to policies coming out to different agencies, it has taken this very seriously on making sure that families who were hurt the hardest, you know, continue to get that relief. 

I’m just — I’m going to try and go around because I haven’t.  Okay.

My gosh.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Earlier today, the Congressional Black Caucus held a presser going over their legislative agenda.  And in that, Representative Horsford talked about a letter that was sent to DOJ wanting an update on what the administration has been doing on the executive orders that the President put out on police reform. 

And one thing he did say was that one of them in particular was the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database that was supposed to be done by January the 20th.  Is there anything that you can give in an update about where we are in that process?

As the President touts — you know, goes throughout the country and he touts these executive orders, what is being done on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I want to take a step back for a second.  While Congress was not able to deliver on — on the policing act — as you know, that was worked in the last — in the last session — the President took action.  He took — he took historic action to deal with an issue that was affecting communities.  That has gotten support from civil rights leaders.  That got support from police unions. 

This was — this — the executive order that he put forward was incredibly important, as you know, and touted by many — many — many folks from both sides.

So, want to make sure that is clear, that this was a historic action when Congress could not act.  I don’t have an update for you.  Department of Justice was clearly — would have more information.  I know you just — you just — you just stated them.  I just don’t have anything to share for you at this time.

Q    Let me follow up really quickly.  At the beginning of the briefing, you talked about Eli Lilly slashing the insulin prices.  Is there any conversation or pressure that the President is putting on Nordisk and Sanofi?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the President used the bully pulpit to make himself very clear on how we should be putting the American people first. 

You heard him — the — one of the reasons we saw Eli Lilly take that action is because, during the State of the Union, the President put out there that pharma companies need to make sure that they followed his lead as he passed it — as he helped sign and helped, tooth and nail, get Inflation Reduction Act passed. 

And because of that, we saw — we saw a cap for seniors and Medi- — for Medicare at $35.  And the President said pharma co- — pharma — pharma companies should follow suit.  And we saw that with Eli Lilly.

So the bully pulpit that he speaks from very often and calls that out is a powerful tool that we believe has been very effective.

Go ahead.

Q    Okay.  Thank you.  I just want to seek to kind of understand the President’s opposition to the bill a bit more and the reasons for it.  One, is it just the lowering penalties for carjackings, or are there other aspects that he disagrees with?

On carjackings, too, is it broadly the message that would be sent by lowering the mandatory minimum?  I’m looking at the bill and, basically, right now the minimum sentence is 7 years with a maximum of 21.  And the revisions would be 4 to 18.  Does he just — does he believe that seven years is the minimum sentence someone should receive for carjacking?  Or is it more so the message that would be sent here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to go line by line of — of the — of the legislation.  What I can say more broadly, to your point, as you are asking me this question, is that the President wants to make sure that we have communities — that communities across the country feel safe.  He feels that this is an — incredibly important for him to do as President.

This is an op- — this is something that is being presented to him.  This is not a piece of legislation that he put forward.  This is something that has been presented to him, and he’s going to take action on behalf of a community here — right here in D.C.

Q    Maybe not line by line but, like, just that line —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I’m — I’m just —

Q    — since — since you mentioned carjacking.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I know.  I —

Q    — I just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just used carjacking as an example, but I —

Q    But he also mentioned it in his tweet, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — no, totally understand.  I’m just not going to go line by line.  It was just an easy example to give — to give you all and the American people of how he sees this.  He wants to make sure that communities feel safe.  And this is a way that he believes that we’ll see — that we will see that.

Q    On another criminal justice — the President, during the campaign, opposed the death penalty, said that he’d want to end it with a few exceptions, as well.  The number of people with the death penalty has steadily gone up over the past couple of years, including President Biden’s time in office.  Does he still support ending the death penalty?

And also, just where does the administration go now to actually ensure that happens?

As a follow to that, just also, what — what do you attribute the rise in people that have been — oh, excuse me.  I said the death penalty.  I am talking about solitary confinement.  Excuse me.

The number of people in solitary confinement has gone up in recent years while President Biden has been in office.  He opposed solitary confinement during the campaign.  What do you attribute the rise of people in solitary confinement during his time in office?  And also, what steps will he take going forward to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, not the death —

Q    Not the death penalty.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    I was confused on that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    A separate question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  His — his policy has not changed on this.  Don’t have anything to preview on how to move forward or the next steps. 

I cannot speak to why we’ve seen an uptick in this during his administration.  Clearly, that’s for experts to — who follow this to speak to.  I just don’t have anything further to share.

Q    Okay.

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

Q    Did the President talk to Mayor Bowser and tell her that he would sign this bill if it came to him, if the Senate passed it, before he talked to Senate Democrats about this (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I don’t have any call to preview.  We don’t have a call to preview with — with Mayor Bowser.  As you know, she’s mayor of D.C, so we have a close — a close connection with her.  We — my — our team here speaks to her often.  Just don’t have anything to preview as a conversation with the President or not.

Q    And she’s talked to people here at the White House about this legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t speak to this particular legislation.  What I can say is that we are in regular touch with her.  She is — because she is right here in D.C., she is — you know, she’s here often.  There’s regular conversations that’s had with our team here, with her team.

I just don’t have a specific conversation on this legislation to read out to you at this time.

Go ahead.

Q    So, going back to Zolan’s question — first question.  The — if you’re not going line by line, I guess my question is: What is it about this legislation specifically that the — is the President opposing, other than the broad concept of (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that’s the answer.  The broad — the bro- —

Q    What about it does he — do he feel like makes D.C. unsafe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand.  The broad concept of it is that he wants to make sure that, you know, communities feel safe.  And he feels this is a way — a step forward in doing that.

And so, look, we u- — I used the carjacking as an example — just as a quick example so people can understand.  I’m not going to go line by line.  That’s not something that we tend to do here, go line by line on every piece of legislation.  We tend to lift up things that make sense, things that can be easily understandable for the American people.  So that’s just an example that I used. 

But, more broadly, this is a President who has led on making sure putting forward historic — historic plans to make sure that pub- — there’s — public safety is a priority, to make sure that law enforcement are able to — that we have law enforcement that go into communities and make — make sure communities feel safe. 

If you think about it, this is a President, during — when he was senator, started the COPS program.  Right?  That is another — another kind of apparatus that he put forward to make sure that communities felt safe.  And that’s what he’s going to continue to do.

Q    Is there something besides carjackings that make people feel unsafe about this specific piece of legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you is this is a — this is a piece of legislation that the mayor objected to, the D.C. Council moved forward on.  But the President feels very strongly on this.  He feels that we need to make sure that all communities, including D.C., here — the folks who live in D.C. feel safe.  And he feels that this — taking this action does exactly that.

Q    So the other thing I wanted to ask about was conceptually about statehood.  There are all kinds of instances where legislatures override a governor’s veto; they’re at odds, but a law passes.  And presumably the President doesn’t feel like that imperils their statehood. 

What is it in this instance that — I’m still sort of struggling how he can support statehood for D.C. and their right to be able to pass these kinds of laws, even if he disagrees with it, but then, in this instance, he’s deciding not to allow them that opportunity. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because this — this — this is just different.  This is different, again, because the D.C. Council put these changes forward over the mayor’s objections.  And so this is just a uniquely different situation that the President has been presented with and is going to take action on.

Q    But if they had statehood, then the Council could pass this and it would become law.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And that would be great.  And that — that would be fine.  Right?  Because the statehood would allow them to be the 51st state, and it would allow them to act as their own — as their own entity.  And the President is continuing to fight for that.  He’s been calling for that for the past 20 years. 

They don’t have that yet.  So this is an op- — and — this is a piece of legislation that’s being presented to him.  And he’s going to take action on beha- — on behalf of the American people, including in D.C., on beh- — on behalf of keeping the public safe, including in D.C.  And that’s what you’re seeing the President do.

That doesn’t mean he’s not going to call on making sure that D.C. is indeed a statehood. 

So, this — again, this has been presented to him.  He’s going to take action on behalf of the American people.  But, of course, he wants to make sure that D.C. does have statehood, as he’s been calling for for decades.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I know you say you don’t want to get ahead of the President’s budget release next week, but does the President believe that there is reckless spending in the federal government that needs to be addressed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — so let me first say that this is a President, for the first two years, who has put policies forth that has lowered the deficit by $1.7 trillion.  So he’s taken that very seriously to make sure that we continue to do that work. 

And he talked about it during the State of the Union — I just mentioned it — that he’s going to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion over 10 years by asking the wealthy and the big corporations to pay their fair share.  And he’s going to do that without cutting programs Americans have paid into.

If you think about Social Security, you think about Medicare — something that Republicans continue to say, or have said, and have said for years now, they wanted — they want to cut.  So the President is going to continue to fight for those important pieces of — important programs.

And so, what the President is also going to focus on is continuing to lower costs for families.  That’s what he’s going to do.  I’m not going to get ahead of his — of his budget.  It’s going to come out a week from today.  And you all will get to see it.

We’re going to continue to ask Republicans to do the same, to put forth a budget to see — put forth a budget that’s fiscally responsible and that lays out for the American people a transparent budget so we can see what is it that they’re calling on — what is it that they’re calling for in their budget.

Q    Real quick.  You know, some fact checkers believe that that $1.7 trillion was because the COVID relief funds ran out.  Does the White House have a response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What we know and what we have seen from the data is: Because of this President, because of the plans that he has put forward, $1.7 trillion.  That’s what we’ve seen in the last two years.  That’s how the deficit has — has decreased.  And that’s important.

And, again, the President is committed, for the next 10 years, to do — to — to bring down the deficit by $2 trillion.  And so that is the commitment that this President is going to have.

Go ahead.

Q    On student loan forgiveness, you know, you mentioned to Peter that your message to borrowers right now would be that you have their back.  But if you’re one of 40 million Americans whose, now, financial fate is up in the air, essentially, don’t they deserve to know if “having their back” means that there’s an actual backup plan in the works?  Or if it’s simply that, you know, you feel that the way that you’ve gone about this now is your best shot at this, do they deserve to know that too?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can tell you is, yes, we have their backs.  That’s why the Secretary, on the same day of the arguments, made sure that we sent out an email to millions of borrowers to let them know that we will have their backs and the President will continue to do so. 

We are, again, confident in our legal authority — as the President said yesterday, as I said yesterday as well, as I’m saying to all of you, in our — in our legal — you know, in our legal argument here. 

We think the SG — she did a fantastic job defending the President’s program — the President’s plan. 

And so, again, we’re going to see how this plays out.  We’re certainly not going to get ahead of the Supreme Court and what they decide. 

But, again, we feel that they do not have — the other side do not have the merit to — to — you know, to really — merit to stand forth with their argument.  They truly don’t.  And so, we’re going to continue to make a forceful defense for the President’s program. 

It is unfortunate that folks on the other side — you have elected officials who do not want to protect or give a little bit of a breathing room to those 40 million Americans that will get that. 

Let’s not forget, 90 percent of folks in the — that’s going to be — be able to participate in the President’s plan are making less than $75,000.

Q    So, it sounds like plan B is plan A, right?  And so, I guess, to just be really practical about it, do borrowers need to be making other plans?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is not for me to speak to.

What I can tell you is what we’re going to do.  What we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to defend the President’s plan.  We believe we have the legal authority to — to be successful here.

The solicitor general proved that, showed that yesterday.  That’s what we believe.

And our plan is a good plan.  It’s a very good plan that’s going to give relief, again, to work — working families, to middle-class Americans.  And so that’s what we’re going to continue to fight for. 

Q    And not to beat a dead horse on the D.C. crime bill, but I think there just still is some confusion here.  Because given the difference between the SAP that came out earlier last month and the announcement today, what led to this change of heart?  Because it does seem there was a change of heart.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I can tell you is what the President said himself and just repeat that.  Which is he — he — you know, he believes that every city has the right to self-govern — government.  That never changes.  He’s been saying that for some time. 

And if the Senate sends the bill — this particular bill to his desk — he will sign it.  And he said that today.  I’m repeating it from the podium. 

And he believes, you know, this is a way for him to keep the community safe in D.C. and the people of D.C. safe — the residents of D.C. safe and protected.  So that is why he’s moving forward in this way.

Q    So nothing changed in his mindset between February 6th and today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just going — I’m just laying out where the President is today as this is coming — this is going to be coming before him, and he is going to sign it. 

All right.  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

4:15 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John<span class="dewidow"> </span>Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

5:02 P.M. EST

MODERATOR:  Hi everyone.  And thanks for joining.  This is [Moderator] from NSC. 

Before we get started, a quick housekeeping: Everyone on this call should have received the embargoed copy of the factsheet and an embargoed version of the strategy.  All of that is embargoed until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow for reference.  If you haven’t, please reach out to Michael Morris from ONCD, and he’ll be able to help you out.  But with that, I guess we’ll get to it. 

Welcome to our call previewing the national — the Biden-Harris administration’s National Cyber Strategy.  We’ll start this call on record with remarks from the acting Director —  Cyber National Director Kemba Walden and the NSC’s Deputy Director [Deputy National Security Advisor] for Cyber and Emerging Technologies, Anne Neuberger. 

And then we’ll move to a background, attributable to “senior administration officials” for a few questions, where you’ll also hear from [senior administration official] and the [senior administration official]. 

So, with that, I will turn it over to you, Kemba. 

MS. WALDEN:  Thank you, [Moderator].  And good evening.  Thank you all for being here.  So, tomorrow, President Biden will release the administration’s National Cybersecurity Strategy.  This strategy sets forth a bold new vision for the future of cyberspace in the wider digital ecosystem. 

I want to thank the President for recognizing the critical importance of cybersecurity issues for the American people and for making cybersecurity a policy priority from day one of this administration. 

The strategy builds on two years of unprecedented attention that the President has placed on cybersecurity issues, starting with the May 2021 executive order. 

I also wanted to thank Congress for their continued willingness to work with the administration on cybersecurity issues.  We’re fortunate to benefit from a long history of bipartisan cooperation on cybersecurity. 

And I want to thank the many departments and agencies that contributed their time and expertise to the development of this strategy and who will now be at the forefront of its implementation. 

The President’s strategy fundamentally reimagines America’s social — cyber social contract.  It will rebalance the responsibility for managing cyber risk onto those who are most able to bear it.  Today, across the public and private sectors, we tend to devolve responsibility for cyber risk downwards.  We ask individuals, small businesses, and local governments to shoulder a significant burden for defending us all.  This isn’t just unfair, it’s ineffective. 

The biggest, most capable, and best positioned actors in our digital ecosystem can and should shoulder a greater share of the burden for managing cyber risk and keeping us all safe.  This strategy asks more of industry, but also commits more from the federal government. 

With respect to industry, we will identify gaps and reduce burdens in existing authorities where targeted and narrow regulations are necessary to improve public safety and cybersecurity. 

But for government, we have a duty to the American people to also double down on tools that only government can wield, including the law enforcement and military authorities to disrupt malicious cyberactivity and pursue their perpetrators. 

And we will continue to invest in information sharing, operational collaboration, and other forms of partnership with the private sector. 

Every American should be able to benefit from cyberspace, but every American should not have the same responsibility to keep it secure. 

Simply shifting the burden for security, though, won’t solve all of our problems if we don’t start thinking in terms of long-term solutions.  There are very real near-term risks, legal requirements, and commercial incentives that cause us to prioritize short-term approaches over long-term solutions. 

But it’s not enough just to manage the threats of today.  We need to invest in a tomorrow that is more inherently defensible and resilient. 

To do that, we need to make it so that when public- and private-sector entities face tradeoffs between easy but temporary fixes and durable and long-term solutions, they are incentivized to consistently choose the latter. 

This strategy calls for investments in our cyber workforce, our infrastructure, and the digital ecosystems underlining the technologies to improve our national resilience and economic competitiveness.  Rebalancing the responsibility to defend cyberspace and incentivizing investments in a resilient future are the fundamental shifts that guide the President’s strategy. 

I want to turn now to my colleague, Anne Neuberger, who can provide her view on the strategy and some of its most important policy objectives. 

Thanks so much for your time. 

MS. NEUBERGER:  Thank you, Kemba.  Good afternoon, all.  It is really great to be here with you today. 

I want to first kick off by thanking the ODNC team and, as Kemba did, the many departments and agencies who led and participated in building a strong, comprehensive strategy. 

Before I get to the strategy, though, I’d like to simply start off by simply saying how the strategy is really being released at a pivotal moment, at a very timely moment.  Looking back at the last 24 months of the Biden-Harris administration and especially over the last year as we recently hit the one-year mark of the war in Ukraine, we’ve seen the cyber threat be at the forefront of geopolitical crises. 

And as we know, the threat is not only Russia.  We’ve seen destructive cyber and ransomware attacks executed by cybercriminals and other countries across the globe. 

For example, last fall, we saw Iranian intelligence services attack Albania’s government networks, disrupting government services to the country’s citizens.  And almost immediately, we, at the ready, mobilized ourselves and our European partners to assist in Albania’s response to the attack and to hold Iran accountable by designating sanctions on individuals responsible. 

Here at home, we’re no stranger to these sort of threats, which is important, because the Biden administration’s fundamental commitment is that Americans must be able to have confidence that they can rely on critical services, hospitals, gas pipelines, air/water services even if they are being targeted by our adversaries. 

And that’s why the Biden-Harris administration has worked tirelessly over the last two years to deliver on that commitment by building a more resilient cyber infrastructure to protect the services we all rely on daily, and also to strengthen our international partnerships, because cyber threats are fundamentally transnational threats.  They cross borders. 

So that’s exactly what the strategy captures and sets out to continue to do, drawing direction and inspiration from the National Security Strategy, and establishing an affirmative vision for a secure cyberspace that creates opportunities to achieve our collective aspirations. 

It endeavors to make a stronger and more resilient cyber infrastructure for the American people and our allies and partners around the world. 

So, I’ll take a moment to walk through the five core pillars that the strategy is built on. 

First, the strategy will defend critical infrastructure by expanding minimum cybersecurity requirements for critical sectors, enabling public-private collaboration, and ensuring that our systems are kept to the level needed to meet the threat.  It’s critical, as I said, that the American people have confidence in the availability and resiliency of our critical infrastructure and the essential services it provides. 

Second, it will disrupt and dismantle threat actors by using all instruments of national power to make malicious cyber actors — to make it harder for them to threaten the national security or public safety of the United States. 

Third, it will shape market forces to drive security and resilience by ensuring we place responsibilities on those who can address the risks, and we work to shift the consequences of poor cybersecurity away from the most vulnerable.  We need to make our digital ecosystem more trustworthy. 

Fourth, invest in a resilient future through strategic investments that the Biden administration has made over the first two years and continued investments and coordinated, collaborative action.  We’ll continue to lead the world in developing secure and resilient next-generation technologies and infrastructure. 

And finally, we’ll continue to forge international partnerships to pursue shared goals by promoting a cyberspace where responsible state behavior is expected and rewarded, and irresponsible behavior is isolating and costly, as in the Iran example I noted earlier. 

There are three elements in particular I’d like to highlight. 

First, on the critical infrastructure side.  A lot of the work we’ve done on critical infrastructure is already underway.  This strategy codifies the first two years of putting in place minimum cybersecurity pipe- — requirements for pipelines, for railways, and, shortly, for additional sectors we’ll be announcing. 

We recognize that we need to move from just a public-private partnership, information-sharing approach to implement minimum mandates.  Information sharing and public-private partnerships are inadequate for the threats we face when we look at critical infrastructure. 

As I said, we’ve made major progress in executing this as a core Biden administration commitment in the first two years, and we’ll continue to carry it forward with the executive branch authorities we have in place and work with Congress to develop those limited additional authorities we may still need. 

Second, as we continue our focus on disrupting and dismantling threat actors, we’re elevating our work on ransomware, declaring ransomware a threat to national security rather than just a criminal challenge. 

And again, this is something we’ve already begun to tackle through domestic work targeting the most virulent ransomware actors — I’d call out the FBI’s work against Hive as an example — and with 36 partners and the European Union in the international counter ransomware initiative, which just had its first anniversary in October. 

Finally, it redoubles our commitment to international partnerships and implementation of norms.  Threats in cyberspace are often borderless.  Cyber defense matters in the modern geopolitical climate.  And we must work with our close allies and partners to deliver the security we all need and our citizens deserve. 

So, with that, thank you for your time.  And we’ll turn it over for questions, as [Moderator] noted, to [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].  Thank you for your questions. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, Anne.  And thanks, Kemba.  And just to make sure I got everyone’s title right there at the top for our on-the-record speakers, it was the acting National Cyber Director, Kemba Walden, and the Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies, Anne Neuberger. 

So, if you want to use the “hand raising” feature, we’ll give it a quick minute to let people raise their hands and then we’ll get started with a Q&A. 

We’ll get started.  Our first question will go to Maggie Miller from Politico.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Yep.  Hi.  Thanks so much for hosting this call.  I wanted to ask a little bit more about some of these, you know, regulations that are going in place.  I know Anne mentioned there’s going to be new sectors that are going to be announced soon.  Can you talk more about what those sectors will be and what the feedback from industry has been about having this more mandatory approach to cybersecurity requirements that has, as you mentioned, already been ongoing?  Thanks so much. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:   Hi, Maggie.  [Senior administration official] here.  Thanks for the question. 

So, we’ve taken up a sector-by-sector approach in looking at each critical infrastructure sector and thinking about what are the ways that we can improve the cybersecurity posture within that sector.  There are a number of sectors that are already regulated — for instance, electricity grid, you know, nuclear facilities, there are others — where the ability to require cybersecurity practices as part of an overall security program and safety program is already in place. 

And so, we just want to make sure that those regulatory regimes take advantage of the best thought that exists across the cybersecurity industry and what we’re learning from examining cyber incidents that have occurred in recent years. 

But there are sectors where the authorities aren’t as clear or we have not fully exercised the authorities that exist.  One example of where we’re beginning to take the first steps is EPA for the water sector.  They have made a public notice, and I’m not exactly sure where it stands, but I think it’s coming out soon.  It’s an interpretation of an existing rule for sanitary surveys in which water facility owners and operators will have to incorporate some cybersecurity elements in their regularized sanitary survey program, where they’re looking at drinking water safety issues and the equipment and such. 

So, it’s not a — it’s not a new authority.  It’s an interpretation and adding additional elements into an existing authority.  So that that will begin to come into place here in the very near term but will take time to fully see that ripple through the industry because these are on a couple-of-year cycles to be when the sanitary surveys get done on a periodic basis. 

There are other sectors where we’re looking at similar things and finding ways to close gaps.  There are a number of sectors where it’s purely voluntary and there’s actually not a regulatory regime around it.  And so, those are things that we’re looking at.  And also turning to CISA, through those cross-sector cyber performance goals that they’ve put out, to find ways to encourage the incorporation of cybersecurity best practices.  These are things that everybody knows about — multi-factor authentication, network segmentation, things like that, encryption. 

And so, the bar we’re setting is not a high bar. We really are just hoping that owners and operators do the basics.  And over time, we’re going to be able to bring and raise all ships. 

MODERATOR:  Great.  We’ll go to our next question.  Sean from CNN.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Hi, can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yes, we can hear you. 

Q    Great.  Thanks for the call.  Very interesting strategy.  I wanted to ask, kind of, a question that comes up in a lot of these calls, but, you know, you have to ask it, is: in terms of the international dimension, how the administration is going to address the bear in the room and try to get — if try at all — to get Russia to cooperate on norms, on pursuing ransomware actors, et cetera. 

We’re all well aware of the tools that the administration can use to rally allies and use it and coordinate with everyone else except Russia.  But the government will agree that cooperating with Russia would certainly help in this space. 

So, has that — has that ship sailed with the war in Ukraine and given that the war has no end in sight?  Has the administration given up on engaging Moscow on cybercriminal issues and other cyber issues?  Or are we going to see some sort of effort in the future?  Thank you. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think what we’re seeing is an approach that draws directly from the National Security Strategy into the National Cyber Strategy, which is to focus on our regional partners around the globe to build the coalitions that can create pressure on Russia and other malicious actors to change their behavior.  I think we’ve seen some success in sustaining that coalition over the last year. 

And so, we’re hopeful that Russia understands the consequences of malicious activity in cyberspace and will continue to be restrained. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I’ll amplify a little bit.  You hit the nail on the head, Sean, that this is a significant problem, which is why Anne Neuberger had mentioned and the strategy calls out essentially a new policy that ransomware constitutes a national security threat. 

Traditionally, cybercrime issues would be handled within the criminal justice system, and responsible countries would investigate crime, collect evidence on behalf of each other, share information, cooperate, have mutual legal assistance, request things fulfilled, and extradition.  And these types of problems would be addressed and suppressed through normative avenues. 

We do have a problem where Russia is serving as a de facto safe haven for cybercrime, and ransomware is a predominant issue that we’re dealing with today, which is why the strategy also calls out — since the criminal justice system isn’t going to be able to, on its own, address this problem, we do need to look at other elements of national power to be going after the threat. 

And so, we won’t be able to — well, some of the things that we can talk about are, you know, Treasury sanctions, and State Department has done Reward for Justice offerings to try to shine a light on these issues, make it more difficult for the cybercrime actors to operate.  And then, as well, you’ve seen successes by the FBI and the Secret Service in apprehending actors who go on vacation somewhere, and they find themselves, you know, arrested on behalf of a U.S. extradition request. 

And so, ultimately, I think [senior administration official] hit the nail on the head, which is that the — we want to shrink the surface of the Earth that people can conduct malicious cyber activity with impunity, and put pressure on them and make their lives a little bit less pleasurable. 

And if a criminal is restricted to living in Russia and can’t leave the borders, then perhaps that might create a bit of a deterrent effect. 

And then, we want to rally likeminded countries to be able to take a similar approach and to be using the tools that they have, and to make sure that we’re all focused on the problem and that we’re putting pressure across all areas, including diplomatic, on countries that do not follow, you know, agreed-upon norms. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go next to Kevin with NBC.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Yeah, thanks, y’all, for doing the call.  I wanted to ask — I’m looking through this and I’m seeing echoes of a lot of this stuff this administration has been doing already, in terms of executive orders, the international cooperation stuff. 

To what degree should we view this as — the new strategy as an extension and a coalescence of what this administration has been doing versus a — kind of a genuine — like a pivot, new vision?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I think the first thing to begin with is that this strategy, we acknowledge in it, is not only continuing the work from the start of the administration, when we came in and were addressing the crisis of SolarWinds and handling the reoccurring major ransomware incidents in that first year, but it’s also continuing many of the initiatives and many of the efforts that date back to the Obama administration, and builds on many of the efforts in the Trump administration. 

And so, the first thing the strategy acknowledges is that we’re building on that path while we move in a new direction.  And so, the big shift here, obviously, compared to previous strategies, is the focus on saying that we do need to set targeted requirements for critical infrastructure where those don’t exist today.  That’s a major departure from the past. 

The other shift is to look at how we think about liability for software manufacturers, something that has not been in previous strategies.

And I think the other thing I would note is the major shift that Anne has focused on, on how we’re really bringing all instruments of national power against cybercrime in the form of ransomware. 

And so, the strategy is meant to pull together all of these threads and then provide us a direction forward. 

MODERATOR:  Great, thank you.  We’ll now go to Elias with CyberScoop.

Q    Hey, thanks so much for doing this call.  So, a couple questions.  Two on software liability and another on offensive operations.

On software liability, can you elaborate a bit on where in the software ecosystem you want to place liability?  Figuring out where to place liability is just, kind of, a tough technical problem.  And I’m wondering if maybe you guys can elaborate a little bit just on how you think about it. 

And then, to follow up on that, you’re going to need Congress to move legislation on software liability reform.  Can you talk through, a little bit, the politics of doing that, what you think the prospects are of moving that through Congress?

And then, in terms of a third question, if I can squeeze it in here at the end, can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by bringing all forms of national power to bear on this problem and the extent to which this strategy is embracing greater use of offensive operations in cyberspace?  Thanks. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, on the liability question, the first thing that we’re trying to do here is make sure that we’re placing liability where it will do the most good.  So, we don’t want to place liability, say, on the developers of open-source software who don’t have any resources, whose software is used by commercial providers to build their products. 

If we placed liability there, we don’t get the changes that we want in the ecosystem.  So, the first principle we’ve had is to place liability where it will do the most good.  And in some people’s articulations, that’s on the final goods-assembler.  Right?  The company that is building and selling the software, they need to be liable for what they put in it and work to reduce vulnerabilities and use best practices. 

We can’t have them devolving that responsibility down to a two-person, open-source project that hasn’t received any funding in the last five years.  That’s not going to get us the outcome that we want. 

We see shifting liability as a long-term process.  When we think about this strategy, we’re looking out a decade.  And so, our anticipation is that we will need to begin this process working with industry to really establish what better software development practices look like, work to implement those, work to articulate those, and then work with industry and Congress to establish what some kind of liability shield for the adoption of those practices would look like. 

But we don’t anticipate that this is something where we’re going to see a new law on the books within the next year. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Quickly, maybe a little bit of a departure, but on the same theme of secure-by-design, recall that Anne Neuberger hosted, in October, an IoT security labeling event where we were beginning to engage with stakeholders and get feedback on what a government labeling program would look like to make sure that IoT products, their security posture is transparent to the customers so they can make informed choices.

That will help to encourage an ecosystem of secure-by-design products where, according to Carnegie Mellon’s research, there is a preference and people are willing to pay a premium for products that protect their security and their privacy. 

So, in this theme, we’re looking to make sure that software design is using best practices and that it is a — security is in mind in the development of it, and that IoT products and other things like that are also in a better posture so that the attack surface is much reduced over time. 

On the topic, Elias, you were asking about — implied, you know, offensive cyber or other tools of the government that can be applied against problems like ransomware in hard to reach places — in general, we are looking at the ransomware problem as a national security threat and, therefore, we need to be able to use additional tools such as, for instance, intelligence tools to make sure that we understand the threat and understand, you know, how it is that we can protect ourselves, how we can tip victims or intended victims before they’re attacked through whatever authorities are needed to do that. 

I will not speak to what all activities that we may contemplate or be undertaking.  But we are certainly in a more forward-leaning position to make sure that we’re protecting the American people from these threats and that we apply the tools that are necessary to address it. 

And everything from diplomacy to law enforcement to intelligence to economic and financial, these are all tools — and military tools, as necessary — these are options that the President has.  And we’re — we’re certainly open to using all of them in a smart way to go after the threat. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think we have time for one more question, so we’ll go to Tim Starks from the Washington Post. 

Q    Hi there.  Thanks.  Mine is a pretty easy, hopefully, logistical question.  Is the process by which this needs to be approved by the President complete?  And what is that process?  Does he sign it?  Does he just say, “I approve this”?

And then, the implementation strategy — sorry, the implementation plan.  How far along is that?  When might we expect to see it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, that’s a great question.  There certainly are details about how paperwork moves through this building.  And what we can say is that this strategy will be announced tomorrow.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And, Tim, can you repeat your question on implementation, please?

Q    Yes, happily.  How far along is the implementation plan?  And when might we expect to see it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can answer.  So, the implementation plan has been developed in parallel with the strategy.  And so, the effort is ongoing to take that.  We’ve already, in fact, begun to implement aspects of the strategy over the last few months.  And so, we anticipate that we will have a public snapshot of the strategy of the implementation plan out in the coming months.

MODERATOR:  Cool.  Thank you, everyone.  As a reminder, our first two speakers were on record, and then the Q&A portion was on background, attributable to “senior administration officials.”  The contents of this call and all the supplemental paperwork you got in email earlier are all embargoed until 5:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow, Thursday, March 2nd.

If you have any other questions, feel free to follow up with us.  Have a great night.

5:32 P.M. EST

The post Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials Previewing the Biden-<span class="dewidow">⁠</span>Harris Administration’s National Cyber<span class="dewidow"> </span>Strategy appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:45 P.M. EST  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Good afternoon, everybody.  Apologies for the briefing starting late today.

I want to start by saying: Happy Women’s History Month — a time when we celebrate the countless women who have fought tirelessly and courageously for equality, justice, and opportunity in our nation.  And we reaffirm our commitment to continue advancing rights and opportunities for women and girls in the United States and around the world.

The President is honoring this commitment with action.  He signed into law historic legislation to advance gender equity over the last year, including to support women in the workplace, such as the Pregnant Workers Family — Fairness Act — pardon me; the Speak Out Act; and the Pump for Nursing Mothers Act, as well.  And to ensure all people can live free from violence through the strengthening and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The President is also proud of having the most diverse group of women at the highest levels of government in U.S. history, including the first woman Vice President and the first gender-equal Cabinet.

This Women’s History Month, we remain committed to continuing this important work in service of advancing the full participation of women, a foun- — foundational tenet of our democracy.

And I wanted to lift up some really good news that all of you saw this morning and you also heard from the President as well speak to this, which is the lowering health cost for American people that we heard today. 

So, as you know, for far too long, American families have been crushed by drug cost many times higher than the cost to make them and what people in our — in other countries are charged for for that same very — that same prescription.

Insulin costs less than $10 to make, but Americans are sometimes forced to pay over $300 for it as well.  As the President said this morning, it’s flat wrong.  That’s why the President fought tooth and nail to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps the price of insulin for Americans on Medicare.

This was a critical action to lower healthcare costs for American people.  But the President has been clear that the insulin cap should apply to all Americans.  And that was something that we saw congressional Republicans blocked at that time.

In this — in his State of the Union address, he also called on pharma companies to continue this progress and bring prices down for everyone on their own. 

Today, Eli Lilly, the largest manufacturer of insulin in the United States, heeded that call and announced that they are lowering their prices, capping what patients pay out of the pocket — out of pocket for drugmakers’ insulin products at $30 — at $35.

This is great news and important progress toward lowering costs for all Americans.  Unfortunately, congressional Republicans are making — are among the few left that believe insulin costs should be sky high.  In fact, they are fighting to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which would increase healthcare costs for American people and increase the deficit as well.

And finally, last night, House Republicans voted to overturn the Department of Labor’s rule that investors make their own investment decisions free of government interference.  The Senate will vote on the measure today. 

Republicans talk about their love of free markets, small government, and letting the private sector do its work.  The Republican bill is opposite of that.  It forces MAGA Republicans’ ideology down the throats of private sector and handcuffing investors as well.  The bill would bar fiduciaries from considering significant risks like extreme climate threats and poor coop- — coop- — corporate governance when they make investment decisions.

It would give investment professionals less flexibility to make prudent decisions, meaning they won’t be free to maximize the retirement savings for millions of Americans.  That would jeopardize the retirement and life savings for police officers, firefighters, teachers, and tens of millions of retirees all across the country.

This is unacceptable to the President, and that is why he will veto this bill if it does come to his desk.

President Biden is focused on protecting workers’ hard-earned life savings and pensions.  And that is — that is what he’s going to continue to do.  You’ve heard him say that many times. 

And with that, Aamer, you want to kick us off?

Q    Yeah.  Thank you.  So, Chicago had their mayoral — or first round of their mayoral elections yesterday.  And it’s the latest big American city where frustrations about crime was a central issue of the cycle.  Does President Biden — does he feel that this administration and, I guess, Washington writ large is putting enough attention on dealing with the issue of crime, particularly in areas — big urban areas like Chicago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just first speak to the mayor’s race.  Look, the President is committed to working with who — whoever — whomever the — you know, the people in Chicago or the people on the ground, whichever — if it’s a city or a state — whomever they choose to represent them.  So, that is — is the case and will continue to be the case. 

And so I’m going to withhold commenting on any specific race, but I know you’re asking about crime specifically.  Look, the President put forth, as you know, a comprehensive Safer Communities plan.  And he put that forth after inheriting a rise of crime.  That is something that he has been focused on since the beginning of his administration.

Let’s not forget, in that plan, he calls for more than 100,000 police officers to go into the community, to work with communities, and make sure that communities feel safe, families feel safe.  And that’s what the President has put forward.

And you’ll see — when you see his commitment to crime — you’ll see that in his — in his budget next week.  As you know, we’re going to release that March 9th.  And it will reflect his commitment, as well, as we’re trying to continue to fight crime, which is — the President has been leading at from the beginning of his administration.

But what we have seen is that, for years — for years, congressional Republicans have been doing the opposite.  When you think about the COPS program, which is something that the President put forward, they have wanted to defund that, to take that away. 

And if you think about that, that leads to defunding the police.  Just recently, they called on defunding the FBI.  And you think about the border security funding; they want to take that away as well.

So the President has been committed.  And one more thing I would add: Let’s not forget the banning assault weapons.  That is a key part of this — when we think about crime, when we think about gun crime — that we believe will help alleviate the crime that we’re seeing, keep families safe, keep communities safe across the country.

So, the President has walked the talk.  The President has been very consistent on making sure that communities feel safe and fighting crime.  And he’ll continue to do that.

Q    Okay.  So just one on a different topic.  If TikTok isn’t safe for federal government workers’ devices, does the President believe it’s safe for Americans’ children’s smartphones?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m glad that you asked about that because, look, we have been clear about our concerns about TikTok, apps like TikTok — and, certainly, our concerns with countries, including China, as they seek to leverage digital technologies and Americans’ — and Americans’ data in ways that can present harm and — and risk to our national security, clearly.

There was — to your point about families, there was a piece of data, of CDC data, that just found recently that nearly 60 percent of teen girls felt persistently sad or hopeless in 2021, and — and 30 percent seriously considered suicide.

So, this is something that the President has taken action on.  If you look at the executive — executive — using his executive branch authorities.  When you think about his Unity Agenda, a couple of things that he was able to do was stop collecting — stop collecting personal data on kids and teenagers online, ban targeted advertising to children, and impose stricter limits on the personal data companies collect on all of us.

And so, this is what the President calls on for Congress to pass in a bipartisan way — you know, privacy legislation to hold bi- — big tech accountable.

And so, the President is going to continue to take actions.  But we see that.  We see that in the data how this has affected young people, especially during this pandemic in the last couple of years.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  To follow on that, does the President believe TikTok is a threat to national security?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we have said that we have concerns.  We have concerns about the app.  And that’s why we have called on Congress to act and — including — and I mentioned earlier, just moments ago — including what China — how China is trying to collect the privacy of Americans in a way that it would have — it would — can present national security risks.

So, yes, we have concerns about that.  And — and, look, we’re going to continue to — again, to call on Congress.  I just laid out the President’s Unity Agenda and what he’s looking to do and the actions that he wants to take from the executive branch, his authority.  And so we’re going to continue to call that out.

Q    But does that — do the actions include a ban on all devices in the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I would — what I would say is this: The White House does not use TikTok.  And — but we do believe — we do believe that — that, you know, Congress took action.  And so, therefore, clearly, we’re — they took action and put this into law.  And clearly, we’re taking — taking those steps as it — as it relates to the federal government.

Outside of that, we know that CFIUS has an ongoing investigation or ongoing — looking at this — looking at this situation.  So I’m not going to go beyond what CFIUS is doing. 

Q    I guess what I’m trying to understand is: You know, has the President not issued a federal ban on TikTok on all devices because he does not think it’s a threat to national security or because he does not have a legal mechanism to do so?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into the specifics on what he has legally to do so or to not do so.  What I’m saying — and we’ve been very clear that TikTok, you know, poses a problem and an issue.  And so, we have concerns about that as it relates to Americans’ data — collecting Americans’ data and the potential national security risk.  And we’ve been very, very clear on that.

Again, CFIUS has an ongoing process that they’re going — they’re working through, so I’m going to let that speak for itself, what they come up with. 

Q    And then just one more on the — the intelligence assessment on the Havana Syndrome.  The community does not believe it was a foreign adversary that is to blame for these cases, but rather things such as pre-existing conditions, conventional illnesses, environmental factors.  Can you elaborate on what that might mean and what else you’re doing to try to pinpoint exactly what caused it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, so a couple of things.  So, look, nothing is more important to this admin- — administration, to this President than the health and the wellbeing of our workforce.  So that is a priority for this President. 

With bipartisan support with Congress, we have focused on ensuring that our colleagues and their families who report anomalous health incidents receive the support and access — care that they need.  And so that has also — that medical treatment, the medical care that they need has been incredibly important.

So we also asked the — the U.S. intelligence company [community] to surge resources to help advance our understanding of the AHI reports to date and examine all possibil- — all possible explanations.  We have committed to be transparent with the workforce because we believe that’s what they deserve and with the American people as well. 

But what the IC has learned — and we would refer you to, clearly, ODNI — as it relates to the assessment and what the specifics of that assess- — assessment and the key judgments that the IC released, that’s something that we clearly would recommend to them. 

But it is important to note that what the Director of the National Intelligence said and underscored today is that today’s IC assessment does not call into action the very real experiences and symptoms.  Like, we acknowledge that, and we understand that people are truly — truly went through — went through an ordeal.  And so, you know — and that’s something that, clearly, our colleag- — our colleagues and their families had to deal with. 

So, our commitment and the President’s commitment to the health and safety of U.S. government personnel remains unwavering.  And this is why the departments and agency will continue to provide timely care on the medi- — as we look at the medical care and make sure that — that the reports are thorough, support research efforts, and process HAVANA Act payments as requested.

So, again, when it — as it relates to the specific — any specific questions to their assessment, I would refer you to ODNI. 

But this doesn’t change the commitment that the President has in making sure that, you know, these families, our colleagues in the workforce get the help and the assistance that they need.  And we’re — they’re going to continue to — to work through that.

Q    Thank you.  And just to follow up on that, is the President satisfied with that report, with that assessment on the Havana Syndrome?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ll say this: You know, what’s important to the President is that we take this very seriously, as the intelligence community has.

And you saw the assessment.  They laid it out pretty — pretty clearly from ODNI.  What we are committed to is making sure that — that our workforce and their families get the assistance that they need through this — the medical care.  And, look, the work is ongoing.  It continues.

Q    So the — that extra, special financial support that came from the HAVANA Act that the President signed, the White House still believes that the people who are suffering from these symptoms, even with this assessment now, that those people should still get that extra financial support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely. 

Q    That’s the position of the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, absolutely. 

But I do want to send a message to the American people: Look, it is — it is important, again, for the health and wellness of the — of our workforce to be a priority. 

And that’s what you — you saw from the intelligence community assessment.  And — and it — look, and even from the assessment, that doesn’t alter that.  It doesn’t alter our commitment, the President’s commitment to their health and safety.  And so that’s what I would say.

There is a commitment there to make sure that we make sure that there is a safe workforce for folks who are working for the U.S. government and who are clearly employees.

Q    If I can just — on one topic that you had brought up: the Eli Lilly news.  Did the President make a personal appeal directly to any company executives ahead of this announcement to lower the cost of insulin?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’ll say this: I mean, the President has the biggest bu- — bully pulpit, right?

Q    Yeah, beyond what we heard from him, of course, in the State of the Union.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I mean, I think that’s pretty important, right?  I think when people ask what is the President doing using the bully pulpit, as he did at the State of the Union, and calling out or laying out how we can help the American people is critical.  It’s important here. 

And we saw that, right?  We saw that.  He talked — he spoke to insulin and how costs need to go down.  And here we see Eli Lilly taking action. 

And so, look, this is something that he’s going to do.  Using the bully pulpit as the President of the United States is an incredibly powerful tool, and the President uses that in a very important way not just to talk to the American people and lay out his platform, lay out how he’s working every day to make sure — in this case, lowering costs for Americans, whether it’s healthcare, whether it’s energy — and making sure that we continue to deliver, but it’s also speaking directly to companies out there like Eli Lilly and saying, “Hey, you know, we need — you all need to change how you move forward, especially on something like insulin that affects so many families across the country.”

Q    But one-on-one conversations with anybody —

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

Q    — or other companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a — any conversations to preview.  But I think it is important to really speak to the importance of the bully pulpit, as the — and the way that the President uses that in a way that’s effective and in a way that communicates what the American people need. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  China is going through its party Congress process right now, and they’re expected to implement the biggest government reshuffle in a decade over there.

Do you — what will U.S. engagement with the Chinese look like once this process is over?  Do you have a comment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the approach — the approach that we have to China hasn’t changed, right?  We’ve — you’ve heard us say, “We seek competition, not conflict.”  You’ve heard us say that it needs to be practical.  That’s the way we approach it: calm with — and resolute.  And that is not going to change.

And the President will always do what is required to defend our interests, the American people’s interests.  Still believes it is important to keep the lines of communication open. 

As you all know, Secretary Blinken very recently, when he was in Munich, had a — had a meeting, a conversation with Wang Yi, his counterpart in China.  And so, again, keeping those lines of communications open. 

So, as you mentioned, they’re going through the annual parliament to put in place its government representative.  We maintain working-level lines of communication as they go through this process.  And after that’s done, as we have said, we are prepared to have high-level engagement with China from — from the President on down. 

I don’t have anything to preview.  I know many of you have asked me about if there’s a conversation with the President and President Xi.  There — I don’t have anything to read out for you at that — at this time.

Q    Xi is expected to further tighten his grip on China after this process is over.  Is that — how is the administration viewing that?  How is the administration planning to engage with him?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to get into what — how the process of their annual parliament.  I’m going to let them — you know, that’s something political.  We don’t really respond to that.

They’re going to go through their process.  Once that is over, we’re going to continue having an open channel conversation. 

As I mentioned, Secretary Blinken had a conversation with his counterpart, Wang Yi, very recently in Munich when they all — when they all gathered there for the summit. 

And so, we’re going to keep — continue to have those line of communication. 

Look, as I said just moments ago, it’s going to be resolute, it’s going to be practical, and it’s going to be calm.  And we have been very, very clear: Nothing will change on how — on our approach with handling — with dealing and our — our relationship with China in this — in this past two years. 

Q    And I had one on another topic.  The Ron DeSantis opportunity-ed in the Journal yesterday, where he talked about signing a law that ended Disney’s self-governing status in Florida that essentially provided the company with a favorable tax structure; they were able to get away without paying taxes around regional infrastructure developments.

How does the White House that has been cracking down on corporate tax evasion view this move by DeSantis?  I mean, is there — is there any line of thinking that perhaps supports what has just happened in Florida with Disney?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be very frank with you, Nandita.  I have not read the op-ed, and I — frankly, I don’t plan to.

Look, the President has been very clear here.  He’s going to deliver for the American people. 

I talked about lowering costs.  We just talked about Eli Lilly and their great announcement or — of capping $35 for insulin, which is going to be so important to families across the country.

We just talked about — I was just asked about crime and the work that the President has done over the last two years to fight crime in communities, something — something that he inherited, when you think about the rise of crime in the last couple of years. 

And so, we’re not going to play political games.  That’s not something that we do here.  We’re going to continue to stay very focused — laser-focused on delivering for the American people. 

And I’m not going to read that op-ed.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  There’s a bipartisan rail safety bill that was introduced or proposed today in the Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed the broad outlines of the proposal.  Has the White House seen it?  Does the White House support it in the wake of the East Palestine disaster?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re glad to see bipartisan support.  This is something that — you know, that Secretary Pete has been calling for.  And this is, clearly, to bring forth several rail safety measures, which is incredibly important.

So, you know, the bill would increase the maximum fines for safety violations.  It would strengthen rules governing trains carrying hazardous materials.  It will accel- — accelerate the timeline for phasing in safer tank cars and establishing a permanent requirement for two-person train cars.  So, this is a good first step, and we welcome it.

We encourage Republicans and Democrats to continue to work together to enva- — advance these commonsense rail safety measures.  And it’s an im- — again, an important first step, and we welcome it.

Q    Is there anything, just on the executive branch side, that you guys are considering or weighing in terms of assistance to East Palestine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as far — you’re talking about economic — more economic assistance?  Look, we — you’ve heard from Secretary Buttigieg, you’ve heard from the EPA Administrator speak to how we’re going to hold Norfolk Suffolk [Southern] accountable here to make sure that they pay and they pay for the mess that they created on the ground in the community of East Palestine.

This is something that we are incredibly focused on and serious about.  You’ve even heard the EPA Administrator say that if they don’t, they will — they will have to pay this three times over. 

And so, look, we’re going to keep them — keep them accountable.  And that’s going to be our focus. 

Q    And just one final one.  The President nominated Eric Garcetti roughly 600 days ago to be ambassador to India.  I think he’s supposed to have a committee approval process next week.  The vote, I think, is still kind of up in the air. 

Does the administration believe that he will be confirmed? And do you feel like this is a make-or-break moment for a long process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, Phil — you know, Eric Garcetti was voted out in a bipartisan way — out of committee.  And so, clearly, he has had bipartisan support, which is very important in this process. 

And we encourage and look forward to the Senate — the Senate, you know, moving forward with his nomination on the floor. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I just wanted to circle back to crime.  As soon as next week, Congress could end up overturning a new sentencing law in D.C. that reduces penalties for some violent crimes, among other measures.  Is the President prepared to issue a veto if that vote passes and it crosses his desk?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know we’ve been asked this question before. 

Q    Yeah, but given that Manchin has signaled support, I thought (inaudible) update.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the President takes this very seriously when it comes to crime.  I’m not going to get ahead of — of what — of what the — you know, of what the decision is going to be or of what it’s going to ultimately look like.  Don’t want to get too much into hypotheticals. 

But what I can state clearly, and I’ve said this before: The President is very committed to make sure that our communities are safer, that families feel safer.  That’s why he put forth a plan very early on, making sure that we put more police in — in communities, that work with communities so that they feel safer. 

That’s — and you’ll see that as it — as it relates to funding, you’ll see that in his budget next month. 

I’m not going to get into too much of hypotheticals from here.  But the President, I believe, in the last two years and throughout his career has shown his dedication in making sure that we keep communities safe. 

Q    Okay.  And just a second one.  Since it’s March 1st, do you have any information about the President’s planned trip to Ottawa this month?  It’s been reported that he’s going to be visiting Trudeau.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share.  Nothing to preview at this time. 

Q    Okay. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    I wanted to ask you about the student loan arguments that were before the Supreme Court yesterday, and many justices seem to take issue with — with the program.  And I wonder if the administration has a message to those who have had loans already forgiven and are kind of in limbo right now. 

And given the skepticism from a lot of the justices, are there any plans from the administration in the event that you don’t have the authority or the authority is struck down?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  We, you know — the plan that we put forward in August is the plan that we have — right? — which is a — which is also a plan that you heard the Solicitor General really defend in a — in a very strong and powerful way yesterday.  And that’s our plan.

And we believe in our legal authority to get that done, to get it implemented.  And let’s not forget, it is a good plan.  It is a plan that’s going to give American families — middle-class families who truly need it, individuals who truly need it — up to $20,000 in relief; to give that, again, a little bit of breathing room for, again, working families and middle-class Americans.

You heard — I don’t know if you saw this, but Secretary — Secretary of Education sent out an email to borrowers yesterday, and basically saying that we have their back.  And I think that’s also very important.  That’s the message that we sent to borrowers who need this opportunity right now as we’re coming out of this pandemic, going through this pandemic — a little bit, again, of breathing room. 

Q    I guess my question is: If that plan is deemed unconstitutional, is there a backup plan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I just said, that’s our plan.  This is our — our focus right now is getting this done. 

It is — you saw — again, you saw the Solicitor General really give a strong argument yesterday in front of the highest court in the land.  There’s a reason why we took it to the Supreme Court: because we believe that we have legal authority. 

And let’s not forget who this helps.  It helps teachers.  It helps firefighters, nurses, police officers.  That is who we’re talking about and giving that extra little time and extra breathing room to make sure that they can either start a family or buy a house.

And let’s not forget: When that happens, when that occurs, it actually puts money back into the community and helps the economy more broadly. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Follow-up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh — (laughs) — go ahead. 

Q    Is it me?  Or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s okay. 

Q    Okay.  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’ve got the floor, my friend.

Q    A follow-up on Mayor Garcetti’s nomination.  It looks like he doesn’t has the bipartisan support, as this week, Florida Senator Marco Rubio placed a hold on his nomination, along with six other senior diplomatic position, including Rich Verma, Geeta — Geeta Rao. 

What do you have to say on that?  Is the President calling these senators — some of the senators to get these nominations through the Senate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it’s basically what I just said.  We think that Eric Garcetti is — you know, is qualified to serve this vital role.  That’s why the President nominated him, right?  The President nominated him because he thought he had the experience to be the U.S. ambassador to India.

And as I mentioned moments ago to one of your colleagues, he received bipartisan support going out of committee.  And we — we would like to see the — you know, the Senate to move him forward and to continue getting that support. 

Q    One more.  Secretary Blinken landed in Delhi today to attend the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting — attend (inaudible) — Foreign Ministers Meeting and his bilateral with his Indian counterpart.  Is he carrying any message from the President for the Prime Minister and (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  On his visit, Secretary Blinken will reaffirm the strength of the U.S.-India relationship and express our commitment to continue working together and in groups like the Quad to advance economic growth for our two countries and expand cooperation as we have our shared priorities. 

So, that’s what you’re going to hear from Secretary Blinken.  That is the message that he will deliver. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just following up on the HAVANA Act, which technically stands for the “Helping American Victims Afflicted by Neurological Attacks” Act.  The predicate, obviously, of that law the President signed is that these are attacks.  And now the intelligence community is saying that the — seven agencies are saying that it was either “unlikely” or “very unlikely” that that’s the case. 

So, understanding your position that obviously the administration wants to ensure that personnel across the government gets care — but that’s not what this law outlines.  This law outlines care for those who have been a subject of attacks.  Is that a concern of yours?  And how do you plan to address that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think what the President wants to make sure that occurs, that happens is that we show our commitment to — to government employees, to the workforce, as they’re going through a real issue here.  This is a real problem that they have all experienced. 

And so, we want to make sure that they continue the medical care that they’re getting, that they get the resources that is needed as they’re working for the U.S. government.  That doesn’t take that away. 

And — and so, that is a message that we’re going to send to the workforce, the U.S. government federal workforce, and also the families who are going through this, the individuals who are going through this right now. 

And I think that’s an important message for the President to send.  They had a real experience that they all went through, that they reported, that, clearly, the intelligence community looked into to see exactly what it was.  They have a conclusion; they came up with an assessment.  I would leave it to them to speak directly to that. 

But it doesn’t — it doesn’t take away what they went through.  And so, the President is committed to that.  And I think that’s the message that we want to make sure that goes forward. 

Q    And just quickly following up on that: Now that this assessment is in, does the President feel, does the White House feel as if this is a settled matter?  Or does he have more (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — honestly, I would refer you to the ODNI on their specific assessment and where they are and what they concluded.  I’m not going to speak from — to that from here.

I just — what I want to reiterate again is that we want to make sure that the workforce, our federal workforce, understand that their health and safety is indeed our priority.

Go ahead, Jen.

Q    Yeah.  On the Federal Reserve search — the search for the Vice Chair — can you say, is the President looking for a more dovish counterbalance to Jay Powell, which is what some progressives would prefer?  Or is that not a factor in this search?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, this is a priority.  Making sure that we fill this vacancy is a priority to this President.  I’m not going to get into specifics on what the President’s process is, but I would tell you that he — he thinks it’s important to get that vacancy filled, and he’s going to clearly continue to make that a priority.  And we hope to have something to share in the near future.

Go ahead.

Q    FISA 702 reauthorization.  What’s the White House’s position on reforms to 702 in this round?  Would you be open to reforms?  Or is the White House insisting that the section be reauthorized without any changes?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything new to — to share on that particular piece.

Q    Okay.  If I could go back to the question about the D.C. Council action and the likelihood that the Senate will send the President a bill that forces him to make a decision.  Is it fair to say the President is at this moment undecided?  Has he not yet decided what he’s going to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals from here.  I just — what I can say to you is the President’s commitment just more broadly, as it relates to crime, as it relates to making sure that Americans and families feel safe, and what he’s done in the past two years but also beyond.

And so, that’s what I can speak to at this time.  Just not going to get into hypotheticals from here.

Q    Okay.  So let me ask you it this way:  There –basically there are two ways to look at the question.  One is to side with the mayor, who said that the Council’s action went too far and she vetoed it.  The other is to side with members of the Council who insisted on enacting it against her objections.  But has the President decided where he stands?  Does he stand with Mayor Bowser?  Does he stand with mayors — members of the Council?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I can say — so as it relates to D.C., I’ll say this and the President has been very clear about this: You know, we think that we must do more to — to reduce crime and save lives.  And that’s why the President has taken those actions.

As it relates to more — D.C. more broadly, and the President has said this as well, it’s a clear example of why D.C. deserves statehood.  Right?  And that’s something that the President has called for since the campaign.

But again, I’m not going to get into — into particulars, into hypotheticals. 

The Safer America Plan was something that the President has put forward to lay out how he sees making communities safer, how he sees dealing with an increase of crime that happened — that he inherited, that happened before he walked into office.

So I’ll just leave it there, and I won’t speak further to any hypotheticals.

I’ll go to the back, and then I’ll come back down.

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  So I want to ask you about the Labor Secretary pick, Julie Su.  While she was labor secretary of California, the — during COVID — the state lost between $20 billion and $32 billion in unemployment insurance to fraudsters.  Meanwhile, 5 million people had benefits delayed and a million people had them wrongfully canceled.  Is the President concerned that this will impact her getting confirmed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things, because there’s — we got to put this all in context of what was happening at the time.

It was a historic crush of unemployment claims at the onset of the pandemic.  That’s what we were seeing.  The design of the initial pandemic unemployment systems and years of national investments in UI modernization led to challenges — right? — including fraud attacks, as you were just stating, across the nation in red and blue states alike.  That was happening across the country during the very early stages of the pandemic.

But under her leadership — under Julie’s leadership, California took important steps to process a number of claims — we’re talking about one in five, which is in the entire nation — that’s what California was dealing with — to ensure that working people who were — who were out of work, and this was not their fault, could continue to pay their rent, could continue to put food on the table, continue to put the — keep the lights on.

So, look, she believes in safety nets and — need to be strengthened.  That is something that she indeed believes in. 

And — and I’ll add — I’ll add this as well.  When the President took office, he — he prioritized combating potential frauds of relief funds, just as he did aggressively and successfully as the Vice President.

So this is an issue that’s important to her, strengthening those safety nets, and also an issue that’s important to the President that he’s actually taken action on.

Q    So, does he think she can be confirmed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, absolutely.  Yes.  He thinks that the Senate should confirm her and she is the right person for the job and has the experience to do the job. 

And let’s not forget: She has spent the last two years working hand in hand, you know, with — with Secretary Walsh.

Q    You talked about TikTok earlier.  I’m just curious now, why did the administration then wait so long to ban TikTok in all federal employees?  Twenty-nine states have already done it.  And the President, his first month in office, canceled an investigation by the Commerce Department into TikTok.  So why did he wait so long?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I’m not going to speak to any investigation.  Look, the process is happening now.  That’s what we’re seeing.  What I can say is that the President has very — been very clear about his concern with apps like TikTok.  And I just laid out the CDC reporting and how it’s affecting our children, and the importance of making sure that we deal with this in a real way, which is why he put forth his Unity Agenda and laying out ways that we can deal with an issue that is affecting the emotional growth and — and also — of our children.

And so, look, the Unity Agenda kind of lays out how the President wants to move forward.  I’m not going to go beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q    A quick follow-up on the ESG Labor rule.  You had framed, the White House has framed this as kind of MAGA Republicans imposing their views on the free market.  The fact that two Democratic senators say they’re going to vote for this bill, does that undermine that argument?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all, because this is a — this is something that Republicans have pushed forward.  This is their — this is their — this is their agenda, which is kind of in line in how they want to move forward with a very extreme ideology, the MAGA — the MAGA Republican ileo- — ideology.  And what they’re doing, again, is they’re really pushing down the throats of private sector.  That’s what we’re seeing.  This is what this piece of legislation is.

Q    And a timeline question.  Any timeline on when the President would issue this veto if we assume this bill passes today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it depends on the mechanism of the Senate and what ultimately happens in the voting dynamics.  I can’t speak to that here, on the timeline.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Why is President Biden afraid of China?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The President is not afraid of China.

Q    Well —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Did you see — did you see the President last week, when we went to — when we went to — when we went to Ukraine, went to Kyiv?  This is not a President that’s afraid of anything.  It was a historic trip that many of you said was brave. 

So, clearly, this is a President that’s not afraid to go to a warzone.  He’s not afraid to go there when there’s no military presence on the ground. 

So, there’s nothing that this President fears.

Q    China flew a spy craft over the U.S.  The President didn’t really do anything to China.  And according to the FBI director, China may have created something that has killed more than 1.1 million people in this country.  And President Biden is not punishing them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you’re — you’re giving me two — two things here.  So let’s take them in parts.

As we talk about the Chinese surveillance — the China surveillance balloon, the President did take that down.  And he did it in a way that, as it was on its path, we collected information from it; we protected our national security information on the ground; and we did it in a way that was smart, effective, and also protected the American people.  That’s what the President is always going to put forth, is the — is the safety of the American people.  So that’s what the President did with that particular issue.

Look, as it relates to — you’re talking about the COVID origins, we’ve been very clear.  We’ve been very clear that we need the data, and we need to figure out how to get to the bottom of the COVID origins.  And that’s something that the President has said since the beginning of this administration.

So, that — none of that has changed.

Q    But with his campaign, it was all about shutting down the virus and how hard it is for families with an empty chair at the kitchen table because of COVID.  If we now know, according to the FBI director, who is most likely responsible for all those empty chairs at all those kitchen tables, why not do more to try to hold them accountable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, I’m going to flip that on its head for a second.  It was because of this President that took action — by the way, the last administration did not; they did not have a comprehensive plan to actually —

Q    But before that —

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

Q    That is responding to COVID. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    But where did COVID come from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but — but —

Q    If we know that it’s China —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Peter, you can’t tell — first of all, you can’t tell me how to answer the question.  I’m going to answer it for you.  Right?  So just give me a second.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So because he took those actions, he actually helped to save lives.  Because he — he took action to make sure that people got shots in arms and put a comprehensive plan in front of the American people and put in the work, we actually were able to get to a place where COVID is not gone, but we now are in a place — we’re in a different place in the pandemic.  And that’s because of the President.  And that’s because of his leadership.

So, let’s not — let’s, like, be very real about what the President has done over the last two years to take on COVID, to make sure that the economy is growing again, to make sure that we’re really working for the American people.  So that’s number one.  I want to be very, very clear on that.

Now, to your question about COVID origins: As we’ve known — as we know, we have seen many — many different conclusions — right? — from — from the intelligence community.  Some of them have made some conclusion on one side.  Some of them have made conclusions on the other side.  Some of them say they don’t have enough information.  So I want to be also very careful there as well. 

And it was because of this President, very early on — the first several months of his administration — he went to the intelligence community and said, “We need to figure out how to get to the bottom of this.  We need to figure out how this all occurred.”  Because, who knows, we have to try and prevent any future pandemics.  So that is the work that this President did. 

And it included, clearly, the Department of Energy that has National Labs.  And so, now they’re continuing to double down and try to get to the bottom of this.

Our relationship with China has not changed.  It is — it is very different — I’m going to be very clear — very different than how we have seen it in the last administration. 

All right, I’m going to continue.  Go ahead, Peter.  And I’ll come to the back.

Q    Just a separate thought on China, if I can quickly.  The administration has constantly described the relationship between the U.S. and China is one of strategic competition, a point that the President made himself a couple of weeks ago when he spoke about this issue. 

The congressman, Mike Gallagher, who was the Republican Chair of the House Select Committee on China, yesterday referred to this relationship as an “existential struggle.”  Does the White House agree with that characterization?  And is the White House understating the threat from China right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, under this President, we are more prepared to outcompete China, protect our national security, and advance a free and open Indo-Pacific than ever before.  That’s under this President.  And that’s because of the Pres- — of the work that he he’s done in the last two years and also the experience.  This is an experienced President.

As you know, he spent more than 30 years in the Senate.  He spent eight years as Vice President.  And so, he understands national — how to deal with foreign policy relationships, foreign leaders. 

And so, that’s how we see our relationship with China moving forward.  Many of our efforts we have been pursuing are bipartisan.  They’re underscoring the alignment at home on key issues, and we will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans, because the way we have moved forward is indeed in a bipartisan way. 

Q    Let me follow up on a separate question that was asked by one of my colleagues in the room about the student loans and the wait for the decision from the Supreme Court as it relates to this. 

I know that you said earlier that there is no other plan.  The plan right now is the one that’s being presented before the Supreme Court and you feel strongly in your case.  Obviously, those who have loans that they would owe, in case this is rejected, don’t have that same ability.  They have to have a backup plan in case.  I know that two months would pass before they would have to pay those loans again, in case the Supreme Court rejects this here. 

But what do you say to those Americans who have tens of thousands of dollars that they might be responsible for two months after the Court makes its decision, if they choose reject it?  How should they be preparing right now for that?  And what would you do to protect them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I’ll just add that, yesterday, right in front of the Supreme Court, you saw many of those Americans speaking out loud —

Q    We did.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — and clear, and saying how important the President’s plan is to them.  Because they’re being crushed, right?

Q    But what’s the — what should be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — 

Q    — the plan B? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well —

Q    Because everybody who has their own budget at home has to have a plan B.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I totally — I — I hear you, Peter.  And you asked me what the message was to the American people.  You heard — I just laid out or mentioned how Secretary of Education put out, sent an email out to those borrowers saying that, “Hey, we have your back.” 

This is an administration, when you think about the President and the last couple of years here — he has — that is kind of his motto, right?  “We have your back.”  We will do everything that we can to protect Americans and give them, again, some space to actually be able to be part of this growing economy. 

And so, look, we do not — we do not — again, we do not have another plan.  This is our plan.  This is it. 

We believe that we have the legal authority.  That’s why we took it to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court.  And we’re going to continue to fight.

And you saw — you saw the solicitor general do a fantastic job in putting forth a strong argument defending — defending the President’s plan. 

Q    Just to be clear, though: So you don’t have another plan?  Which is to say for those other — and you have those individuals’ backs, which is to say, if this is rejected though, there isn’t anything in the works right now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What —

Q    — by this administration to have their —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying to you, Peter —

Q    — back going forward?  They would be —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying — what I’m saying to you, Peter, is: This is our plan.  It is a good plan because how it helps Americans across the country, especially working Americans, middle-class Americans.  So this is our plan. 

And you heard it.  You heard it.  The reason I mentioned the folks that were in front —

Q    I get it.  I’m just asking on behalf of —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — of the Supreme Court.

Q    — those folks that have tens of thousands they owe.  What should they do? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I — and — and —

Q    So what should they do? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I sa- — and I said —

Q    Do they need to start saving money?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — they should know that we are going to continue to fight, that we feel strong in our legal authority here. 

And you heard it.  You heard it from the — from — from the SG yesterday, who did a — who did a — who defended it — the President’s plan in a forceful way in front of the Supreme Court.

Q    Has the President spoken to Jimmy Carter in recent days, given the fact that he appears to be doing well, considering the circumstances?  Have they had any opportunity to speak?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any call to preview or to speak to.  As — as you know, the President, I think, spoke to this when he did his ABC interview recently, that he has known Jimmy Carter for some time, was the first senator —

Q    But no new calls to share with us then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — the first senator to endorse him.  And so they have decades of relationship behind them.  And so I would just say that, you know, he continues to wish him well. 

But I don’t have a call to read out. 

I’ll go to the back.  Trying — all the way to the back.  Go — behind you.

Q    Thank you.  So, shifting gears.  The Daily Beast reported yesterday that Republican Congressman James Comer invoked President Biden’s son, Beau Biden, over not being prosecute- — prosecuted, excuse me — saying, “This U.S. attorney had had an opportunity to go after the Bidens years ago.”  He goes on to say, “It was Beau Biden, the President’s other son, that was involved in some campaign donations from a person that got indicted.”

So I’m wondering if the White House has a response to Chairman Comer invoking Beau Biden and whether the President thinks it’s potentially — if Mr. President thinks it’s potentially appropriate that Mr. Comer investigate his deceased son.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, it’s completely unappropriate [sic].  And it’s ugly, the comments that he made.  And it says a lot about the chairman, which is not good, by the way.  To — to make the statement that he did is incredibly ugly and inappropriate. 

And here’s what I would say: Instead of — instead of House Republicans focusing on attacking the President and his family, why don’t they actually focus on what the American people put them in office to do, which is to deliver for them, which is to actually work with — with their colleagues — the Democratic colleagues, the President — to actually put forth pieces of legislation or put forth policies that’s going to make a difference in their lives?

And, you know, you don’t have to listen to me: You can look at the results from — from the midterms that said just that.  They want to see — they want to see Congress working for them.  That’s what they want to see. 

They want to make sure that their Medicare is protected.  They want to make sure that we’re lowering costs.  They want to make sure that their family feels protected.  They want to make sure that their rights are protected. 

But that’s not what House Republicans are doing.  Instead, they want to do political stunts. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  In the back.  Way in the back. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Way — way in the back.  Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  The Attorney General, Merrick Garland, was testifying up on the Hill today, and he was asked a lot about fentanyl.  I have a few questions for you on that front. 

He was asked by Senator Graham — he said — Senator Graham said, quote, “Would you agree with me that whatever we are doing, as relates to sentencing guidelines, is not working?”  And the Attorney General said, “I would agree with that because of the number of deaths that you pointed out.” 

Does President Biden believe that sentencing guidelines around fentanyl deaths need to get stricter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to just — I just caught a bit of that — of the coverage.  I didn’t catch all of it.  And I — I will say that the — the Secretary — or the Attorney General spoke to a number of issues from what I understand.  What I know for sure that he did, he spoke to the department’s independent — the Justice Department’s independent work and his commitment to rule of law. 

I’m just not going to go beyond — beyond that. 

Q    The Attorney General said — was asked if he opposes making the most cart- — the senior-most cartels being labeled as “foreign terrorist organizations.”  And he said he would not oppose that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not —

Q    Does the White House believe that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not — I’m —

Q    — the cartels need to be labeled “foreign terrorist organizations”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I only saw a bit of the coverage.

What I can say is what he’s committed to.  I’m just not going to go into this.

Q    So let me go a little bit broader for a second.  The number of fentanyl deaths in this country has doubled in the last two years.  The Attorney General described it as an epidemic.  Can you describe what the administration has done to take on, to curb, and to try to tackle this epidemic, as he put it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So the — this administration, when you think about fentanyl and you think about the work that this President has done, it has been very much focused on getting — making sure that we keep our families safe, making sure that we keep our communities safe, and getting fentanyl off the street.  And we’ve done that in record numbers. 

You’ve heard me talk about that.  You’ve heard me talk about the work that this President has done on fent- — fentanyl more specifically, which I was just talking about the plan that he put forward to make sure that we keep communities safe.  And that is part of that as well. 

We have seen record number of fentanyl, you know, come off the streets because of the work that the President has done, because of what he has committed in protecting the border’s security, making sure that he put forth historic funding.

There’s still more work to be done.  We would like to do that work with Republicans.  They’ve refused to work with us.  If anything, they want to take away — they want to take away that border security funding.  They want to defund the FBI.

But the Pres- — the President is using the tools that are in front of him right now on the executive level to seek — to make sure that we do every — he does everything that he can, without the help of many — of many Republicans in Congress, to make sure that we keep our communities safe.  And that’s what he’s going to continue to do. 

Go ahead, way in the back.  Owen.

Q    Okay, thank you.  Thank you, Karine.  Two questions for you, please.  Thank you.  Number one, just recently in California — a very tragic story.  Catholic Bishop David O’Connell, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, he served the area of 45 years ministering to migrants, the poor, victims of gang violence; known as the peacemaker.  And he was gunned down at his home, murdered, just — again, just a few weeks ago.  I know the White House is aware of it, but do you have a statement you — or is there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — something you want to tell the faithful there in Los Angeles? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  And I appreciate the question. 

We do have something that we want to share, which is: The President and the First Lady join Archbishop Gómez, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the entire Catholic community in the mourning of Bishop David O’Connell.  We also express our sympathy and prayers for the family and friends of the Bishop, who will certainly — certainly remember his legacy of service to those on the margins of society. 

And so, again, we offer up our condolences to — to the community. 

Q    Thank you.  And then secondly, is the President — is President Biden aware of this leaked document that recently came out of the Richmond, Virginia, field office that compared Catholics — conservative Catholics — to violent extremists? 

Several attorneys general have written a letter, and they say, quote, “Anti-Catholic bigotry appears to be festering in the FBI, and the Bureau is treating Catholics as potential terrorists because of their beliefs.”  Again, they wrote that in reaction to that leaked document. 

So, my question is: Is the President aware of that document?  And what would he tell Catholics seeing these headlines who might be worried “They’re coming after us — the Feds — because of our faith”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — look, I have not seen this leaked document.  I have not spoken to the Pres- — I haven’t seen it, so therefore I haven’t spoken to the President about it.  So I just don’t want to get ahead of — of that.

Q    Would you look at it eventually and give —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m happy to.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  About Labor Department’s ESG rule.
I have a follow-up question on that.  Today, Senator Jon Tester joined Senator Manchin, and he — he voiced his opposition to this ESG retirements rule.  I understand the President will veto this bill.  But what’s your reaction to his statement today?
And how does the White House feel about growing opposition to the ESG investment in Congress and in general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I spoke to this at the top of the briefing, and I laid out where the President is on this.  I — as it relates to the dynamics of the Senate and where this is going to go, I’d leave that to the — to Senator Schumer.  That’s something for him to speak to.

What I can say is that if this bill reaches the President’s desk, he will veto it.  And I’ll — I’ll leave it there for now.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks a lot.  I want to ask you about Merrick Garland’s testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He was asked a number of questions in regards to Hunter Biden and the ongoing investigation that’s being conducted by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware. 

And during that particular testimony, he said it would be a “national security problem” if the President’s son had been receiving payments from a foreign government as a means to influence the administration.

Do you agree with that statement from the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to continue to be prudent from here and not speak to any investigation that is currently underway by the Department of Justice.

And when it comes to Hunter Biden, I would refer you to his personal representative.  He’s a private citizen.  So I will leave it there. 

And we’re going to continue to be consistent from here.
Q    Let me ask you another question on a separate matter entirel- — entirely — a foreign policy matter.  Two Iranian warships are going to dock in port in Brazil on Sunday.  As you well know, the President of Brazil was just here meeting with President Biden.  President Biden lauded the shared values of both countries.  Do you have any issue with Iranian warships docking in port in Brazil?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, we’ve been very clear when we’ve been asked these types of questions of meetings or any engagement.  We just won’t speak to that from here.  I would refer you to the respective countries.  I’m just not going to speak to a potential meeting or a potential engagement.  Just not going to do that.

Court- —

Q    Well, it’s not a meeting.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Courtney.

Q    It’s not a meeting.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m just not going to — clearly, there’s some sort of engagement happening.  I’m just not going to speak that — to that from here.

Go ahead, Courtney.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about the case that is before a judge in a federal court in Texas about abortion medication.  We’re expecting that judge to rule any day now in the decision that could either temporarily, permanently — depending on how the legal process goes — ban access to mifepristone in certain places.

What’s your message to patients that are worried about this?  I know that you’ve, so far, spoken out on how you disagree with this court challenge.  But what should doctors know, what should patients know when this can happen at any day, especially given that this judge has been relatively hostile to this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I mean, I spoke to this very recently.  Like, we don’t know what the court is going to do, as you just stated.  Ultimately, it’s for the col- — court to decide.  So we’re always very careful.

The decision would be unprecedented, as you know, and devastating to women’s health.  And we may find ourselves in uncharted territory.

And so, we’re closely — closely working with the Justice Department and DHS — HHS on this, on how to be prepared for any range of outcome or potential outcomes.  And so we’ll continue to do that.  We’ll continue to be steadfast.  We will — we’re monitoring this and waiting, like all of you, to see where the decision goes.

But again, we’re not taking this lightly.  We’re taking this very seriously.  This is going to be — depending on where this goes, this could be unprecedented and uncharted territory.  And we’re going to continue to do our — our work internally to see which way — how we would respond.

Q    I also wanted to ask you about education for practi- — (sneezes) — excuse me — practitioners, doctors who perform abortions in certain states.  When they’re in medical school now, it’s difficult to get practice with the procedure given that it’s so limited or restricted. 

Vice President Harris has expressed interest in working on that issue, either by sending students to other places to get practical experience or other ideas.  Can you provide any update on that and if you’re engaged in that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I know she — she spoke about this recently.  I don’t have anything more to share than what she laid out about her concerns and the potential next steps.  Don’t — just don’t have anything further to share with — than what the Vice President laid out.

Go ahead.

Q    If the Supreme Court rules against the President’s student debt plan, will you all consider extending the payment pause while you come up with a plan B?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, we don’t — our plan is what we — what we laid out in August.  That is our plan.  And we believe it’s a good plan as it delivers — as it relates to the American people — middle-class Americans, as it relates to working people.

This is a plan that’s going to give relief to tens of millions of Americans across the country.  And we heard from many of them yesterday in front of the Supreme Court.

I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals. 

We believe — we believe that we have a strong legal authority here.  That’s why we took it to the Supreme Court.  And you heard from the solicitor general.  She made a very strong case for why the President’s program is important.  And — and I’m just going to leave it there for now.

Q    Just another question on TikTok.  You all have had TikTok influencers in the building before; you’ve briefed them before.  Given the focus on the national security concerns, do you still feel like that’s an appropriate way to engage with the app?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as — as I’ve mentioned before, the White House, clearly, does not — does not use TikTok.  But one thing that we do believe in is meeting the American people where they are.  And the reality is some — many of them — millions of them are — are on this app.

So we engage with people who are using their own platforms.  It’s up to them on how they use the content.  But we’ve always said from here — this is something that we’ve said for a long time — that we’re going to try to communicate with the American people and meet them where they are.  But we’re — also have been clear about the concerns that we have with this — with — with apps like TikTok.  And that’s not going to stop.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Oh, go ahead.  You’re the last question.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We just learned the TSA officers at a Pennsylvania airport stopped an explosive device from getting onto a plane Monday.  Do you have any comment on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any comment from here at this time.  I would have to talk to our team.

Q    More broadly, do you have a message to Americans who are hearing about flight safety incidents, close calls, devices on planes?  How can you ensure that the airs are safe — the air is safe?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, Secretary Buttigieg has been on the airwaves today, this morning, the last couple of months on this, speaking to our commitment to making sure that we keep Americans safe, especially Americans who are — are, clearly, flying. 

And — and so we’re going to continue to do that.  The President is committed to that.

As it relates, for example, to the — the objects — the three recent objects, one of the reasons the President took that — the actions that we took was because we wanted to make sure that we kept civilian air- — airways safe.  So, you’ve seen him take really bold actions in that way. 

But as it relates to, you know, just what we’ve been seeing the past couple of months and just most recently, look, we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that we — that Americans feel safe flying.

I know there’s an FAA investigation on this most recent incident, and so, you know, we’re going to see where the investi- — investigation goes and how we can prevent that. 

All right.  Thanks, everybody.  See you tomorrow.

3:45 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine<span class="dewidow"> </span>Jean-Pierre appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Virginia Beach, Virginia

1:37 P.M. EST

MS. DALTON:  Good morning — afternoon, actually.  As you all know, the President is traveling to Virginia Beach today to lay out the stakes of efforts by MAGA Republicans in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid.
 
Virtually every Republican budget in the last decade has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid, and it’s important to remember what that means.  That agenda would raise healthcare costs for seniors, working families, and Americans with pre-existing conditions, and cause millions of people to lose their coverage.

It means more than 100 million people with pre-existing health conditions could lose critical protections, that tens of millions of people could see their prescription drug coverage scaled back.  Forty million people’s healthcare insurance coverage would be at risk, including a million Virginians.  That’s one in eight people in — across the commonwealth. 

And over 7 million seniors and people with disabilities could receive worse home care and nursing care.  Millions of people could lose access to substance use treatment or mental health care.  And over 500 rural hospitals would be at risk for closure.
 
That is what Republicans are calling for by putting the ACA and Medicaid on the chopping block.  And today, the President will call them out for that.
 
We also have some late breaking news.  Exciting news.  Today, the President Bi- — today, the President announced his intent to nominate Julie Su to serve as Secretary of the Department of Labor.
 
Julie is a tested and experienced leader who will continue to build a stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive economy that pres- — provides Americans a fair return for their work and an equal chance to get ahead.
 
Julie has spent her entire life fighting to make sure that everyone has a fair shot, that no community is overlooked, and that no worker is left behind.
 
Over several decades, Julie led the largest state labor department in the nation, cracked down on wage theft, fought to protect trafficked workers, increased the minimum wage, created good-paying, high-quality jobs, and established and enforced workplace safety standards.
 
Julie is a champion for workers, and she has been a critical partner to Secretary Wals- — Walsh since the early days of this administration.
 
She helped avert a national rail shutdown, improved access to good jobs free from discrimination through the Good Jobs Initiative, and is ensuring that the jobs we create in critical sectors like semiconductor manufacturing, broadband, and healthcare are good-paying, stable, accessible jobs for all.
 
We urge the Senate to take up her nomination quickly so that we can finish the job for America’s workers.

And with that, I will take your questions.

Q    Okay.  I have a question about TikTok.  So, I wondered if the President is encouraging Americans to follow the government’s lead and take TikTok off the phones.

Could you hear me?

MS. DALTON:  So, we’ve been clear about our concerns about apps like TikTok.  As you know, there’s a CFIUS review that’s ongoing.

The Biden administration is focused on the challenge of certain countries, including China, seeking to leverage digital technologies and Americans’ data in ways that present unacceptable national security risks.  That’s why we’re taking every step we can within the executive branch authority, including enacting the first-ever presidential directive defining additional national security factors for CFIUS to consider in line with this administration’s national security priorities like protecting Americans’ sensitive data.

And last year, President Biden put forward an executive order to protect Americans’ sensitive data from collec- — collection and utilization.

So, we’ll continue to look at other actions that we can take, and include — that includes how to work with Congress on this issue further.

Q    On student loans, I know that you know that arguments started today in the Supreme Court.  Many legal experts have said, basically, that if this plan was released earlier, that it would have a stronger argument in the courts.  I guess, could you explain why the administration didn’t release it earlier, even though Biden promised on the campaign trail for debt cancellation?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, the bottom line is: We’re confident in our legal authority, which is why we’ve taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of 40 million Americans who need a little bit more breathing room, who need an opportunity to get back on their feet coming out of this pandemic and preparing to restart their loan payments.

So, you know, we are focused on — on — on that.  We’re focused on and we’re confident in our legal auth- — authority to carry out this program, which is why we rolled it out in the first place.  And I think you heard the administration’s lawyers making a very strong case in the court today.

Q    But why not release it earlier when we were still in the throes of the pandemic?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I think what’s important to remember is that the emergency ending doesn’t change the legal justification for the program.  There was a national emergency.  Millions of borrowers were nega- — negatively impacted by the pandemic and faced the risk of default on their student loans due to that emergency.

And, you know, our position is: Congress gave the Secretary of Education the authority to take steps to prevent that harm, and he’s doing that.

Q    Olivia, should there be — should there be a federal ban on TikTok?

MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything in addition to what I just shared with your colleague.

Q    But would the President suppo- — when you say they’re looking at other actions, what might that entail?

MS. DALTON:  I’m not going to get ahead of anything.  As I just laid out, you know, we have serious concerns with apps like TikTok.  There’s a CFIUS review underway.  And we’re looking at what else we might be able to do, including working with Congress.
 
Q    Olivia, on the Energy Department analysis about the Wuhan lab leak theory, is the White House concerned about the leak, meaning the leak of the information?  And are you doing anything to find out where it came from?  Because it exposes some disconnect in the administration.
 
MS. DALTON:  I’d refer you to the White House Counsel’s Office on that.  I don’t have anything additional to share on this at this time. 
 
I think, as you heard from my colleagues over the last couple of days, the President has directed the intelligence community to get to — to get to the bottom of the COVID-19 origins.  He believes it’s critically important information that Americans need and that we need in order to prevent future pandemics and ensure we’re all better prepared.
 
That said, the intelligence community has not come to a consensus, and he has directed, you know, the intelligence community to continue to make any additional insights we pick up along the way available to Congress and the American public.
 
Q    Has he issued any new direction in the wake of this reports of Energy?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything new to share on that today.
 
Q    Olivia, is the President concerned that Senator Fetterman’s health and absence away from the Hill will complicate Julie Su’s confirmation process?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, I think, you know, with respect to Senator Fetter- — Senator Fetterman, I don’t have anything additional to read out in — in the, you know — in the — you know, in — with respect to conversations with the senator or her — or his team. 
 
But I would want to reiterate that as the President has — and First Lady have previously shared, they’re thinking about John, Giselle, and the entire Fet- — Fetterman family at this moment. 
 
Millions of Americans go untreated with depression every day.  Senator Fetterman did the right and brave thing by getting the help he needs.
 
And we’re grateful to Senator Fetterman for leading by example and taking the time he needs to get healthy. 
 
Q    Just clarifying, he hasn’t spoken to Senator Fetterman since he checked into Walter Reed?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything to read out for you at this time?
 
Q    Or Giselle?
 
MS. DALTON:  I haven’t — I don’t have any conversations to read out to you at this time. 
 
Q    On the student loans: With the Court at 6-3 conservative bent, are there contingency plans in place or anything, given the fact that, you know, it could expire as early as June?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, we’re focused on plan A because we’re confident in our legal authority to carry out this program, which is why, again, we initiated it in the first place.  So I think you heard strong arguments from administration lawyers today in court about our legal authority to execute the program.  And we’re focused on that. 
 
Q    But if the President is committed to seeing debt cancellation, why not even consider whether the Supreme Court will shut this down?
 
MS. DALTON:  Because we’re confident in our legal arguments.  And we’re really focused on making those arguments in a strong way at the court, which is exactly what administration lawyers did today.
 
Q    Is the President aware of these reports that Rupert Murdoch showed campaign — Biden campaign ads to the Trump White House?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, here’s what I’d say about that: Regardless of any new revelations about, you know, bias or behavior in the 2020 campaign, President Biden won the most American — the most votes of any candidate in American history because he had the vision, message, and record that put the interests of hardworking Americans first. 
 
And these kinds of revelations aren’t particularly surprising to anyone who has tuned into Fox News lately. 
 
Q    Does it raise concerns about the upcoming election — the presidential election, given if — you know, what happened in 2020?
 
MS. DALTON:  You know, I’m just going to be, out of an abundance of cautious — caution, very careful about commenting on elections going forward due to the Hatch Act. 
 
Q    Olivia, two questions.  One, has the President decided whether he’s going to accept a bill that would overturn the D.C. Council’s action on the criminal code in the city?
 
MS. DALTON:  Just a couple of things on that.  I think you might be aware we issued a statement of administration policy on that.  So I’d reference — refer you to look at that statement — SAP. 
 
But broadly speaking, the President has been clear that we have to do more to reduce crime and save lives.  And he has outlined how he anticipates we should do so in his Safer America plan. 
 
Q    All right.  Second question.  Is there any concern here?  I mean, the President is going to rail against Republicans today for their plans that they’ve advocated in the past.  Is there any likelihood that Senator Schumer would see to it that these bills wind up on the President’s desk?
 
MS. DALTON:  Sorry, I didn’t hear the end of that.
 
Q    Right.  So is there a concern here that somehow Senator Schumer is going to put these bills on the President’s desk?
 
MS. DALTON:  I’m sorry, which bills?
 
Q    The bills the President is going to be railing against today — the Republican plans.  I mean, there’s no chance they’re going to become a bill that would wind up passing the Senate, right?
 
MS. DALTON:  I’m not sure I’m entirely tracking what you’re saying. 
 
But, look, the President is going to outline his plans to continue, you know, focusing on bringing down medical costs, protecting and strengthening programs like Medicare and Medicaid today. 
 
And he’s talked about the fact that when he introduces his budget next week, you’ll see that it will invest in America, lower healthcare costs, protect and strengshen [sic] — strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and cut the deficit by more than 2 million — 2 trillion dollars — “T” with tr- — trillion with a “T” — over the next 10 years.  And he’ll do all of that by — without, you know, having taxes go up by a single penny for people making under $400,000. 
 
So, you know, he’ll contrast that with Republicans plans.  You know, they’ve repeatedly put Medi- — Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the chopping block.  And, you know, call on them to put their plan forward.  You know, they’ve said that they want to balance the budget.  They’ve also put forward proposals that would blow up the deficit by $3 trillion.  So how do you square the circle? 
 
And if past is prologue, we anticipate seeing Republicans put forward the same kinds of policies — slashing Medicaid and the Affordable Health Care Act — and jeopardizing these critical programs that so many millions of Americans depend on.  And you’ll hear from the President about that today.
 
Q    Any plan — any updated travel to Ohio?  Any plans to travel to Ohio?
 
MS. DALTON:  No new news for you there. 
 
But as you know, the President has been engaged from the earliest hours since the derailment.  You see that Administrator Regan is back there today.  The President has directed his team to stay on top of this, and they are.
 
As of last night, 535 families have received direct outreach from federal response officials on the ground.  So he’s going to stay on top of this and make sure that his team is too.
 
Q    Just quickly, Julie Su has faced some criticism over her handling of unemployment benefits in California during the pandemic.  How is the administration prepared to defend her on that?
 
MS. DALTON:  Look, when the pandemic hit, red and blue states were dealing with fragile, outdated technology.  And under Julie’s leadership, California took important steps to process a historic number of claims — one in five in the entire nation.
 
Julie believes that our safety nets must be strengthened.  And during her time at DOL, she has worked with states to set a big-table national approach to these issues because they are a national problem.
 
And I’ll add that, since taking office, President Biden has prioritized combatting potential fraud relief funds just as he did aggressively and successfully as Vice President. 
 
The President has worked closely with DOL, empowered inspectors’ general to strongly monitor programs, secured historic funding in the ARP to strengthen anti-fraud programs, and appointed a chief pandemic prosecutor at the DOJ to go after fraudsters and help better safeguard COVID relief money.
 
Our administration also provided $2 billion in additional UI administrative funding to detect and prevent fraud, promote equitable access, and ensure the timely payment of benefits.
 
Q    I think I know the answer, but any comment on the McCaul legislation today, specifically the TikTok legislation that would allow the President to ban TikTok nationwide?
 
MS. DALTON:  I don’t have anything additional to my previous comments.
 
All right, thanks, everybody.
 
1:49 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia<span class="dewidow"> </span>Dalton appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:38 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon. Happy Monday.

Okay, so before we dive into regular — regularly scheduled programming here, I have my colleague from the National Security Council, who will be — John Kirby — who will be talking about some recent developments over the weekend in the Middle East. And he’ll have something to say at the top to share with all of you and then take some questions. And then, we’ll take — I’ll take the rest of the questions you have on domestic issues, I’m sure.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Karine. Good afternoon, everybody.

So, I just have two updates for you from the Middle East region, with one also related to Ukraine.

As you saw in the statement yesterday from Mr. Sullivan, senior officials from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the United States met over the weekend in Aqaba, Jordan.

This was the first meeting of its kind in decades, with political and security representation from all participants. It also resulted in the first agreement of any kind in many years. The Aqaba Communiqué includes commitments from the Israeli and the Palestinian sides to de-escalate and prevent further violence. The two sides also affirmed their commitments to all previous agreements between them and to work towards a just and lasting peace.

Now, as we said, this meeting was a starting point, but it was an important one. And the importance was demonstrated quite clearly by the violence we saw just yesterday in the West Bank, and we’re seeing reports today of additional violence.

But in ye- — yesterday’s violence, two Israelis were murdered, and then Israeli citizens sought to take revenge in a Palestinian town, resulting in one Palestinian death and many others injured.

The State Department spoke to this yesterday; I’m sure you saw that. And we condemn the violence, of course, in all its forms.

We also agree fully with the statements from President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu that citizens cannot take the law into their own hands. What happened was totally unacceptable — something that we’ve heard loud and clear from our Israeli partners.

The Aqaba meeting was designed precisely to help manage and defuse crises like this — to enhance political and security coordination to help protect Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The President extends his personal thanks to His Majesty, King Abdullah of Jordan, and to President Sisi of Egypt for helping to convene this session.

The United States will continue to remain actively engaged in this format with all parties over the coming weeks, including through a follow-up engagement next month in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

Now, my second update has to do with Saudi Arabia and Ukraine. As you know, we are and we have been for the last year asking all partners to do what they can to support Ukraine.

And so, we welcome the visit made yesterday by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister and senior Saudi humanitarian and energy officials to Kyiv for meetings with President Zelenskyy and, of course, the rest of his leadership team. This was the first ministerial visit by an Arab state to Kyiv since the war began.

During the visit, the Saudis and Ukrainians formalized arrangements for the delivery of $400 million in assistance, including generators and badly needed energy products and supplies. Now, these deliveries will begin arriving next week.

This is an important announcement. I’d also point to Saudi Arabia’s vote in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution just last week on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — its fourth on these resolutions.

Coming on the heels of the President’s historic visit to Kyiv, we are asking all partners to do what they can, as I said, to support Ukraine. And we recognize these are sovereign decisions that they have to make.

The Saudi initiative is a positive step from the Middle East region, and we hope to see more from our partners over there in the coming months.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.

Q Thank you. I have two questions, actually, on both topics. Let me start with Saudi Arabia. You just praised them on the U.N. votes and on sending $400 million in energy supplies to Ukraine. How does it fit in the general strategy — or the review, rather — that the White House said it will take in the aftermath of the OPEC+ decision?

MR. KIRBY: Okay. Do you have a second one, or do you want to wait on that one?

Q I’ll wait.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. (Laughs.)

So, look, Nadia — I think you know this, and I’ve spoken to this many times: I mean, looking at this bilateral relationship was never about producing a homework assignment. That’s just a misnomer. That was never the intent here.

We have been strategic partners with Saudi Arabia now for eight decades, across multiple administrations and certainly across party lines. And there’s been ups and downs in this relationship. We’ve been very candid about that as well.

But this announcement yesterday in Kyiv of $400 million in support, largely to help Ukraine recover from the energy attacks on their infrastructure, is an important one. And again, we were glad to see it.

The other things that we’ve been happy to see in recent months is a truce now in Yemen, that’s on its 10th month, been consistent. I mean, literally thousands of Yemeni lives have been saved by this truce, by moving forward on a regional defense architecture with Saudi Arabia to help — not only help Saudi Arabia defend itself against attacks — and they still come under attack — but also to help us by helping them in protecting the 70-some-odd-thousand Americans, both military and civilian, who live in Saudi Arabia.

We’re working with Saudi Arabia, and we’re glad to see progress on things like 5G and 6G, through something called O-RAN technologies.

And, obviously, coming on the heels of the President’s trip, we’re working to — continuing to work to see — to see if we can improve integration of Israel throughout the region.

And I think now that that — you remind me that that announcement over the weekend from Oman, that they are now going to allow overflight of their airspace to and from Israel. That also is significant progress that we’ve seen here. And that is a direct result of the President’s engagement on that trip over the — over last summer to the region.

So, look, I’ve been very consistent, and I’ll say it again today: We are focused on making sure that this, like all other bilateral relationships, serves the interests of the American people first and foremost. That’s where the President’s head is, and that’s what we’re focused on here.

We’re focused on — on moving this forward. And we believe that the announcement, again, over the weekend by Saudi Arabia is a step in the right direction.

Q And second, on the Aqaba Communiqué, despite what you said, it did not really translate on what’s happening on the ground. We have seen another wave of violence this morning, as you alluded to. Thirty houses of Palestinians have been torched by settlers who are — according to international law, they are illegal in these — in the settlements. So how do you —

MR. KIRBY: Well, our position on settlements is — stays consistent. I mean, nothing has changed about that. We — we view the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to peace. We’ve been very clear about that.

And as I said in my opening statement, the violence we saw over the weekend is — is just another example of why it’s important that we get both sides together to work on ways to de-escalate.

So, the Aqaba Communiqué, while I understand the point of the question — it happened over the same weekend that there was violence — but that it happened is still a good sign and at least a step that both sides are willing to work to de-escalate it.

And you saw very swiftly, coming out of the Israeli side, condemning Israeli citizens who were, as I said in my opening statement, taking the law into their hands. That was — their law in their own hands. That was not an insignificant statement on their part.

Q But my question is about Mr. Net- — Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said he will continue with the settlement activities. How — is there any consequences for him announcing that?

MR. KIRBY: Well, if you look at the — if you look at the communiqué, it says that they’re not going to be discussing additional settlements now for six months. That’s a positive sign, we think.

And again, we’ve been very clear with the prime minister and the new government about our position on settlements: obstacle to peace. We want to see a viable two-state solution. We don’t believe that additional settlement — settlements work to that end. We’ve been very consistent on that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q To follow up on Nadia, when the — when the Saudi Arabian government decided to slash oil production targets last year, you said that was an effort to aid Russia’s war effort. Given what you’ve seen over this weekend, would the administration now say that Saudi Arabia is helping Ukraine in this war?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think I — I don’t know that I could improve upon what I’ve said before here on this. We view this announcement over the weekend as a step in the right direction, and it’s an important one. That they are giving — that they actually went to Kyiv and, through their foreign ministry, directly pledged $400 million in energy infrastructure and in financial assistance is not insignificant.

So, it’s a positive step. We’re glad to see it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q Thanks, Karine. John, on the Department of Energy’s findings, the lab leak most likely caused the pandemic. How should Americans respo- — how should Americans understand China’s response here, saying that this is politically motivated, it’s a lie, there’s no science to back it, and swatting down this information?

MR. KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the Chinese, and I wouldn’t endeavor to do that, but just let me back up a little bit.

The President made trying to find the origins of COVID a priority right when he came into office. And he’s got a whole-of-government effort designed to do that.

There is not a consensus right now in the U.S. government about exactly how COVID started. There is just not an intelligence community consensus.

And, I would add, one of the things the President did was he — he’s the one who tasked the National Labs, which report up through the Department of Energy, to study this as well. So, it wasn’t just an effort that was confined to the intelligence community. That work is still ongoing.

But the President believes it’s really important that we continue that work and that we find out, as best we can, how it started so that we can better prevent a future pandemic. I mean, it’s — that’s — the idea here is to get ahead of it so that, you know, should there be another one or should there even be the signs of another one, we can better get ahead of it.

Q China, though, is pretty clearly accusing the Biden administration of smearing them and trying to say that this is baseless, people shouldn’t believe it, and it’s a politically motivated attack.

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of where we are in the process, Jacqui. We — the intelligence community and the rest of the government is still looking at this. There’s not been a definitive conclusion, so it’s difficult for me to say, nor should I feel like I should have to defend press reporting about a possible preliminary indication here.

What the President wants is facts. He wants the whole government designed to go get those facts, and that’s what we’re doing. And we’re just not there yet. And when we’re there yet and if we have something that is — is ready to be briefed to the American people and the Congress, then we’re going to do that.

Q How would the President respond to China, though, if it’s determined that they lied about all this and now we’re trying to paint the administration as — in such a negative light? How will he respond to Xi and —

MR. KIRBY: Well, let’s not get ahead of where we are in the process right now. There is not a consensus on what caused COVID to start. The President wants to understand that so we can prevent better future pandemics. He’s made that a priority.

And I just don’t — we don’t have an answer to speak to, and I certainly — so, given that we don’t have a consensus, it would be foolish for me to get out ahead of speculation on hypothetical situations to come. We just aren’t there yet.

Q Thank you. Thanks, John. The President said that he wants cooperation with China, not conflict. But does the U.S. believe that China is pursuing policies — for example, the spy balloon — that make conflict more likely?

MR. KIRBY: One of the things that concerned us about that whole episode, aside from the fact that it was clearly designed to spy from a high altitude over potentially sensitive military sites, is that the lines of communication weren’t as open, particularly on the military side, as they need to be.

So, the President maintains that his goal in the relationship is competition, not conflict. That has not changed, even in the wake of that spy balloon event.

But one of the things that really does need to — we need to move forward on is opening up lines of communication, particularly on the military-to-military lane. And as you know, those were shut down by the Chinese after Speaker Pelosi — then-Speaker Pelosi went to Taiwan.

Q And also, do you think that there’s — what would happen if China were to send lethal weapons to Ukraine? How would that affect the bilateral relationship?

MR. KIRBY: You know, again, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical here and speculate. We have not seen the Chinese make a decision to move in that direction. We have been very honest and candid, not only with all of you publicly but with the Chinese privately, about our concerns over the provision of those kinds of capabilities. And you heard Sec- — you heard Jake Sullivan talk about this yesterday, in terms of the fact that there would have to be ramifications for that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q Thanks, Karine. Mr. Kirby, on the Energy Department’s assessment, should the evidence that the department is basing this assessment on be shared with the American people?

MR. KIRBY: As I said, if we have something that we believe can be reported to the Congress and to the American people that we’re confident in, we will absolutely do that.

Q You said that, right now, there is not a consensus. Will there ever be a definitive answer from the Biden administration on the origins of COVID-19? And how much of that is dependent on cooperation from China?

MR. KIRBY: We really do want to know what happened here because the President wants to make sure that we’re postured to prevent any future pandemics — or if not prevent them, to be able to get farther along ahead of them. So we’re working very hard to understand this as best we can.

Again, there’s just no consensus across the government. The work continues. And I’m not going to get ahead of conclusions that haven’t been arrived at yet.

Q Just one last quick follow-up. Who is — what agency is taking the lead on this?

MR. KIRBY: This is a whole-of-government effort. And, clearly, here at the National Security Council — I mean, we’re running the interagency process on this, but it’s a whole-of-government effort.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Chancellor Scholz is coming to the White House on Friday.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, he is.

Q It will be his second visit in roughly a year. Can you talk a little bit about the expectation for this visit? And is it not unusual that he comes again in such a short time?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t think there’s anything unusual about it. Germany is a strident NATO Ally and a good friend and partner. We’re really excited to get the chancellor here on Friday. I’m sure we’ll have more details to share with you as we get closer to the end of the week. Some of the agenda is still being formulated.

But I think, without question, I’m comfortable telling you that the war in Ukraine will be a prime topic of discussion. And this will give President Biden yet another chance to thank the Chancellor and the people of Germany for all the support that they have provided to Ukraine. They really have stepped up, and they have evolved the capabilities that they’re willing to send to Ukraine as well in a very meaningful way, the Leopard tanks being the most recent example of that.

So, we’re grateful for all that and look forward to a good discussion.

Q What caused DOE to shift its assessment? And was the President himself briefed on that shift?

MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to confirm the press reporting. I’d refer you to DOE, but I’m not going to confirm the press reporting that was out there.

Q And was the President briefed on this?

MR. KIRBY: The President has stayed informed throughout this entire process of a whole-of-government effort to try to get at the at the roots and the origins of COVID.

Q But was he briefed on the DOE —

MR. KIRBY: The President has been kept informed and kept apprised. And he’s been — and he’s — you know, he’s actively wanted to know what we know every step along the way.

Q Okay, so not quite sure there. So going —

MR. KIRBY: I didn’t say that. I said the President has kept informed.

Q Well, I don’t know from your answer whether or not he was briefed on it.

MR. KIRBY: I ans- — I —

Q Okay.

MR. KIRBY: I got it.

Q So, other thing. Is the administration
confident in the Israeli government’s approach to the recent violence, given the conservative right-wing nature of the government, its relationship with the settler movement? How does the administration feel the Israeli government is poised to handle this situation?

MR. KIRBY: I mentioned that in the opening statement. You know, we noted that both President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu were very quick out of the gates to condemn citizens taking the law into their own hands and to provide some additional security forces to the West Bank to quell the violence. That was important, it was significant, and we’re grateful for that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just a couple more. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. To follow on the lab leak theory: Back in October 2021, it was also the case that there was no consensus from the intelligence community, you know, where COVID came from. Without revealing sensitive information, has the IC gathered new information, new intelligence, since then that might have led DOE to draw a different conclusion?

MR. KIRBY: We — again, without confirming the press reporting on the Department of Energy’s work here — and the context for them is that they run the National Labs, and the President wanted the National Labs involved. Again, a whole-of-government effort.

The work is still ongoing. There hasn’t been a final conclusion arrived at here. And not everyone in the intelligence community or across the government necessarily has come to a consensus view here on how it started.

But I want to go back to what I said before, and that’s that — that we — the President believes it’s important to know so that we can better prevent future pandemics. And obviously, regardless of what — what the source is, it’s important for people to know that scientific research can still occur — needs to occur in a safe and secure manner.

Q And on Friday, the President was asked if he was worried that China will side with Russia in the war. And he said that there is “no evidence of that so far.” So does President Biden believe China is neutral in the conflict?

MR. KIRBY: I can’t really improve upon how the President characterized it. The — we have not seen China go all in with respect to supporting Russia.

Q So, it takes them going all in for — is that the bar for partnering?

MR. KIRBY: They have not gone all in in supporting Russia. They abstained from the vote in the U.N. They — while they have not condemned the invasion that Mr. Putin perpetrated down on the Ukrainian people, nor have they made a decision to provide lethal military assistance to Ukraine.

And as the President said, he doesn’t believe it’s in China’s interest to do that — that they — that they should not want to do that, to go in on the side of Russia.

Now, look, the other thing is — a couple things. Every country has to make its own decisions here. And we have been exceedingly clear that we want to see China be on the right side here, which is not support Mr. Putin in any way; condemn this invasion, like so much of the rest of the world has; and participate in the price cap on oil revenue so that Mr. Putin can’t profiteer it; and to enforce sanctions.

Now, they haven’t chosen to do all those things. We obviously believe that they’ve — they’ve got decisions that they have to make. We want them to make the right ones.

Q But he wasn’t —

Q One on —

Q Sorry. Just one more point of clarification. He wasn’t asked specifically about the lethal aid. He was asked if China will side with Russia or not. And he said there’s no evidence of that, but they’re providing non-lethal aid as one example.

MR. KIRBY: The Chinese have decisions they have to make for themselves. We want them to make the decision that so many others nations around the world have made, which is to not make it any easier in any realm, whether that’s economic or military, make it any easier for Mr. Putin to continue to kill Ukrainians. And you — and, again, we don’t believe that it’s in the Chinese best interest — and this is his point — to move in that direction.

Q Thank you.

Q Do you think —

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

Q Thank you, Karine. Two quick questions, sir. First, has President Biden asked or does he plan to ask President Xi to cooperate and to — cooperate with investigations into the origins of the virus? Or at this point, does the administration believe that cooperation will not come from China?

MR. KIRBY: We’ve — we have — we have consistently made it clear that we want China’s full cooperation in a full, transparent way with the investigations into COVID, including when he met with President Xi in Bali just a couple of months ago.

Q And then, without weighing in one way or the other on origin of the virus — you’ve made clear that there’s no consensus — does the President believe, though, that the reward outweighs the risk when it comes to gain-of-function research?

MR. KIRBY: Does the reward outweigh the risk when it —

Q Does it —

MR. KIRBY: — comes to gain-of- —

Q Does he think that that type of research is —

MR. KIRBY: I got a history degree. You’re going to have to — say that again.

Q Does the President believe that this type of gain-of-function research is prudent?

MR. KIRBY: He believes that it’s important to help prevent future pandemics, which means he understands that there has to be legitimate scientific research into the sources — or potential sources — of pandemics so that we understand it so that we can prevent them and we — prevent them from happening, obviously.

But he also believes — and this is why he wants the whole-of-government effort here to understand it — that that research has to be done. It must be done in a safe and secure manner as — and as transparent as possible to the rest of the world so that — so people know what’s going on.

So, I think that’s a fancy way of saying “yes.”

Q Thanks, Karine. Hi. Just a quick question on the Northern Ireland dispute and the fact that it has been resolved. Does that open the doors for the United States to perhaps resume talks with London for a free trade deal? And that was nearly done under the Trump administration, but really hasn’t gone anywhere under this administration.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I won’t get ahead of where things are right now.

I mean, we’re grateful that the two sides were able to come up with this “Windsor Framework,” as they call it — this — this agreement in keeping with the Northern Ireland Protocols. We do — we believe that this will help improve the prosperity of both the EU and the UK, and will open up all kinds of, now, avenues for trade that — that were somewhat at risk.

So, we’re — we’ll leave things where they are right now.

Q What about the EV tax credits and the dispute over that with the mention in the ERA?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, again, I’m just not going to get ahead of where we are right now.

Q Follow-up please?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We got to go. Last question.

Q Thanks, John. Just real quick, the ambassador — the U.S. Ambassador in Israel, Thomas Nides, has just written on Twitter that he can confirm that a U.S. citizen was killed in West — in the West Bank in some of the terror attacks tonight. Are you guys aware of this? Do you have any comment on it? Or is this the first you’re — you guys are hearing of it?

Mr. KIRBY: I have not heard that report until just now. I’m deeply sorry to hear that if it’s true. Certainly, our thoughts and prayers will go out to the — to the family, but I just don’t have any more information on it.

Q A follow-up on Northern Ireland?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We got to go.

Thank you. Thanks, Kirby. Appreciate it.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, guys.

Q Thanks, John.

Q Thank you, Admiral.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, just a couple things at the top and then we’ll get going.

So, today, we are thrilled to announce the May- — that Mayor Steve Benjamin will join the White House as Senior Advisor and Director of the House — of the Office of Public Engagement.

Mayor Benjamin is a long-time public servant who has served the people of South Carolina for over two decades statewide and as a three-term mayor of Columbia.

As a former president of both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the African-American Mayors Association, his deep relationships with communities across the country will serve our administration and the American people well.

Under Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’s leadership, the Office of Public Engagement has kept equity at the heart of our agenda and has continued to connect with everyday Americans who may not have a voice to reach Washington otherwise.

She has been a close advisor to the President, and he is grateful to Keisha for serving our nation with honor and integrity.
 
This was always intended to be a short-term assignment, which Keisha graciously extended, and we wish her the best as she returns home to Atlanta to be with her family as planned.

A couple of notes on the President’s schedule today and tomorrow. I’ll start, clearly, with today. In a coup- — in about an hour or so, later today, the President Biden and Vice President Harris will deliver remarks at a reception in the East Room honoring Black History Month.

At the beginning of the month, President Biden issued a proclamation in celebration of Black History Month, and the White House will release an updated factsheet on the Biden-Harris administration’s ongoing efforts to advance equity, opportunity for Black Americans and communities across the nation.

Throughout this month, President Biden has issued an executive order to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.

The President also hosted a White House screening of the film “Till,” the story of Mamie Till-Mobley, who pursued justice after the lynching of her 14-year-old son, Emmett Till, back in 1955.

Vice President Harris and Senior Advisor for Public Engagement Keisha Lance Bottoms hosted student reporters from more than 100 HBCUs across the country for a briefing at the White House.

White House officials hosted Black leaders for roundtables around issues including reproductive health and women’s rights; national security; disparities impacting the Black community, including the LBGTQ+ Black community; Black media priorities; legislation in historic state legislatures led by Black speakers; and efforts to close the racial wealth gap with Black venture capital and private equity stakeholders.

The White House also hosted a first-of-its-kind forum with HBCU student veterans and cadets and the first-ever engagement with HBCU leaders by the National Security Advisor.

Agencies across the administration also facilitated events and announcements, including the Department of Health and Human Services Black Health Summit; SBA Administrator Guzman’s listening sessions with Black business owners; and the Department of House — Housing and Urban Development’s closure of the Road Home program, which disproportionately impact Black Americans [and] will free 3,000 Louisianans from repayment obligations.

And last Friday, the President and the Vice President met with members — Black members of staff from across the Biden administration to emphasize the importance of having diverse voices at the decision-making table and thank them for helping to create a more fair and inclusive democracy across our nation.

The Biden-Harris administration will honor and continue the work of Black Americans who have created a more fair and inclusive democracy, helping our nation move closer to the realization of its full promise for everyone.

And tomorrow, as you all know, the President is going to be traveling to Virginia Beach, where he will highlight how Republicans are threatening default and economic catastrophe unless they can force through their agenda that would raise healthcare costs for seniors, working families, and Americans with preexisting conditions and cause millions of people to lose their coverage.

As the President said before his State of the Union address, he will release his budget on March 9th, and Congressional Republicans should provide that same transparency as well. The American people deserve to know what Republicans are looking to cut, given that, in countless previous budgets, they have repeatedly proposed devastating cuts to essential programs like the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, which are lowering costs for tens of millions of Americans across the country.

So, we will have a preview call for all of you, as we normally do ahead of — ahead of these types of trips. It will be at 4:45 p.m., so in about an hour and 40 minutes, which all of you should turn — tune into for more details.

I also want to highlight that this week the Commerce Department is announcing a major milestone for the CHIPS and Science Act, a pillar of the President’s agenda to rebuild our infrastructure, supply chains, and manufacturing right here at home.

They are ma- — announcing their process and guardrails for companies seeking to utilize the legislation to invest in this historic effort to rebuild America’s semiconductor industry, known as a “notice of funding opportunity.”

I know a lot of you had questions about the next steps, so here you go. It will be a major point of focus in ensuring we have a skilled, trained workforce that can fill the hundreds of thousands of jobs we are currently recrat- – — creating right here in America.

The need for childcare to boost our for- — workforce is undeniable. Part of the solution to that is that the Commerce Department is going to require companies seeking substantial CHIPS funding to submit a robust childcare plan that reflects the needs of their workers’ communities where they plan to build.

The country needs more workers, especially women, in order to deliver on the President’s bold agenda. And we are committed to working with the private sector to ensure the CHIPS — the success of CHIPS for America and to unlock the full potential — the full potential of our economy. This is a major innovative step just to do that.

And finally, as you all may have seen, a couple of hours ago, the President — at the President’s direction, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services announced new actions to crack down on child labor violations and ensure that sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children are vigorously, rigorously vetted.

Child abuse — child labor is abuse, and it is unacceptable. Again, it is unacceptable.

This administration has long been combating a surge in child exploitation. And today, the Department of Labor and HHS announced that they will create a new interagency task force to combat child exploitation. They will also increase scrutiny of companies that do — that do business with employers who violate child labor laws; mandate follow-up calls for unaccompanied migrant children who report safety concerns to the HHS hotli- — hotline; and audit the sponsor vetting process for unaccompanied migrant children over the next four weeks.

Today’s actions make clear that we will continue — we will continue to investigate and hold companies accountable.

We will also — what we also need, which is incredibly important here — we need Congress to take action as well. We need Congress to provide the resources this administration has long requested to better enforce child labor laws. And we need Congress to increase the maximum civil penalty for child labor violations to better deter these bad actors.

With that, Chris, want to kick us off?

Q So, a follow-up on the child labor issue. Is the administration, is the President satisfied with Secretary Becerra’s handling of this issue, given the push that he and others have made to more quickly re- — release children to sponsors, where they wind up in child labor situations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me first say: Yes, he has full confidence in the Secretary of HHS.

And I’m assuming you’re — you’re talking about the “assembly line” comment or —

Q Mm-hmm.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, you know, I just want to be very clear. Of course, the President does not believe that — that processing migrants should be treated like an assembly line, and neither does Secretary Becerra.

His — I would refer you to — HHS addressed that particular comment in the story. And I would refer you to what he was — what was said there.

Look, more broadly, though, the health and safety and the wellbeing of children is the priority of this — this President, this administration, and also Secretary Becerra. That means getting kids out of congregate settings and rigorously, as I just mentioned at the top, vetting — vetting families and sponsors that would take in these children.

Q Another question on the abortion pill ruling that is pending. What is the administration doing to prepare for a perhaps unfavorable ruling? Will women lose access to abortion if this really happens? Or does the administration have something else planned for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things that we do want to say here is: What’s at stake is that a single judge is making a decision about a drug that has been around — you’ve heard me say this from here; you’ve heard Jen Klein, my colleague, who has been really leading this effort here, along with the Vice President, internally, for more than 20 years — if you think about this particular drug that they’re going to make an announcement on.

So, look, mifepristone is used safely in more than 60 countries. Not just here in the U.S., but 59 other countries have been using this for 20 years and in a safe way. And the FDA has repeatedly considered the clinical evidence in making science-based determinations to guide its safe and effective use.

Look, while I want to be careful — we don’t know where the co- — the court is ultimately going to land here and what they’re going to decide — the decision could be unprecedented, of course, and devastating to women’s health. And we may find ourselves in uncharted territory once again.

So, we are working closely with the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, as you — as you all know, to be prepared for a range of potential outcomes that may come out of this. And we’ll be prepared to review and take actions to ensure — to ensure the — the safety and the healthcare of women.

Q And I’ll let you go on, but I just want to ask this, like, very clearly: Can the administration protect access to these medications if the judge rules against the administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, we’re going to be ready for any — any, you know, judgment that may come that may actually put mifepristone at risk. And we are working with the Department of Justice here. We’re working with HH- — HHS to figure out what could be the steps in moving forward.

I’m not going to get ahead of a ruling that seems to be imminent — a court ruling that seems to be imminent, but just wanted to lay down where we are and how we see this process.

Remember, this is a 20-year drug that’s been around, that’s been used safely, that’s been used in 60 countries. And — and so, I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. To follow up on the child labor violations: First, is the crackdown in direct response to the investigative reporting that came out over the weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I just want to be very clear here. Look, the New York Times story is heartbreaking and it is completely unacceptable. And this is something that we have taken action on. So, just also want to be clear on that.

The President and his administration has long focused on — on making sure that this growing problem of child exploitation is dealt with.

Just a couple of things that I’ll lay out in what we have done — especially the Department of Labor has done — over the last the — last year or two is — because they have been focused on this.

Just last fall, they secured a court order stopping an Alabama manufacturer of Hyun- — of Hyundai and Kia parts from employing children.

They recently also — they got one of the nation’s largest food safety sanitation providers to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties for violating child labor laws.

So, that doesn’t mean that the work is done. That’s why you heard the announcement today that you did from — from the two agencies on what we can do next from the Department of Labor and HHS on what other actions that we can take to move forward.

But, again, you heard me say this at the top: We also need Congress to act. The President asked Congress, in his fiscal year ‘23 budget, for more fundings. It fell short by $50 million. And — and so what that — it was a request for the DOL Wage and Hour Division to be able to do its job.

And because of that funding shortfall, it prevented the department from hiring nearly 200 additional staffers to combat these violations.

So, again, we’ve been working on this. This administration has been working on this for the past two years, taking this incredibly seriously.

And now we’re going to take additional actions to get to the bottom of this.

Q So, apart from lack of money, lack of resources, is there any agency, anyone who should be held accountable for the failure of oversight that led to this situation in the first place? And who is being held accountable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — so, here’s the thing: We’ve taken action to try and deal with a real issue — a really true issue that was exacerbated, let’s not forget, by the last administration.

And so, that’s what we walked into. HHS took action on day one. Let’s — if we take a step back — when we came into came into office, migrant children were being expelled to Mexico where they were subjected to gang violence and exploitation.

So, we’ve reversed that policy, making clear that we — we as a nation have a — more responsibility to do better. So, we took action there.

And, look, we knew that decision would bring new challenges. We were dealing with a once-in-a-generation pandemic that required unprecedented safety measures for children in HHS care.

And you heard us — you heard us, beginning of this administration, talk about how we were moving — trying to move — trying to improve the situation for unaccompanied minors when they were coming in and also how to move them in the most safe way possible.

So, is there more work to be done? Absolutely. But to say that we have not taken this seriously after I just laid out what the Department of Labor has done — over the past several months, in particular — I think, would — you know, would — would be inaccurate.

And, of course, the President wants to get to the bottom of this. That’s why we put forth and announced a task force.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me move around. Phil, I know I didn’t call on you.

Q Thanks, Karine. Kirby got at this a little bit, but given the President’s personal interest in the Northern Ireland Protocol — the negotiations that have been underway — is there an assessment from the administration on the deal that was reached? And does the President have a view of it? Because he’s stated very openly in the past that he’s very interested in it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we welcome — we welcome today’s announcement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the implemen- — and the implementation of the North- — Northern Ireland Protocol.

We understand the Prime Minister Sunak just addressed this, or is about to address it — I’ve lost track of time here — to the Parliament. And so, we will further have comment following that.

But, of course, this is something that we welcome. And we have long said — we have long stated that we wanted to see the UK and the EU reach a negotiated agreement. And so we commend the officials for doing that. And we certainly welcome the announcement.

Q And then, to just go back to the DOE assessment, since I didn’t get a swing at Kirby. Without asking specifically about that, but just more of the tempo and rhythm of things, I think the surprise was that it just kind of popped in the last 48 hours. This has been an all-of-government effort. It’s been across agencies. Can you give us a sense of how this is actually working in terms of, you know, what the timelines are? What kind of effort is going in on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis as to why this would happen now, why there would be an update now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I can’t speak to — again, and Kirby was — the Admiral was trying to be very clear here; he didn’t want to confirm the story or speak to the story.

I mean, what I can say, and I would just lean into what the National Security Advisor said yesterday on many of your networks. He did a bit of a round-robin yesterday on the Sunday shows. This is Jake Sullivan. Look, you know, this is something that the President takes very seriously. He directed, repeatedly, his intelligence community to put efforts and resources behind getting to the bottom of the origins — the origins of COVID — COVID-19.

And so, you know, he was — he — he doubled down on that and, like I said, redirected his intelligence community. And that’s what you’re seeing.

But, again, there’s not a consensus here. We’re still going through the process. And as we are getting briefed and updated — the President is — we’ll certainly share that with Congress and the American people.

But he believes — the President believes that it is important that we get to the bottom of this, especially as we need to prepare for who knows. Who knows what the future may hold. Don’t want to get into hypotheticals from here. But we need to be prepared for the — potentially another pandemic.

And so, again, we’ve taken this very seriously. The President has. We need to get to the bottom of what occurred.

Go ahead, Joey.

Q Yeah. Thank you. Following up on that, are there any plans for the administration to release an unclassified version of the Energy Department’s origins — COVID origin report? And if not, why is the administration choosing to keep that assessment classified?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again, I’m going to just repeat my National Security Council colleague who said that he doesn’t — don’t want to get ahead of — or, you know, don’t want to confirm a story. So I’m not — certainly not going to answer that from here.

What I can tell you and reiterate from here — as he has said, as the National Security Advisor has said many times on — on the airwaves yesterday — which is that the President wants to get to the bottom of this because he thinks it’s incredibly important to figure out, to get a sense of where COVID-19 originated from.

Q So does the administration first need to find a consensus before releasing some of these assessments? Or, you know, why not put out what — everything that you’ve found so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think it’s basically what we’ve been saying. There has been no consensus, so I think they’re working through that. The intelligence community is working through — through getting to the bottom of this, as the President has directed and as the President wants to see.

I’m certainly not going to get into — ahead of their process.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. I want to ask about the economy. So —

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

Q It is shocking, I know. I know. (Laughs.)

So, a new Fox News poll shows that only 36 percent of voters approve of the President’s handling of the economy; 31 percent approve of the inflation — the way he’s handling inflation. Are voters just not getting the right message? Or is there something wrong with the President’s policies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — first of all, no, there’s nothing wrong with the President’s policy. But this goes into a little bit of the COVID origins question that I’ve been — that I’ve gotten a couple of times and that, clearly, my colleague has gotten a couple of times as well.

We have — just coming out what the American people have had to deal with for the last almost three years now, if you think about it: COVID. Right? COVID-19. Once-in-a-generation pandemic, which really put — put the economy, as you know, into a tailspin. And the President, when he walked in, there was — the last administration did not have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with COVID and how to make sure that we were getting people shots in arms — as simple as that; how do we get the economy back on its feet.

And so that’s what the President did. He got the economy back on its feet. We’re seeing more than 12 million jobs created. We’re seeing a lot of improvement where we make sure that we do not leave people behind and we’re building the economy from the — from the bottom up and middle out.

Now, look, obviously, inflation is still too high. The President is doing everything that he can to lower costs for the American people, hence the Inflation Reduction Act that’s also going to lower costs on healthcare, lower cost on energy, and also reduce the deficit by $200 billion.

So we are doing the work, the President is doing the work to get that done.

But, look, as I said, inflation is still very — is too high. And we’re going to continue to focus on that. But we believe that the President’s economic policy is working. And all you have to do is look at the data.

And let’s not forget, we had the — Putin’s war. Right? We have Putin’s war that increased gas prices, that helped increase inflation. That was a problem. And that’s why we — the President took historic action on gas prices. So we’re going to continue to act.

Q So when does the President then tell those people whose wages are rising but rising less than inflation is rising — when can those people expect their wages to outpace inflation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we have — we have talked about this many times, that we are headed into a more stable and steady growth. And — and we think that, you know — and I think I mentioned this last time — there might be some setbacks at times. But we’re going to continue to pursue that — what we believe an economic plan — the President’s economic plan, again, that’s growing the economy, making sure we don’t leave anybody behind, and continue to push that forward.

And here’s — and here’s the part too — and we have to talk about this, or at least I have to talk about this — which is, you know, we have the President and Democrats who are doing the work to try and grow the economy. And then we have Republicans who want to do the complete opposite.

They want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act — which is actually going to hurt the economy, which is actually going to increase heal- — if you think about the health — health — health prices, and it’s going to actually increase energy costs. Because that’s what the Inflation Reduction Act is supposed to do. And it’s going to have — raise havoc on the deficit.

So we’re trying to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to reverse the work that we have been trying to do over the last two years.

Go ahead, Justin [Jordan].

Q Thanks, Karine. I noticed there’s no press conference scheduled for President Biden and Chancellor Scholz on Friday. Is that due to any lingering tensions over providing tanks to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q What’s the reason for it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I — it’s not that reason. Look, when — as you know, when — when we have bilats here, sometimes we have two-plus-twos, as you — as you have witnessed. Sometimes we have those types of press conference. And sometimes we don’t. It doesn’t happen — it doesn’t occur at every time. But certainly it’s not — it’s not that.

We — and you heard — you heard the Admiral speaking from here how that relationship has continued to grow, how the German support for Ukraine has continued to grow. And we appreciate their partnership in this, especially as they are — as the Admiral said himself — they are strong partners in the NATO as — as NATO Allies.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you, Karine. Sorry, I wasn’t sure.

Just one more on the lab leak news from the Department of Energy. With all of this information coming out — and obviously the President had ordered a multi-agency effort that included the Department of Energy to try to, you know, get at the origins question.

But looking, you know, with hindsight 20/20 and now these conclusions coming out from parts of this administration, was it prudent to have, at the time, some administration officials voicing support for one origins theory over another, like Dr. Fauci did at a couple — in a couple of instances. He said, you know, “My belief is that it’s most likely natural transmission.” Dr. Collins, at one point, sent an e-mail to Dr. Fauci that was discussing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory.

So given where we’re at now, looking backward and with respect to how we talk about these things if it ever happens in the future, is it — is it prudent to have members within the administration voicing support for one theory over another if there isn’t a consensus of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I do want to speak to Dr. Fauci, because the political attacks on someone like Dr. Fauci, who — and public officials more broadly, but Dr. Fauci who has spent his career saving lives and — you know, whether it was the AIDS epidemic or, as we have just — coming out of this COVID — this once-in-a-generation pandemic, these attacks have been counterproductive. They have not been helpful. This is someone, again, who has spent his almost entire career fighting for the wellbeing, the health of the American people.

And so, I just want to call out the political attacks. I think, again, it’s not been helpful. Dr. Fauci himself has said he agrees with the President that we needed to get to the bottom of this, to get to the bottom of where COVID originated. And that’s what the President did from almost the — certainly the first few months of his administration.

And we have been grateful — again, we have been grateful to Dr. Fauci’s wisdom. We’ve been grateful to Dr. Fauci’s advice during the COVID response.

And we have been very, very clear here: We need Chi- — we need — we need to know more. We need to get to the bottom of how — how — how COVID-19 originated.

And so, that is why — again, that is why the President directed his — his IC and — his intelligence co- — co- — committee — community to get to the bottom of this.

And so, I’ll leave it there.

Q But more broadly than Dr. Fauci though, I guess what I’m getting at is: There was, not so long ago, a point where anyone asking the question of whether a lab leak was a credible theory which should be looked into — you know, a lot of those people were derided as “fringe,” you know, “conspiracy theorists.” So are there lessons learned, you know, looking back, about how we discuss theories when we don’t have all the answers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what — here’s what I can tell you is — the President’s commitment to getting to the bottom of this. Right? That is what is the most important so that we can — you know, we can share this with Congress. We can share this with the American people. That is why he asked the IC to do its work.

And right now, there is no consensus. There is no consensus. You heard this from Jake Sullivan yesterday. You heard this from my colleague just moments ago.

And we’re going to do everything that we can. The President is asking his team to do everything that they can to figure out where it originated because of what could potentially happen next, because of the potential of having another pandemic.

And I think that’s what’s most important. That’s what the American people should have confidence in, is that you have a President that wants to get to the bottom of this.

Go ahead, Kelly O.

Q Just on behalf of all of us, if we could request a two-and-two with Chancellor Scholz. It’s been more than a year since White House journalists have been able to ask him questions, and he’s obviously a very important ally to the United States.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I appreciate that.

Q On the lab: With the Department of Energy having expertise on an oversight of laboratories, does that in and of itself suggests there is something particularly new in this intelligence that should give people a sense of greater credi- — credibility or insight because of the kind of expertise DOE has in this area?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, the National Labs. No, I understand the question because of the National Labs, which is why they were asked to look into it.

I don’t want to — I’m not at liberty to confirm the reporting, so I’m not going to do that from here.

What I can tell you is, again, there’s been no consensus on this, on when — where COVID originated. So, I’ll just leave it there and not try to — not try to get ahead of the current process at this time.

Go ahead.

Q On the student loans case the Supreme Court is going to hear tomorrow, does the President believe there’s a viable plan B if the Court strikes down the plan? And more broadly, how is the administration preparing for that possibility (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I — and I think I’ve said this before — we are very much confident in our legal authority here. That’s why we’ve taken it — that’s why the Department of Justice has taken it all the way to the Supreme Court.

And so, again, we’re confident in our legal authority. We’re going to see what the Supreme Court decides. But clearly, our — the oral argument is happening tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. before the U.S. Supreme Court, so I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice.

But what we want to remind American people, more broadly, is how this program is going to give tens of millions of Americans across the country a little bit of a breathing room that you hear from the President, who says this a lot. That’s part of his economic plan. To make sure that as we are coming out of — coming out of COVID, as we’re — remember, we were taking — releasing the pause — right? — lifting the pause on student loans. And also, by doing this, giving American families a little bit of an opportunity to — you know, to start a family, to buy a home. And that’s how we’re seeing this plan and this process.

It’s unfortunate that Republicans — some Republicans officials across the country think differently. They don’t think that Americans need a little breathing room. They don’t think that tens of millions of Americans who have gone through what we’ve gone through — this is — kind of goes into all the con- — the questions that I’ve been getting — right? — about the economic — our economic plan. “Is it working?” “What is it that we’re doing?” This is all part of this, right? Giving the American people a little breathing room.

And you have Republican officials who — who don’t agree with this and who want to make it more difficult for Americans to get that — to get that relief.

Q The President is going to put out a plan soon on Social Security. Senator Sanders would like to see an expansion of benefits. He’d like to see that paid through ending payroll taxes on higher-income Americans. How does the President assess this? And does he think you could actually expand Social Security benefits while still strengthening the long-term viability of the system?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is, more broadly, the President has not endorsed a bill at this time. I know you’re asking me about Senator Sanders’s bill. So, he hasn’t done that.

We always welcome proposals from members of Congress in how to extend Social Security solvency without cutting benefits or increasing taxes on anyone making less than $400,000.

Look, but — what we see right now and what the President is focused on is the immediate threat that we’ve been hearing from Republicans for some time on cutting Social Security, on cutting — on cutting Medicare. And — and so, look, we’re going to — we’re going to fight that.

The President said he’s — you heard him during the State of the Union. He was very, very — very strong and very clear about how he’s going to be a fighter for Social Security and a fighter for Medicare.

As I’ve mentioned, the President is going to have a budget that he’s going to put forth next — next week — no, not next week — March 9th. I can’t even remember what — where we are in the month. But on March 9th.

And he, you know, he — he puts it at the feet of Republicans in Congress and say, “Okay, what is your proposal? What is your transparent proposal to the American people? What are you putting forth?” We — we’re going to be ready on March 9th and show that to the American people and ready to have that conversation.

Q Karine, on the boosted SNAP benefits that are going to expire this week, what’s the administration’s message to the Americans who are going to really feel the brunt of this once these expire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, Karen, Con- — as you just mentioned, Congress made the decision back in December to allow pandemic-era benefits to expire next month. And what we’ve done in response is take steps to ensure Americans’ needs are still being met.

A couple of things that has come out of USDA: They have taken steps to strengthen SNAP benefits and is committed to ensuring that people are aware of the range of benefits that are available to them. And also, as a reminder, USDA updated the Thirty Food Plan [Thrifty Food Plan], resulting in SNAP benefits increasing by an average of $36.30 per person per month, beginning October 2021.

This SNAP benefit increase lifted — increase lifted an estimate 2.3 million people out of poverty, including nearly 1 million children, with an average of — with, I should say, an even greater impact on children of color. And we have called to expand SNAP to additional underserved populations.

So, again, this is a decision that was made by Congress, and it’s going to — as you said, it’s going to expire next month. But we have tried to do the work through USDA to try to do everything that we can to strengthen SNAP benefits.

Q Is the President planning any executive action once these expire? Should we expect that coming soon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any executive actions to announce at this time. But what we have done these past several months is make sure that we can strengthen the SNAP benefits, which has proven to lift certain communities, communities who truly — who — who — who — you know, who have been hurt the most, to get them out of poverty. And so, that is something that you’ve seen throughout — through the President’s actions.

Q And just some of this — the data that you just cited about the millions of people that were kept out of poverty — and that percentage has dropped — to reduce poverty for people and child poverty: Is the expectation now that those gains will be wiped out and the — that will increase then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can — what I can be — what I can commit to is that USDA is going to continue to do what they can to deal with the real issue, to deal with child poverty, to deal with the issue that millions of Americans across the country have to worry about: feeding their children, making sure that they can provide — they can provide just the basics for their families every day.

So, we’re going to do everything that we can to continue to make that happen. That’s why — as we’ve been talking about the economy over the last 30 minutes here, that’s why the President, we believe, has an economic plan. And it’s been proven by the data that — that is — that it grows the economy for — you know, from the bottom up and middle out for people who are normally left behind. And so, that’s going to continue to be the President’s economic policy.

Go ahead.

Q Yes. Thank you, Karine. Following up on Karen’s question, is there any concern within the White House or politically that even though the President is not the one responsible for the fact that these benefits may be ending, that we may see polling data two months from now that blame him for more people being in a tough situation or whether the effects that it may have on the economy, if there are more people who are struggling to get basic needs met or have less money to spend on those necessities, is there any concern politically about how the — or how to prevent the President from being blamed for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to get into politics from here. I’m not going to certainly give a hypothetical answer to polling — potential polling, which, as we know, is a snapshot in time.

What I can say, what I can speak to is what the President cares about, is what the President is focused on. He’s focused on the American people. He’s focused on giving people a little bit of a breathing room.

I just talked about the student loan. I just talked about how the economy we see is growing because of his economic policy. I just talked about how the President continues to make sure that we do not leave anyone behind. I just talked about, at the beginning of the briefing, how equity has been at the center of everything that this President has done.

And as we’re still fighting inflation and trying to lower costs, the President has taken actions because of his economic policy, because of the Inflation Reduction Act — right? — and other pieces of — other actions that he has taken, even through USDA and making sure that we give 1 million children who have been dealing with poverty a little bit of a chance and opportunities I was just talking with Karen.

So, look, I get the question about SNAP. I get the question about how, politically, this may look for the President. But it’s not just one thing here.

This is — more broadly, if you look at the what the President has done these last two years, as he looks at the economy; as he looks at American families; as he’s trying to, he says, give Americans a little bit more dignity — right? — to be able to put food on their table; as he talks about not leaving anyone behind — this is part of the ethos of what the President believes as he is working for every American across the country, whether you’re in rural America, in urban, in red state, blue state.

He is a President for everyone, and that’s what you’re going to continue to see from this President.

Q Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, guys. I’ll see you on Wednesday. Thanks, everybody.

3:38 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John<span class="dewidow"> </span>Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EST

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is orange season — (laughter) — if you missed the memo yesterday.

Okay.  So, at the top, I want to say that our hearts go out to the family of Dylan Lyons, the Spectrum News reporter killed in Orange County, Florida, yesterday, and to the families of the other two community members who were killed by the same shooter, including a nine-year-old girl with her whole life in front of her. 

The girl’s mother and a Spectrum photojournalist were also seriously injured, and we are keeping them in our thoughts and hoping they have a full recovery.

Too many lives are being ripped apart by gun violence.  The President continues to call on Congress to act on gun safety and for state officials to take action at the state level.

But instead of following in the footsteps of so many other states taking commonsense action to enact state-level assault weapons ban and other gun safety measures, Republican state officials in Florida are current- — currently leading an effort to pass a permit- — permitless concealed carry law, which would eliminate the need to get a license to carry a concealed weapon.

This is the opposite of commonsense gun safety.  And the people of Florida, who have paid a steep price for state and congressional inaction on guns, from Parkland to Pulse Nightclub to Pine Hills, deserve better.

Now I’m going to turn to Ohio.  I know many of you have been covering what has been occurring in Ohio this past couple weeks.  But I also wanted to give you a brief update on the federal response led by the Environmental Protection Agency to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

As you know, Secretary Buttigieg is there today meeting with emergency responders and the Department of Transportation investigators who were on the ground within hours of the train derailing.  He met with the community leaders, including the mayor and the fire chief, and received an update from the National Transportation Safety Board on their investigation. 

EPA Administrator Regan also visited East Palestine for a second time on Tuesday.  While there, he ordered the railroad company, Norfolk Southern, to clean up its mess and pay or reimburse for all of the expenses.  If the company doesn’t, the EPA said it’ll make the company pay three times the cost of whatever cleanup is needed.

Federal teams have been on the ground since 2:00 a.m. on February 4th, which is, again, hours after the derailment, which was on February 3rd.  They’ve been working to hold the railroad company accountable, investigate the derailment, monitor the air and water, and have screened over 550 homes. 

And we’ll stay on this as long as it takes.  That is what the President has directed his multi-agency — agency heads to do and — as we have seen him speak to these past couple of days, actually. 

I also have some news on the President’s schedule tomorrow.  Tomorrow morning, President Biden will gather with G7 leaders and President Zelenskyy for a virtual meeting to continue coordinating our efforts to support Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for its war. 

One year ago, this group came together just mere hours after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine to impose unprecedented costs on Putin and his cronies. 

We’ve worked together to provide Ukraine with the security, economic — economic and budget, humanitarian, and energy assistance it needs. 

We thank Japan, the new G7 president, for its recent pledge to provide Ukraine with an additional $5.5 billion in economic assistance.  On this chal- — on this challenge and many more, Japan has proven a steadfast ally ready to step up and do its part to advance our shared interests and values. 

Our alliance with Japan and Japan’s strong partnerships with countries in Europe only demonstrate the point we’ve been making all along: The Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic are not separate theaters here but firmly linked together. 

The G7 has become an anchor of our strong and united response to Russia.  Tomorrow, the leaders will discuss how we continue supporting Ukraine and continue to increase pressure on Putin and all those who enable his aggression. 

Among other announcement, the United States will implement sweeping sanctions against key sectors that generate revenue for Putin, go after more Russian banks, Russia’s defense and technology industry, and actors in third-party countries that are attempting to backfill and evade our sanctions. 

We will also announce new economic, energy, and security assistance to help the Ukrainians continue to succeed on the battlefield, protect its people from Russian aggression, and enable the Ukrainian government to provide basic services, such as electricity and heat. 

As the President made clear in Europe this week, the United States will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. 

Now, separately, I want to add that the Biden administration welcomes the Sultanate of Oman’s decision to open its air- — airspace to all civilian planes, including those flying to and from Israel. 

This historic step completes a process that began last year during President’s visit to the Middle East, when Saudi Arabia similarily [sic] opened its airspace to all civilian planes. 

Oman’s announcements promotes President Biden’s vision for a more integrated, stable, and prosperous Middle East region. 

Now, I also want to give an update on a wave of anti-equality bills filled across America in recent weeks.  As of yesterday, there have been 450 and counting anti-LGBTQI+ bills filled in state legislatures across the country, including nearly 300 of those bills are targeting kids. 

These bills are not about expanding access to healthcare.  They’re not about making schools safer.  They’re not about lowering costs for Americans.  And they’re not about helping address our country’s mental health crisis.  That is not what these 450 bills are about.  All issues that Americans across the board focus on right now are the ones that I just listed. 

Instead of focusing on making Americans’ lives easier, these bills are making our fellow Americans’ lives harder.  These cheap shots don’t come without repercussions.  LGBTQI+ Americans, especially transgender Americans, are seeing alarming levels of depression and suicide, as well as being victims of hate crimes. 

The President and his administration will continue fighting for all Americans and their dignity because equality under the law isn’t just a slogan, it’s a bedrock principle of our democracy.  And LGBTQI people — -plus people deserve to live full, equal lives in every corner of our country, no matter where they live. 

That’s why it’s so important for Congress to come together and protect Americans’ rights to be who they are in this country.  Passing the Equality Act is a critical step in that direction. 

Apologies for all the toppers; we haven’t had a briefing in some time.  I have two more for you, and I promise we’ll get to your questions. 

Okay.  So, today, as you all saw just an hour or so ago, President Obama announced that — pardon me — President Biden.  (Laughter.)  Whoa!

Q    That’s news.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That is news.  (Laughter.) 

Q    President Obama —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know, I know.  We’re going back, not forwards.  We got to go forwards.  Okay. 

President Biden announced that the United States is nominating Ajay Banga to be president of the World Bank.  As the President said himself, Ajay is uniquely equipped to lead the World Bank at this critical moment in history. 

He is a renowned business executive that has spent more than three decades building and managing successful global companies that have created jobs and brought investment to developing economies.  As president and as CEO of MasterCard and as Vice Chairman of General Atlantic, Ajay has a proven track record creating public-private partnerships and mobilizing resources to address climate change. 

And raised in — and raised in India, he is a unique — he has a unique perspective on the opportunities and challenges facing developing countries and how the World Bank can deliver on its ambitious agenda to reduce poverty and expand prosperity. 

Okay.  Finally, this is the hard part of the toppers of what I have for all of you.  Again, I apologize for so many.  We haven’t had a briefing in some time. 

But we have another bittersweet day for us, for the White House press team, as this is the last press briefing for Megha and Robbie — right there, as you guys see — right there and next — to my right here — who are valued members of our team. 

Megha has been with our team since February of last year, and I don’t think she stopped smiling since.  I’ve never seen someone so happy and so — just really wonderful.  And she always — she always has a smile on her face.

Megha has yelled “Thank you, press” in every room of the White House and on three different continents.  (Laughter.)  She’s done it all with grace, a great sense of humor, and grade A outfits.  Hence that’s why, you know, we’re ma- — matching today.  So, there we go.  I feel good about that. 

I’ll know she’ll be missed by our team and much of the press corps as well.  We are glad she won’t be very far.  She’s going to be headed to the State Department.  Megha, we will miss you dearly, and thank you for your service. 

And Robbie Dornbush needs no introduction.  As chief of staff for the press office, Robbie quite literally keeps the trains running.  He’s the bridge between myself and many of — all of — many of you in the room. 

And — and also, no matter how early call time is, I can guarantee you Robbie is in the building before you.  Robbie is here very early in the morning, trying to keep up with me.  And he’s here working hard at his desk after a lid is called as well. 

I knew Robbie before this — this administration began.  I think Robbie started working for me when you were, like, 19, Robbie, on and off.  So we have become friends, and he has been a — a great colleague over the last several months. 

And, Robbie, you will be missed, but you have been in my world for so long.  And hopefully, I get an invite to your wedding.  I haven’t seen the “Save the Date” yet, so we’ll talk about that later.

But we will truly miss you, Robbie.  Thank you for everything that you’ve done.

Okay.  With that, the briefing is over.  I’m just kidding.  (Laughter.)

Okay.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Starting with East Palestine, is the President satisfied with the pace of the federal response there on — on the ground?  And why has he, so far, decided not to visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things there.  And I said this at the top.  The President — first of all, when the derailment happened on February 3rd, as I said at the top, the — the Environmental Protection Agency was on the ground in ho- — within hours — and that is, I think I’ve mentioned, 2:00 a.m. the next morning, on February 4th — getting — really taking — taking charge and dealing with what was occurring in — in East — East Palestine.

And, look, very early on as well, the President reached out to — to Governor — both governors of Pennsylvania and Ohio.  That is Governor DeWaine [DeWine]of Ohio and Governor Shapiro, as well.  And they — he offered the federal assistance and also directed his team to stay on top of this as long as — as it took.

And just a couple of days ago, we read out a conversation that the President — he was — he’s been getting briefed pretty regularly.  But just recently, we have — we read out a — conversations that he had with — with Governor DeWine, with Governor Shapiro, Senator Brown, EPA Administrator Regan, and Congressman Johnson while he was in Poland.

So he was still working and getting updates and focusing on what was happening in East Palestine while he was doing incredibly important work, as you all know, in Poland.  And he reaffirmed his commitment to make sure they have everything that they need.

Again, this has been a multi-agency engagement here.  When you think about CDC, you think about DOT, you think about FEMA, you think about EPA — they have all been on the ground, working in lockstep, working with the local officials on the ground, including the governor and the senators as well, making sure that we delivered and continue to deliver for the — for the — for the people of East Palestine.

That will not stop.  And that will continue until — until we are [aren’t] needed on the ground.

Q    My question, though, was whether the President was satisfied with that response.  Is he?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, he is.  Look, we believe that, when you think about how this response occurred — right? — how it’s been going from — literally since 2:00 a.m., February 4th, you’ve seen the EPA on the ground, you saw Administrator Regan doing a great job on the ground, making sure that he was with the community, talking, taking questions, working with the governor.

You’ve heard from the governor directly — Governor DeWine actually speak to the federal response — that he truly appreciated the work that we have done for the community.

So, yes, the President is — is certainly — is, again, staying upda- — updated on what is occurring on the ground, but also appreciative of the work that his multi-agencies have been doing over the past several weeks.

Q    Just on a different topic, some sad news from the Carter family over the weekend.  Has the President reached out to either the former President or members of his family in the last two days?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a — any call to read out at this time.  As you saw, the Pr- — there was a tweet from the President and the First Lady, who sent their thoughts —
who have their thoughts with the President and his fa- — and the First Lady and their entire Carter family as well.

And just to quote, so folks — folks — in case folks missed it: “To our friends Jimmy and Rosalyn and to their family, Jill and I are with you in prayer and send you our love.  We admire you for the strength and the humility you have shown in difficult times.  May you continue your journey with grace and dignity, and God…” — “…and God grant you peace.”

The last time they saw each other, as I think many of you remember, was back in April 2021, when the President visited them at their — at their home in Plains, Georgia.  And they had an opportunity to see the Carters — the First Lady and the President had an opportunity to see the Carters personally. 

And — and one of the other times prior to that when they spoke when — was when President Carter was not able to attend, as you all know, the inauguration of President Biden.  And they had a — a conversation that evening, as well.

And just to — just to give a little bit more history of the Pres- — of President Biden and President Carter and how long it goes back: It goes back to 1976 when then- — when then-Governor Carter was running for President and then-Senator Biden was the first senator to have endorsed Jimmy Carter at that time.  So, their relationship goes back decades. 

And President Carter is someone that President Biden truly respects.  And, again, our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Q    And there’s no recent communication —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any — I don’t have any recent conversations to speak to.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The mayor of East Palestine said that it was a “slap in the face” that the President had gone to Ukraine before he went to East Palestine.  Does the President have any reaction to those comments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ll say this, and I kind of said this at the top already, which is, you know, I laid out what we have done since the derailment of February 3rd and how we were on the ground very early on.  And — and we believe that we have had a all-of-government, all- — all-hands approach to this not just with the agencies, but also with the different teams here in the White House.

When you think about the Intergovernmental Affairs, you think about Office of Leg Affairs, and also the National Security Council have been all-hands-on-deck.  And that is because of this President’s leadership.  And that is because of what he has asked his team to do and what he has asked the agencies to do.

So, look, you know, we’re going to hold Norfolk Southern accountable.  As I’ve mentioned, there’s — there’s been investigating — they’ve been investigating what caused the derailment, monitoring for environmental and health impacts, and screening over 550 homes, as I mentioned.

EPA has ordered the railroad company to clean up its mess and pay for all expenses.  And if it doesn’t, the EPA said that they will make the company pay three times more. 

And Secretary Buttigieg has also written to Norfolk Southern to make clear that the industry’s pattern of resisting safety regulations must change.  And he’s calling on the industry and Congress to join the administration in implementing that — implementing that approach.

So, look — and, as you all know, as I mentioned, Secretary Buttigieg is on the ground right now.  He’s getting an update.  And we’ve had, again, multiple agencies on the ground. 

The President has stayed updated on this for the past several weeks.  While he was in Poland, he spoke to the important folks on the ground, the leaders- — the leadership on the ground, including his leadership in those — in those respective agencies, on what was going on and getting updates.  And he will continue to do that and do everything that we can.

Q    Has the President spoken to the mayor of East Palestine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have —

Q    — or does have any plans to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a call to read out or a planned conversation.  I can tell you, as I’ve mentioned before, the President has spoken to President — pardon me — to Governor DeWine of Ohio and Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and has — has had regular contact.  Our teams have had regular contact.

And you’ve heard directly from Governor DeWine about — about our — our federal response and how we’ve been working in lockstep with the local — local government on the ground.

Q    Question on China.  When should we expect to see some evidence supporting the administration’s assertion that China is considering providing lethal aid to the Russians?  We have been led to believe it would come very soon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we haven’t seen — we haven’t seen China do — do that yet, and we certainly don’t have any information on — for you on this at this time.  But as we have said, we have seen China provide this kind of support like — we haven’t seen China provide this kind of support yet.  But they haven’t said it’s off the table. 

But again, we haven’t seen it happen at this time.  We haven’t seen them provide this support.  But, again, you know, we’re going to continue monitoring this.  And — and, you know — and speak out when needed.

Q    And what would the consequences be for China if they were to provide that aid?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, so far, it hasn’t happened, as I just mentioned, so I’m not going to talk about something that hasn’t yet happened or occurred.  But, again, you know, we will continue to keep an eye on this.

Go ahead.

Q    You mentioned a new military assistance package will be announced in Ukraine.  How much is providing fighter jets part of that discussion, as President Zelenskyy has repeatedly requested?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, I’m not going to get — I’m not going to get ahead of any announcement for tomorrow.  We have been truly working in lockstep with Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government to make sure that they have what they need to continue to fight for their freedom, to fight for their sovereignty.

And I think if you watched — and I know many of you did –if you watched the President in Ukraine earlier this week, you heard him deliver a really critical, important speech in Warsaw.  You heard him before his meeting with the B9. 

And he’s been really consistent and clear: We are going to be with the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes.  We are going to continue to show our — our unwavering support.  And we’re going to continue to provide assistance so that they can have — so that they can continue their success on the battlefield.  That is what we want to see. 

The — we’re talking about fighting for democracy.  We’re talking about fighting for freedom.  And that is something that — we believe that’s what the United States is all about.

Q    What kind of message does the White House expect Zelenskyy to send during that meeting tomorrow?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to — not — certainly not going to get ahead of President Zelenskyy.  I think you heard him very clearly when he — President Zelenskyy — when he was meeting with the President in Kyiv.

I mean, the trip that President Biden took to Kyiv, as many of you reported on, was historic.  It was brave.  Many of you talked about how we heard the sirens wailing in the background as the President was on the ground.

Remember, there was — there is no military on the ground in Ukraine — U.S. military on the ground in Ukraine.  And the President took this trip to send a very clear message — not just to the people of Ukraine, not just to Russia, but the world — how, again, we have an unwavering support for the people of Ukraine.  They have shown such bravery. 

Let’s not forget, a year ago, we were talking about how Kyiv was — people were reporting how Kyiv was going to fall within hours or within days of Russia’s invasion.  And now what did the President say?  He was in Kyiv and he said, “Kyiv stands strong.” 

And so, I think you’re going to hear a lot of that tomorrow.  I’m certainly not going to get ahead of any announcements. 

Q    And just to quickly follow up on China, the President said last week that he does expect to speak with President Xi.  What’s it going to take at this point for that conversation to happen —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a — that is up to the President.  I don’t have a — any call to speak to at this time. 

Q    Is the President going to go to Ohio, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a — at this time, I don’t have anything to read out or — or announce on a travel to Ohio.

But, once again, we’ve had EPA on the ground.  We’ve had DOT.  Secretary Buttigieg is there today.  We’ve had FEMA.  We’ve had HHS, CDC.  I mean, we have had a multi-agency approach to this.  That’s how important it is to this President to make sure that East Palestine residents get what they need to — to deal with the situation that’s currently happening.

Q    Thank you.  And secondly, China says it wants a role in ending the conflict in Ukraine.  Is this something that would be welcomed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as — as you’ve heard from the President many times, we certainly want to see an end to this war.  That is something that we would — we would like to see.  And it could happen if Mr. Putin decided to leave Ukraine and stop the war that he started, stop — stop the brutal war that he — he has started against the Ukrainian people. 

But right now, we don’t see any reason or any — any evidence that Russia is willing to — to negotiate here.  And — and when it comes to that, any negotiation — and we’ve said this numerous of times — nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. 

So, what we’re going to continue to do is make sure that the Ukrainians have what they need to be able to continue their success on the battlefield.  And if there is a time where President Zelenskyy is — is ready to have that conversation, he will have strength at the negotiation table.

Q    So, you’re skeptical about this so-called “China Peace Initiative”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I just — I’m not going to speak to that.  That is for China to speak to.

What we’re saying is: We would love to see an end to this war, of course.  This almost one-year war that Russia has — has — has — has caused.  An aggression — a brutal aggression that Russia has put on the Ukrainian people.  Let’s not forget, this is — this is their sovereignty.  This is about their democracy, their freedom.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the Russia sanctions, can you say how many entities are going to be sanctioned, names of banks, companies that will fall under U.S. sanctions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m just not going to get ahead of the President tomorrow.

Q    On the search for a Fed Vice Chair, can you talk about the decision-making process there with regard to how the President is considering diversity?  There’s been some pressure from senators to name a Latino candidate, for example.  How much — how important for — is it to the President to name a woman or a person of color to that job?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll just first say that clearly filling that vacancy is something that’s important to the President, and we’ll certainly — certainly nominate someone in the near future. 

When it comes to diversity — you’ve heard this from the President, you’ve heard this from me, you’ve heard this from many of us here: Diversity and representation is really important to this President.  And — and, you know, we are going to look at — the President is going to look at a highly diverse group of world-class economists, just as we did for the previous Fed nominations.  So, we’re going to continue that process. 

But I want to take the opportunity to lay out what — how diverse the President’s Cabinet has been, how diverse the President’s administration has been. 

The Cabinet is a majority of people of color for the first time in history.  The Cabinet is a majority female for the first time in history.  A majority of White House senior staff identify as female.  Forty percent of White House senior staff identify as part of racially diverse communities.  And a record seven assistants to the Presidents are openly LGBTQ+. 

So, again, this is something that the President prides himself on, that he actually has taken action to show the diversity of this administration.  And so, he will continue not just with this Fed — the Fed Vice Chair occupancy but with any occupancy or any position that’s within the White House. 

Q    And then, the last one, really quickly.  There was a report that the U.S. is sending 100 to 200 military troops to Taiwan.  Can you talk about that decision and why the U.S. felt that’s necessary?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that specific — any specific numbers or that decision, I would refer you to the Department of Defense. 

But, of course, I will, you know, lay out what our policy is when it — when it comes to — when it comes to Taiwan.  Our support for and defense relationship with Taiwan remains aligned against the current threat posed by the People’s Republic of China and consistent with our One China policy.  That has not changed.  Our commitment to Taiwan contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region. 

But, again, for that specific question on numbers and what’s occurring there, I would refer — I refer you to the Department of Defense. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I wanted to ask you about the White House thoughts on congressional Republicans stepping up oversight efforts of U.S. aid to Ukraine.  House Oversight, yesterday, called for extra documentation of the aid.  House Appropriations and House Armed Services — they plan oversight hearings next week.  I mean, what does the White House think of all this Republican scrutiny? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — I mean, I’ve — I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again.  When it comes to these oversight hearings, we’ve been very clear, the President has been very clear: He’s going to focus on what the American people want us to focus on, which is continuing to work to lower — to lower inflation, continuing to make sure that we have an economy that works for all, and continue to make sure that we’re fighting for just individual freedoms.  And that is something that we saw after the midterms. 

That was very clear what the voters wanted to see.  They wanted to see us move forward in a bipartisan way to deliver on those — on those — on those things that I just listed out. 

Look, when it comes to Ukraine aid, I think what is probably the thing that I would say here is that we have seen bipartisan support when it comes to Ukraine aid, when you look at — you look at the support from — in Congress.

And like the President — like the President said, some House Republicans were in Ukraine themselves meeting with President Zelenky [sic] — Zelenskyy just this week to vow their support for what is — for their fight — for the Ukrainians’ fight for freedom and for their democracy. 

And so, again, we’re — you know, we’re providing military security and economic support to the Ukraine — Ukrainians to fight for their freedom.  We think it’s an important thing to do, as — as the United States, to make sure that democracy is being fought for and we’re standing up for that.  And so, I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    But I — I mean, I — is there no concern about the extra calls for oversight?  I mean, it seems to be a response to their constituents, at least, of a softening of support for U.S. aid. 

You know, there have been recent polls — absolutely, you’re right that bipartisan support is still there, but there has been — after a year, there has been a softening of support.  Polls show that. 

Is that a concern of the President that some Americans, at least — their support for U.S. aid or that much U.S. aid going to Ukraine has — is not where it — what it used to be?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think that — and we have seen that, you know, Americans know what is at stake here.  They understand that freedom is at stake.  They understand that democracy is at stake.  And they understand the role that we play as a country grop- — globally.  And that is something that we truly believe. 

And so, we — the President believes we have a role to play, and we’ve seen it.  We’ve seen it with the alliance — the strong alliance of NATO.  Remember, NATO was supposed to be torn apart and fall just like Kyiv was supposed to fall, and it became stronger. 

We’ve seen the West come together.  We’ve seen Europe come together.  And we saw the President really speak to that on the world stage just this week, not just — again, not just to Ukrainians, not just to Russia, but to the world stage about what it — this means for all of us. 

So, we think Americans understand that.  We think that the Americans see that.  And we’re going to continue to do the work that is needed to protect democracy. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  These sanctions tomorrow, are they going to be announced by the whole of the G7 together or is it going to be U.S. sanctions?  And then just, sort of, how it’s going to come out.  Will it be coming out as part of that G7 meeting or as —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t — I’m — I don’t —

Q    — several announcements?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t want to get ahead.  It’s certainly something that the President will speak to, when it comes to the sanctions, as I just laid out at the top.  I just — I’m not going to get ahead of what the President is going to announce tomorrow. 

There’ll be a G7 meeting.  At — as part of that, the President is going to be making an announcement on sanctions.  I just — I’m not going to get ahead of what the President is going to say or how it’s — in what vehicle it’s going to come out.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Can I just ask you again — following up on East Palestine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Can you at lea- — I know you can’t say if the President has plans to go there now.  But is it in discussion that the President may go there in the near future?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share.  I know — I know there’s a lot of interest on that. 

Q    Wouldn’t it make — I mean, I guess the question the folks are — for folks there, though, at least to say it’s in discussion.  Has it been something that’s even under consideration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I think what folks should understand and folks should, I think, feel at ease is that the President has taken this very seriously. 

Hours after the derailment occurred, you saw, again, the EPA on the ground, and you’re seeing a multi-agency reaction to this because the President has — had promised not just the people of East Palesti- — Palestine but also to their governors, to their leadership that we would be on the ground for as long as it takes to make sure that the community has what it needs. 

And, you know, you have seen that.  You’ve seen the Administrator on the ground, with the governor on the ground.  You’ve seen them talking to the community. 

Again, Secretary Pete was just there, again, meeting with the mayor — the mayor there and continuing to do —

Q    Was he there at the President’s direction?  Was Secretary Pete there at the ma- — at the President’s direction?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — look, Secretary Pete went because he believed that it was important for him to go there at this time.  And — and, you know, it is — it is — it is —

Q    Was this the right time to go?  He said he wanted to go at the right time.  Was this the right time?  Even he, today, had some reservations about whether he met the right balance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think it was important — I think what’s important is that he was there.  I think what’s important is that we saw — we saw the Secretary of the Department of Transportation there. 

I do want to say one thing, though, which is there’s been a lot of bad-faith attacks on Secretary Buttigieg.  And the reason why we believe it’s bad faith is — if you remember Elaine Chao, she was — you know, she was the head of Department of Transportation.  And where — when there was these types of chemical spills, nobody was calling for her to be fired.  And nobody was calling for what they’re calling on Mayor — Secretary Pete. 

It is — it is pure politics.  This is pure political stunts, what they’re doing.  You have seen an administration that has — because of the leadership of this President that has taken action and multi-agency action to deal with the needs that we’re seeing on the ground with the community of East Palestine. 

Q    And I just want to follow up on two other topics that were asked earlier.  You were asked about when we could expect to see the declassified intelligence as it relates to the accusation that China is considering providing lethal aid to Russia. 

A year ago — almost exactly a year ago — before the invasion by Russia, the administration was very quick to turn over declassified intelligence to demonstrate that Russia was planning this.

What’s different now that the administration is reluctant or reticent to turn over the intelligence that says China is actively considering providing lethal aid to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I just want to clear something up.  So, on — on Ohio for a second.  So, Elaine Chao, who was the Environmental — head of the Environmental Protection Agency when she had to deal with —

Q    When she was head of DOT.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  DOT.  Pardon me.  No one called her out.  Right?  When — when you think about the chemical spills, it is something that the Environmental Protection Agency has to deal with, right?  They are the ones who have to take leadership. 

And that’s what you’ve seen.  That’s what you’ve seen from February 4th until now, which is the Environmental Protection Agency taking charge. 

So, Secretary Buttigieg being there now, he’s not — the Department of Transportation is not leading this effort.  It’s the Environmental Protection Agency.  Just wanted to be very, very clear on that. 

Q    Understood.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and that is why the attacks that we are seeing on — on Secretary Buttigieg is — is really just in bad faith. 

And can you say your question again?

Q    Yeah, I’ll ask you again.  So, a year ago, before Russia invaded Ukraine, the administration was very quick to present declassified intelligence that said Russia is about to do this.  Turns out they were right.  It was accurate. 

This time around, the accusation has been made by the administration that China is actively considering providing lethal aid to Russia.  But this time around, the administration is much more reluctant or reticent to provide that information.  What’s different now?  Why not turn that over right away since the accusation has been made?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I mean, we’ve been very clear that we haven’t seen them do it yet, but they haven’t taken it off the table. 

I’m not —

Q    I guess, why not provide the intelligence that backs it up though?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I — I totally understand.  I’m not — certainly not going to get ahead of the intelligence community.  That is something that is, clearly, at this time classified.  So certainly not going to get ahead —

Q    The President can declassify. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I —

Q    Does he think it’s the right decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I understand.  But it’s also in conversation — right? — with — with the intelligence community as well, when we — when we speak to these — when the — when we speak to these classified matters.  So, we just want to be very careful here and also very mindful.

I think you’re comparing two things that are very different, we believe, when you — when you think about what happened a year ago when — when we were talking about Russia potentially invading Ukraine.

We believed at the time it was important to share — to share that evidence.  We believe that it was important for the American people to see what was about to occur. 

And so, two different things.  We have not seen them, but —

Q    Is it not — is it not important to share that evidence this time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but I’m just saying: We haven’t seen it yet.  I mean, I’m actually answering your question.  We haven’t seen it yet. 

And so — but what we know is: It has not been taken off the table.  Right?  So, we haven’t seen it yet.  We’re actually sharing that information, but it’s not been taken off the table. 

Go ahead.

Q    Quick follow-up on Peter’s question on Ohio.  The President has said many times, in his own words, that he likes to provide comfort to Americans who are grieving, Americans who are in crisis.  Has he expressed interest in, or the intention to, provide that kind of support to East Palestinians?  Does he want to provide that support to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Of course.  He’s the President of the United States.  He’s the President for red and blue states.  He, of course, wants to provide that support.  That’s what he’s been doing. 

That’s why you’ve seen the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator on the ground.  That’s why you’re seeing Secretary Buttigieg on the ground, providing that support.  And not just those two agencies, other agencies as well, making sure that the East Palestine community are getting what they need at this difficult time. 

And so, this is a President that understands what people are going through when they’re going through hardships.  He understands that personally.  And that’s why he’s getting updates regularly.  And that’s why he has made sure that we’ve had this type of reaction since practically almost day one, hours within the derailment. 

And so, we’ll continue to do that.  He has said multiple times we are going to — or I have said multiple times that the President is going to continue to be there for the people, the community of East Palestine, for as long as the — it’s needed, for as long as it takes.

Q    But does he not want to do it directly, in person, himself?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think — but I think — but I think offering the assistance, offering the help is doing it directly.  When you’re — when you’re seeing the federal government on the ground, providing the assistance that is needed, that is doing it directly.  That’s doing it — they’re — they’re doing it on the direction of the President.

That multi-agency — what we have been able to do over the past couple of weeks — that is because of the direction of the President.  And we have seen that just — not just for these types of situations, but others as well. 

Of course — of course, we — our hearts go out for the people of Palestine and their — their community — the community and what they’re going through right now. 

This is why the President continues to be updated every single day and has called again for his — for not just the agencies, but for the teams here at the White House to make sure that we are working closely with local government and state government to make sure that we are delivering for the community.

And not just in Ohio.  Remember, there is Pennsylvania as well, who — we’ve been in touch with the governor there as well. 

Q    A quick question on Ukraine and China.  You now have the major regions of the world involved directly in the war in Ukraine: Europe, Amer- — you know, North America, the Middle East, Asia.  What are the President’s plans to bring us back from the brink of a World War Two kind of scenario here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I think what you’ve seen the President do this past week speaks to the unwavering — the unwavering support that you have seen for Ukraine not just from the United States, but NATO Allies, the West, and how Europe has been unified. 

And we have to remember — we have to go back in time just a little bit to see where we were just almost a year ago, where the expectation was that NATO would crumble, the expectation was that Kyiv would fall.  That was what was expected and being reported — that Russia was going to take over Ukraine. 

And it has not happened.  And that is because of the strength that we have seen of the Alliance and the partnership that we have seen.  And that’s what the President was there for this week to continue to show that and — as we move forward — as we move towards the next several months. 

And so, that’s what is important.  NATO is strong.  Unwavering support is strong.  Our support for Ukraine is strong.  And we’re sending a message not just to — to the Ukrainians and their bravery and what they’ve been able to do for this past year, but also to Russia and to the world. 

And so, to answer your question, we — I think the President sent a very loud message to everyone just across the — across the world about how important it is to continue to make sure that we’re fighting for democracy and we’re fighting for freedom.  And it means something to do so. 

I have to — I have to move around because we don’t have that much time.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  The President acted quickly in naming a new head of the World Bank.  There are two other big vacancies right now: the Fed Chair — Vice Chair of the Fed and also Labor Secretary.  I’m wondering if you can give you — give us any sense of the timeline — and particularly on the Vice Chair for the Fed — on whether you want somebody in place — or the President wants somebody in place by the time the Open Market Committee meeting happens. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have a timeline for you.  I can tell you that it is a priority for the President. 

And we’ll see as far — I talked about the Vice Chair.  It is something that we’re going to certainly address in the near future.  I just don’t have a timeline.  I’m going to let the President move forward with his process. 

And the same with the Department of Labor Secretary.  Clearly, that is another important — important position that the President wants to fill as soon as possible.  I just don’t have a timeline at this point.

Q    So would the Open Market Committee meeting be some sort of, like, absolu- — because that’s like at the end of March, I believe.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is that it is a priority for this President.  He thinks it’s important to get those two positions filled.  And so, we will — we will do that.

Q    And then, next week, on the student loan case that’s going to be before the Supreme Court, I’m wondering how confident is administration feeling about its position on that case and whether there’s any, sort of, backup plan should the Supreme Court (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We feel very confident in our — in our legal process here.

Q    And what about the idea of any sort of backup plan should —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right now, we just feel very confident.  Look, we have to remember what the student loan plan means and why the President put that forward.  It’s to help tens of millions of Americans — give them a little breathing room, give them an opportunity, as we’re coming out of this pandemic — this once-in-a-generation pandemic — and folks are — remember, one of the reasons we put this forward was because we were going to lift — lift the — the payment — the loan payment — the student loan payment to give them a little extra breathing room to make sure that they’re able to get back on their feet as they were having to — some of them had to pay back their — their — their student loans.

And so, this is a — we see this as an important policy that is going to help millions — again, tens of millions of Americans across the country who need it, who need that opportunity to start a family, who need that opportunity to buy a home.

And so, it is unfortunate to us that Republicans are out there — Republicans officials across the country are out there trying to stop something — trying to stop a policy that would really help everyday Americans who need just a little bit of assistance.

Q    And just one really quick last one.  Over the weekend, U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said there would be a, quote, unquote, “red line” for China if lethal weapons or lethal material were provided to Russia.

Is that a phrase that the White House would repeat?  Is that a phrase that the White House supports using in this (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say that — so far, it hasn’t happened, as I was telling to Peter.  I’m not going to talk about what we anticipate or any new indications.  But we have been clear with China from the beginning on the consequences and implications of providing this kind of support to Russia.

We have been very, very clear about that.  I’m just not going to add to — to — any more to that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Two questions.  One on Ukraine, one from a colleague who covers immigration.

On Ukraine, when the President was in Poland, people were pleading with him to provide F-16s to Ukraine.  He probably saw and heard some of those protesters.  He has said that he is not going to provide F-16s to Ukraine, that that is not something the U.S. will do.  Is he still standing by that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re — and I — and I talked about this a little bit when I was asked, moments ago, about any extra aid that we’re providing to Ukraine.

Look, we’ve been in lockstep with the Ukrainians and with our partners to provide Ukraine with the capabilities that it needs.  And we are in regular communication with — with the Ukrainians on their needs on the battlefield, and also making sure they have the humanitarian assistance and other assistance that we’ve been providing for this past year that they need.  I’m just not going to get ahead of that. 

But, look, we are committed, again, to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.  And I’ll just leave it there.

Q    So, that isn’t a firm “No, never going to happen from the President”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, we are constantly in conversation with Ukraine, providing them with the need that — the assistance that they need to be successful on the battlefield.  I’m just not — I’m just — don’t have any — anything else to say beyond what the President has commented on.

Q    Thank you.  And then really quickly on immigration.  The administration proposed a rule this week that would make migrants ineligible for asylum if they cross the southern border without first asking for refuge in a third country.  At least generally speaking, it’s kind of similar to a Trump-era rule.

Administration officials told reporters on a call this week it wasn’t their first or separate — second preference to do it this way.  Is this rule a recognition that the administration’s early border strategy just isn’t working?  And is it realistic that President Biden’s campaign promises to end all Trump-era immigration restrictions — was that unrealistic?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — you mentioned — there’s something — there is a huge difference here, which is: What we are providing is expanded legal pathways.  And that is important to make note — is that that is something that the past administration didn’t do, and that is something that we are doing here.

Look, on day one, the President put forward a comprehensive immigration — immigration reform proposal.  And he — that’s showing that the President was taking this very seriously.  And the way that we see this is Congress needs to act.  And what was happening currently, right now, is Congress is not acting.

So what you’re seeing from the Department of Homeland Security is they are using the tools that is being presented to them so that we can deal with the sit- — with this situation and do it in a safe and oder- — orderly and humane way.  And that’s what we’re doing here.

And let’s not forget, if you look at the parolee program that we put forth — remember the President announced on January 5th some — some — some of the proposals that — on how he was going to move forward.  He talked about expanding the parolee program. 

You have four countries — Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti.  And if you look at that program, it’s been very successful.  It has brought down legal — illegal migration by 97 percent.  And so we see that is working.

But we are — this President is going to use the tools that he has — the Department of Homeland Security, as you’re seeing, is using the tools that they have in front of them to deal with this real issue.

And let’s not forget, you know, when it comes to Title 42, it’s going to lift on May 11th.  So we believe that we had to take steps to deal with this.  We can’t leave it on the NGOs.  We can’t just leave it on the communities.  We also have to take steps to deal with this issue.

Q    Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    Just two questions.  First of all, the President frequently visits the sites of many natural and manmade disasters.  And this situation in East Palestine has clearly required a multi-agency response from the federal and the state level.  So I guess I’m just struggling to understand why the President wouldn’t go to East Palestine.  Does it simply not meet the bar for a presidential visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I don’t — it’s — I want to be very clear here: There’s no reason to struggle, I don’t think, on this question.  I think when you look at how the federal agenc- — agencies have responded from day one and took this very seriously and reacted within hours of the derailment and was on the ground — this is the Environmental Protection Agency.  As I was saying, they are the ones that deal with these types of chemical spills.  They’re the one that are the leaders on this.  And it didn’t stop with the environmental —

(Cellphone musical ringtone plays.)

You all right there, buddy?

Q    It’s my family, but everyone is okay.  Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  (Laughter.)  What was that?

Q    Just a little — it’s a little family tune.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, it’s pretty — a pretty good tune there.  Oh.  All right.  Peter Alexander getting down with his phone.  (Laughter.)

Okay.  So — and it didn’t stop — what I want to say is that it didn’t stop with the Environmental Protection Agency.  Again, FEMA, CDC —

Q    Yeah, but that’s all different from a presidential visit, which is what I’m asking about.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it’s — I — I — look, I want to be very clear here.  I don’t — again, I don’t have anything to share on a presidential visit.  I — not at this time, or anything to announce. 

But it does matter that the President put forth a multi-agency kind of reaction to this —

Q    Of course.  But so does showing up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — taking it seriously.

Q    Right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, showing up is having the Environmental Protection Administrator on the ground.  Showing up is having the DOT Secretary on the ground to talk about what — what — what is the next process, holding — holding to account the company that caused the spill.  That’s what you’re seeing from Secretary Buttigieg today. 

You know — you know, showing action is also seeing that HHS, CDC, FEMA — all of these guys are on the ground at the direction of this President.  So that is taking this very seriously.

When the President was in Poland, he took calls and called and reached out and got updates from his — the leadership in those agency.  And he continued to make sure that he was — he was talking to President — pardon me — to Governor De- — the governors of Pennsylvania and Ohio, Governor DeWine and Shapiro.

That matters.  That’s what leadership looks like.  And leadership matters as well.  And that’s what you’re seeing, instead of political stunts that we’re seeing from the other side.

Look, you know, people have been talking about regulation and deregulation.  One of the things — you know, we’ve been hearing from the other side, we’ve been hearing from the GOP about how now they’re interested — all of the sudden, they are interested in the safety of East Palestine, when they have, for years, have been in lockstep with the — you know, the retail [rail] lobby — in lockstep, making sure that they think — that the safety — they were stopping or repealing the commonsense safety laws that would, you know, help in this situation. 

I understand that it maybe — it may — we’re waiting to see the investigation.  Maybe it would have — it would have helped or not helped, but it doesn’t matter.  What matters is there is real, true ways to create safety as it relates to rail, and they’ve been — they’ve been against that for years — for years against that in the — in the lockstep with rail — rail lobbyists. 

And so, you know, there is a false — there’s a false comparison here.  And we’re just going to have to call that out. 

Q    And then, just on the new asylum rules.  I know that you just laid out the differences that you see in the Trump administration rules and the new ones that you guys have announced, but a lot of migrant advocate groups don’t see it that way.  They see this as mirroring the Trump-era rules.  So what do you say to these migrant advocate groups and these communities who now feel very much betrayed by this President?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, here’s the thing: We don’t see anybody else providing any other solutions, when it comes to Congress.  We don’t.  We’ve provided solution after solution. 

The President, again, on day one, provided a comprehensive reform — immigration reform proposal.  Put it out there on the first day.  Republicans have rejected it. 

And so, we are trying to put forward a way to move forward with an immigration policy that secures our border, that is safe, and that is humane. 

And what are they providing?  Nothing. 

And so, one of the things that we can say, and we see this in the data, it — that we have increased pathways to — pathways to — legal pathways — and we expanded that, and we see that it’s working.  Again, no one else is providing any other options. 

So what we’re doing — the Department of Homeland Security — the President is using the tools that we have in order to deal with this issue. 

I’m going to take one in the back.  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, thanks, Karine.  So one quick clarification I wanted to ask you about.  So, on the sanctions, do those third-party countries attempting to evade our sanctions that you talked about at the top, does that include China — Chinese companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get ahead of any announcement that’s going to happen tomorrow.

Q    All right.  So the President has been traveling the world pledging to help other countries solve their energy issues.  The latest one was with Poland, pledging to build power plants or help them build power plants.  How come there’s no pivot in energy — in energy policy here at home to help the inflation that we’re seeing here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Have — have you read the Inflation Reduction Act?

Q    Still waiting — so the energy —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, the Inflation Reduction —

Q    But electricity is up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No —

Q    — 12 percent year over year. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, the Inflation Reduction Act does just that.  Inflation Reduction Act actually helps lower cost — energy costs — and gives Americans a little breathing room, which is part of the President’s economic policy, if you think about what he has said for the past two years, which is making sure that we have an economy that works for everyone, build it from the bottom up, middle out. 

And the Inflation Reduction Act is so important because it deals with energy policy, lowering the cost; because it deals with healthcare, things that — that is incredibly important to Americans across the country, especially our seniors; making sure that we’re capping at $2,000 for medical — medicals — medical drug costs.  That is important. 

So, yes, the President has been talking about this and dealing with it in a real way.  And we’re seeing that his economic policy is working. 

The Inflation Reduction Act not only that it — does it lower costs when it comes to healthcare and energy, but it’s also going to lower the deficit by $200 billion, something else that the President cares about when it comes to making sure that we are not adding to our deficit.  And that shows how fiscally responsible this President is. 

I got to keep going.  Go ahead, April.

Q    Welcome —

Q    Yeah, thank —

Q    She said “April.”  I’m sorry.

Q    No worries.  Thanks. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry, Michael. 

Q    It’s fine. 

Q    Two questions, Karine.  Both fast.  I wanted to ask you on East Palestine.  You say that the federal government is going to hold Norfolk Southern — Southern accountable.  But what is the long-term commitment from the federal government as it relates to the residents there, when it comes to the water, when it comes to the soil, and when it comes to the air?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re going to be there to assist the East — East Palestin- — Palestine community for as long as it takes.  That’s what the President said.  We’re going to be there to assist for as long as it takes, and that’s what you will see from — from this President.  And it’s not the first time.

Anytime there is some sort of devastating event, you’ve heard the President say that over and over, and he has actually kept to his word over the last two years.  And so that’s what you’re going to see.

Q    And when you look at what the chemical was, the toxin can be evidence itself — evidence itself years later.  Will the federal government be there that long — as long as it takes, as you say — just watching?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, there’s an investigation going on at this moment, so we’re going to let that investigation continue. 

But, you know, we’re going to assist for as long as it takes.  We’re going to make sure that the company cleans up, pays for the cleanup, pays for the work that the EPA is doing currently, right now.  That’s what you heard from Administrator Regan.  And — and we’re going to — you know, we’re going to be consistent and stick to that. 

And you heard from the NTSB today with their initial — initial finding, to tell us what happened, but we just still don’t know the why.

Q    And last question.  There seems to be more activity from a lot of groups who are very upset with what Ron DeSantis is doing when it comes to cutting off the AP courses on African American history.  With that said, I’m sure this White House has talked about it, but is the President talking to Secretary of Education Secretary Cardona about what steps can be done to rally other states to make sure that education is that — teaching facts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, when it comes to education and making sure our children are getting what they need in the classroom, the education that they so deserve, that is something that’s important to the President.  He always talks about how the First Lady is an educator.  And clearly, it’s something personal to him and to the First Lady.

I do not have any specific conversation to read out about what’s currently happening with — in — happening in Florida.  And I know you’ve heard me talk about it.  You’ve heard others from the administration speak to what we’re seeing currently on the ground. 

But I don’t have any specific conversation that is — that is specific to policies or anything that’s being done. 

But clearly, making sure that our children get the education that they so deserve is certainly important to this President. 

I’m going to take another. 

AIDE:  Karine?

Q    Way back. 

AIDE:  We’re (inaudible) time. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know.  Okay.  I’m going to take one — I’m going to take — go ahead, Alex, in the back.

Q    Hey, hey.  All right. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, no.  Alex.  I’m sorry.  I was calling Alex.  Go ahead. 

Q    Oh —

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Karine, we’re seeing violence escalate in the Middle East.  And I know the — I think we all know the President’s stated position on Israeli security and Palestinian statehood.  But what can this administration do right now, from — you know, to keep that from spiraling out of control?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So let me just speak to the most recent violence that we have seen in Israel.  I know my colleagues at — at the State Department spoke to this yesterday.  And I just wanted to reiterate, because I think it’s important for us to reiterate from here at the podium: We are — you know, we are tracking the Israeli raid in Nablus very closely and mourn the loss of civilian lives.  We hope for the speedy recovery of those injured. 

While we recognize the very real security concerns facing Israel and the West Bank and Gaza, we’re extremely concerned by the ongoing violence.  We urge Israel and Palestinian Authority to protect against further loss of civilian life.

Yesterday’s events further underscored the urgent need for both sides to take steps that de-escalate tensions, prevent further loss of civilian life, and work together to improve the security situation in the West Bank.  And that’s what we think we need to be doing together. 

One thing I do want to just read out a little bit here: The National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Brett McGurk, is currently in — in the Middle — in the Middle Es- — Middle East/North Africa region with an interagency delegation for a series of diplomatic engagements.  His trip will include stops in Egypt, Jordan, Oman, UAE. 

And we don’t — we don’t have anything further to preview on this engagement at this time.  But this is something clearly that we take very seriously. 

You know Secretary Blinken was in the region recently, and so — again, we’re going to continue to call out the concerns that we’re seeing.

And — and I’ll just leave it there for now. 

Q    Thanks, Karine. 

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

2:32 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, February 23,<span class="dewidow"> </span>2023 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

10:23 A.M. CET
 
MR. SAVETT:  Good morning, everyone.  This is Sean Savett from the National Security Council.  Thank you, everyone, for joining this on-the-record press call today with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, to preview the day and the President’s speech tonight. 
 
Jake, I’ll turn it over to you for some opening remarks.  After that, we’ll do some moderated Q&A.  And we’ll just ask everyone when you do have a question to please raise your hand, and we’ll use — we’ll call you using the “raise hand” on the Zoom function. 
 
Jake, over to you.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Good morning, everyone, here in Warsaw.  This is an important trip at an important moment as we approach the one-year anniversary of the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. 
 
And it’s important, of course, for Ukraine and for the Ukrainian people, but it’s also important for the American people and for the wider world because what is at stake here is more than just the success and survival of the nation of Ukraine, but the rules-based international order, fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the fundamental values of independence, democracy, freedom that matters so much to everyday American people. 
 
So, from the President’s perspective, it was really important for him to come to Europe at this time to be able to stand and speak to these values, to speak to the stakes, to speak to the moment.  And that’s what he’s going to do in his speech at the Warsaw Royal Palace later this evening. 
 
He, of course, was in Kyiv yesterday.  And his fundamental purpose for going to Kyiv was to be able to stand side by side with President Zelenskyy and send a powerful and unmistakable message that the United States will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes and also to show the world that Ukraine is succeeding in defending itself against Russian aggression and that Russia is failing in an effort to conquer and destroy Ukraine. 
 
He had the opportunity yesterday, as I said on the press call, to have an in-depth, detailed conversation with President Zelenskyy on every facet of the conflict.  And there will be a lot of follow-up work coming out of that, also in close consultation with our allies and partners. 
 
And speaking of our allies, the other thing that President Biden will have the opportunity to do today is meet with President Duda and his team to talk about the continuing work of this larger coalition of nations that are seeking to support Ukraine with military assistance, economic assistance, humanitarian assistance, and other forms of support. 
 
And Poland, of course, has been a critical player in that.  It has been critical to hosting very large numbers of Ukrainian refugees, it has been a critical logistics hub for military assistance going into Ukraine, and it has been a strong voice as part of a unified Western effort to try to ensure that there are no cracks — that the West and the larger coalition of nations holds together strongly, again, for as long as it takes.
 
So, the President and President Duda will have the opportunity to discuss, as he did with President Zelenskyy, every facet of the war in Ukraine. 
 
There are other issues, of course, that he will have the opportunity to talk to his Polish counterpart about.  There is the larger question of NATO force posture and the continuing commitment of the United States to play a critical role in the defense of the eastern flank allies, including Poland. 
 
And we have taken a number of steps over the course of the past year to bolster our defense posture here in Poland and along the eastern flank as part of a larger effort by NATO coming out of the Madrid Summit last year to strengthen defense and deterrence all along the eastern flank. 
 
So, the President will have the opportunity to reinforce his fundamental message from last year that he intends to defend every inch of NATO territory and that he will do so not just with rhetoric but with the kinds of actions where we put in place necessary capabilities. 
 
He will also talk about energy issues, including civil nuclear cooperation.  And, of course, he will speak to issues he speaks to everywhere he goes: core democratic values, including independent media and an independent judiciary. 
 
So, that’s his intent with respect to the engagement with President Duda. 
 
As for the speech tonight, the speech is something he has wanted to do now for some time, building on the remarks that he gave here in Poland nearly one year ago. 
 
What he wants to have the opportunity to do is set this — Russia’s war on Ukraine into a larger context — a context that reminds people where we were on the eve of this war a year ago, when there were fundamental questions being asked — being asked of the international order, being asked of the United States, being asked of the NATO Alliance.  And one year later, he believes that we have answered those questions about our unity and resolve, about our commitment to fundamental principles, and about our willingness to step up — (audio disruption) —
 
(Addressing the participants on the call.)  If everyone can just go on mute, that would be great.
 
So, his remarks will speak specifically to the conflict in Ukraine.  But, of course, they will also speak to the larger contest at stake between those aggressors who are trying to destroy fundamental principles and those democracies who are pulling together to try to uphold it. 
 
And I think you will hear in this speech a vintage Joe Biden.  The President has believed passionately in the themes he will discuss tonight for decades.  And he is applying them at what you have all heard him described as “an inflection point” today, where the next few years are going to determine the course of the next few decades.  And those are the stakes that he’s going to set out in the remarks tonight. 
 
So, I apologize for going on so long.  I think it’s a big moment, coming off the trip to Kyiv, speaking to the people of Europe and speaking to the people of the world about America’s commitments, about America’s staying power, and about America’s follow-through on the values and principles that we hold so dear and that we are prepared to act upon in the ways that we have over the course of the past year and that we are committed to doing in the months and years ahead. 
 
So, let me stop there.  And I’d be happy to take your questions.
 
MR. SAVETT:  Thank you so much, Jake.  And, again, we’d ask everyone, if you have question, please use the “raise your hand” feature on the Zoom. 
 
First, we’ll go to Michael Shear of the New York Times.
 
Q    Great.  Hey, Jake.  Thank you very much for doing this.  Obviously, the President’s comments today and the messages that you just laid out are not going to be delivered in a vacuum. 
 
In fact, as we’re speaking, President Putin is delivering his own speech today.  You know, among the things he’s described is this this sort of typical rant that he has done in the past about how those to blame in the war in Ukraine are actually the West, not Russia, et cetera, et cetera. 
 
I wonder if you could give an early reaction to what you guys have heard him say so far and let us know how much of the speech that the President will give later this afternoon is going to be, kind of, directly taking — taking aim at President Putin.  I mean, how much will he describe this as a contest between the West and — the U.S. and Putin?  Or will it be broader than that in — in tone and in detail?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  It will be broader in tone and in detail.  We did not set the speech up as some kind of head-to-head.  This is not a rhetorical contest with anyone else.  This is an affirmative statement of values, a vision for what the world we’re both trying to build and defend should look like.  And I think that’s what you will hear in the remarks tonight. 
 
I’m not going to react to the speech before it finishes.  You know, I’ll wait until we have the opportunity to hear the whole thing and digest it. 
 
I will say that President Putin has been making the argument for some time that it is the West and not Russia to blame for the war in Ukraine. 
 
Well, there’s a simple way to test that proposition.  If Russia stops fighting the war in Ukraine and goes home, the war ends.  If Ukraine stops fighting and the United States and the coalition stops helping them fight, Ukraine disappears from the map.  So, I think that kind of tells you everything you need to know about who’s responsible for this war. 
 
This was a war of choice.  Putin chose to fight it.  He could have chosen not to.  And he can choose even now to end it, to go home.  And nobody is attacking Russia.  There’s a kind of absurdity in the notion that Russia was under some form of military threat from Ukraine or anyone else. 
 
And that’s an argument the President has made for some time.  And he will very directly make that point in the speech tonight not as a rebuttal to Putin’s speech today, but rather to lay to rest an argument that Russia has been making for some time.  And the President will take that argument on quite directly and emphatically in the way that I just laid out. 
 
And so, we’ll see, you know, obviously, what Putin says today and, you know, as he as he continues his remarks.  But the President’s remarks today are not — you know, are about something larger. 
 
And the — we selected this time, we selected this date not because President Putin was speaking today — in fact, he moved up the date of his normal state of the union to put it in this timeframe — but rather because of the fact that we’re approaching the one-year anniversary of the conflict and the President wanted to use this opportunity to set a larger frame.
 
MR. SAVETT:  Thank you.  Next, we’ll go to Peter Nicholas from NBC News.
 
Q    Hi, can you hear me?
 
MR. SAVETT:  Got you, Peter.
 
Q    Oh, thanks very much.  Thank you, Jake, for doing this.  I just wanted to follow up by mentioning Kamala Harris’s speech at the Munich Security Conference where she said that Russia has committed crimes against humanity and Putin will be held to account.  Do you expect the President will elaborate on those ideas in his speech today?  Thank you. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  That was the finding of the U.S. government through a process.  That was not just a rhetorical flourish.  It was an actual substantive determination about the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and the ways in which they have conducted this war: brutally, with attacks on civilians, with efforts to destroy incidents of the Ukrainian culture, and with wanton effort to harm women, children, noncombatants. 
 
So, the State Department ran a process.  The U.S. government reached the determination that the Russian Federation has committed crimes against humanity.  Vice President Harris laid that out in the speech in Munich.  And President Biden will, of course, reiterate the ways in which Russia has brutally transgressed the basic principles and norms that govern fundamental — fundamentally decent international behavior. 
 
It will not be a major focus of the speech — the question of crimes against humanity — but the brutality of Russia’s war effort and the need for accountability will be a part of it.
 
MR. SAVETT:  Next, we’ll go to Asma Khalid from NPR. 
 
Q    Hey.  Thanks, Jake, for doing this.  You mentioned earlier that the President intends to build on the remarks from last year.  He believes that, one year later, many of those questions have been answered.  Will there be an appeal to the future and looking ahead, or is this largely going to be a speech that talks about questions that were raised last year being answered? 
 
And if there are appeals to the future, can you help us just get some guidance on what those might be?

MR. SULLIVAN:  The speech, as I said before, sets out an affirmative vision of a world in which the fundamental principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, democracy are upheld.  And the speech will fundamentally make the case that democracies, as he said in the State of the Union, are growing stronger and more capable of helping shape a world in which freedom has a greater chance to breathe.

And so, you will definitely hear that in the speech.  He is not going to — I’m not sure if this is what you were getting at with your question.  He is not going to sketch out in any kind of specifics a vision of a diplomatic end to the war, not because we don’t believe that the war should end on just terms according to the principles of the U.N. Charter, but rather because, as he said many times, “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” and the United States is not going to dictate those terms.

So you won’t hear from him some kind of specific set of proposals or roadmap or blueprint.  But you will hear him appeal to the — those basic principles as being the way in which things should proceed from here and how we should, you know, not just continue to support Ukraine at this moment in this time, but also how we should try to build a more sustainable, durable order in which the values and principles that, you know, we are trying to defend are ultimately upheld.

So, I think you will hear larger themes in the speech, not just narrow descriptions of, you know, the actions and activities around our support for Ukraine or the conduct of this war.

MR. SAVETT:  Thank you.  Next, we’ll go to Kevin Liptak from CNN.

Q    Hey, thanks.  First, just quickly, do you know if President Biden is watching Putin’s speech? 
 
And then secondly, do you have any update on the warnings that you’ve been giving lately about China potentially providing lethal aid to Russia?  And do you expect President Biden to mention China at all in this speech in the context of the Ukraine war?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have any updates this morning.  Obviously, Secretary Blinken and others have spoken to it.  And, you know, we’ve had the opportunity to engage directly with the PRC and to consult with our allies and partners on that issue, and we’ll continue to do so day by day.  It’s an important issue and one that we’re focused on, but I don’t have anything to add this morning.

It will not be a major feature of the speech tonight.  I don’t think the question of PRC support is actually in the remarks at this point, though I’m hesitant to say whether it will be there or won’t be there because, as you all know, you know, until the President delivers his remarks, they can always be subject to his edits and amendments.

And then, on whether or not he’s watching Putin’s speech right now, I actually am not with him, so I don’t know.  I don’t believe he is, but I can’t say for sure.

MR. SAVETT:  Thank you.  And for our final question, we’ll do Patsy from Voice of America.

Q    Hi, thank you for doing this.  I have a really quick question, Jake.  When you said yesterday that you called Ru- — well, not you, but the U.S. called Russia about the Kyiv trip for deconfliction purposes, can you just clarify what that means?  Because obviously, the Russians are spinning it as them providing a security guarantee for the President’s visit.  So, if you can clarify that.  Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I’m sorry, I didn’t see that, Patsy.  The Russians are saying they provided a security guarantee for the President’s visit?

Q    That’s correct.  Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah, they — they did not respond, other than to acknowledge receipt of the notification.  So, there was no exchange.  It was mere notification and acknowledgement of receipt.

Q    Okay, and when you say “deconfliction” —

MR. SULLIVAN:  No guarantees given and cer- —

Q    I’m sorry, Jake.  I didn’t mean to cut you off.  When you — when you say “deconfliction purposes,” if you can just clarify that from the U.S. side?

MR. SULLIVAN:  When we have a significant movement like this that also involves a security package, you know, we take the normal steps to indicate what we are doing, why we are doing it, with what parameters, on what timeta- — what general timetable. 
 
And we chose to do that with the Russians so that they would understand what they would be seeing and what President Biden would be doing.  Simple as that.  Just to let them know he would be there in this time period and the means by which he was traveling and that he would be out on this timetable, the means by which he was traveling out. 
 
We conveyed that information.  They acknowledged receipt.  End of story.

Q    Thank you.

MR. SAVETT:  Great.  Thank you so much, Jake.  And that’s all the questions we have time for.  We really appreciate everyone joining us on short notice.  And, Jake, thank you for taking the time.  We’ll talk to everyone soon.

10:42 A.M. CET

The post On-the-Record Press Call by National Security Advisor Jake<span class="dewidow"> </span>Sullivan appeared first on The White House.