Press Briefings

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Tallahassee, Florida

11:20 A.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, we can do this really quickly.

So, today, we’re going — we’re on our way to Florida and Georgia, where the president will s- — will further survey damage caused by Helene and meet with state and local leaders regarding ongoing response efforts.

The president will participate in an aerial tour of the affected areas on his way to Perry, Florida. On the ground, the president will then visit the Keaton Beach community and receive an — an operational briefing.

From there, the president will head to Valdosta, Georgia, followed by a visit to the f- — to the rural community of Ray City, where he will meet with residents and local business owners who are trying to move forward in the wake of this disaster.

The president spoke with Governor Kemp this morning to discuss disaster response operations and other — and offer further support as needed.

The president and his entire administration will continue to do everything in our power to help the people of Florida, Georgia, and every community affected by this storm.

Yesterday, we announced that the president approved 100 percent federal cost share for emergency response a- — activities in Florida and Georgia, as well as Tallahassee [Tennessee] and North Carolina. This means that the federal government will cover 100 percent of the costs associated with things like debris removal, first responders, search and rescue, shelters, and mass — and mass — and mass feeding.

This latest announcement builds the president’s previously approved requests for major disaster declarations from the governors of Florida and Georgia, which unlocked additional assistance for residents on their road to recovery.

As a result, the pres- — the Biden-Harris administration has provided nearly $4 million directly to individuals and families in need of critical financial assistance.

Still, we know there is more work to be done. And we will be here, doing that work, for as long as it takes.

As you can see, I have Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack standing next to me here to discuss what assistance the U.S. Department of Agriculture is providing to help people in Florida and Georgia, including farmers and rural communities.

And with that, go ahead, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY VILSACK: Okay, thanks very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just hold on tight. (Laughs.)

SECRETARY VILSACK: Obviously at USDA, our thoughts and prayers go out to all the families who have been impacted by this storm. Our job, obviously, is to try to keep farms viable and operational, to basically get as much help as quickly as possible to as many people as possible.

Let me start by, first of all, recognizing the stress that a lot of the farmers are under and the important role that we think the Farm Stress line — Hotline provides for farmers who are in trouble. Going to give you one — a telephone number for folks to call if they’re feeling a little bit stressed out to get some help. It’s 883-381-7243. 883-381-7243. In addition to that Stress Line, obviously we’ve got a number of programs.

When people think of the Department of Agriculture, they normally think of the crop insurance programs and risk management tools. We’ve given instructions to our crop insurance carriers to expedite, as quickly as possible, the loss adjustments that are necessary to make payments. Many of these farmers, particularly in the Southeast, have exercised the additional coverage for hurricane and wind damage. We expect and anticipate under those coverages, hopefully, payments can be made within 30 days. That is consistent with the president’s instruction to try to get folks as much help as possible, as quickly as possible.

In addition to the risk management tool for crops, we have a variety of other programs — programs that help repair structures and fences, programs that help eliminate soil erosion, programs that help remove debris, programs that will pay for the loss of livestock. This is particularly true in Georgia, where you’ve got a lot of contract poultry facilities where poultry houses have been destroyed by the — by the — by the storm. So we’re going to be there to try to provide help and assistance to get those fact — get those folks back on their feet. Help with feed for livestock if you have to travel an extended distance to get feed because of the storm.

There are a lot of uninsured losses, and there are programs to make sure that those uninsured losses are also covered.

And also there are obviously damage to trees and forest in the area. We have programs to assist in that area as well.

So, that’s on the farm side.

We’re expediting — we’re — we’re sending search teams or will send search teams into the counties where we’ve seen the most damage and most impact so that the — the farmers can go into their county office, get the k- — help, assistance, and direction that they need to be able to make application for whatever program fits their — fits their need and their losses.

I want to also say that part of our job is obviously to coordinate with FEMA. We have over 190 folks from USDA that are currently at the regional center in Atlanta or in the D.C. headquarters working collaboratively with FEMA to make sure that we’re coordinating and collaborating.

I would also say that we’re investing in rural communities. When we get to the recovery stage after we’ve assessed damage and try to triage things, we’ll begin working with communities in terms of housing, housing repair, water and wastewater treatment facilities that need repair, electric lines that need repair. We’ll be there to provide help and assistance through programs.

And we also have, obviously, a food assistance responsibility. We’ve already provided these — these states with flexibility in terms of child nutrition programs and senior nutrition programs, in terms of the types of meals they can serve, and — and the location of those meals.

And obviously, any governor who requests disaster SNAP assistance will get it from the department as quickly as we possibly can get it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. We don’t have that much time. But go ahead, Darlene.

Q Could you talk a little bit about what is being done to — there was a story on the radio this morning about bananas being stuck at one of the ports. And, you know, th- — they only last so long. Is there anything being done to get food that’s stuck at ports out and — perhaps to places like Asheville that have been affected by the storm?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, the — a lot of what we’re talking about in terms of the ports are in containers. And so, it’s going to be difficult to get to the containers based on the fact that there’s a work stoppage there.

That’s why the president has urged the shippers, in particular, to focus on getting this thing resolved and making sure that the collective bargaining system works. That’s the most effective way of getting the bananas to wherever they need to go.

And hopefully, the shippers will come to the table, union will come to the table, collective bargaining will work, and we’ll get this thing resolved quickly.

Q Secretary Vilsack, you know, we’ve just gone through a period of pretty intense inflation that affected food prices. To what extent are you concerned that the kind of double whammy of the port strike and this — this really large-scale hurricane are going to exacerbate the kind of pressures on food prices that we saw that are just, you know, abating now?

SECRETARY VILSACK: The current food inflation rate at grocery stores is around 1 percent, which is about half the 20-year average. So, it is good to see that it has come down.

At this point, a short labor stoppage at — at the ports should have minimal impact and effect on prices. Obviously, if we’re talking about a longer situation of duration, that may have an impact. But at the end of the day, that’s why the president has been so forceful in suggesting people need to get to the table and then get — get this resolved.

This is the first strike in 50 years. These people know how to get to “yes.” They just need to get to “yes.”

Q Can you define —

Q Can you tell us what the impact has been —

Q I’m sorry, wait. Can you define, please, what you mean by “shorter” and “longer”?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, the hope would be that this thing ends tomorrow. All right? That would be short.

The re- — the reality is our assessment is, if this lasts a couple of weeks, we’re not talking about a significant disruption. If you get into months, then, obviously, that’s a situ- — a different situation, which we’ll cover it when — when and if that occurs.

Q Can you tell us what the impact on American farmers in terms of their exports? You know, how much runway is there for —

SECRETARY VILSACK: Most of our exports go through the West Coast. It’s about $90 million on a — on a daily basis —

MILITARY AIDE: I’m so sorry. We’re about to land, and it’s going to be a very quick stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

SECRETARY VILSACK: The — the biggest impact is on imports.

Q Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I am so sorry, guys.

Q — very quickly on the student loan debt. There was a Georgia judge that just is letting it expire. Do you have any reaction to that? It’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — to get into that.

Q Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I’m — it’s an ongoing matter, so I can’t get into that at this time. So, I’m just — I’m not going to get into the litigation.

Q Is he meeting with Kemp? Is he meeting with DeSantis while he’s there, please?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. DeSantis is not going to be there, but we have been in touch with his team. We understand that he has other areas to survey today, so — but we have been in touch with his team.

As you know, the president has been committed — a full — a full administration, all the agencies are han- — all hands on deck in trying to make sure that we deal with the — the devastation that we’re seeing. You saw the president yesterday in North Carolina and South Carolina, the vice president in Georgia. And now we’re going to Florida — Florida and Georgia ourselves.

And so, the governor can speak for his travel today, but he won’t be there. But, obviously, we’ve been in touch with his —

Q (Inaudible) about Governor Kemp as well?

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we — look, we — the president spoke to Governor Kemp this morning. He won’t be there, but we obviously are inviting them. They are welcome to join us. And we are doing everything that we can to make sure that we give — give some relief to folks on the ground, to Americans on the ground dealing with this disaster.

Q Has he spoken —

Q He spoke to Governor Kemp. Has he spoken to Governor DeSantis?

AIR FORCE ONE CREW MEMBER: If you could just please take your seats. (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Sorry, guys.

Q Has he spoken to DeSantis?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a call to — to read out.

Q Has he spoken to Governor Kemp again today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We just spoke to Governor Kemp, as I said at the top.

I’m sorry, guys. We got to sit.

11:30 A.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack En Route Tallahassee, FL appeared first on The White House.

1:16 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  I just have a couple things at the top, and then I’ll turn it over.

So, we’re headed to South Carolina and North Carolina, where the president will meet with state and local leaders and personally survey the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene.

In South Carolina, the president will engage with first responders and state and local officials.

In North Carolina, he will take an aerial tour of areas in western North Carolina that were impacted by the storm.

Today, the president announced that he is directing the Department of Defense to deploy up to 1,000 active-duty soldiers to support the delivery of food to communities impacted by the storm.

And I can announce that tomorrow, the president will visit impacted communities in Florida and Georgia.

In North Carolina and South Carolina and across the affected areas, the Biden-Harris administration has remained focused on using every tool available to help people and their communities begin their road to recovery and rebuilding.

In fact, President Biden recently approved an additional major disaster declaration for Virginia, unlocking more resources to provide survivors with direct disaster assistance.

To date, more than $10 million has been provided directly to those affected by Hurricane Helene.

As the president said yesterday, we will be there until the work is done.

And now I’m going to turn it over to the Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, who is going to speak to the federal response — update on federal response.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Good afternoon. 

So, the — the president has expressed his need as a commander in chief to see firsthand the impacts on the ground.

This is not the first trip that I’ve taken with the president for that purpose.  We were in Mayfield, Kentucky, together.  He has said there is no substitute for interacting with the individuals, with the victims of these extreme weather events, and that is why he’s taking this trip.

He has directed me and every member of the Cabinet to devote the full force of our personnel and our resources to the assistance of the victims of Hurricane Helene, which is really of historic strength.

I can provide you with some data, if you would find — find that helpful.  Unfortunately, I forgot my glasses.  But I will say that — remember something about the data: It changes every hour because we are continuing to pour resources in every hour.  But what the data will do is give you a — a good understanding of the magnitude of the federal response.  It’s really quite breathtaking.

So, more than 4,800 personnel from across the federal workforce are deployed, more than 1,000 of whom are from FEMA.  We have shipped over 8.8 million meals, more than 7.4 million — million liters of water, 150 generators, and more than 225,000 tarps to the region.

As of today, search and rescue teams have conducted nearly 1,500 structural evaluations and hundreds of rescues and evacuations.  And additionally, of course, federal search and rescue teams are deployed.

The — the status of the federal response is dependent on the conditions on the ground.  So, in certain areas that are remote, mountainous, and that have been hit hard, we’re still in search and rescue.  In others, we are already in response and recovery mode.  It varies according to the — the demographics of the — and topography.

Voluntary organizations, World Central Kitchen is deployed — are supporting mass feeding operations with bulk food and water deliveries coming via truck and aircraft delivery.  Some of these areas are remote.  We are doing airdrops and the like.  We’re getting assistance from the Department of Defense and other resources.  The Salvation Army is deployed.  The National Guard is deployed.  I think — I think it’s almost 6,000 members of the National Guard are deployed across the six states.  And our FEMA administrator, Deanne Criswell, is on the ground. 

I think that gives you a good sense of the magnitude of the operation. 

You should know that in — in the six impacted states, we had declared emergency — emergencies — emergency declaration prior to Helene hitting.  We had pre-positioned assets.  And, as Karine mentioned, the president, upon request of the particular states — I think it’s five now; I’ll — I can confirm that — has declared major disaster declarations. 

Q    Is there — what are you doing speci- — you mentioned sending water, but what are you doing as far as getting the drinking water back online in — in places like the president is seeing?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  For that, I would turn to Michael Regan, the EPA administrator.  I — I think, in South Carolina, he mentioned there are two systems that are not fully operational, but that’s South Carolina specific.  But I — I would have to defer to — to Michael Regan.

Q    Talk to us a little about how confident you’re feeling in the amount of funding right now.  The president mentioned that he needs — was thinking about bringing Congress back to pass more funding.  Is that something you think might still need to happen?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We — we are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have.  We are expecting another hurricane hitting.  We do not have the funds.  FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what — what is imminent.

Q    So, does the president want lawmakers to return to Washington?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I would defer to the — to the president for — for the timing of that.  But we have, of course, made a significant request of Congress with respect to stable funding for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, which should not be a political issue.  This is something that Americans need desperately.

Q    (Inaudible.)

Q    Can you talk a little bit about — I’m sorry — how the rol- — like, how the role of climate change comes into the request for more funding — you know, the — the sort of revamping of the entire FEMA operation to begin with?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  This is — let’s — let’s speak factually.  The severity and frequency of extreme weather events have only increased.  It is an impact of climate change.

When — I — I mentioned Mayfield, Kentucky, a small town that was absolutely decimated by a tornado of unprecedented strength and length.  And we — I remember one of the factories in that small community, people had gone into a safe room that was built precisely for extreme weather, and that safe room was decimated because the building codes of yesterday are not equipped for the extreme weather events of today and tomorrow.

Q    The president spoke to us on the tarmac about how the dockworkers strike is playing into this.  D- — could you give us a sense, one, if the — the strike is slowing down the response at all, and whether the companies involved are at all profiting off of the misery that’s taking place on the ground?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I cannot answer the — the second question.  I am not that attuned to the dynamics of the strike.  I’ll leave that to the experts who- — whose portfolio covers that.

But I will tell you that we are not short of supplies right now with respect to the delivery of goods to the people in need.  Are — we are — we are not seeing adverse impacts from that strike with respect to our response to Hurricane Helene.

Q    The president has a very active travel schedule over the next couple of days, with North Carolina and then Florida and Georgia as well.  Is there any sense that he’s kind of playing catch-up after the initial criticism over the weekend and the fact that Donald Trump got down to Georgia on Monday?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Oh, absolutely not.  What — what I said yesterday and I’ll repeat — this is a very, very important point: The president is focused on being there for people without disrupting the emergency operations.  What he does not want to do is in any way impair or impede the rescue that we are providing. 

And so, he’s been in close touch with local and state officials to determine when is the right time to visit so that the visit is productive and not counterproductive.  And he has responded accordingly, according to the guidance that he’s received, and that’s why he’s traveling today and tomorrow.

Q    And is there any update on the estimate of how much this is going to cost the federal government and how much you would be seeking from Congress for help?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, as I mentioned, we have the immediate needs right now.  On a continuing resolution, we have funds, but that is not a stable source of supply, if you will.

This is a multibillion-dollar, multiyear recovery.  The magnitude of it —

Q    Did you say million or billion?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Billion.

Q    Okay.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Multibillion-dollar undertaking and a multiyear undertaking.  We have — we have towns that have disappeared, literally. 

Q    Can you — either one of you just tell us a little bit about what — what the president is going to see?  I know we said western North Carolina, but will we fly over Asheville?  What — where are we headed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re definitely, as I stated, western — doing an aerial tour of western North Carolina.  He’ll be able to see a little bit of Asheville.  We’ll certainly have more for you when we get on the ground. 

But, look, I think this is really important.  And I — and to, I think, your question, Danny — the reason why we are on top of this, as the president has been throughout his three and a half years and taking this very seriously — when — when the secretary started talking to you all, he talked about being commander in chief — the president takes this very, very seriously.

And we pre-positioned.  We — you — you heard the administrator from FEMA.  She came to the briefing room on Thursday, hours before the hurricane actually hit, because we wanted to send a message to Americans, to folks who were in the region to please listen to law enforcement, but also lay out there were 1,500 personnel on the ground — FEMA personnel on the ground being ready to really take this on. 

And so, as the secretary said, the president is going down today.  He’s going to be in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia and Florida, as I said.  But he — we also did it at the direction of the folks on the ground. 

So, yes, there may be other leaders who decided to go a couple days ago, but we actually did it a way that we know that we were not taking away resources from emergency operations.  And I think that’s what’s important here. 

And you’ve seen that be- — the — the secretary talked about Kentucky.  There’s been other — we’ve been to Florida a couple times — right? — with what we have seen over the past couple of years with — with natural disasters. 

And so, this is a president that is going to take this seriously.  He’s going to see for himself and thank, obviously, the — the emergency workers on the ground.  And so, this is — this is what we do as president.  This is what we do.  This is what he does, and our secretary.

Q    Just on the funding.  You know, we have two months left in hurricane season.  Can you just characterize a little bit — if you don’t get more funding, how much trouble are we in if another big storm hits?  Does that translate —

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Well —

Q    — into lives lost?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Well, there — there are a couple things.  It’s very important to note that even though we’re on a continuing resolution, we — we do — can obtain spend-fast funds so that we can dip into funds that are slated for the duration of the year to meet immediate needs.  So, we — we are meeting the moment. 

But that doesn’t speak about the future and the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that these extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, and we have to be funded for the sake of the American people.  This is not a political issue. 

Q    Karine, how is the president continuing to get updates about the Middle East while he’s traveling today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let’s —

Q    Let me —

Q    Sorry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let’s let — so we —

Q    One more —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — because he has to go back to be with the president.

Q    (Inaudible) about the fuel shortages that is being done right now? 

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I’m sorry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The fuel shortages.

Q    Fuel shortages.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Of — that people are suffering.  So, we — look, there are — there are different types of challenges that people victimized by this historic hurricane are — are suffering: fuel, potable water in certain areas, power, communications.  And we are meeting each of those challenges with the full force of the federal government as well as our state and local partners. 

So, if you take a look at power, at the — at the height of this hurricane, 5.1 million people were without power.  We have delivered power — when I say “we,” the collective “we” — the public-private partnership — to 3.6 or 3.8 million of those individuals.  And so — and we are continuing to pour resources and efforts in. 

Q    Do you think North Carolina was properly prepared for the impact of the flooding?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  They were prepared, but they were as prepared — and this is something we have to take stock of when we speak of preparation.  Preparation doesn’t necessarily mean preventing suffering when you are speaking of extreme weather events of historic magnitude.  You have people in rural areas, difficult-to-access areas, and when — when a force of this strength pours through, it’s going to have a calamitous impact. 

And the — the question is: Have they done everything that they can?  Have they followed the instructions of local officials?  And that is what is key. 

And I should say it is very important, if you don’t mind, to — to communicate the means of accessing relief.  People have an 800 number to call.  That’s 800-621-FEMA.  They can access relief at DisasterAssistance.gov, or they can use the FEMA app.

And for those people who do not have communications, we are actually going to them.  We are in shelters.  We are going door to door as we increase access to remote areas.

Q    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

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

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, to answer your question — I do want to hit one more thing.  But to answer your question, as you know, yesterday, the president was being regularly updated on what was happening in the Middle East.  He’s going to continue to do that.  We always say: The president is president wherever he is.  And so, that’s going to continue. 

He spent, as you — also, speaking of yesterday, he spent hours in the Situation Room.  And so, this is something he is monitoring very, very closely, and he will certainly be able to do that on this trip. 

Just a couple of things — because I do want to it- — reiterate something that he’s talked about — at the top.

Look, the president is calling on USMX and the owners of these foreign carrier- — carriers it represents to come to the table and put forward a fair offer to the longshoremen now.

This should be easy for them to resolve.  We’re recovering from a hurricane, and they need to do so as soon as possible.  They’ve made hundreds of billions in record profits since the pandemic — profits up as much as 800 percent.  These workers kept our ports open during the pandemic.  Their work is essential as communities recover from the hurricane — from Hurricane Helene.  Now is the time for these foreign carrier owners to negotiate a fair contract. 

So, we just want to make that really clear.

Go ahead.

Q    Are there — are there any plans at the moment for the president to speak with Netanyahu directly?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he talked about this.  We don’t have anything to read out to you.  But he also said — the president said this, and Jake Sullivan said this at the podium — they have been in regular communication with — with our — with Jake’s Isra- — Israeli counterparts throughout the last couple of days — almost daily, obviously — since almost a year now.

And so, that will continue.  And when we have a call to — to speak to or to announce, we certainly will do that.  Don’t have —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Clarification on —

Q    Oh, sorry.  (Inaudible.)

Q    It’s okay.  Don’t worry.  The — a clarification, though, on Iran.  So, the president was saying that he was expecting sanctions.  I wondered if — if there was discussion about how Israel should respond to Iran, particularly given, you know, the — the type of the — the missile strike and the fact that they’re — they’re saying they’re done now with it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, two things there.  Look, as it relates to any response from Israel, we’re having conversations with them.  We’re having discussions.  I’m not going to prejudge.  I’m not going to get ahead of that.  And as the president st- — stated, that he did have a conversation — he joined a call with the G7, and they discussed Iran’s unacceptable attack against Israel and to coordinate on a response to that — to this attack, including new sanctions, as you just mentioned, Colleen.

President Biden and the G7 unequivocally condemned Iran’s attack against Israel.  President Biden expressed the United States’ full solidarity and support to Israel and its people and reaffirmed the United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.

There is going to be a joint statement, as the president mentioned.  I don’t want to get ahead of that.  And certainly, you’ll have all that information.

Q    Karine, what new sanctions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not — I said I’m not going to get ahead of that.

Q    Are —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let — I’m going to let the joint statement —

Q    And are you —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — from — from the G7 —

Q    Are you counseling restraint in those conversations with Israel?  Are you saying —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not —

Q    — “Whatever you do” —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re — we’re having discussions. Certainly not going to prejudge.  I’m not going to get ahead of it.  But we are having discussions with re- —

Q    What’s your advice though?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to share th- — I’m not going to be doing that out on — on Air Force One.  We’re going to have those discussions — those private discussions.  And not going to get ahead of those discussions or prejudging.

Q    And is Israel’s limited — so-called limited incursion into Lebanon delivering the results that they wanted?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You would have to speak to — you would have to speak to Israel directly and IDF.

Q    What’s your judgment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You’d have to speak to them directly, because it is their — it is their operation.

Q    Does the president think Tim Walz won the debate?  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is the president watched — caught some of the debate.  And, as you know — and I’m going to be really mindful, because it’s a debate, 2024.  As you know, been covering and focusing on this trip.  During this trip, he’s been focused on this.  Obviously, this was a historic hurricane that hit this region, but he and — he and the vice president and the entire team are working hard to the response to — to Helene.  And so, he — he was able to — he was able to — to manage to catch some of it.  But I haven’t spoken to him in detail about it.

Q    I think the president said on the tarmac that he had not directly spoken to the dock strikers or any of the companies.  Is that going to change?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to preview at this time, but this president basically answered the question pretty directly.  I don’t have anything else to share.

All right, guys.  Okay.  All right.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Appreciate it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  See you on the ground.

Okay.  Be careful.  It’s very, very bumpy.

1:36 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas En Route Greenville, SC appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:48 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really quick here.  I have the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, to talk about the latest in the Middle East, so I’ll turn it over to him.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Karine, and good afternoon, everyone.  I’m here to provide a brief report on the Iranian ballistic missile attack against Israel that occurred earlier today.  I can take just a few questions, because this is an ongoing situation and I need to get back to my desk.

Today, Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles towards targets in Israel.  The United States military coordinated closely with the Israeli Defense Forces to help defend Israel against this attack.  U.S. naval destroyers joined Israeli air defense units in firing interceptors to shoot down inbound missiles.

President Biden and Vice President Harris monitored the attack and the response from the White House Situation Room, joined in person and remotely by their national security team.

We are still working with the IDF and the authorities in Israel to assess the impact of the attack, but at this time — and I stress “at this time” — we do not know of any deaths in Israel.  We are tracking the reported death of a Palestinian civilian in Jericho in the West Bank.  We do not know of any damage to aircraft or strategic military assets in Israel.

In short, based on what we know at this point, this attack appears to have been defeated and ineffective.  This was first and foremost the result of the professionalism of the IDF, but in no small part because of the skilled work of the U.S. military and meticulous joint planning in anticipation of the attack.

We’re also aware of reports of a terrorist attack in Jaffa that took the lives of a number of Israeli civilians and wounded several others today.  Our condolences go out to the families of the victims and to the family of the Palestinian civilian in Jericho.

Obviously, my update here is based on early reports, and we reserve the right to amend and adjust as necessary as we gather more information.  The word “fog of war” was invented for a situation like this.  This is a fluid situation.

We will consult with the Israelis on next steps in terms of the response and how to deal with what Iran has just done, and we will continue to monitor for further threats and attacks from Iran and its proxies.  We are particularly focused on protecting U.S. servicemembers in the region.

And with that, I’ll take just a few questions.

Yeah.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  Is the administration making any preparations to evacuate U.S. citizens from Lebanon or elsewhere in the region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We have been very clear for some time now that U.S. citizens should avail themselves of commercial means to depart Lebanon given everything that’s going on.  We have said that from this podium, from multiple podiums.  We continue to say that.  But we have not begun triggering a noncombatant emergency evacuation — a NEO — and do not have an intention to do so at this time. 

If that changes, we’ll let you know.  But we continue to reinforce the point: American citizens in Lebanon should follow the guidance from the State Department, which is to find civil- — civilian commercial means to depart, because in extremis, we may not be able to get them out safely.

Yes.

Q    Thanks, Jake.  What is the U.S. view on whether Israel should retaliate?  And what is your concern about this leading to a wider escalation of war in the region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  We’ve had some initial discussions with the Israelis in the aftermath of this at the military level and also at the White House to prime minister’s office level.  We’ll continue those conversations in the hours ahead.  I’m not going to prejudge or get ahead of anything.  We want to have some deep consultations with the Israelis, and I’ll have more to report to you after we get the opportunity for deeper discussions.

Q    And escalation —

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yeah.

Q    — in the region?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Obviously, this is a significant escalation by Iran, a significant event, and it is equally significant that we were able to step up with — with Israel and create a situation in which no one was killed in this attack in Israel so far as we know at this time.

We are now going to look at what the appropriate next steps are to secure, first and foremost, American interests and then to promote stability to the maximum extent possible as we go forward.

Yeah.

Q    Back in April, the president’s message to Israel was to take the win when the U.S. and Israel were able to intercept the barrage of Iranian missiles.  Is he recommending a similarly limited response this time?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I will not, from this podium, share the president’s recommendations.  He will have the opportunity to share them directly.  We’re going to have, as I said, ongoing consultations with the Israelis this afternoon, this evening.  It is too early for me to tell you anything publicly in terms of our assessment or in terms of what our expectations are of the Israelis or the advice that we would give them.

Q    So, will he be speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu today?

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don’t have anything to announce from this podium, but I can tell you that he is tracking this minute by minute.  We are very much deeply in touch with the Israelis, and insofar as we have calls to read out, we’ll make sure to read them out with you.

Just last question, then I’ll turn it over.

Q    Thank you, Jake.  In April, after Iran struck Israel, the U.S. issued a number of sanctions as a consequence.  This morning, the president said there will be severe consequences if Iran carried out this attack.  What are those consequences, and are they more severe than sanctions?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Totally legitimate question, and that answer will come based on the conversations and consultations we have with our Israeli counterparts.  It’s too soon for me to stand before you today and give you an answer. 

What I can tell you is this: We are proud of the actions that we’ve taken alongside Israel to protect and defend Israel.  We have made clear that there will be consequences — severe consequences — for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case.

Thank you very much.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, Jake.  Thank you, Jake.

Okay.  On to the rest of — rest of the programming here.

This morning, President Biden was briefed by his homeland security adviser, Liz Sherwood-Randall, on the latest impacts of Hurricane Helene.  And this afternoon, he will receive an interen- — interagency briefing on the Hurricane Helene response and recovery efforts.

At the president’s direction, the Biden-Harris administration continues to use every tool available to get assistance and resources to the communities that need them the most.

Yesterday, the president approved a major disaster declaration for Georgia, which will unlock additional assistance to help those recovering.  This is in addition to the major disaster declaration swiftly approved by the president following requests from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, as well as requests for emergency assistance across seven states. 

Tomorrow, the president will travel to Raleigh, North Carolina, where he will visit the state emergency operations center to meet with local officials and also first responders. 

And the vice president will travel to Augusta, Georgia, tomorrow and will then head to North Carolina in the coming days. 

As of today, thousands of personnel from across the federal workforce are deployed and supporting state-led Hurricane Helene response efforts across the six affected states, including over 1,200 personnel in North Carolina. 

Still, there is more work to be done, and the Biden-Harris administration will be there for these communities every step of the way. 

Now, as you can see, we also have Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you, Karine, and good afternoon. 

Before standing at the podium, I was at FEMA’s National Operations Center being briefed by our personnel as well as state emergency personnel.  I thought it very moving and very telling that North Carolina’s emergency management director described Hurricane Helene as catastrophic and noted the fact that numerous towns situated along the river had virtually disappeared, had been completely destroyed. 

In fact, Hurricane Helene is of a — an historic magnitude: this many states hit this hard.  The wind field of the hurricane stretched 350 miles from its center.  More than 100 fatalities have been reported.  Hundreds and hundreds of homes and businesses destroyed. 

Our hearts break for those who have lost loved ones, and we pray for the swift assistance and rescue of those who are currently missing. 

We are in different phases of a post-hurricane environment, depending on the state and the location within the state.  In some areas, we are still in search and recovery — search and rescue operations.  In others, we are, in fact, in the response and recovery phase. 

I thought I would give you some of the latest statistics based on the briefing that I received, and I should say that these numbers are, as you can all well understand, quite dynamic and fluid.  They change minute by minute and hour by hour. 

But just as devastating as the hurricane has been, the re- — the response of federal, state, and local authorities has been extraordinary.  We have more than 2,000 federal personnel

dedicated to this effort.  On the ground, we have more than 1,200 urban search — urban search and rescue personnel.  FEMA staff deployed over 1,200.

Karine mentioned the major disaster declarations and the emergency declarations previously issued.  I should note that in the six states most severely impacted, those emergency declarations were issued before the storm hit, and we had thousands of personnel dedicated there. 

We have delivered more than 2.6 million ready-to-eat meals and more than 1 million liters of water.

At its peak, there were 5.1 million customers without power.  We have reduced that amount — and not just the federal government in support of the state and local authorities, but working very closely with the power companies and the other utilities, we’ve reduced that number of customers without power by 3.8 million people. 

And so, the — the operation is very, very significantly underway.  We are working in support of our state and local partners.  This is an all-of-government, frankly, all-of-community effort. 

And with that, I’ll take some questions.

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

Q    With regards to how many were unaccounted for.  Yesterday, Liz said about 600 were unaccounted for.  Do you have an updated number on that, Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We do not have an update, but that work is still underway.  And I know, for example, within the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard has recently rescued approximately 21 people through their patrols. 

Q    And there was also discussion yesterday on whether resources may have been better pre-positioned in other parts of the country.  There were many assets in the Big Bend region of Florida, some in North Carolina.  But should the government have pre-positioned more in the North Carolina area?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Well, we actually pre-positioned our personnel and state and local personnel were pre-positioned in all six of the most heavily impacted states.  This is a — an historic hurricane.  It reached not only industrial areas but, of course, as we also point poignantly see, rural areas as well.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Thanks, Karine.  Liz yesterday, focusing on the — the pre-positioning here before the storm, said that the — that it was focused on the Big Bend region of Florida.  So, what pre-positioning was taking place there that wasn’t taking place in the North Carolina, western North Carolina area?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Remember that the pre-positioning of assets, to include personnel as well as equipment and the like, also depends on the terrain and the access points.  And so, we — we pre-positioned where we think the impacts are going to be greatest.

And we have seen the impacts hit mountainous regions that are inaccessible.  We now have roads destroyed.  There is a significant amount of mud.  We understand that people are still situated in the mud, and therefore we cannot undertake debris removal until we are assured that the search and rescue operation has been completed. 

Q    But what sorts of —

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  We have to be very careful about the lives that still can be saved. 

Q    But what sorts of things were done in — was done in North Carolina before the storm came?  Like, what was the federal presence there, emergency-wise?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I don’t have the specific numbers of the personnel already situated —

Q    Okay.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  — but we can get you that data. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Secretary.  Despite all the proactive things that the federal government did and its response, the sentiment, according to my colleagues on the ground, from people is that the federal government is not doing enough to help.  “Where are they?  Where is the help?”  What is your message to those people? 

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  I would say the following: that we are there and we will continue to be there and we will reach the most difficult to access locations.  We are relentless in our efforts to ensure the safety and security of all.

And as Karine pointed out, we will be there for the long haul as well.  And I must — I must pay tribute to the heroic men and women not only of the Fer- — Federal Emergency Management Administration but throughout the federal government and throughout the state and local enterprise. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Secretary, for talking about electric power.  I’m curious about the status of cell phone service, as the Associated Press is hearing reports that people are having a tough time using their cell phones, being able to make calls, even reach you.

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Yes.

Q    What are you doing, and what is the status of that right now?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, in fact, communication has been difficult in — in a number of areas, if — if not impossible.  A great deal of infrastructure has been demolished.  We are working with the private communications companies as well as the FCC to ensure that we can rebuild communication towers.  We have, for example, deployed 50 Starlink satellite systems to help with the reconstruction of that infrastructure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    You mentioned that there are roads that have been destroyed.  There are places that are so hard-hit that it’s hard to get to them right now.  Can — the president mentioned land bridges yesterday in working with the Defense Department.  Can you talk about what the effort is right now to get to some of those hard-hit areas and what the timeline is looking like to reach the people that are in need there right now?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, this is, at the president and vice president’s direction, an all-of-government effort.  So, it’s not only by land, but we have deployed air assets.  The Department of Defense has been of extraordinary assistance.  I don’t recall exactly the number of Army Corps of Engineer that have been deployed.  I think it’s close to 6,000.

So, it’s an all-of-government effort to reach individuals, not just by land but by air as well.

Q    And how quickly do you anticipate getting to some of those areas that have been cut off because of the roads being flooded and destroyed?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  As quickly as we can.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’ve got to start wrapping up.  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Mr. Secretary, do you have a sense of how much money it’s going to cost, A, to do this relief effort and, B, to do the rebuild effort once we get there?  And how much of that will be covered by insurance companies, and how much will be covered by the government?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, this is a multibillion-dollar undertaking in terms of the search and rescue and the response.  I should note that we already have approved approximately $1.7 million in individual assistance that individuals —

Q    Million or billion?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Million.

— that individuals will be able to access.  I believe it will be as early as tomorrow.  It is a direct deposit into their accounts. 

But the rebuilding is something that is not for today but that is going to be extraordinarily costly and is going to be a multiyear enterprise.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Toluse.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Two questions.  First, about the president’s decision to go to Raleigh.  Do — can you give us a little bit of a breakdown as to why he’s going to that location and what he will see and whether or not he’ll be able to see any of the harder-hit areas in the western part of the state?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, the decision of where to go and when to go is a decision that must be calibrated according to the capabilities and needs on the ground.  And so, the president and the vice president have been quite deliberate to take those sensitivities into account, to work with state and local authorities, and ensure that their visit is constructive and not in any way interfering with the urgency of search and rescue operations and the work underway on the ground.

And so, they selected the timing and location of their visits accordingly.

Q    And another question about the upcoming election.  Obviously, North Carolina is a very important state.  Do you have — and ballots are supposed to be going out in — in the coming days.  Do you have any sense of how much impact the hurricane had on the ability to carry out the election and carry it out safely?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Well, the state and local authorities are in charge of their respective election efforts.  They are — have that top of mind, and we are going to be able to make sure — they are going to be able to make sure that people have the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Kevin, last question.

Q    One of the issues we’re hearing about in North Carolina is not just downed power lines but flooded substations.  Do you have a sense of how long it will take to get those back online and what the administration can do to help remedy that?

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  So, the president, as Karine mentioned, is going to be briefed in a — in an interagency effort.  Secretary Granholm and other representatives of the Department of Eng- — Energy are going to be there.

It is — as am I, of course.  It is a multiphase approach.  Not only do we have to bring in some additional infrastructure, but there is going to be damage and the like that is going to take time and money to replace and reconstruct.  Precise figures I don’t have.

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

SECRETARY MAYORKAS:  Thank you, Karine.  Thank you all very much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

Okay.  I do want to give some stats — some additional stats so that you all have this.

More than 4,500 personnel from across the federal workforce — that’s the numbers as of today.  FEMA has shipped 7.1 million meal- — meals ready-to-eat, more than 7.5 million liters of water, 150 generators, and over 95,000 tarps.  Nearly 1,300 urban search and rescue personnel on the ground.  The Department of Defense has 30 high-water trucks and 22 helicopters.

So, just wanted to make sure you guys have that.  Those are the numbers as they are today, the most accurate.

And I just have one more thing at the top, and then we will go to Josh to kick us off.

So, collective bargaining, as you hear us say many times before, is the best way for workers and companies to reach a fair deal, including one that gives workers the pay and benefits they deserve.  It’s important that both parties come to the table and negotiate in good faith, as we talk about, is what we’re seeing with the ports situation.

As you saw the president say in his statement earlier today, he has urged USMX to come to the table and present a fair contract to the workers of the ILA that ensures they are paid appropriately in line with their peers. 

Shippers have made record profits since the pandemic, and in some case, have seen profits grow in excess of 800 percent compared to their profits prior to the pandemic.  Executive compensation has grown in line with those profits, and profits have been returned to shareholders at record rates.  It’s only fair that workers who put themselves at risk during the pandemic to keep ports open see a meaningful increase in their wages as well.

As the president said, dock workers will play an essential role in getting communities the resources they need out of the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. 

Now, this administration will be monitoring for any price gouging activity that benefits foreign ocean carriers, including those on the USMX board as well.  It is time for USMX to negotiate a fair contract with the longshoremen that reflects the substantial contribution they — they’ve been making to our economic comeback. 

And with that, Josh, it’s good to see you. 

Q    It’s good to see you.  If we can step back — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Americans right now are seeing chaos in the Middle East, death and destruction from Helene, and now a port worker strike.  And I’m curious for — how worried should people be about what seem to be three kind of unraveling issues, and what is President Biden doing in terms of changing his schedule or taking additional steps —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to try to reassure them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think a couple of things here that I would note is that I hope the American people have confidence in this president — someone who has experience, who’s been a u- — a U.S. senator, a vice president, and now president for three and a half years — to get the job done, to make sure that he has the American people front and center on everything that he does.  It doesn’t matter if it’s for- — foreign policy issues, world issues, here in the United States, obviously.

And you’re right.  There are three major events, if you will, happening all at the same time.  And this is a president that spent a lot of his time in a Situation Room with the vice president getting updates, being hands- — hand- — hand-on — hands-on on getting updates and — and talking to — and obviously, communicating with the Israeli government on what was going on and how to move forward and really monitoring the situation, really.

And he has been — he and his team have been having regular conversation.  Well, his team has been ha- — regular conversations with represent- — representi- — representatives, as it relates to ILA, USMX, for the past several days, all the way up until yesterday.  And he’s been getting updates on that as well.

The hurricane — you’ve heard from — you’ve heard and seen, obviously, updates from us on what the president has been doing — having conversations with governors, local officials; trying to make sure they are getting everything that they need; directing his team to make sure that — I just laid out some of the things that are already on the ground, whether it’s water, food, generators, assistance that is needed to really deal with the impact — this horrible impact that this hurricane has had. 

And so, this is the job of the president, right?  Unfortunately, there are going to be events like this, and this is where you see the leadership of a president show up, direct their team to do everything that they can on behalf of the American people, be that lead- — have that world — global leadership, as you see from this president. 

And so, he has been doing that not just today, not just in the last couple of days, but three and a half years.  And I think this should send a message to Americans: It matters.  It matters who sits behind that Resolute Desk.  It matters what the leadership looks like.  It matters.  And you see that almost every day in this administration.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    You had mentioned that the vice president is finalizing a trip, potentially, to North Carolina later.  The president had mentioned he might go to Florida and Georgia later this week.  Is there any more you can give on that trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything more to share on that.  Obviously, our big thing is — is always to make sure that we don’t take away from — from the emergency operations on the ground.  We want to make sure there’s — it’s the right time to go. 

The president said he’s going — he wants to do it.  We’re working through it.  I don’t have a date or time at — at this — at this moment.  But tomorrow, he’s going to go to Raleigh, North Carolina, as I mentioned.  He’s going to really thank the frontline workers who have been really heroic in the past several days in what they’ve been able to do.  And he’s going to also survey the impacted area. 

So, that’s what you’ll see from the president.  We’ll certainly have more to share. 

He does truly want to go to Florida and Georgia to say thank you directly to frontline workers there, meet people, see folks who have been impacted by this horrible storm — a historic storm, I should say.  And so, we’ll certainly have more to share. 

Q    And just a funding question.  Last week, when Administrator Criswell was here, she had said that the agency had enough money to conduct lifesaving measures for this disaster.  Days later now, given the scope of the damage and that large number of people still unaccounted for, the Homeland Security secretary said that there’s still search and rescue operations in many places.  Is there still enough money for lifesaving measures for this particular disaster? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would let FEMA speak to that directly. 

My understanding is I don’t think anything has changed from when the FEMA administrator was here just this past Thursday. 

But I think what’s important to note is we’re going to be in touch with state and local officials to ensure that they have everything that they need in this time, in this moment — all the federal assistance, all the federal resources.  We are committed to that. 

Obviously, we had pre- — we had presented Congress with a robust funding request that did not make it into the CR.  We are obviously disappointed by that.  And so, those convert- — con- — those conversations are going to continue.  We want to see Congress act.

As we can see — just what we’ve seen from the past couple of days, it is important to have federal assistance for — for Americans who have lost everything — who have lost everything. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Karine, briefly, back on the topic of the Middle East.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Did the United States have a heads up from Iran that this missile strike was coming?  And if so, what channels — through which channels did you receive the heads up?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, we — there are — there are conversations that we have and that are not necessarily — what — here’s what I can say.  I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversation.  I’m not going to get into that. 

What I can say is that what you saw today, what you heard from Jake Sullivan is that we are going to continue to be there for Israel, to defend Israel.  They have the right to defend themselves. 

What you saw today — what’s happening, the developments of what you saw today and what you heard from the president directing the Department of Defense to make sure that we assist Israel, and what we — in the — in the operation that we saw coming from Iran.  We were — we — you heard from us earlier today.  You heard from the president. 

And so, we’re going to continue to make sure that we are there to defend Israel, and we are committed.  As you heard from Jake as well, there will be consequences.  This is an ongoing, developing situation.  And so, you will hear more from us. 

I’m not going to get into any — into any intelligence or any diplomatic conversations that we have from here. 

Go ahead, Kevin.

Q    When it comes to the dockworkers strike, should Americans be prepared for shortages of goods?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I know that there’s been a lot of reporting on that, on the impact of — impact that this will have on the economy.  And so, look, what we see and how we see this moving forward, as it relates to the economy and — and potential impacts, is that we’re going to continue closely monitoring the situation.  We’re going to — what this could have potentially on the supply chain impacts, assessing ways to address any concerns if necessary. 

And the president and the vice president, as I said at the top as well, are being briefed.  They were briefed on the agency assessments that show limited impacts on critical consumer needs at this time, including in the important areas of fuel, food, and medicine. 

And so, the president has dir- — directed — remember, he started the — he started the Supply Chain Disruption Task Force very early on to deal with what we saw related to the pandemic. 

And so, they’re going to meet every day.  This task force still exists.  They’re going to meet every day and prepare to address potential disruptions if necessary. 

And so, we are — we are engaged extensively with labor industry, state and local officials, ocean carriers, and rail and truck companies, including multiple meetings with retailers, grocers, manufacturers, and ar- — and agriculture. 

So, this is something — when it comes to the supply chain, as we — obviously, as I just mentioned, we started — the president started the task force.  We are taking this very seriously, and we’re going to monitor this very closely.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Yesterday, when the president was asked whether he was aware of a limited ground operation into Lebanon by Israel, he said, “I’m more aware than you might know.”  Can you elaborate on what he meant?  Did the president play a role in determining the size and scope of that ground operation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  I mean, this is — when it comes to any military operations that — that Israel has, IDF, it is for them to speak to.  It is — it is for them to come to their determination of what that looks like. 

What we have been very clear about is that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran-backed groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.  And we have always been clear about that.

We understand, as I’ve stated, and I’ll give a little bit more today, the Israeli- — the Israelis will be conducting limited operations to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure that would be used to threaten Israeli citizens.  And this is in line with Israel’s right to defend itself and — and its citizens and safely return their — their civilians to their homes. 

So, we support that right to — to defend themselves against Hezbollah and all — again, all of Iran-backed groups.  And we’ve been very consistent about that and will continue to be so. 

Q    And then, I know there is a lot going on, but will the president sit down and watch the vice presidential debate tonight?  Where?  With who?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  As you — as you just stated, there’s a lot going on.  There’s a lot going on.  I mean, the question that I got from Josh moments ago is — there are multiple events happening all at once, and the president is going to continue, certainly, to deal with all of these events on behalf of the American people. 

Look, you heard from the president just a couple days ago.  He has complete confidence in — in Tim Walz. 

I’m going to be really mindful, you know, because it is a — a campaign event.  I’m just going to leave it there. 

Q    But is he going to watch?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s going to be very, very busy.  Continues to be very busy with all of the events happening today.  But he has complete confidence in — in Tim Walz.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You spoke about wages earlier.  Can you talk about the president’s view of the ILA’s push to put restrictions on automation?  That’s a major sticking point

in those negotiations. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what I will say — I’m not going to go point by point with what they’re negotiating.  We believe — we believe it is important that workers get fair pay and also benefits.  That’s what they deserve. 

I just laid out what — what the shippers were able to do.  Right?  They were able to get — they were able to regain their profits, some of it in excess of 800 percent, since the pandemic.  Right?  Executive compensation has grown in line with those profits, and profits have been returned to shareholders at record rates. 

And so, you know, the ILA, these workers deserve to get paid what they’re worth.  They deserve that.  They put their lives at risk during — you know, they — they worked.  You know, they had to work during the pandemic to keep ports open.  That was not an easy thing to do.  They put themselves at risk.  And so, now they deserve fair wages.

Yeah.

Q    Is there anything particularly about technology, their concern that robots could —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I hear the question.

Q    — potentially replace their jobs?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into specifics here.  What we believe is that they should get their fair — their fair wages and benefits, just like their peers.  And — and so, we believe that collective bargaining is the way to go.  Both sides need to — to continue to have conversation and do that in — in — obviously, in a way that leads to a way that workers get their fair share.

Q    And just a question on tomorrow’s travel.  Why isn’t Harris traveling with Biden, since she will be going to North Carolina, as you said, in the coming days? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, she’s going to Georgia.  So, the president is going to do North Carolina, South Carolina, and she’s going to go to Georgia.  So, I think it’s a — it was a way to make sure that we cover — we cover all fronts.  And then, she’ll go to North Carolina in upcoming days.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Tha- – thanks, Karine.  So, on the port strike.  So, with the rebuilding of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, isn’t it a bad time to have supplies stuck at 36 ports, as of right now?  So, how long, then, until the president decides he should step in in this strike?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  According to FEMA, it — the strike is not impacting the relief of — recovery efforts at this time because supplies were pre-positioned.  You heard — you heard the FEMA administration — administrator mention this just last week.  You heard that from — from the secretary just moments ago. 

So, any specifics on that, obviously, I would refer you to them. 

Look, we have a Supply Chain — Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force.  They’re going to be monitoring the situation.  This — there’s a reason why the president put that together to assess the supply chain.  And so, they’re going to be there to work with any potential disruptions. 

But I — in your — in your question to me about when is the president going to be involved, the president’s message has been very clear.  I just laid that out for one of your colleagues. 

We’ve been very clear when it comes to these types of moments here that labor, when it comes to negotiating, there needs to be — collective bargaining is incredibly important.  Workers need to get their fair share.  They need to get what they deserve: pay, paid benefits, wages.  It is important that happens. 

 The president is going to continue to be regularly briefed, and we are urging USMX to come to the table to present a fair proposal to ILA. 

 Q   So, Taft-Hartley is off the table indefinitely?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’ve spoken to this.  This is not — this — we — we have not used Taft-Hartley, and we’re not planning to.

 Q   One quick one, if I could, on Iran.  So, Iran — obviously, we saw what happened today.  They also have an active plot to assassinate one of the candidates in the U.S. election, which could be seen as a direct election interference.  Is there any talk of consequences for Iran in terms of limiting their revenue, going after their oil exports?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you heard Jake speak to this — on what — there will be consequences.  You heard Jake say this.  This is an ongoing situation.  He had to get back to his desk to make sure that he continues to monitor what’s happening, occurring, having conversations with — with his counterparts as well in Israel. 

 But this administration has not lifted a single sanction on Iran.  We cannot forget that.  Rather, we continue to increase pressure.  That’s what we have seen.  Our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place, and we certainly will continue to enforce them.  And you heard from the national security advisor; you heard what he said today.

 Q   But oil — Iran’s oil exports have reached record levels now — one report showing 3.2 million barrels per day, according to OPEC.  That’s about $90 billion a year.  So, when do we cut off that revenue?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have not lifted any — a single sanction.  If anything, as I said moments ago, we increased pressure.  That’s what we have been doing.

 You’ll hear more from us.  Jake was very clear when he was here at the podium about consequences.  And so, I’m going to let — I’m going to let that be for now.

 Go ahead.

 Q   Thanks.  Six months ago, the vice president was in Los Angeles when Iran conducted its first wave of strikes, and the vice president joined virtually when she joined the national security team for a briefing that day. 

 Today, she’s the nominee.  She was in the Situation Room.  I’m just wondering if you can elaborate at all about what her engagement has been like today and what it will be like in the next 48 hours as Israel plots its response?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you just answered your own question.  The pres- — the pres- — the vice president joined the president today in the Situation Room as they were monitoring the situation, as the president was listening to his team and hearing feedback on what was happening on the ground. 

 She was there.  She was alongside him in getting that — in getting that update, and she is — many times has been in the room or, as you just said, has called in when it’s come to really important, critical national security issues. 

 And so, that has been the way that they have worked together in the past three and a half years, and that’s the way it’s going to continue as — as we work through what’s next. 

 Q   Does it make any difference, though, participating virtually versus being here in person today?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I wouldn’t — I — I wouldn’t say there’s a difference.  The point — the point is, she’s in the room.  She’s side by side with the president.  She’s getting an update from the national security team and others that is part of his — a part of his team on these important issues.  As we talk about foreign policy and what’s going on in the world, she’s part of it.  She’s there.  She was there for a majority of the time that the president was in the Situation Room today as we were watching what was occurring.  And that’s going to continue. 

 Go ahead, Gabe.

 Q   Thanks, Karine, the president walked the picket line last year with autoworkers in Michigan, which is a swing state.  Why not walk the picket line here?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I think that message has been really clear — it really has — on what the president wants to see.  We’ve been very clear about making sure that there is a — a — there is a — there is a way that these workers get their — get their fair pay — right? — get their wages. 

 And the president’s team has been having these conversations.  Secretary Buttigieg and also secretary of the Department of Labor and also NSC [NEC] Director Lael have been having regular co- — communications, and we’ve made our message really clear on collective bargaining, how important it is and how — or how USMX needs to come to the table and present a fair proposal to ILA.

 Outside of that, I don’t have anything else to share, but

I think our — I think we’ve been loud and clear on what we want to see and what we believe the workers deserve. 

 Q   Has the administration been as involved in this strike as it was during the UAW strike?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s not forget, there’s been multiple strikes — right? — over the last three and a half years, and we’ve been pretty consistent and pretty steady.  The president has been called the most pro-union president in modern — in modern history, if you will.  And so, we have delivered our message directly to USMX.  We have been very, very clear — and also the other senior officials that I listed.  It’s been very clear.  We’ve delivered those message, and we have been in touch with both parties.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that. 

 And what we want to see is collective bar- — bargaining in the best way for the workers to make sure they get their fair pay, to make sure they get the benefits that they deserve. 

 During the pandemic, they did the hard work.  They put their lives at risk to make sure that the ports were open.  And let’s not forget, these executives have made record profits — record profits.  And so, these workers deserve an increase as well. 

 Q   And quickly on the Middle East —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q   — if I may.  Is the U.S. — the bottom line — is the U.S. urging Israel to measure its response?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is what Jake Sullivan said to you all just moments ago: We’re going to continue the conversations.  We’re going to — there will be consequences.  We were con- — we are going to continue to be there for Israel, help Is- — help Israel defend itself.  That — when it comes to Israel’s security, that continues to be ironclad. 

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

 Go ahead.

 Q   Thank you.  Just turning back to the strike for a minute.  I wanted to get a sense — you had mentioned the president is — calls himself the most pro-union president.

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not just him. 

 Q   Not just him, of course. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, yeah, union members.

 Q   Others say the same thing. 

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q   But could you expand a little bit on his relationship with Harold Daggett, the head of the union, and also —

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

 Q   — the vice president’s relationship with him?

 MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t have anything to — to read out on their relationship or private conversations.  What I can say is, you have s- — you have heard me say multiple times, his senior officials, White House senior officials have been in touch with both parties, and we are urging USMX to come to the table — to come to the table with a fair proposal. 

 We cannot say this enough.  We believe that these workers deserve a fair pay.  They deserve a benefits and that — that meets the — the level of their peers. 

And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to say and have those conversations.  You read and saw the president’s statement earlier today.  And the message is going to be very, very clear here.  And those conversations are continuing.

I don’t have a relationship to speak to.  I don’t have any — any preview to speak of at this time.

Q    Okay.  Is it just — Karine, you said that they have actually spoken to each other, though. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — no, I’m saying I don’t have anything to —

Q    You’re saying you can’t (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — read out.

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q    Okay.  And then just sort of related to that, you have — you sort of made a very clear point that the — in the sort of immediate days here, there — many experts say there isn’t an immediate impact that consumers will feel but that, as, you know, Harold Daggett has pointed out himself, after one week, two weeks, three weeks, that dynamic would change significantly.  And is — can you say anything o- — about how long the president is willing to wait?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, a couple of things.  We’re going to closely monitor the situation.  You heard me talk about the — the supply chain task force.  I do want to lay out: A number of our agencies, they put out assessment that showed limited impact on critical consumers’ needs at this time. 

So, on energy, for example, from the Department of En- — Energy, the strike will not have any immediate impact on fuel supplies or prices.  On food, from the Department of Agriculture, we should not expect a si- — a significant changes to food prices or availability in the near term.  On medicine, from the Department of Health and Human Services, immediate impacts across medicines, medical devices, and infant formula for consumers, parents, and caregivers should be limited.

But, of course, we’re going to closely monitor this and any — for any potential supply chain impacts. 

Look, and we have this task force.  This task force came into play obviously during the pandemic to deal with the situation that we were dealing with because of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

And so, they’re going to monitor it very closely.  And so, we’re — you know, what we’re going to continue to do is be very clear on our message to USMX: They got to come forward with a fair proposal that is fair to the — to the workers.  And so, that is our message.  And they are hearing that from senior officials from the White House.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I have two questions regarding Africa.  For Angola, President Biden is traveling to Angola, as you’ve mentioned.  Could you provide — there are 54 countries on the continent.  And I — as well as other leaders from the administration have traveled over there, what is your message to other African nations as well as the African (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would say that the president traveling to the continent sends a positive message to other nations.  I know you’re asking me about other countries, but the president is going —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, wait.  But the president is going to the continent.  I think —

Q    But he’s only going to one country.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  Wait.  But the president — and you just mentioned too in your question that other — other officials have gone to other countries in the continent, right? 

And so, if anything, you have seen our commitment to building on that relationship with th- — with those countries in the continent. 

As it relates to Angola, he’s going to have bilateral meetings there.  He’s going to have multilateral meetings as well to discuss increased collaboration on shared priorities.  And let’s not forget the PGI, what — an initiative that this president started.  That’s going to be the — Africa’s first transcontinental open-access rail network that’s going to start there. 

So, I think if you think about it, what the president has done this past three and a half years, going to Angola is a connecting — connecting factor in some of — in this key initiative, the PGI.  Right?  We’re talking about a — a historic effort in this open-access rail network. 

And so, that’s going to be a big deal for everyone, every country in the continent.  And so, if anything, this shows the president’s commitment, and he said he was going to go.  He’s keeping that commitment.  But it’s not just that. 

He wants to make sure that we’re advancing cooperation with the continent when it comes to the economy — right? — when it comes to technology.

And so, that’s what you’re going to see from this president.

Q    My other question is: Today is Nigeria’s Independence Day.  Do you guys have any remarks or any statements? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I will talk to National Security Council.  I don’t have anything to share with you at this time.

AIDE:  Karine, you have time for (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Go ahead.  Back — in the back, yeah. 

Q    Me?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Ahead of tonight’s debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, there are reports that VA staffers have accessed their medical records at the VA.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, say that one more time.  I — I missed that.

Q    That’s okay.  There are reports that VA staffers have accessed —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — the medical records of J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, you know, as there’s rising interest in them as part of the election.  Is that acceptable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, the — there are medical records that were asc- — accessed?

Q    Accessed by VA staffers.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  On —

Q    On their medical records —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Of —

Q    — when they were —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Of J.D. Vance?

Q    And Tim Walz.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Is that acceptable to this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — this is the first I’m hearing about this, so I have to get some more information on that.  I — this is the — literally the first time I’m hearing about this.  So, let me get back to you because I’m — I need to get the full context of that question.

All right, everybody.  Thank you so much. 

Q    Thank you, Karine.

3:35 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas appeared first on The White House.

Oval Office

5:08 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, folks, good — good afternoon.  I just received a briefing from Governor Cooper and FEMA Director Criswell and the staff and — to provide me with a firsthand account of the historic impacts of Hurricane Helene.

I want to express condolences to all the families — to all the families whose loved ones have died or are missing.  Matter of fact, it’s almost equally as bad missing — not knowing whether or not your brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter are alive.  And we want you to know that a lot of us have experienced that and we understand what you’re going through. 

And — and, to the survivors, I want you to know the administration is going to be there — and we just talked about this — until we finish the job.  It’s going to take a hell of a long time and a serious amount of assets. 

With federal support, the state has reopened 220 roads, which are going to help responders reach people and get the support they need quickly.  Right now, thousands — thousands of federal personnel are deployed in your communities, supporting search and rescue, debris removal, power restoration, and getting cell networks back online so folks can connect to their loved ones.  We’ve — we deployed 30 Starlink receivers, and there are 10 more on the way to western North Carolina.

And FEMA is on the ground, supporting the communities and registering people for disaster assistance.  And talking with the governor, it’s going to take a while.  Right, Gov?  It’s going to be a long time.

And — and we — there are thousands of line workers working around the clock to help get power back up in — in North Carolina. 

Additionally, Governor Cooper and I have spoken about my traveling to North Carolina and — to survey the damage as soon as I can, without taking resources or diverting resources on the ground.  And we’re going to stay as long as it takes when we get this thing going. 

But I’m going to North Carolina on Wednesday.  It’s the plan now.  We’re going to be landing in Raleigh for a briefing with the emergency operations center, and I’ll then do an aerial tour of Asheville.  It’s too much for me, in terms of interrupting access to help there, to — to land in Ash- — and to survey the damage other than — other than through the air. 

And then, it’s my plan to travel to Georgia and Florida as soon as possible after that. 

And — and I don’t know.  Governor, do you want to add anything?

GOVERNOR COOPER:  Yeah, thank you, Mr. President.  We appreciate the resources that are coming our way. 

This has been a devastating storm, as you know, and we’re grateful to have had Administrator Criswell here on the ground all day today.  And she’s going to be staying and making sure we surge assets into the area to get people food and water and to get the power back on.

And obviously, we are grateful for the search and rescue teams as well. 

Thank you so much. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you. 

Any questions on this issue?

Q    Sir, is it your sense from the governors you’ve spoken to that they have all the resources they need right now?  Or are there things they need immediately?

THE PRESIDENT:  They need things immediately.  They’re getting them immediately.  Some access — it’s a matter of getting access to the people who need it. 

And so, that’s why we’re talking about land bridges, to be able to get the Defense Department in there to get water, for example, from a place that, in fact, they can’t get to because the roads are gone, the roads are closed. 

We’ve contacted the — the — we have the Defense Department agreeing that they’re going to — they’re providing for helicopters from — from the base there to get as much in as we can.  It’s going to take a long time. 

But, Gov, what am I leaving out that you need?  Or —

GOVERNOR COOPER:  We’ve talked about a lot of resources that we need: medical, making sure that we are getting additional —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

GOVERNOR COOPER:  — helicopters for land bridges, search and rescue. 

All of those things are happening now.  We just know that the commodities are going to have to continue in for weeks, because — for example, Asheville, the largest city here and — but that supplies a lot on the water — their water system is completely down.  So, getting water in here on a sustained basis is going to be critical. 

And we are discussing the strategies to continue those efforts and to surge those efforts.

Q    Mr. President —

Q    Mr.  President and — and Governor Cooper, Donald Trump has a- — has accused both of you of ignoring the disaster —

THE PRESIDENT:  He is lying.  Let me get this straight: He’s lying, and the governor told him he was lying.  The governor told him he was lying. 

I’ve spoken to the governor, I’ve spent time with him, and he told him he’s lying.  I don’t know why he does this.

And the reason I get so angry about it — I don’t care about what he says about me, but I care what he — what he communicates to the people that — that are in need.  He implies that we’re not doing everything possible.  We are.  We are.

And you — and you spoke to the gov- — I assume you’ve heard the Republican governor of Georgia talk about that he was on the phone with me more than once. 

So, that’s simply not true, and it’s irresponsible. 

I don’t know what the governor wants to say about it, but let me tell you what I think.

Q    Mr. President, in retrospect, do you wish that you had put more resources in North Carolina, knowing what you know now? 

And do you wish that you had spent the weekend here in Washington rather than in Delaware?

THE PRESIDENT:  Come on, stop that game, will you?  Why I was in Delaware — it’s 90 miles from here, okay?  And I was on the phone the whole time working on that.

And the resources —

Q    Sir —

THE PRESIDENT:  The question is not whether we get more re- — this is a list of every resource we’re getting in there, but the question is how to get it in.  It’s hard to get it from point A to point B.  It’s hard to get it if some of these roads are wiped out, communities are wiped out.  There’s no ability to land.  There’s no ability to get trucks through.  There’s no ability to get a whole range of things through. 

So, I mean — anyway —

Q    Mr. President, can —

THE PRESIDENT:  If I sound frustrated, I am. 

Q    Can you talk a little bit about the — the death toll?  We were speaking in the briefing today about it could be as much as 600, maybe 700.  That’s such a huge number for the United States of America.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, the death toll, the confirmed death toll is high enough of well over 100.  Okay?

There are roughly — is it — correct me if I’m wrong, Gov or Deanne, but there are about 600 people still unaccounted for, if I’m not mistaken.  Is that about right?

GOVERNOR COOPER:  Well, we know, Mr. President, because cell phone service is down —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

GOVERNOR COOPER:  — that there are a lot of people that haven’t been able to get in touch with them.

But what’s happening now — and we’re getting assistance from you to coordinate even more efforts — is we’re doing door-to-door welfare checks on people to make sure that they are accounted for. 

We know there will be more deaths, because this was an unprecedented, devastating storm that was something that people in North Carolina, in western North Carolina have never seen before. 

So, we are working as hard as we can to get in touch with everybody and to make sure that we are telling relatives where — that people are safe and also making sure that search and rescue — because we have rivers that are still rising.  The danger is still occurring for a lot of people.  

THE PRESIDENT:  And, by the way, as — as the — FEMA can tell you, they have pre-positioned an awful lot of material, an awful lot of material throughout that area, from the Bend all the way up into Tennessee. 

And so, the idea that we weren’t prepared — the question is no one knew exactly how devastating it would be.  We knew it would be significant and we’ve got a lot already in place, but there’s more. 

But here’s the point.  I’m going to be asking the American people to continue to help fund the needs of these people.  It’s not going to be one hit and it’s over.  It’s going to take a hell of a long time.  It’s going to cost a hell of a lot of money.  But this is United States of America, and we’ve got to do it. 

Q    Sir, what can Americans do right now —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Sir, Americans that want to help, what can they do right now to help?

THE PRESIDENT:  Ameri- —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    If people want to help —

THE PRESIDENT:  If peop- —

(Cross-talk.)

THE PRESIDENT:  If people — if people —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    You guys, the President is still taking questions.

Go ahead, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  If — if people want to help, there’s means by which they can contact — who should they contact?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  The American Red Cross. 

THE PRESIDENT:  And contact the American Red Cross and get as much — they’ll get information.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  It’s an excellent way of contributing, which works very closely with FEMA.

THE PRESIDENT:  And by the way, as — as the governor said, we’re working on making sure that the — that the hospitals are up and running, that they have the capacity to deal with the concerns of people and the needs. 

So, there’s a lot to do, and this is just beginning.  And we’ve been through this before but not — not like this.  This is the worst ever. 

Q    Is this storm a consequence of climate change, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely, positively, unequivocally yes.  Yes, yes, yes. 

Thank you.

5:17 P.M. EDT

The post Remarks by President Biden After Operational Briefing on the Hurricane Helene Response and Recovery Efforts appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:38 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  A couple of things at the top, and then we’ll get started.

So, today, the first lady is traveling to Mexico City to lead the U.S. presidential delegation for the inauguration of Claudia Sheinbaum.  The visit will highlight the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to strengthening the partnership between the United States and Mexico.

Our countries have a strong and productive partnership, and we look forward to building on the relationship under the new president of Mexico to advance our shared priorities.

As you heard from the president earlier today, we are focused on doing everything we can to deliver critical resources to communities impacted by Hurricane Helene.

To date, the president has approved requests for federal assistance for seven states, including three major disaster declaration requests from North Carolina and South Carolina, as well as Florida.

Over the last several days, we have read out consistent briefings that the president has received from his team, including FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell and his Homeland Security Adviser Liz Sherwood-Rand- — -Randall, who is here with us today, as you can see to my right.

The president also spoke with N- — North Carolina Governor Ray [Roy] Cooper and Georg- — Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, along with other state and local officials in the — in the impacted areas to offer further assistance as needed.

This afternoon, at 3:30, FEMA Administrator Criswell and Governor Cooper will hold a press conference on the latest operational updates out of North Carolina.

In the 4:00 p.m. hour, Criswell and Governor Cooper will brief President Biden, and then he will have an Oval sp- — spray to read out additional updates to the pool.

And later this afternoon, the vice president will receive an in-person briefing at FEMA later — later today, as you all know.

As the president said earlier today, the na- — the nation has your back, and the Biden-Harris administration will be with you as long as it takes.

With that, it’s my pleasure to welcome back L.S.R., as we call her here. 

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Thanks, Karine.

I’m going to move that a little bit, Karine.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Why don’t I do this? 

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  This is so (inaudible).

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know — I know you have a lot to share today, so let me move that out of your way.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Thank you.  I do.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Q    Good afternoon.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  I’m here today to brief you on the federal response to Hurricane Helene.  But, first, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the lives lost across the region impacted by the hurricane and those survivors whose lives will never be the same.

My heart goes out to those who’ve lost loved ones and those who are worrying about whether their loved ones are still alive.  And our administration and our nation is standing with the people impacted by this hurricane.

To the disaster survivors across the region, the Biden-Harris administration is committed to supporting you every step of the way as you begin your recovery and you start to heal.

For survivors in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina whose governors have requested major disaster declarations, the president approved them immediately over the weekend. 

And we urge those citizens who are seeking FEMA assistance to sign up for that assistance as quickly as possible.  You can do that either by calling 1-800-621-3362, registering on DisasterAssistance.gov, or by filling out an application on your mobile device through the FEMA app.

And that brings me to our response.

Under President Biden and Vice President Harris’ leadership, we are providing urgent and extensive federal support for the ongoing response and recovery efforts to Hurricane Helene.

Over the weekend, at the president’s direction, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell traveled to Florida on Saturday, to Georgia on Sunday, and, today, she is in North Carolina accompanying Governor Cooper in surveying impacts to the affected communities in western North Carolina.

The president has asked Deanne Criswell to remain in Asheville, North Carolina, given how acute the situation is on the ground there, and he will receive an update from her this afternoon and from Governor Cooper, in addition to the press conference that the administrator and the governor will hold today.

Also, as the president said earlier today, he is committed to traveling to impacted arears — areas later this week, as soon as his presence will not disrupt vital emergency response operations.

So, I want to walk you through what happens as we’re facing a hurricane predicted w- — to have the kind of impacts that Helene has had.

First of all, what we do before a storm.  As Helene was developing in the Gulf, the president directed FEMA to pre-position specialized capabilities across the region, including deploying Incident Management Assistance Teams to Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.  These teams support our state plan- — our state partners in planning, in logistics, and in conducting their emergency response operations. 

This included pre-positioning a number of search and rescue teams — federal search and rescue teams, in addition to the state and local teams, temporary power teams, generators, and health and medical assessment teams.

These efforts focused on the Big Bend area of Florida, saved lives in the state, and they prepared us to respond elsewhere in the region.

Now, if we know anything about storms — and we’ve learned a lot in our years in service together — it’s that Mother Nature has a mind of her own.  As good as our technologies are, as good as our National Hurricane Center is, it’s just a forecast.  And when a storm hits, we have to adapt and respond in real time, just as the storm has the effects in real time that it is having, and then there are knock-on effects of that storm, such as flooding.

As we evaluated impacts from the storm, we shifted into the post-landfall phase of our process, and we began to surge capacity to where it was needed the most.

As of today, we have more than 3,500 federal response personnel deployed and supporting response efforts across the region, including more than 1,000 personnel from FEMA. 

Search and rescue efforts by state, local, and federal partners are ongoing, and nearly 600 additional personnel will arrive in the region in the coming days, increasing the total number of urban search and rescue personnel to over 1,250.

And as search and rescue missions in other states wind down, these teams are focusing on the areas of greatest need, including North Carolina, where our federal teams continue to support state and local teams with rethcu- — rescues where the devastation is most acute.

Also at the par- — at the president’s direction, the Department of Defense has activated additional helicopters to aid in search and rescue operations and has provided dozens of high-water vehicles to get into areas that it’s difficult to access. 

The National Guard, in their state capacity, is also supporting these efforts.  National Guardsmen and women from eight additional states are supporting North Carolina under existing Emergency Mutual Assistance Compacts, known as EMACs, with more than 700 personnel, helicopters, a cargo plane, and rescue vehicles to help with road clearance, provision of commodities, transportation, and search and rescue. 

This is the best of America.  We have National Guard coming in as far as from Connecticut, Ohio, and New York, who are deploying to North Carolina to support their fellow citizens in need. 

In addition, about 200 medical responders are also stationed in Flora, Al- — Florida, Alabama, and North Carolina, along with medical equipment and supplies to ensure the continued health care delivery that is required following the landfall of Hurricane Helene.  And the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency for Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, which gives health providers and suppliers greater flexibility in meeting emergency health needs of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

In order for communities to begin functioning again, we all know it’s critical to have power restored, and I want to tell you about what we’re doing on this front, because that is truly the fundamental lifeline sector. 

As of this morning, about 2 million people are still without power across the impacted states, at least 50,000 personnel from 31 states and D.C. and Canada are responding to power outages throughout the region via established mutual assistance agreements between utilities and working around the clock throughout parts of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to restore power to those communities that can receive it, where the infrastructure can take power on the lines.

FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are also making available generators of many different sizes that are ready to be deployed upon the request of any state.  And as power is being restored throughout parts of Florida and Georgia, power crews are bo- — being moved into other states to assist with additional restoration efforts. 

We see power outage numbers improving where restoration teams are able to gain access to communities and the debris is cleared. 

Once we get power restored, we can then get a lot of other things working again.  Utilities; water utilities, in particular; communication systems; medical and health care facilities are those capabilities that depend, of course, on a source of power supply to function. 

We’re also very focused on restoring communications capabilities.  FEMA, the FCC, and private telecommunications providers are working together to help restore temporary communications as quickly as possible by establishing temporary cell sites and allowing for roaming where possible, where a resident can connect to any network available, even if they aren’t subscribed to that network.

Today, FEMA will install 30 Starlink receivers in western North Carolina to provide immediate connectivity for those in greatest need. 

We’re also very focused on how we reach survivors at their point of need.  This has been a lesson we have learned from the beginning of President Biden’s presidency — that those who most need the help have the hardest time accessing that help, and he has directed us to work to evolve FEMA practices so we can really get to those who need us the most.

In states that have requested and have received major disaster declarations, FEMA is expediting the delivery of its Serious Needs Assistance, which is an immediate $750 direct payment to eligible households to allow them to pay for essential items like food, baby formula, water, medications, and other emergency supplies. 

This is not the full extent of FEMA’s assistance to individuals, but it’s the first element of it that becomes immediately available with a major disaster declaration, and it gets people cash when they’re absolutely desperate for it. 

In addition, survivors who register for the FEMA Individual Assistance Program will be eligible to receive assistance to help repair their homes, cars, and other personal property in conjunction with their own insurance policies.

FEMA is working, as it always does, to open Disaster Recovery Centers in impacted communities.  What’s important about these centers is they aggregate federal support in one place.  It used to be the case that survivors had to go to multiple different departments and agencies to find out what kind of help they could get access to.  What we do is we put everyone together, either in a standing building that survived the natural disaster or in a trailer, if that’s necessary. 

For example, we’ve opened three Disaster Recovery Centers today in Manatee County, Sarasota County, and Hillsborough County, Florida.

If survivors cannot get to such a facility — and we think that will likely be the place in a place like Asheville and its surrounding areas — we send people door to door.  FEMA literally goes knocking with an iPad in hand so they can help people register for the assistance they need, because they may not have power, their cell phone may has — have run out, and they need someone to help them get registered quickly. 

In North Carolina, we’re focused right now on clearing roads and removing debris, restoring communications and power, and ensuring access to health care and the continued flow of commodities and food — commodities like food and water to where they’re most needed. 

Today, we’ve heard they’ve reopened 220 roads, which will help enable responders and critical commodities to begin moving via ground transportation.

While FEMA has been at the forefront of the response, and it’s very meaningful to have them on the ground, they serve as the coordinator of the orchestra of a wide-ranging federal response, and that’s something a lot of people don’t understand.

What FEMA does is it mission assigns — that’s the term of art, quote, “mission assigns” — roles and responsibilities across our government in the wake of a disaster.  And so, what they do is coordinate the identification of and delivery of those resources when they’re needed and where they’re needed. 
I want to go through some of what other departments and agencies are doing so you can hear the full scope of the federal response, which gives more clarity than just saying, “FEMA is doing this.” 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deployed power restoration teams, including in Buncombe County, North Carolina, where Asheville is — Asheville is located, for temporary emergency power, debris removal, and infrastructure assessment, including for dams throughout the region. 

The Department of Defense has mobilized 22 helicopters in support to response in western North Carolina.  Staged at Fort Liberty in North Carolina, there are multiple helicopters available to support air bridge operations to move personnel and necessary supplies and equipment into the disaster area.  

Four helicopters from DOD are actively supporting the urgent search and rescue operations that are ongoing in western North Carolina.  The other 18 are helping to move response personnel and deliver critical commodities and support into remote and isolated communities that are not accessible right — by road right now.

DOD has also made available, as I mentioned, 30 high-water vehicles available for search and rescue and has set up five Incident Support Bases across the region to continue providing support to those who need it in the surrounding areas. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has thousands of personnel working on response efforts and is conducting post-storm assessments to support the rapid reopening of impacted ports in Florida. 

The U.S. Department of Energy has responders deployed across the region, primarily in the State Emergency Operations Centers. 

While I noted that power restoration numbers are trending in the right direction, it’s important to remember that these will be complex, multiday efforts in many locations due to the extent of damage and the ongoing access issues. 

Utilities are facing widespread flooding and debris that is impeding access to damaged infrastructure, and one of the things we’ve learned in prior incidents like this is it’s really important to set public expectations about when they can anticipate that power will return so that they take the necessary steps to be safe and to secure additional support — for example, moving into a shelter — if power isn’t going to come on for some time where they live.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency, a very important player in this space in — in rural areas, has deployed personnel to the impacted region to extend much-needed emergency credit to farmers and agriculture producers who lost crops and livestock across all the impacted states, but in particular, in the Big Bend region of Florida and in southern Georgia.

The Environmental Protection Agency has personnel on the ground who are offering technical assistance and guidance on water systems, which have been significantly damaged in a number of locations, on debris management, and on maintaining critical public health and environmental protections as storm impacts are assessed.

The U.S. Small Business Administration has also deployed more than 50 personnel to support survivors and small businesses as they recover from the hurricane. 

So, that’s a sense for you of the range of capabilities that surge when we say we’re doing everything we can to help impacted communities, and more will follow as we know more about the impacts.  We honestly don’t know the full extent of the damage; it probably will take several more days as communities begin to be opened up by the debris clearance on the roads and we can get in and really understand what’s happened to them. 

Unfortunately, we know that the first information we receive is often wrong in the wake of a disaster, and that the early days are brutally hard for the people who are in the most heavily impacted communities.  Since 2021, we have seen this play out across the nation, from Florida to California to Maui, from Kentucky to New York.

As the president has directed, we will do everything we can, first, to save lives, alleviate suffering, and help communities to recover and eventually rebuild.  And we will focus especially on survivors who have the hardest time accessing the help we can provide, as I noted, because as Americans, we are all in this together. 

Thank you for giving me a chance to lay that down for you, and I’m glad to take a few questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  And L.S.R. has to go see the POTUS pretty soon.

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks very much.  Liz, a couple different topics.  One, you talked about people’s inability to communicate because of lack of power, et cetera.  Can you give us any sense of how — you know, whether you’re working with mobile phone companies or the private sector at all to help boost the ability to communicate? 

And secondly, do you have any sense — do you have any sense now of where the death toll is going and what the cost of rebuilding will be?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  So, on the effort to get communications restored, we work with — I, not personally — but FEMA works with — and — with the FCC and with private-sector companies.  All of the major providers participate in this.  And as you heard me say, if you’re not — let’s imagine — a customer of AT&T, but Verizon is able to get some coverage in your region, you’ll get free roaming in order to get access. 

We’re also moving in Starlink receivers, as I said, because we need more capability where we think it will be a while before any of those cell towers that we would normally be dependent upon will be working again. 

So, we have a multipronged effort when we need to get communications capabilities and involving a variety of technologies.  Some of them are more novel solutions.  Some of them are more traditional.  

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  On —

Q    Hold on.  I have a —

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  I’ll just say, on the death count you asked about. 

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sorry.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  So, we really —

Q    — and cost.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  — we — the current data we have is that it looks like there could be as many as 600 lost lives, but we don’t have any confirmation of that.  We know there are 600 who are either lost or unaccounted for.  And so, that work is ongoing. 

I’ll caution you, because we’ve seen this before, those numbers vary widely.  There’s a lot of reporting that doesn’t add up about the numbers.  And so, while we may see the numbers go up as we get to more locations that have not yet been fully developed, in terms of disaster immediate emergency response operations, we may see more people who unfortunately perished, but we may also not see the numbers skyrocket as people have predicted they might.  So, I would just urge you to wait until we have the facts, and we’ll report them to you as we have them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Zeke. 

Q    Thanks, Liz.  You mentioned that the run-up to the storm, the — the focus of the preparations was on the Big Bend area of Florida and then it moved as the storm moved inland.  Were you surprised by the impacts on the flooding side?  Was there something wrong in the forecast that you should have pre-positioned assets differently to prepare for this sort of situation? 

You know, I know that there’ll be time for an after-action report later, but are you now at the point where you — where now you’re kicking yourself that you didn’t do something, you know, Thursday or Friday?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  So, we can never know exactly where a storm will go.  Of course, we will do, with our colleagues who do the weather predictions, an analysis of what we knew and what we didn’t know and how that evolved.  We were very concerned about a major hit on a city like Tallahassee, which could have catastrophic impacts. 

When the storms make landfall, as you know, they’re — they’re at their highest velocity.  The force of a — of a hurricane when it makes land is very powerful.  It usually reduces in strength as it moves overland.  So, that initial landfall place in the Big Bend was a major concern for us.

But we were also worried about the storm moving into other areas and having significant wind effects and flooding effects, and that’s what we briefed to the president, as we saw the storm moving in our direction — in the direction of the Southeastern United States, and we kept him apprised as we saw the evolution moving north through a variety of states. 

We can’t know everything in advance.  And what — one of the reasons we surge capabilities into the region is then to be able to get them closer.  They can’t be in the spot the hurricane is going to hit in advance.  They have to be in a location in which they wouldn’t be affected and then move in.  So having the resources in the Southeast already was very beneficial for all the states in the region.

Q    And you mentioned the importance of setting expectations right.  So, for the folks who are the affected areas who are able to consume this now — hopefully, to the extent that they can — what — how long should they be expecting to wait now to access, you know, their base needs — you know, power, water, food, shelter — until the federal government can provide that for them?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Well, we are moving now to get food and water, medical supplies, and other essential survival needs into the most devastated areas in North Carolina.  That’s what I described about using DOD helicopters, for example, to move into areas which are not accessible by ground. 

I was referencing the point that I think — we all experience this: When the power goes out, you want to know how fast it’s going to come back on.  In a situation like this with this much devastation, it could be a long time.  So, you can’t just wait it out.  You may need — and this is really for people listening, you may need to make alternative arrangements to get to a shelter where you can be safe and get access to electricity to power your phone; where you could get pharmaceuticals if you need them, if you lost everything; where you can begin to work toward the rebuilding of the basics of your life while your community is — is addressing the consequences of these devastating storms.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have to wrap it up, sadly.  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Thank you, Liz, for providing all this information and reminding us that the numbers could change.  I just want to fact-check two things with you —

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Yeah.

Q    — if I could, given that you oversee homeland security broadly.  First of all, did the president speak with Georgia Governor Kemp yesterday?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Yes, yes.

Q    Have they spoken again today?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  President Kemp has said so in public.  He spoke —

Q    Governor.  Governor Kemp.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  I’m sorry, Governor Kemp has said so yesterday.  Thank you for correcting me. 

The president spoke to Governor Kemp yesterday.  Governor Kemp has stated today that he spoke to the president and appreciated the offer of all the help.  The president has offered, “Anything you need.”  So, if the governor would like to speak to the president again, of course the president will take his call.  If the governor wants to submit a major da- — disaster declaration, we’ll move that very quickly through our system.

And we’re working very closely with every state in the impacted region.  And we extend a hand.  We work with the state emergency operations managers, the whole team in place, in every location.  And that’s work that we’ve been doing not just in the wake of a hurricane, but we do it all the time to build those relationships, strengthen our capabilities, plan for and prepare for disasters. 

Q    And given that homeland security is your portfolio and the Secret Service falls under homeland security, let me ask you one other sort of fact-check here.  Donald Trump alleges on social media, quote, “The Democrats are interfering with my Campaign by not giving us the proper number of people within Secret Service that are necessary for Security… They’re using them for themselves, even though they don’t need them.”  Is that true?

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  The president has directed the Secret Service to provide every necessary resource and capability that is required to ensure the safety of the former president of the United States.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  April, you have the last one.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Thank you.  I have to go.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, sorry.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Okay, one more.  April.  Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April.  Go ahead.  Quickly.

Q    Two questions.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  I’ve got one minute exactly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, because she has to go to see POTUS.

Q    Okay.  Two questions, and you can answer them fast if you can. 

In the short term — you talk about the immediate short term, but what about the long term with this devastation?  Number one, housing for those who do not have shelter.  What are you thinking?  I mean, there have been lessons learned since Katrina as to how — how to house people.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  We work — we work on immediate sheltering capabilities with the Red Cross and others.  We provide funding for people to get access to hotels and to — and potentially to move into longer-term accommodations if they need them.  That’s part of the FEMA process. 

Q    And what about insurance?  Because that has been a big thing when these kind of situations happen.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  If — if people have insurance, that’s, of course, very important for rebuilding.  If they do not have insurance, they have access to federal assistance. 

But it’s a long road to recovery for people because there’s so much work to be done.  We have to acknowledge that. 

I just want to clarify one thing.  When I said there could be up to 600 people lost, my point was there are 600 people unaccounted for.  That’s the number we’re tracking right now and that we can essentially validate from multiple sources, but we don’t know.  And as the president said this morning, we’re very hopeful that some of those people just don’t have cell phones working and actually are alive. 

We experienced that in Maui, when the numbers were extremely high in the beginning and they came way down.  Ultimately, tragically, 101 people lost their lives, but it was not in the thousands, as we were initially concerned it might be. 

Thank you all.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much, Liz.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

DR. SHERWOOD-RANDALL:  Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No problem.  Thank you.

Sorry, she didn’t have a lot of time. 

Q    Well, she spent 14 minutes reading her statement.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, it was 14 minutes of laying down for the American people — not just for all of you — of how this works.  We have people who are indeed suffering and waiting and wanting to hear not just from the local government and the state government but also from the federal government: What are we doing — right? — what are we doing to help them and how we’re working together.

And I think what you just heard from Liz is how we’re working in tandem together with local, state, and federal government to help the people in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.  And I think that matters.  I think that matters.  And I think it’s important from them — for them to hear from the people who are actually doing the work. 

And she gave a laydown, and I’m sure — I know I did — I learned how this all works and how the communication works amongst — amongst all of us.  And what is available, also, is incredibly important. 

I do want to read a quote, because this is really important to Ed’s question.  Governor Kemp — this is what Liz was saying — said in his press conference earlier today: “So, I just spoke to” — yesterday — “I just spoke to the president.  He just called me.  He just called me yesterday afternoon.”  So, he said this this morning.  “I missed him and called him right back.  And he just said, ‘Hey, what do you need?’  And I told him, ‘You know, we got what we need.  We’ll work through the federal process.’  He offered and if there’s other things we need just to call him directly, which I appreciate that.”  That was a quote directly from Governor Kemp. 

So, this is to continue the fact-checking that Ed asked us to do. 

All right.  Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Turning overseas.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    What is the level of knowledge that the U.S. has about Israel’s intentions on its nor- — northern border?  Has the U.S. been briefed on specific operational plans to launch some sort of ground incursion into Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into private diplomatic conversations from here.  Certainly would refer to the IDF to speak to their own military operations and their plans, as we normally do.  But we do understand that the strategic purpose of this is to make sure that Hezbollah cannot maintain the capacity to attack Israeli communities from the immediate opposite side of the border.  And so, that is our understanding.  But I’m not going to go into specifics of — of our diplomatic conversations here.

Q    And is that a — a goal that the president and this administration is supportive of? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what we will say and what I will say to you — and we say this all the time; this is nothing new — that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah, against Iran-backed groups.  We’re talking about Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis.  And so, we are in constant discussion with the Israelis on the best way to move forward.  And we would certainly refer you to any, as I said moments ago, seconds ago — to the Israelis on their own ground operation. 

Of course — of course we want to see a ceasefire.  That — that would give us the space, as we have been saying, of diplomacy and enable citizens — right? — to go back to their homes on both sides.  And, ultimately, a diplomatic resolution is what we want to see and what we want to make sure is — is — that — that is in place, and we’re going to certainly continue to have those conversations with Israelis and others on how to make that happen. 

Q    And then, just briefly, the president this morning said he was anticipating needing a supplemental for disaster relief.  (Inaudible.)  When will he send that to the Hill?  And does he have a dollar figure in mind yet?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, look, you know that we provided a robust emergency supplemental to — to — for the CR — right? — for the — for the CR that — that didn’t go through, that didn’t make it.  And so, we’re going to continue to have those conversation.  We are disappointed that that didn’t go through.  We’re going to continue to have those conversation.  As the president said, we’re in constant communications with members — members in Congress, and we want to make sure that they move quickly on this — they move quickly on this. 

I don’t have details or specifics, but we did — we did provide a robust — a robust request on more additional funding for these types of emergencies to continue that, and it didn’t go through.  And we were certainly disappointed to see that.

Go ahead.  Right behind Zeke.

Q    Yeah, if he does decide to ask for a supplemental, will he have to call Congress back, or is there another way to do it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was — the was the president was asked about that and —

Q    Yeah, but (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He just said it’s something that certainly he — he is considering.  I just don’t have anything.  I’m not going to get too much into hypotheticals.

Q    And — and given —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the urgency of this, when would we expect to know if he was going to ask everyone, how much it is, and if he’s calling them back? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I don’t have anything to add on — on if he’s going to call them back, how much it is, which is very similar to the question that I got from Zeke. 

We did provide a robust supplemental component to — to get more funding in the CR.  It didn’t make it through.  It did not — was not included.  But what we’re doing right now, and I think it’s important — and you heard that from Liz, you’ve heard that from the administrator — let’s not forget the FEMA administrator was here in this room on Thursday because we wanted to make sure that people understood what was happening and what was coming. 

But we’re going to do everything that we can to make sure that they — Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, the impacted areas — have the — have the resources that they need to deal with the devastation and the aftermath of this.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, the president said this morning that, quote, “I’m comfortable with them stopping,” with regards to the Israeli potential incursion into Lebanon.  What did he mean by that?  And does that mean he’s uncomfortable with them continuing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I answered that question, which is we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah and Iran-backed groups.  We have said that.  We’ve also have said that Israel is in a — in a tough neighborhood.  You’ve heard us say that.  They really are.  And so, we believe they have the right to defend itself.

What we also want to see is a diplomatic resolution here.  We do want to see a ceasefire.  Ultimately, that’s what we need to see in order to get to a place where we can get to a ceasefire — right? — where we — where we can see citizens going back to their homes on both sides. 

So, that still remains to be true.  And — but do we want to see — ultimately, want to see — get to a place where we get to a diplomatic resolution?  Yes, that’s what we want to see.  For sure.

Q    So, he’s uncomfortable with them continuing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  What I — we have said is — consistently — Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah.  We are not shedding tears over a terrorist that was killed.  That terrorist has American blood on their hands.  And so, we’re certainly not going to shed a tear over that. 

We have been very clear Israel has right to defend itself.  We’ve been very clear that the security of Israel — when it comes to its security, our support is ironclad.  That has not changed.  That has not changed. 

Q    And, Karine, switching —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to the hurricane.  Our reporting teams on the ground say that there are many residents there who are frustrated that more aid has not been distributed, and some of them haven’t seen the federal government th- — there for days.  What would you say to those folks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I will say is: Certainly, our hearts go out to them.  Obviously, this is a tough, difficult time.  And what I will also say is we have their back, and we can understand that.  We can understand how things are incredibly confusing right now, incredibly difficult right now.  Some people don’t even know if their loved ones are alive or not. 

And so, what I can say and what the president has said and I think what Liz has iterated as well is that we want to make sure that they have — the folks who are in the impacted areas have everything that they need, the resources. 

We have the FEMA administrator, who’s on the ground today.  She’s going to be holding a press conference with the North governor — North Carolina, pardon me, governor in about 30 minutes or so and going to talk about what they see and what the federal government, what FEMA is going to continue to do, working with the state and local governments as well. 

We are on the ground.  We are on the ground. 

And as you know, there was a reason why the F- — the FEMA administrator was here on Thursday to lay out what we were doing ahead of time, how we were pre-positioned on the ground, and warning people — and warning people, because we understood that that is also part of our job.  But, you know, we’re going to do everything that we can.  We’re going to do everything that we can. 

Q    Following up on a previous question — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  

Q    — quickly.  You — you said — you mentioned pre-positioning.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And she did mention that assets and resources were pre-positioned in Big Bend.  I know that question was asked before, but bluntly, should more resources have been pre-positioned in and around North Carolina?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I th- — I think Liz kind of talked about that — about when she was asked a question on our prediction of the storm and how bad it was.  And so, certainly I’ll — I’ll let the experts speak to this.  But again, pre-positioned — we had generators, food, water, along with re- — search and rescue and power restoration. 

And right now, we have U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  They’re moving generators into — into impacted areas. 

We have — 3,600 personnel from across the federal workforce are deployed in support ca- — supporting Hurricane Helene.  This includes 24 federal urban research [search] and rescue task force, over 1,300 personnel working to rescue people who may be s- — who may be stranded.  To date, they have rescued about and supported over 1,400 people across the impacted areas.  These are — if you think about the f- — the — the federal employees who are part of these agencies — right? — FEMA and others — this is what they do.  This is what they do.  This is what they’re trained to do.  This is what they’re ready to do. 

And it doesn’t matter where — which state it is, right?  It doesn’t matter if it’s a red state or a blue state.  This is their job: to get food there, to get generators there, to save some lives, to rescue people. 

And so, we are very proud of the work that they’ve done, and we understand that people are very much suffering on the — on the ground and trying to figure out what is going on. 

And we have our folks there, and we’re going to do the best that we can. 

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Thirteen thousand people who have been convicted of murder crossed the border illegally and are living among us.  So, how much danger are U.S. communities in right now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — because of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I’m assuming you’re talking about the ICE data?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple of things, and I think it’s important to — to correct the record here. 

First of all, the false — the — the false representation of the data ICE shared — so, that was what we are seeing: false representation.  I got to call that out.  We got to call that out.  And it’s been fact-checked by some of your colleagues here, by multiple — multiple — multiple outlets.  That has been debunked on what has been falsely misrepresenta- — or mis- — misrepresented here.  So, we have to call that out. 

And so, look, this is —

Q    Can you clarify what the misrepresentation is?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The numbers that is being put out about how many people are out is been falsely rep- — represented here.  If you look at the total returns and removal of the past year, that has been higher than every year under the previous administrations since — since 2010.  If you look at it.

And if we’re going to report something — a data that’s out there — we got to do it in a way that is not — not confusing the American people and certainly not lying.  And so, there has been — this has been fact-checked — been fact-checked. 

And so, this is — the way that is being fals- — falsely represented here is just not okay.  And though — got to be really clear about that.

Q    On Helene.  People in western North Carolina were drowning in their houses this weekend.  Others were losing everything.  President Biden was at his beach house, and Vice President Harris was hosting political fundraisers on the West Coast.  Is there a reason that they could not be here? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The president did exactly what a president in this moment needs to do, which is directing his team to take action.  One of the reasons that the FEMA administrator was here in this room on Thursday is the president wanted to make sure that we were sending a message out to folks who were going to be impacted by the hurricane and also wanted her to share how we were pre-positioning on the ground. 

Remember, these are folks who do this type of stuff.  When you think about FEMA, you think about the Red Cross, you think about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this is what they do.  This is what they do. 

And so, the president was on the phone — he said this when he was asked a question by one of your colleagues — for more than two hours yesterday with governors and local elected officials making sure that they have what they — they needed. 

You heard me talk about Governor Kemp and what he said to the president himself.  He said this and shared this in a press conference — that the president has provided and said, “What else do you need?”  And he actually said to the president, “We have what we need.”  So — and that’s a — as you know, a Republican governor. 

And look — and I talked about how the vice president also did her calls.  She’s going to be going to the FEMA — FEMA agency in a — in — the center — the center to — to get her briefing later this afternoon.  The president is continuing — continuing to have these conversations with folks on the ground, elected officials on the ground, to make sure that they have what they need and directing his team —

Q    And —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — to keep pushing.

Q    — one more.  How worried are folks at the White House that a port strike that could make things like fruits and vegetables more expensive could make it a lot harder for Vice President Harris to win the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to talk about an election from here.  That’s not what we’re going to do.  That is — when it comes to making sure that workers are — are paid and wages and the economy is working and that we’re lowering costs for the American people, that is just the right thing to do.  And that’s what this president focuses on every day, day in and day out: How do we have an economy that works for all?

When it comes to this particular question that you’re asking me, we’ve said this many times, nothing has changed.  We support collective bartering [bargaining].  It is the best way for American workers and employers to come to a fair agreement.  We encourage all parties to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith. 

Senior officials from the White House, Labor Department, and Transportation Department are in touch with the parties to urge them to return to the table and negotiate in good faith towards the — an agreement that benefits all sides, and do it fairly and quickly.  And this is something that we have said, and we’re going to continue to push forward on. 

Q    Is the vice president involved in these negotiations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say — I just named the secretaries that are involved — Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Secretary Ju- — Julie Su, and the director of National Economic Council, Lael Brainard. 

What I can say is the president and the vice president are being regularly updated about the situation.  And I know there’s a question about the Taft-Hartley.  We — we never — we have never invoked the Taft-Hartley to break a strike and are not considering to doing so now.  But this is a president that has been called a “pro-union president” by labor — by the labor unions, because of how much he believes that the union built the middle class. 

And so, that’s what you’re going to continue to see from this president.  He’ll stay regularly updated. 

Q    Okay.  Thanks. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Former President Donald Trump is in Georgia in a region that’s been hard hit.  Now, given all the security that’s needed to accommodate him, is his visit putting a strain on resources there or impacting relief efforts?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I can say, and you’ve heard this from this president earlier today in his remarks, where he said he will visit the impacted communities this week and is taking caution — he is taking caution to avoid using critical resources that is needed right now on the road that — on the ground that people need.  And so, that should be everyone’s top consideration right now.  That’s what we should be doing.  That’s what we should be focusing.  And I’ll leave it there.

Q    So, were there any requests for Trump to delay his visit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m not getting into any more than what I just stated. 

The president has been really clear about how he sees his presence on the ground.  As you know, when the president travel, it’s a big footprint.  In this particular moment, he wants to make sure that he’s not taking away resou- — resources.  He wants to make sure that it is not taking away from the emergency resources that are on the ground.  And, as I just stated, he believes everybody should adhere — adhere to that. 

Q    And in terms of the dockworkers that are set to go on strike, at what point would the president be willing to intervene?  How long would he allow that to go on and at what cost to the American economy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I’m not.  Not from here.

Q    Would the president consider walking the picket line?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.

We believe that collective bargaining is i- — is important here.  We’ve always said that.  We believe that both sides should come to the table in good faith and get to an agreement, a fair agreement.

Q    Has there been any progress in those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I just don’t have anything else to share here.

Go ahead, Jeff.  Yeah.

Q    On a separate top- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    — a different topic.  The incoming prime minister of Japan has said — he’s called out or proposed the idea of a “Asia NATO.”  I’m wondering if that’s something that the president would consider.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I haven’t spoken to the president about that.  As you know, there’s one NATO.  The NATO has grow- — grown by two countries, which is because of the president’s leadership. 

Let’s not forget, when Putin invaded Ukraine, he thought that NATO was going to be weaker, and that did not happen.  The president certainly was able to make NATO stronger because of his leadership.  And that’s going to be what we’re going to focus on.

Q    I think he is suggesting a separate alliance that would involve Asia countries. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No — no, I hear — I heard your —

Q    He also said the idea of putting Japanese troops on Guam.  I don’t know if that’s something the president would consider.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just — not something that I’ve spoken directly to the president about. 

What I can say is what the president has done with the current NATO and making it stronger.  And it has been important, if you think about Ukraine, if you think about what Ukraine has been trying to do over the almost three years, which is, certainly, fight for their sovereignty and fight for their democracy, which is something that we’re going to continue to support, Ukraine and those — those NATO — NATO countries as well, which is much stronger — stronger than Putin ever thought they would be in this time.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  First on the Middle East.  Prime Minister Netanyahu is expected to convene his War Cabinet this evening to chart next steps.  What has President Biden communicated that the U.S. would hope they decide
to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to comment or get into hypotheticals about decisions that Israeli government are making or IDF is making.  Certainly — certainly would let them speak for themselves. 

We have been very clear: Israel has the right to defend itself, especially against these Iran-backed groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.  We will continue to have those direct conversations with them.  But IDF, Israel government can certainly speak to that.

And, also, have conversations — continue our diplomatic conversations on the right — on the right way forward — or the path forward.  I just don’t have anything else to share.

Q    A lot of those diplomatic conversations happened over the weekend as Israel was conducting these raids in Lebanon.  Is the outcome one that those diplomatic conversations were — were discussing?  Were U.S. officials offering their support for the
way that Israel proceeded?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that — I’m not going to speak — again, not going to speak to private diplomatic conversation.  What I said moments ago, which is we understand the strategic purpose of this is to make sure that Hezbollah cannot maintain the capacity to attack Israeli communities from the immediate opposite side of the border.  That’s what we understand.

I’m just not going to get into — get into specifics or into diplo- — diplomatic conversations from here.

Q    It’s now been five days, though, since the U.S. and Western allies publicized the discussions over this 21-day ceasefire proposal.  Is there still any hope that that
gets put together?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, this is a president that’s hopeful and optimistic, and you hear him say that —

Q    But realistically, given the conversations that are happening. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — well, you — you asked me if that is hopeful, right?  So, look, we believe the way to get to a ceasefire is to have this diplomatic resolution, to get us some space to have a dipl- — diplomatic solution.  That’s ultimately the way to get there.  

And so, we nee- — we understand that we need a ceasefire in Lebanon to provide that — that space for diplomacy.  That’s what we’re going to continue to have discussions — those discussions continue with Israel.  So, that is what we’re going to focus on. 

And what we want to see is a de-escalation.  That’s what we’ve been saying.  We want to see a de-escalation.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  You mentioned that the vice president is going to be coming back and having a briefing at FEMA later today about Helene —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, 4- — about 4 o’clock, I think.  Yeah.

Q    Could you give us a sense for what she has been doing so far in response to this hurricane?  Is she in briefings with the president?  Is she getting briefed separately?  And what is her role going to be going forward?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is that she has — certainly has been kept briefed on the situation in the — certainly, the affected areas, the aftermath.  She’s going to get a briefing directly at FE- — at FEMA — at the FEMA center when she gets back. 

She — she didn’t continue with some of her campaign activities today because she wanted to make sure to get back and — and go to the FEMA center.  Anything else — and I know she’s had conversations with elected officials on the ground in those impacted areas.  I would have to refer you to her team to get more specifics on — on what else.

Q    And then a question about one of the policies that the vice president rolled out on Friday about immigration.  She said that she would go further than what the president has done with executive action to limit asylum access at the border. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you have any response to that?  Is that the position of the White House that the administration should be going further than what you’ve done so far?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think, look, when we — when it comes to — I got to be careful — campaign policy announced.  So, going to certainly let the campaign speak specifically about what they’re announcing and what they’re looking to do on their side of — their side of things. 

But we’ve always said, and we’ve al- — whether it’s the economy, whether it’s the border that, you know, the vice president was going to build upon what we’ve been able to do.  That is — you know, the — the good work that we’ve been able to do together, whether it’s the economy, health care, getting some of these historic pieces of legislation passed that’s going to help Americans for generations to come.

We also understand and see and what she’s been able to do is build on the success.  And so, I think that’s what you’re seeing from the vice president.  And the pr- — this is a vice president that has been a critical partner to this — to this president over the last three and a half years.  And so, we — you know, we look forward to see what she’s going to be doing down the road.

Go ahead, April.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

Q    Karine, hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I did not ca- — I’ll call you afterwards.

Go ahead, April.

Q    The issue of Angola.  Why Angola for President Biden now, specifically, as other presidents have gone to other countries, and Angola is, like, something totally new since the Clinton administration for a U.S. president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  So, he’s going to be holding a bilateral and multilateral meetings to discuss increased collaboration of shared pa- — priorities, including a signature project of G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, PGI, Africa’s first transcontinental open-access rail network that starts — that starts in Lobito and ultimately will connect the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean.  I think that’s a pretty important reason why to go to Angola. 

This will be the first visit of a president to — to Angola.  That’s also, I think, important to note as well.  And so, we’re going to celebrate the evolution of the U.S.-Angola relationship, underscore the United States’ continued commitment to African partners, and demonstrate how those type of collaborative partnerships can solve shared challenges that both countries have.

Q    So, anything on oil, by any chance, since Angola is oil rich?  And also — and also —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — what about the considerations about some of the other countries, like Nigeria or South Africa?  Those have been — Ghana, Uganda —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — those have been some places that presidents — Rwanda — some —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear you.

Q    — of the presidents — yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, he’s going to be abroad from the 10th to the 15th of October.  We’re going to go to Berlin, Germany, and then we’re going to stop over at Angola.  I just laid out the PGI, the important connection there that Angola has to an initiative that the president created.  And I think that is — right there, that — that connection with the Atlantic Ocean to the India O- — the Indian Ocean, that Angola is going to play a big role is — is important.  It’s going to make a difference in that region.  And this is also, again, part of the president’s initiative that he created.

And no other president has been there.  No other president has been to Angola. 

Q    I know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I think that’s important to note as well. 

Q    Does this have something to do with the grain situation that was held up because of the Russia-Ukraine war, trying to help get grains to African nations?  Because President Zelenskyy did express that to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I understand, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, as well as Greg Meeks, who sits on Foreign Affairs Committee in the House.  Is this some of that too?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I will say is the president has said that he was going to go to the continent.  He has said that he was going to do that.  He wanted to keep his promise. 

Angola makes a lot of sense, especially for an initiative like PGI, an initiative that the president started.  There’s a connection there.  There’s a thruway that makes a lot of sense.  No other president has visited the country.  And so, it made sense for the president to go there, because there are important initiatives not just to the co- — African continent but also for us here and other of our partners and allies.  And so, it made the most sense to make that — to make that trip. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And you’ll see us next month doing that.  

Go ahead. 

Q    Thank you.  So, the president didn’t seem comfortable this morning with a ground operation in Lebanon.  He said he was “comfortable with them stopping.”  Now it seems imminent.  Did the president take any action to try to prevent a ground operation in Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, say that one — say that one more time.

Q    So, this morning, President Biden said —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that he was comfortable with them stopping, about Israel.  And so, did he take any action to try to prevent such an operation in Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to get into diplomatic conversations from here.  What I’ve been saying multiple times is Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah, against Iran-backed groups like Hezbollah, like Hamas, and also the Houthis.  They are in a — in a difficult neighborhood — right? — if — to say the least.  And they have to have the ability to defend themselves. 

And so, that’s what we support.  That’s what we believe.  That’s what we have said.  We’re going to have conversations with the Israeli government about the best way forward, the best way to move forward.  But I’m not going to get into diplomatic conversations.

But I have been very clear: We believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah.

Q    Lebanon is very small, so when Israel, for instance, attacked Beirut — south Beirut, many people who have no link with Hezbollah are being hit.  It will be the same if they do a ground operation in Lebanon.  It won’t be only the Hezbollah who’s going to be targeted.  So, does the White House still support this ground operation in Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, are you talking — so, say that one more time.

Q    Does — you — you say that, basically, the goal is to target Hezbollah, but if there is a ground operation it’s going to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not speaking for the goals of the IDF or the Israeli government.  What we have said is: Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah, against Iran-backed group.  We’ve been very clear about that. 

I’m not going to stand here and speak to Israel’s operations.  That is not something that I can do.  It’s something that I would have to refer you to IDF, and that’s what we’ve been very clear about.

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much, Karine.  During this — these frantic diplomatic discussions over the situation in the Middle East, did the president communicate any sort of consequences for this continued behavior, in addition to his wish for a ceasefire?  Did he, for example, say that maybe certain weapons would no longer be provided to Israel or teased to that in his discussions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our policy has not changed.  It just hasn’t.  It — it has not changed.  And, again, Israel has a right to defend itself — we’ve been very clear — against Iran-backed groups like Hezbollah, like Hamas, the Houthis. 

I’m not going to get into diplomatic conversation, but our policy has not changed.

Q    Okay.  On Taiwan, yesterday, the president announced the largest-ever military drawdown for Taiwan.  What — what is kind of the — what was the purpose of this?  What was his thinking?  And is this intended to — I mean, what was the message he was sending with that decision?  And is it meant to kind of hold Taiwan over in case there is, for example, a change of leadership in the United States?  Or, you know, what — what’s the point of this? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, our overreaching goal remains the same — right? — and we have said that — maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  That is our goal, and we’ve always been very clear about that, and that’s what we want to see.  So —

Q    I guess I’m asking specifically about the timing of this.  This comes at the end of his presidency, and this is the largest-ever military drawdown.  What — what does that communicate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think, if you think about the drawdown, it is pretty much consistent with our longstanding One China policy.  So, want to make that clear.  It has not changed, and it remains the guide by the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Joint Communiqués, and Six Assurances.  Again, our overreaching goal is to continue to maintain the peace and stability across — across the Taiwan Strait, and that is something that we have been focused on over the last three and a half years, and we’re continuing to do this.

And so — but the administration use of the PDA for Taiwan is one — one example of our continued commitment to help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self- — self-defense capability.  And so, that’s what is — what we’ve been continuing and trying to do.  And so, that’s how I would look at the Taiwan PDA.

Q    (Inaudible)?  Have they communicated how they feel about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — I would refer you to them.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    I know that the president said that he would not — he would not intervene in the dockworkers strike, and he cited his concern that he doesn’t believe in Taft-Hartley.  But we have seen him intervene in — in other ways in previous situations like this.  With when — with the rails situation, he asked Congress to intervene and stop that potential strike.  When he said no yesterday, was he also saying that asking Congress to intervene and stop a potential strike was off the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, Congress does what Congress is going to do regardless of what the president says. 

What I will say is the message of the president has been very clear.  Our message has been very clear.  We support collective bargaining.  That’s what we’ve been clear about. 

I’ve mentioned Secretary Buttigieg, [Acting] Secretary Lu [Su].  We have our NAC — NEC director who has been in touch with — with both parties.  And what we have been encouraging to do — and this is something that we’ve been pretty consistent — what I’m saying here we’ve said before, which is we believe both parties should — should come to the table in good faith, and so — to come to a fair agreement.  This is something that we’ve also been consistent about. 

Look, we’re going to continue to send that message and — and urge them to come to a fair agreement. 

Q    But is he prepared to ask Congress to intervene?  Or is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m just —

Q    — off the table?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to going to into hypotheticals from here.

What we — we’ve been — we have made our message very clear — very clear: We col- — we support collective bargaining.  We believe both sides should come together in a — to get to a fair agreement in good faith — in good faith, and we have been consistent throughout this administration about that. 

Q    I want to ask you about the immigration — the border restrictions that this administration extended today as well. 

The immigration advocacy organizations have come out.  Tahirih Justice said this was death a thousand cuts for migrants.  You know, I’ve heard criticism as well from immigration advocates saying that this is ignoring the asylum statute.  So, I guess just a response to those comments. 

But then secondly, just the timing for this.  I mean, the administration clearly is benefiting from this executive action and obviously likes it if it’s extending it, so why not do it sooner?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I don’t th- — I know you follow this very closely.  You know that we’ve taken multiple executive actions throughout the last three and a half years.  You know that we’ve tried to do this in a legislative fashion — right? — to make this — to get it to a — a policy, a legislation that actually — we do it in a bipartisan way that actually deals with a broken immigration system.  And we have been stopped over and over again by Republicans. 

Q    Sure.  And it was clear that that Senate bill was going to get stopped earlier this year —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — you know, January and March.  This extension we have not seen until now, and then we didn’t see the executive action until —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  June.

Q    — just a couple months ago, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, June.  No, you’re right.

Q    In the summer.  In the summer.  So, now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait —

Q    — with this extension, this is going to carry this out beyond the election.  So, if the administration stance is that this should continue for the months ahead, basically, effectively, curtailing asylum in ways we have not seen, why not take this action sooner?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And then just also a response to the criticism, too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  We have tried to do this in a way where there was legislative action, right?  To do this in a way — by having bipartisan conversation, working with senators, and doing this in a way that will benefit Americans, and do it in a way, obviously, that we — we put it into law.  And we’re trying to begin the process of fixing a broken immigrat- — that’s the way the president actually wants to do it.  He did.  That’s the way he wants to do it.  And we took time to do that, and we believe it was going to move forward. 

This is Senate.  We’re working with Republican senators here to get that done.  And they voted against — to your point, against their own bill twice — twice, because of the former president saying, “This was going to” — I get part of your com- — question to me — “it was going to help Joe Biden.  It’s going to help Democrats.”  That’s what the former president said.

When it comes to this — to this announcement that you just — that we just had about the final rule.  It was a two-month process.  Let’s not forget when the president made the announcement in June, DHS and DOJ had a two-month process — right? — to get — to get feedback, to get responses on — on the rule.  And now we have — now we have a — now we secured that final rule.  And so, that’s the action that you saw from DOJ and DHS. 

But we actually want to do this a different way.  We do.  We want to do it in a bipartisan legislative way. 

You know this president.  He believes reaching across the aisle is an important thing to do.  We — we’ve been able to get bipartisan legislation done.  They got in the way. 

They negotiated with us — meaning “they,” the senators — Republican senators negotiated with us.  We came up with a bipartisan solution.  If the president had signed — was able to sign that solution that — pardon me, that legislation — it would have been the toughest and fairest — fairest immigration law that we have seen in some time, and it would have started the process of fixing a broken immigration system that has been broken for decades — for decades.

Does the — that’s the p- — that is the way the president actually wants to do this.  And, as you know, majority of Americans want us to fix the border.  They do.  And we tried.  And this is the path that we’re — we went down because Republicans in Congress didn’t want to work with us. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Student loan borrowers have had a grace period over the past year where they weren’t going to face delinquency if they didn’t pay their loans.  But tomorrow is October 1st, so that ends tomorrow.  Is the administration expecting or concerned about a potential wave of delinquencies for borrowers who haven’t been paying their loans over the last year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as you know, this has been — when it comes to student loan and giving borrowers a little bit of breathing room, this is something that the president had been wanting to do for sa- — some time.  We were blocked.  The president took additional actions, took historic action to provide that student loan relief and to support borrowers facing financial hardship.

In the wake of a one-in-a-century pandemic, the Department of Education paused loan payments as the economy recovered.  And so, as you just stated, it has expired.  It’s been 12 months. 

And so, for those who — to your question, for those who still facing challenges returning to repayment, the department has implemented an aggressive strategy to — to support borrowers, including creating the Fresh Start program that allowed borrowers in default to become current on their payments, launching an information campaign to engage borrowers at a risk — a high risk of delinquency, and helping borrowers enroll in IDR pr- — plans and the lowest monthly payments as well. 

So, there’s plans out there.  There’s ways to support some of these borrowers who — who feel like they could be delinquent here.  And so, we certainly want to help them get to a point where they can start repaying their loans.  And so, the Department of Education has certainly made that a priority as well. 

All right.  I know we have to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    One — one last try on — on Lebanon. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Just to be clear, you know, on the one hand, the president is calling for a ceasefire.  On the other hand, you’re saying that Israel has a right to defend itself by targeting Hezbollah.  So, how does it work?  Sa- — who do you negotiate a ceasefire with when, at the same time, the Israelis have just informed the United States that they are indeed launching limited ground operations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  And both things can be true.  And this is what’s happening right now in the region.  And I’ve said this multiple time: Israel is living and is — is in a really tough neighborhood, and they have to be able to defend themselves against Hezbollah, against the Houthis, against Hamas.  And that is the reality.  That is the reality that they are living in. 

And that’s what we have been very clear about, making sure that our secur- — that we — support for Israel’s security is ironclad.  And that’s what you’ll continue to see from this administration. 

At the same time, we do want to de-escalate.  At the same time, we want to see that.  And ultimately, we believe in — a way to get to a ceasefire, to de-escalate is to create a space — is to get to a ceasefire so we can create a space for dim- — diplomatic conversations.  And, in this case, that’s what you’re seeing. 

We’re — and we’re still talking to Israel.  We’re still having those conversations.  That has not stopped.  And so, that’s what you’re going to continue to hear from us. 

All right.  I think I have to wrap it up.  Go ahead.

Q    This is a light — more light question.  But tomorrow is Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday.  I think the president sent around a note on the weekend, but should we expect anything in terms of a phone call or anything?

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

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

3:45 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Homeland Security Adviser Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

4:14 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get started with Q&A.

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon.  I know many of you are interested in a readout of the bilat with President Zelenskyy, and we’ll get all of that, but I just want to just kind of put a pin in sort of where we are here on Thursday afternoon.

Really, the meeting today is the culmination of, really, a full week for the President on the foreign policy front — as you all know, hosting the leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad in Wilmington, in his hometown, to really talk about pressing issues, not just on the security land front, but economic, diplomatic, certainly with respect to development opportunities, and climate change all across the Indo-Pacific. 

It was a really successful set of discussions, of course ending with all four gathering together to launch a global — or an international effort to get after the cancer challenge.  So, terrific few days, couple of days there. 

And then he went right to the U.N. General Assembly.  You all saw his remarks, talking about the inflection point that that we are in again and how institutions like the United Nations can work together to really tackle transnational challenges. 

He also talked about the acute nature of some of the conflicts that the United States and so many of our partners are dealing with now.  Sudan, of course — trying to get both sides to the table to do what’s right for the Sudanese people and stop the violence, and the fact that there are other countries around the world that can also be helpful in leveraging that sort of an outcome. 

Obviously, what’s going on in the Middle East.  And you saw yesterday some intense diplomacy by our team to get multiple nations to come together and call for a 21-day ceasefire to try to bring the fighting between Israel and Lebanon to a halt so that diplomacy has a little bit of breathing space to actually work. 

And then, of course, Ukraine.  He had a chance to meet with President Zelenskyy yesterday in a short pull-aside and then had a more substantive discussion today.  You saw all the announcements and the commitments that the President made to President Zelenskyy.  A real surge is the way I would describe this, in terms of security assistance and support to Ukraine as they try to continue to reclaim territory and to succeed on the battlefield here in the coming months. 

And the big thing about this — I mean, the biggest thing about that surge was drawing down the remaining funds that we have available for presidential drawdown authority, and then tasking DOD to then allocate that money over time so that all the way to the end of his term we will be spending everything we can to continue to support Ukraine.  And there were some other additional capabilities announced, as I think you all saw.

Really good couple of days with President Zelenskyy here.  He had a chance to present the broad contours of his victory plan to President Biden and to our national security team.  And the President directed our team to work with his team over the next couple of weeks to dig into it a little bit more.  And both presidents are planning to meet in Germany, when we head over there on the 12th of October.  They’ll meet to kind of further flesh it out and see what, together, we can do to help President Zelenskyy really achieve this just and lasting peace that he’s trying to achieve. 

So, again, I know there’s a lot of focus on the bilat today, and rightly so.  He is meeting now with the Vice President, as you and I are talking, and I’m sure we’ll get you a readout of that discussion when it’s over.  But it comes at the end of truly a full week of intense foreign diplomacy, a focus for the President, and real, tangible deliverables in just about every single venue, including on fentanyl, that are designed to make people’s lives better and designed, as the President said in his speech on Tuesday, to help us deal with this critical inflection point that we’re in. 

So, anyway, I’ll stop there.

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

Q    Could you just describe the broad contours of the —

MODERATOR:  Steve, you should be able to unmute yourself. 

We hear you now.

Q    Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yep.

MR. KIRBY:  Got you, bud.

Q    I was just going to see if John could give us the broad contours of the Zelenskyy victory plan.  And is it something that sounds doable to you?

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Steve.  I think I’m going to let President Zelenskyy outline his plan.  It’s his plan, and I don’t believe they have talked publicly about it too much in detail, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to do that. 

I would just say, you know, broadly speaking, it contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that President Zelenskyy believes will be important, not only for helping him end the war that he’s in now, but prevent another one, and to be able to deter and defeat any future Russian aggression once the war is over. 

And if you go back and you look at the President’s opening comments in the Oval, I mean, those were sort of the two prongs that the President also talked about as well.  We got to — our immediate focus has got to be on what Ukraine needs now.  And, of course, his package of announcements today and deliverables I think get at that to a fare-thee-well.  But also, what we need to do to work for Ukraine’s long-term future and long-term security, and that would include, of course, you know, an eventual path to NATO, once they have worked through reforms that they have to make and once they have been able to put the war in the rearview mirror.  But also looking after their long-term security needs.  You know, we announced a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, and they’ve secured several others with other countries to make sure that they have the capabilities over the long term. 

I know that’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not trying to filibuster, but I do think it’s better if President Zelenskyy outlines his victory plan. 

And as for your second — the second question you asked, you know, “Is it achievable,” well, that’s — you know, that’s what the two teams are going to be discussing here in coming days and weeks to see — to really kind of pick it apart and see where we can go together.

Q    And if I could just add quickly, John: What happens with this effort now to secure a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re having active discussions, as you might imagine, with our Israeli counterparts in particular about this.  Last night, it was, I think, a very strident call by, you know, a dozen or so nations to try to seek a 21-day ceasefire, a temporary ceasefire that is designed, as I said, to give diplomacy some time and some space, a little bit of breathing room here to work, because we still believe that that’s the best solution here. 

Where it goes from here is: Brett is still up in New York City, and he’s still having conversations with his counterparts, his Israeli counterparts, to see what the right next step is and if, how, and when that ceasefire can get moving.

I would just add one more thing, because I understand — I mean, you didn’t ask it this way, but I’m sure somebody will.  You know, you’ve seen President — sorry, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, and we’ve seen them as well.  I would just make a couple of points here. 

Number one, we still believe an all-out war is not the best way to get people back in their homes.  If that’s the goal, an all-out war we don’t believe is the right way to do that. 

Number two, there was a lot of care and effort put into that statement.  As you can see from it, it wasn’t just the United States; several other nations joined us.  That took diplomacy as well.  That took some elbow grease to work that statement with so many other countries, including talking to our interlocutors in Lebanon and in Israel.  And we wouldn’t have made that statement, we wouldn’t have worked on that if we didn’t have reason to believe that the conversations that we were having with the Israelis in particular were supportive of the goal there. 

And the last thing I’ll say, and I kind of already said it, is: The conversations continue.  The discussions are ongoing.  Even as you and I are talking, again, Brett McGurk, Amos, they’re still up there seeing what they can do to get this moving forward. 

So, again, seen his comments.  Somebody is going to ask me about it; I know that.  All I can tell you is those conversations with our Israeli friends happened yesterday, before the statement went out, and they’re happening today. 

Q    Thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, sir.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell.

Q    Hi.  Thank you very much.  Thanks, Hannah.  Thanks, John.  So, you’re right, I do want to ask you about the 21 days, because there’s such a fundamental disagreement.  The Prime Minister reasserted his disagreement when he landed here in the U.S. just a couple of hours ago and said that they were going to use all their force and achieve their objectives. 

So do you have a better understanding of what their objectives are militarily, beyond getting people back in their homes?  Because you have clearly made the point, as the Secretary made this morning, that to create hostilities in the area is not going to help get people back in their homes.  Is it to abide by the U.N. resolution?  Is it to create a buffer zone?  How far to push them back?  What is your goal?  And what is your best understanding with all these conversations of what their goal is?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, I would point you to what they’ve been saying themselves.  I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself said that one of his principal objectives is getting people back home.  And there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel about that exact issue, about the desire to go back home, up in the north.  And —

Q    No, I meant the military objective.  What does he —

MR. KIRBY:  I know that, but —

Q    What does he think can — okay.

MR. KIRBY:  I know that, Andrea.  But he himself said that that was his objective: to get people back home, to stabilize the situation so that people would feel comfortable doing that. 

Now, he has also said, and we have no reason to doubt, that he wants to continue to eliminate the very legitimate, lethal threats that Hezbollah poses to Israel.  I mean, just yesterday they launched a ballistic missile at Tel Aviv. 

So, he and his cabinet and the Israeli people have every right to want to thwart that threat, that challenge to their peace and security, their lives and their livelihoods.  So I would suspect that from a military perspective, that’s also weighing into their calculation. 

But, you know, I can’t answer the question any better than I did with Steve.  Seen his comments, heard them, but all I can tell you is that we wouldn’t have worked on that statement the way we did, we wouldn’t have issued it when and how we did if it wasn’t supported by the conversations that we were having with top Israeli officials yesterday, and those conversations continue today. 

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex Marquardt.  One second.  Where did you go, Alex? 

Okay, we see — oh, he is back.

Q    Hi, you got me? 

MODERATOR:  Yes. 

Q    Thanks, guys.  John, just want to ask you a little bit more on that.  So we heard from Karine earlier that this was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side.  And last night, your colleagues said pretty definitive things like “this is an important breakthrough,” “when the governments agree.”  So it sounds like there was an expectation that this would happen, and then we see Netanyahu come out and say, “We continue to hit Hezbollah with all our might.”  That doesn’t sound like a reversal or a dismissal to you from the Israeli side?

MR. KIRBY:  I think you ought to ask that question to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  What I can tell you is: The discussions we had last night we had every reason to believe were sincere.  And I will tell you, I’ve communicated with Brett this morning, and he’s having those discussions today, and he feels, again, that the Israeli side are willing to have those talks.  So that’s where we are. 

Q    But do you think there’s a difference in — you both agree that it’ll take a diplomatic solution to get people back into their homes, but do you think there’s a disagreement about how to get there, in that they believe it’s military pressure and you guys are arguing, no, it’ll take a pause?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into our back-and-forth here in a public setting, Alex, and I’m certainly not going to speak for what they believe or don’t believe. 

I think I’ve kind of dealt with the issue of the discussions we had yesterday and the ones we’re having today.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps. 

Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  You know, given the strong rejection from Netanyahu on this temporary ceasefire and the indications that one of the hopes was that diplomatic space to continue the efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza, I’m curious how the recent language from the Israelis is impacting those efforts and if there has been any further movement in the past few days on that first ceasefire and hostage release.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  I wish I could tell you that we had some kind of breakthrough to speak to.  We don’t, with respect to the ceasefire in Gaza.  But I also would add that we are still very much interested in trying to see if it can’t be moved forward.  And nothing has slackened about our desire to see if there is room for another go at this. 

But the team is still focused on it.  We still want to see it put in place.  And nobody has turned the page on it and said, “Well, that’s it.  We’re done.  We’re not interested in trying to find a ceasefire that can get the hostages home.” 

So, our team here at the National Security Council, and I’m sure the State Department as well, is still trying to work this over to see if there’s a path forward.

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

Q    Hey, John.  I just want to take one more stab at this.  What changed between last night, when the senior administration officials who briefed were calling it a breakthrough, and this morning?  Were you and was the President surprised or upset by the Prime Minister’s comments this morning, rejecting that deal?  Or was that expected?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I would say a couple of things.  It’s not clear to us that, from a practical perspective, that there isn’t cause for us to continue to have these conversations with the Israelis.

If something has changed, you’d have to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu about what that something is.  What I can tell you is we’re still talking to the Israelis today, as we were yesterday.  And I’ll leave it at that.

And I’m not going to characterize the President’s reaction one way or the other.  His main goal is to make sure that we find a diplomatic path here to deescalate along that Blue Line and that we avoid an all-out war and escalation, not only there but elsewhere in the region.  And almost everything he’s been doing since the 7th of October has been designed to achieve that outcome. 

And so, that’s where his focus is, on trying to prevent this thing from escalating more than it already has.  And his tasking to the team in recent days is to keep working at that goal, keep trying to see what we can do to give diplomacy a fighting chance, and that’s what he really wants.

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

Q    Hey, John.  One last attempt at the same topic, but also trying to move it forward.  Do you believe that Netanyahu has backtracked from anything he said before last night?  Or do you believe that — and/or do you believe that he’s balancing competing interests?  You mentioned there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel.  Both the right and some on the left actually criticized the announcement on the call for a ceasefire deal. 

And again, trying to push this forward, is there a message that you would like to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow, during the UNGA speech, that may indicate to the U.S., to the world, frankly, to Hezbollah itself, to Nasrallah that would provide some kind of (inaudible) moving forward?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I appreciate the seventh or eighth attempt here.  I can’t speak for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I can’t answer the question why he said what he said.  And I certainly can’t begin to speculate about what considerations went into that statement, whether they were political or operational or otherwise.  Those are questions that he needs to be asked and should be given the opportunity to answer. 

What I can tell you is: That statement we worked on last night wasn’t just drawn up in a vacuum.  It was done after careful consultation, not only with the countries that signed on to it, but Israel itself.  And we had every reason to believe that in the drafting of it and in the delivery of it, that the Israelis were fully informed and fully aware of every word in it.  And we wouldn’t have done it, as I said, if we didn’t believe that it would be received with the seriousness with which it was composed. 

And the discussions that we have had, or that we had yesterday with our Israeli counterparts, are happening still today.  So, what prompted the Prime Minister’s comments?  Only he can say.  What prompted our desire to get that statement written and out the door was an earnest desire to see diplomacy having a chance here to deescalate.

Q    And the question about the UNGA speech and message that you want to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, we’re not in the habit of providing speechwriting advice to foreign leaders.  The Prime Minister will speak for himself, and he’ll speak for the Israeli people in the way he sees fit, the same way that President Biden did on Tuesday. 

So, we’ll obviously be listening to hear what he has to say, of course, with great interest, as you will.  We know that the Prime Minister knows that the people of Israel have no stronger supporter than Joe Biden, not only as President of the United States, but over the course of a long career. 

And even though he and Prime Minister Netanyahu don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue, and that is clear, they absolutely share one overarching goal, and that is the preservation and the safety and security of the State of Israel.  That will never change.  We may disagree at times on how to achieve that goal, but on the things — well, a lot of things matter, but on that very big thing that matters, they certainly see eye-to-eye.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with the New York Times.

Q    Hey, John.  I will avoid becoming the ninth effort to — person to press you on (inaudible), though I think you’re still (inaudible) basic question, which is: What did Netanyahu tell the United States last night?  And did he mislead you guys?

But let’s go to an easier question on Ukraine, which is: You know, is the President going — is there anybody in the United States government and the national security team that thinks that — or that doesn’t think that Ukraine and Zelenskyy will ultimately have to come to some sort of acceptance of some sort of territorial, you know, giveaway to resolve this war? 

And is the President comfortable leaving office in a few months, you know, kind of knowing that war is going to continue on in this stalemate that won’t — you know, that doesn’t have a real path towards resolution, in part because Zelenskyy doesn’t want to confront that possibility?

MR. KIRBY:  Of course the President would like to see this war ended, Michael.  I mean, he’d like to see it ended today, and we all know that it could if Putin got the hell out of Ukraine.  But of course, that doesn’t appear to be in the offing. 

So, President Biden would very much like to see the war ended as soon as possible, given the unlikelihood of that eventuality.  And that’s why we’re doing everything we can to make sure they can prevail on the battlefield so that if and when President Zelenskyy decides he wants to enter into some sort of negotiated settlement, that he can do so from a position of strength. 

And, you know, to your first question, which I may be butchering it back to you, so if I don’t get it right, you tell me if I’m wrong.  But the way I interpreted it was: Does anybody think here at the NSC that there’s no other way for this to end without him trading territory?  Is that kind of where you were — is that what you meant?

Q    Yeah, essentially.  Right.  I mean, essentially, in the question —

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look — I mean, that’s going to be up to him.  And I would tell you we’re not sitting around with maps of Ukraine and markers and coming up with, you know, alternative scenarios here, or, “Gee, maybe we could convince Zelenskyy to trade this for that.”  We’re not involved in that kind of a game here.  We are — when we’re sitting there looking at the map of Ukraine, it’s about trying to understand the battlefield as it is now and trying to get ahead of where it’s going to go, and making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to be successful on that battlefield. 

But as I said many, many times, if and when and how this war ends, it’s got to be in a way that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people can accept.  He gets to decide the conditions.  He gets to decide the circumstances.  And if there’s trade space, he gets to decide what that trade space is.  He’s not getting direction from the United States and the administration in one way or another when it comes to that. 

And I would just tell you that — I can’t speak for the innermost thoughts of every single policy analyst here at the National Security Council, but I can tell you that Jake is not putting them to task, getting them to think through what a negotiation could look like in terms of geography.  That’s just not where our heads are.  Everybody here that’s working this problem set is really trying to do the two things that the President said very clearly in his pool spray. 

And those two items, you know, I do want to draw you back to them as much as I can, because it wasn’t by accident that he listed two priorities: one, that they got what they need now and in the months ahead, and that every dollar we can spend before the end of his term, by God, we’re going to spend it.  And number two: that we are setting, as best we can, all the conditions for the future long-term security of Ukraine so that they can not only deter any future Russian aggression once the war ends, but defeat it, if they have to face it.  And that, of course, means obviously working with them on the reforms to eventually see a path to NATO, but also, more organically, make sure that they have a robust defense industrial base with the ability to manufacture and to procure the kinds of defense articles that they’ll need to defend themselves over the long term.

Q    That’s great.  Let me just follow up one really quick way.  I guess what I’m trying to get at with the question of territory is that there are places in the world where the U.S. does press — I mean, Israel is a perfect example.  The U.S. has been long on record pressing for a two-state solution that would ultimately require both sides to compromise on territory in the interest of long-term security. 

And I guess the question is: After two years of war that has largely stalemated, why isn’t the U.S. — I mean, obviously it’ll be up to Ukraine to make the final decision, but why isn’t the U.S. pressing for some sort of consideration that would bring the war to an end?

MR. KIRBY:  Because we believe, as we’ve said from the outset — we believe that, unlike the two-state solution, Mike, which is not — in my view, not an appropriate analogy, this was a sovereign nation with internationally recognized boundaries that was invaded by its neighbor aggressively, and remains invaded by its neighbor.  That is a vastly different scenario. 

And from the beginning, from the moment he stepped off and marched on to Kyiv, we were saying we want to see those internationally recognized boundaries fully respected and restored.  That is Ukraine, all of Ukraine, including Crimea.  It belongs to Ukraine.  We want to see that outcome. 

So I think quick — honestly, we have been very clear about geography, and that hasn’t changed.  Now, if there’s some trade space to be had there, that’s got to be up to President Zelenskyy.  But as far as President Biden and the United States is concerned, Ukraine is Ukraine.  All of Ukraine.  And the internationally recognized borders need to be respected by everybody, most especially Russia. 

Q    Thanks.  Appreciate it. 

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

Q    Hey, John.  Just a very short clarification.  I just want to see that I understand.  You said that you would not have published the statement about the ceasefire if you did not understand from the Israelis that they’re on board.  Did I understand this correctly?  Is this what you said?

MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say it in exactly those words, but I’m not going to disagree with your assessment of it. 

Q    Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Awesome.  Thank you, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, send a note to the distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thank you. 

4:46 P.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room

12:45 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody. 

Q    Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.  Sorry.  Somebody — we’ve been gone too long.  Somebody has been messing with this stuff.

Okay.  So, the president has been briefed on Hurricane Helene, and at his direction, administration officials are in contact with their local and state counterparts to ensure that they have everything they need. 

This week, the president approved emergency disaster declaration request from the governors of Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, when unlocked additional federal resources to — which unlock additional federal resources to help these states respond to the storm.

And the entire Biden-Harris administration stands ready to provide further assistance to impacted states as needed. 

We continue to urge residents, especially those who have been instructed to evacuate, to heed the warnings of local officials. 

With that, I have — I have here to my right, the FEMA administrator, Criswell.  Come on up. 

Deanne, thank you so much for — for being here. 

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

As you heard, I did just finish briefing President Biden on the impacts that we are expecting to see from Hurricane Helene.  And as I told him, we have been preparing for this storm for a number of days, and we began moving resources into Florida on Monday. 

I just want everybody to know that this is going to be a multi-state event with the potential for significant impacts from Florida all the way to Tennessee, and the president wants to make sure that everyone is paying attention to the potential life-threatening impacts that this storm may bring.  And he has directed me to travel there tomorrow to assess the impacts. 

The entire state of Florida is under some type of warning right now, whether that’s a hurricane warning or a tropical storm warning, and we expect life-threatening flash flooding in the state’s north as the storm continues to move north. 

And so, I need everybody to pay attention to their local officials.  They are going to have the best information on the specific risks where you are at.  We’re already seeing impacts in Florida, and the forecast indicates that we could see up to 20 feet of storm surge. 

So, just think back two years ago to Hurricane Ian.  The peak storm surge from that was 14 feet, and we saw the amount of destruction and 150 people lost their lives, the majority of them from drowning.  So, please take this threat from storm surge seriously. 

Residents that are in these areas, they can still take action.  They can take action now to move out of harm’s way.  And remember that you may only need to go 10 or 15 miles inland to get away from the threat of the storm surge itself, because water is the number one reason that we see people lose their lives in these storms.  So, please don’t underestimate what the impacts could possibly be. 

So, at the president’s direction, we have over 1,100 personnel so far across the federal government supporting the preparedness efforts for this storm.  We also have an additional 700 personnel from FEMA that are already in these states supporting other disasters that we can quickly pivot to support any of the response needs as needed. 

Some of the resources that we have already deployed include eight search and rescue teams across Florida and Georgia, as well as resources from the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense to immediately support any lifesaving operations as needed. 

Now, the Army Corps of Engineer has power restoration teams and debris specialists who are going to be able to help restore power and support debris removal operations as soon as it is safe to do so. 

We have health and medical task forces from Health and Human Services to evaluate the impacts to medical facilities. 

We have food, water, generators, and tarps that are deployed to staging locations across the region, and so they are easily accessible and movable post-storm. 

And the Red Cross is actively standing up shelters in areas that are expected to see and feel the impacts from Helene. 

My regional administrator is currently embedded in the Florida Emergency Operations Center, as well as Incident Management Assistance Teams in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and we have one currently moving to North Carolina today so we can ensure seamless communications between the federal government and the needs of the states.

I’m very grateful, as you heard, President Biden quickly approved prelandfall declarations for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, and this allows us to immediately provide any of that lifesaving support in the coming days. 

And I’m grateful for the rest of the federal family that is there on the ground, working with us side by side, as we pr- — prepare to support the American people for what is to come over the next several days.

I just want everybody to know that the Biden-Harris administration — we are ready for this event.  We have aggressively predeployed resources.  We are postured for whatever response might be needed. 

And so, let me just say one more time before I take any questions: Take this storm seriously.  People in Hurricane Helene’s path, you need to listen to your local officials.  If they tell you to evacuate, please do so.  And if they tell you to shelter in place, then that’s what you should do.  They’re going to give you the best information that you can do for your specific situation.  Those decisions can save lives.

And with that, Karine, I’ll take questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.)

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Deanne.  So, this is likely to be the 21st billion-dollar weather or climate disaster this year.  So, does FEMA have the resources to keep on responding to disaster after disaster like this?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we have absolutely enough resources to continue to support the lifesaving response that we need to for this event.  I think everybody is aware that we went into Immediate Needs Funding as our Disaster Relief Fund, the — the funding was running low.  But the reason we do that is to make sure we have enough money for an event just like this.

And so, I want everybody to know that we have exactly what we need, and there are no limitations to our ability to support the response for this disaster.

As we continue to go through the recovery, though, for all of these disasters, that also takes personnel, and we’re going to continue to work through with our states about what they need and how we can best adjudicate those resources.  But we are seeing an increase, and we’re seeing a strain on our staff, with more of them deployed for longer periods of time, helping to support these communities recover.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor.

Q    And just also related to the — the money here.  Some pretty substantial losses projected in terms of the crop insurance, in terms of the flood insurance.  Is there — and there’s no new money in the CR as far as this is concerned.  Is there any expectation that you’re going to have to go back with a supplemental —

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we —

Q    — request?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, we did put a supplemental request in with the CR.  It does not give us a supplemental at this time, but it gives us the ability to spend the money that was put forth in the president’s budget.  But we’re already, through INF, $9 billion — close to $9 billion in projects that we have put on hold that we can’t reimburse communities for.

Once we lift INF and once the CR goes into effect, we’ll be able to pay those, but without a supplemental, we’ll — we will be back in INF probably in the January time frame.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you talk more about how widespread you think prolonged power outages will be and what those power restoration teams are doing to prepare?  Is there anything they can do proactively, you know, before the storm?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, Florida has a really robust plan, and they have really aggressive targets to try to get the majority of people — I forget what the exact percentage is; I think it was 85 or 90 percent within 48 hours — back up.  And they have several thousand resources that have been prepositioned to come in and support Florida Power & Light or the other utilities to help them get the power back on.

We expect widespread power outages from this.  When we think about Tallahassee, it’s got a lot of tree canopy, so those trees are going to come down and impact those power lines, and the debris and the ability to detangle the debris from the power lines is what could take a long time.

The power restoration teams, they do a couple of things from the Army Corps.  One, they can help us put generators in on critical facilities to help make sure that those facilities have power, but they can also make assessments on how to prioritize some of the work so we know where we need to put our efforts to help the — the private-sector pr- — utility companies get the power restored as quickly as possible.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Colleen.

Q    Could you talk a little bit about how the response has changed based on the severity of the storms?  I think we’re seeing an increasing — storms with increasing severity.  So, how does that change the response for you?  I mean, I know it’s more manpower, but what — what else?  How else does it change?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  I think the biggest thing is that we want to get things in place early.  This is why we’ve been moving resources into the area since Monday and having — we know there’s a large population that’s really vulnerable in Florida, and so that’s why we have so many search and rescue teams that are able to come in and augment the really im- — impressive amount of teams that Florida already has within the state, right?  So, this is on top of what they already have. 

And so, for us, it’s making sure that we are sending more than we think that we’ll need.  And if I don’t need them, I can send them home.  What I don’t want to do is be short.  I want to make sure that I have enough that can support whatever the states might request.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    You said that you are headed down there tomorrow.  Did you discuss with the president whether it might be possible for him to make the trip down in the coming days? 

And secondly, is there a single piece of advice or warning that you wish, in these kinds of situations, people would heed more seriously that you might want to emphasize in this setting?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, the purpose of my visit is to assess the impacts, and I’ll be briefing him on what those impacts are.  I’ll leave it to Karine to talk with him about what, you know, actions he might take. 

But I think the — the message is: Take this seriously.  I mean, we look at the cone, and the cone is the wind, but the water is what kills people.  And so, we need to really look at where this storm surge is going to be in Florida. 

But Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and those Appalachians, they’re going to have up to 20 inches of rain in an area that can have significant flash flooding.  And that is really life-threatening, and it comes so much faster than what we see from a storm surge, right?  They’re going to have less warning once the rain starts there, so they need to know what they’re going to do now, put those plans — plans in place today for where they’re going to go, how they’re going to contact their family and their friends, what they’re going to need to take with them — like medicine or power devices for medical reasons. 

Ha- — it’s not too late.  They should be able to put those plans together today so they can take the actions that their local officials tell them to do.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, in the back.

Q    Thank you.  You keep talking about the need to follow evacuation orders if local officials give them.  We know from past storms that people don’t always heed that not because they don’t want to but because they can’t afford to leave the area, don’t have anywhere to go, don’t have family members to help them.  Is FEMA doing anything to work on that particular issue, given what you’re talking about with water and the danger that can come from that if people stay in place?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, part of the prelandfall emergency declaration is specifically to reimburse states and local jurisdictions for any of the costs that they incur to do sheltering and evacuation because we want them to have the resources to put in place whatever measures that they need. 

I think the important thing on the evacuation to remember is, if you’re told to evacuate, especially from the storm surge area, it doesn’t mean you have to go to a whole other state.  And I think we — we often think of those pictures of contraflow lines and — and backed-up traffic, but you really sometimes only need to go a few miles to get out of harm’s way. 

And so, the local officials should be able to tell you where there’s local evacuation centers that you can go to until the threat of the storm has passed.  And then when we get to the point where if they are displaced, then we have the long-term sheltering concerns that we’ll have to work with.  But the initial sheltering concern is just getting out of this storm’s path for right now, then we can work on what those long-term needs are. 

And that’s why the prelandfall declaration is so incredibly important — that the president approved — is to make sure that those states have the resources to stand up those shelters and to help people get to safety. 

Q    And do you feel that the state is ready to stand up those shelters?  I mean, you’re talking about how you’re going to reimburse them, but is Florida ready to do that?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Florida has stood up many shelters, and the American Red Cross is also there supporting that.  I just need people to evacuate and go to them. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’re going to wrap it up. 

Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What resources are available, not only to families but also to small business, in the aftermath of this storm making landfall — resources coming not only from FEMA but also from the SBA?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  There’s a number of programs that are available.  For FEMA, we specifically made some changes into our disaster declaration — the Stafford Act — recently, which allows people that work from home to actually get compensated for some of their business losses if they work from home, like if they had a computer or other equipment that they needed to do their personal — if they’re a photographer and they lost their cameras.  So, we just made that change recently, in March, to be able to compensate small-business owners that work from home. 

SBA can speak specifically about their programs, but they’ve also made some really amazing changes this year, which increases the dollar amount that people can borrow from the SBA.  It extends the time where they’re going to delay the interest until they have to pay it — or to start to repay that loan.  And it’s a tremendous resource to really help small businesses get back on their feet. 

Q    And how do you decide where to position yourself tomorrow with the storm making landfall?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we’re looking at where we think the biggest impact is going to be, and right now, it looks like it’s a dead-on hit to Tallahassee.  And so, we’ll fly as close to Tallahassee as we can get, and then I’ll meet up with the governor and his team so I can see what the impacts are, hear what the — the team is thinking.  And then we will assess, right? 

I’ve got staff on the ground that will have the intel as to where the hardest-hit areas are.  And then, typically, we like to either get an aerial view, so I can fly over and see what some of those damages are, or on the ground, if need be. 

But I’m also prepared to move up to Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, as we start to see what those impacts are and assess that. 

And because me being on the ground helps me validate some of the damages more quickly, so we can get major declarations in place faster. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Last question.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  At the start of this year, you wrote out reforms to cut some of the red tape for the individual assistance program.  Now that so many people are in the path of this storm, can you give an update on how quickly you expect survivors to be able to tap into that, given those changes that were put in effect more than six months ago at this point?

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  We’ve seen some really tremendous, positive impact from the changes that we have made.  In fact, one of the changes we made was we decoupled the requirement to apply for an SBA loan in order to be eligible for our programs, and it’s really saving people several days in the process.  And we’re getting a large number of people that wouldn’t have come back to us, which is great. 

We’re also seeing people get funding quicker, right?  We have Serious Needs Assistance that can get them a very small amount of money to help with some of their immediate costs but, also, the Individual and Households Program that can help them with if they’re underinsured. 

And so, it really all depends on what their specific need is.  The money that they will see the fastest typically is that initial $750.  Any damages to their home, we still have to assess and see what those damages are and then can make that determination. 

But we have teams that go right out in the field.  They can register them in the field.  And that really helps to speed up the process. 

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

ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.  Thank you. 

Q    Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, thank you.

I just wanted to add, the president asked to have the administrator come to the podium today because of how serious we want to make sure that people out there are taking this.  They need to take this very seriously. 

And also, obviously, we wanted to lay out our federal response posture so that folks know that we are there for them, and we will obviously be there on the ground as the FEMA administrature — administrator just laid out. 

So, please, please take this very, very seriously and listen to your local officials.  Just want to reiterate that once more.

I have one more thing.  It’s a busy day here at the White House.  One of the other things that we’re going to be doing: As you all know, today, the president and the vice president are announcing new actions to redu- — to reduce gun violence and save lives.

From the American Rescue Plan to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to issuing more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other administration, the president and the vice president have continued to use every tool available to protect people from epidemic — from the epidemic of gun violence. 

Homicide rates are down 17 percent compared to the same — this — the same time last year, and the number of mass shootings this year is 20 percent lower.  But more must be done. 

So, President Biden is going to sign an executive order to accelerate progress on two key priorities, combating emerging — emerging firearms threats and impr- — improving school-based active shooter drills.  

Additionally, federal departments and agency will be announcing a range of additional actions to reduce gun violence, from promoting safe gun storage and red flag laws to improving the background check system. 

The Biden-Harris administration will continue to do everything it can to put an end to this senseless, senseless violence, while calling on Congress to fulfill their duty and pass commonsense gun safety legislation.

With that, Colleen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Democratic Mayor of New York City Eric Adams has been charged with bribery, wire fraud, and seeking campaign funds from a foreign government.  Does the president believe he should resign? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment on any ongo- — on this ongoing — particular ongoing matter.  I’m going to let the DOJ speak to this. 

Q    Okay.  And then two other quick things.  Does the president hope that Vice President Kamala Harris, should she be elected president — will she continue the Office of Gun Violence Prevention?  Is he hoping —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to speak for the vice president or get ahead of — of ourselves here. 

But what I will say is, as you know, the vice president has been a leader on this issue — she leads the Office of — of Gun Violence — and has taken this seriously, not just as a vice president but throughout her career, and has been, obviously, a key partner in all of the — all of the actions that this president has done and has taken.

So, I could assur- — I — I think it’s safe to say that she will continue to lead on making sure that we deal with this epidemic.  Gun violence is an epidemic.  We need to continue to protect our communities, protect our schools. 

And so, I could assure you that she’s going to continue to stay laser-focused on this issue.

Q    Okay.  One other quick thing.  As you know, Ukraine wants to fire long-range weapons into Russia, and some Republicans today backed the idea.  I wondered why the White House doesn’t share that same assessment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, I think we can expect that one of the conversations that the two leaders will have would be on this topic.  And so, you know, there will be also a broader discussion on the significant amount of military aid we are providing Ukraine.  You saw our announcements this morning. 

Although I’m not expecting there be any new announcements on this particular action or a decision coming out of this meeting.  I expect the leaders will discuss the weapons system the president announced, as I just stated. 

And I do want to take a little bit of a step back here.  I want to remind everyone watching the briefing how the United States, how this president has mobilized a massive — a massive amount of military equipment and capability to help Ukraine really fight back, push back against Mr. Putin and his aggression.

It’s been almost three years — almost three years, and this president has been there day one.  He has been able to bring more than 50 nations together to support Ukraine in their fight for their democracy.  And so, that’s what you can expect.

And the president is very proud of the impact of that support, what it’s had, and is proud of that coalition. 

And so — and certainly, you’ll see more of that in Germany.  As we announced, the president is going to be going to Germany. 

And so, I will leave it there and not go any further.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he’s being targeted by the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis.  Now, this is the kind of accusation that’s similar to what we’ve heard from former President Donald Trump.  So, what is the president’s reaction to that kind of language being used from a Democrat?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have been always very clear.  The president was clear, even when he was running in 2020, that he was going to make sure that DOJ is independent, and the DOJ is handling this case independently.  I’m not going to go beyond that.

Q    And Adams was also at a reception last night with the president at the Met.  Did they talk?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can confirm to you that the president did not see the mayor and they did not speak.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    You just mentioned that, obviously, you expect the two leaders today to discuss the issue of the use of long-range missiles into Russia.  Do you know if the president has any openness to changing his policy stance on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I said it’s going to be one of a range of topics that they’re going to discuss.

And let’s not forget, the president and — both presidents saw each other recently, just yesterday.  They’ve had multiple bilateral engagements.  This is a continuation of that — a continuation of the — the support that you have seen from the United States and, obviously, what the president has been able to do in the past two-plus years in bringing nations together to continue to give support to — to Ukraine.

What I said is I could expect this con- — this to come up as a topic, but I wouldn’t expect any new announcements.  I’m just not going to go beyond that.  You all will see the president momentarily and President Zelenskyy in a — in — in there — in this pool spray, as you know, in the Oval.  And so, you’ll have an opportunity to hear directly from both of them.

I just don’t have anything beyond — there’s no announcement that I would expect coming out of this —

Q    Okay.  And just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — new announcement.

Q    Just separately on this Lebanon ceasefire proposal that was released last night.  I’m sure you saw the prime minister’s office said, “The news about a ceasefire is incorrect.”  What is the disconnect here?  You know, we had senior U.S. officials saying last night — suggesting really strongly that they expected the two sides to agree to this proposal.  And here we are, however many hours later, and the prime minister’s office is saying no.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  As you mentioned, the joint statement last night, you saw that.  We and our allies, partners don’t believe in an all-out war.  That’s not the answer here.  That’s not what we want to see.

And that is something that we’ve been pretty consistent about throughout the past several months.  Our joint statement was a clear call — it was a call for a temporary ceasefire to open up space — open up space for diplomacy to achieve a deal that allows civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes safely and securely.  And I would add that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. 

There are now discussions ongoing today in New York.  Our teams are continuing to have discussions, and so you’ll probably hear more later — later in the day.  But those discussions are ongoing.

Q    If it was coordinated with the Israeli side and the expectation last night, as it was shared by senior U.S. officials, was that the two sides would agree to this imminently, why are we hearing from the prime minister’s —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — office today —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would have to refer you to the prime minister’s office. 

I — I’m just laying out the facts and what we know and what we want to avoid.  We do not believe an all-out war is the answer, and we’ve been very clear about that.  The president has been very clear about that. 

I just laid out the facts and what we’re trying to do.  This is a clear call for a temporary ceasefire.  We want to provide space.  We talk about how di- — diplomacy is — is the way to move forward.  That’s what the president believes. 

I laid out that — that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side. 

I can’t speak for them.  They will have to speak for themselves. 

I — I’m just laying out what we know, how this came together, and what we — what our end goal is — right? — is that — is what we want to see. 

Q    Do you still expect an agreement to come out imminently? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I — as I just mentioned, we have our teams who are in New York right now.  They’re currently having those discussions, currently negotiating or discussing this further in New York.  And so, I’m — I’m sure that we will have more to share later in the day. 

Go ahead, Francesca.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president never had a direct conversation with the Israeli prime minister about this.  Do you expect that he’ll call him today or that he’ll speak with him tomorrow about this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, they have spoken many, many times — probably more than a dozen times, easily — in this past several months, almost a year now, since October 7th.  They have decades-long relationship, and so they know each other very well.  And when they have discussions, they are very honest and — and frank. 

I don’t have a conversation to read out, a call to preview at this time. 

As I stated — and I’ve said this before; we have said this before — our teams talk pretty regularly, practically on a daily basis.  And so, that certainly continues as we’re talking about this — this ceasefire, the statement that you saw from the G7 plus our key Middle East partners overnight. 

Q    So, essentially, he di- — he did not feel that he needed to talk directly with the prime minister because his team was talking to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, their teams talk regularly, as — as they’re doing right now in New York today.  And so, that is something that will continue to — continue to be the case.  But they have spoken mu- — multiple times. 

As a conversation between the prime minister and the president, I just don’t have anything to preview at this time.

Q    And one quick question on Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    His approval today of the long-range bombs, should we take that as a sign that he is more open to allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — Russian territory?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, our policy has not changed.  They’re going to talk on a range of issues today. 

What we can say and what we can commit to is that we will continue to support Ukraine as they — as they continue their fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression into Ukraine.  And so, that is our commitment.  That’s what the president is focused on.  I don’t have anything else to add.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, on the — the long-range missile issue.  Is — does the White House have a reaction to Putin’s comments that that would invite a nuclear response on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what —

Q    — on the United States?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have — we say this all the time: Mr. Putin can end this war today.  He can.  He started this war.  He started this war.  Not the Ukrainians — he started this war.  It could end today.  It could end today if he decides to stop the aggression that he started into Ukraine. 

And so, we have been very clear about that, and we’ll continue to do so. 

Q    And there’s been no change on the administration’s policy on NATO membership for Ukraine since the — the NATO Summit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share be- — beyond what we’ve been pretty clear on as it relates to that. 

Q    And then one more is: Was there any reaction to former President Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s cities are gone, questioning giving more aid to the country while they refuse to make a deal, or this comment that he wants them to win, kind of suggesting that Demo- — he wa- — that he — they want —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — Zelenskyy wants Democrats to win the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I am not going to respond to everything that the former president says, especially since he’s a candidate in this election. 

The president has been very clear to his commitment — not just him but more than 50 nations that are supporting Ukraine in their efforts to fight for their democracy, to fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression. 

And let’s not forget, the president was able to make NATO stronger so that we can be able to continue to do the work that NATO is supposed to do.  And — and an example is what is happening in Ukraine.  And so, that is his focus.  That’s going to be continued. 

What he is going to — you’ll see this today in the bilat that he has with President Zelenskyy.  You saw that this week at the U.N. assembly, when he’s — he met with mult- — he saw multiple leaders, obviously.  He was with multiple leaders and had a couple of opportunities, as we read out to all of you, to — to meet with some of them. 

And so, this is what the president is going to co- — going to focus on, and that’s what we- — I’m going to speak to. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the Zelenskyy meeting, why is it that President Biden and Vice President Harris are holding these meetings separately?  Is the suggestion that one would say something different than the other and that there might be some dueling diplomacy there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s no dueling diplomacy.  It’s not unusual.  The vice president has met with President Zelenskyy separately many times.  Nothing new here. 

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Q    And then critics have said that Zelenskyy’s trip to Pennsylvania was a political stunt.  Did the administration communicate at all with Ukraine on who would be attending that trip or make any effort to make it a bipartisan event?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just lay this down, because I know that there’s been a lot of talk about this.  So, the Ukrainians asked to visit the facility which employs American workers, as you know, who are manufacturing critical supplies that the Ukrainian military is using every day on the front lines of freedom because of its centrality of the — of their — to their country’s continued existence. 

This came from Ukrainian, not us.  This is something that they wanted to do.

After they made that request, DOD did what it has done for years: figure out how to provide transportation for foreign leaders traveling on U.S. soil, which is common, which happens when they come to the U.S.  And the whole world knows this is someone Putin wants dead.  He’s made very clear when it comes to President Zelenskyy. 

Also, just two months ago, President Zelenskyy traveled to Utah and held an event with the Republican governor, a very similar event, and Republican officials were there at that event in Utah.  And there wasn’t a single demand — not one, not one single demand — for an investigation when that occurred a couple months ago in Utah. 

So, this was business as usual for a Ukrainian request during wartime — during wartime.  And so, I — I would encourage — we would encourage the House Republicans to drop this, these kind of — this is a political stunt.  They need to drop this.  And — and anything else, any — I think I gave a lot here, a lot of layou- — good layout of how this all occurred, but anything else specific I would for- — I would certainly refer you to DOD.

Q    Just clarifying, though, that the administration didn’t — or the campaign, I guess, didn’t play a role in determining the guest list, because they’re — they’re claiming that having no Republicans there in a battleground state made it effectively a campaign event.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — this is something that Ukrainians asked for.  They did this a couple months ago in Utah — in Utah with a Republican governor, and Republican elected officials were there as well.  We didn’t hear any type of investigation request when we went to a Republican state.  We didn’t.

Q    On the gun event today.  What kind of gun does the vice president have, and when did she buy it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for her office to speak to. 

Q    The reason I’m asking is because you have this event today, but the VP, as district attorney, sponsored Proposition H in 2005.  It would have banned handguns within San Francisco city limits and required that residents turn in the handguns that they already owned by a certain deadline or face mandatory jail time.  But she’s out on the campaign trail now saying that she’s a proud gun owner and is not going to take away your guns.  So, can the White House get us an answer on that?  Because she hasn’t and her — her campaign officials also haven’t answered that question, even on television. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, a couple of things here.  When it comes to the VP and — and owning a gun, she can speak for herself.  The campaign could speak for that.  Her office can speak for that.  I’m not — that — that’s for — for them to speak to. 

It is not in co- — there is no conflict here when we’re saying that we want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see: responsible gun ownership.  I think that is what’s important here. 

At the end of the day, gun violence is an epidemic in our — in our country.  Think about our schul- — schools, our grocery stores.  It’s an epidemic. 

We have done the work.  We have seen violent crimes go down because of the work that this president and this vice president has done.  There is an office to prevent gun violence, and that is something that she leads. 

But we’re not — we’re asking for responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see.  That’s what’s impartant — important here. 

And if people don’t — don’t want to — don’t understand that, I don’t know how to further even explain that to them. 

Our kids, our schools — there’s an epidemic here.  There’s an epidemic.  There are drills happening in our schools right now — that’s something that the president is going to speak to — that is traumatizing some of our kids because of this epidemic. 

And so, that should be the focus: How do we make sure that we end this epidemic?  We want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see. 

Q    I think the question is not about responsible gun ownership, though.  It’s about, you know, her past position, saying that — supporting a measure that would have required that non-law enforcement or military residents of a city turn in their handguns, so no gun ownership or face possible mandatory jail time, versus what she’s saying now.  And then also not answering the question of her gun ownership.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, that’s something that she’s going to have to speak to.  What I can speak at this moment in this time, what we’ve been trying to do for the last three and a half years is making sure that we are dealing with an epidemic that is existing in our communities, that we see in our schools, that we see in — in grocery stores. 

It is an epidemic here, and what we’re trying to do is prevent gun violence.  And we have seen that go down — we have — because of this work, because of the executive actions, because of a bipartisan legislation that was able to be done under this administration to deal with gun violence, something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years. 

So, there is some bipartisan support here to deal with a responsible way of having gun ownership.  We need to do more here.  We need to do more.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Back on the long-range missiles into Russia.  Our latest reporting is that President Biden has not changed his position on this in part because the Pentagon has assessed it would do very little to change the trajectory of the war.  So, does the president plan to be blunt with Zelenskyy about that assessment today and to give him a yes-or-no answer at least as far as it stands today? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, I’m not expecting any new announcements.  That is something that I’m going to be clear about.  What our focus here is is that we are focused on ensuring — ensuring that Ukraine has what it needs to prevail in this war.  That is the president’s focus. 

That’s what they’re going to continue to discuss about.  That’s what they’re going to — the president is going to continue to support Ukraine on — not just us, the 50-plus countries that the president was able to get together to support Ukraine, making NATO stronger. 

I’m not going to get into any reporting about this.  I’ve been very clear.  And you’re going to see both presidents momentarily in the — in the bilat.  You’ll hear directly from the president.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.

Q    Okay.  And then, following up again on the ceasefire deal in Lebanon.  You said that the statement was coordinated with Israel.  Are you saying that the U.S. has any reason to believe that, despite what we are seeing and despite the public comments, Israel agrees with the U.S.? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I am saying is that they’re g- — discussions continue in New York.  I laid out the facts as they were — as they are and wanted to be very clear about that. 

Let me just — really just read out a couple of things from the joint statement that you all saw from the G7, plus key partners — Middle East ca- — partners:

“The situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023 is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a border — of a broader regional escalation. This is in nobody’s interest, neither of the people of Israel nor of the people of Lebanon. 

It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement that enables civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes in safety. 

Diplomacy however cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.” 

So, we want to see a ceasefire — a 20-day ceasefire.  Those discussions continue.  It was something that we laid out, right?  It was a — a plan that we laid out.  And so, we want to certainly see that move forward and those discussions continue in New York with our teams.

Q    And you’ve made that abundantly clear, but I guess my question is, Israel is not on the list of countries that came up with the proposal or has agreed to it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, you’re right.  It was a G7 —

Q    So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — G7, plus the key Middle East partners that — that put — put forward this — this joint statement last night. 

Q    So, why do you have any reason to believe that they’re going to agree to this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I stated, and you put — pointed this out when you asked me your question: Israel was aware of this statement.  And now — what I can tell you right now, we are having continued discussions.  That is happening with our teams in New York. 

And I’m not going to get into private diplomatic engagement, but I can assure you, these conversations are continuing. 

Q    Thank you, Karine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Just a quick follow-up on that statement that you read.  It refers to the situation as a “situation,” “a conflict,” and an “escalation.”  Do we agree at the White House that what we’re witnessing between Israel and Lebanon right now is, in fact, war?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into semantics from here.  What we know and what we are seeing is that this cannot continue, and we want this to end.  Right?  We want a peaceful solution here. 

I’m no- — I’m just not going to get into semantics from here.

Q    I guess I asked because we’ve heard the president say, as he said multiple times this week, that he wants to avoid a full-scale war —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — an all-out war.  He said it remains a “possibility.”  That’s why they’re pursuing this diplomatic solution. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But, I guess, just for our understanding of what — what that — what an all-out war looks like, versus what we’re witnessing now. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to get into — here’s — here’s what we want to see.  We want to see a 21-day ceasefire to give us the space to have that conversation so that we can have a negotiation to end this.  That’s what we want to see. 

And so, we believe this gives us an opportunity to do this by calling for a 21 ceasefire — 21-day ceasefire, to be more clear. 

And so, it’s important.  It is intolerable what’s happening.  It cannot continue.  For both sides, it cannot continue.  And so, we’re going to do everything in our power.  The president has been very clear to get to that point. 

I think it was important.  It was important to see a joint statement from the G7 and key Middle East partners.  I think it was important to see that.  It is — you see — you see countries coming together and seeing what’s happening.  The tensions need to stop.  We need to get to a ceasefire. 

And so, that is what we’re trying to get to here.  We’re going to continue to have this discussion on getting to that 21-day ceasefire.  That’s continuing in New York.  As you know, UNGA continues — right? — even though we’re back here.  And so, our teams are there.  They’re having those discussion.  They’re doing these diplomatic conversation. 

You hear us talk about it all the time: Dipl- — diplomatic resolution is key, and that’s what we’re trying to get to.  And that’s what I think you can see, the type of movement that you have seen from this president — right? — when he was at UNGA, having conversations with other leaders.  And now we’ve come to a place where we have put this forward, and this is what we believe.  We see this 21-day ceasefire — it gives us the space — it gives us the space to have that conversation. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  I’m going to have another go at the ceasefire. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    So, the White House said that you don’t want to see a wider war, and you wanted to see this 21-day ceasefire.  But yesterday, a senior administration official described this proposal as a “breakthrough.”  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A — a “breakthrough”?

Q    Yeah.  So, what makes you believe that (inaudible) is listening to you when they did not listen to you over maybe 10 months and the White House failed to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas?  The — the party changes.  Now it’s Israel and Hezbollah, as opposed to Israel and Hamas.  So, where do you get this optimism?  When the president always say we are two days away from securing the ceasefire, we’re three days away — until now, you’re unable to secure a ceasefire and release U.S. hostages.  So, where is this optimism coming that both Hezbollah and Israel can listen to the White House? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s the thing.  As I stated, our teams have been in discussion.  The president certainly has been engaging our teams, in particular, with Israel and Lebanon throughout this week.  And based on those conversations — right? — we have had with Israel and Lebanon, and we have had with our partners as well, we felt comfortable in releasing this statement because of those ongoing dialogue, that diplomatic conversation — resolution that we’re trying to get to calling for a ceasefire.

And it is up to the parties to respond.  I mean, it is.  It is up to the parties to respond. 

But we felt comfortable in releasing that statement last night because we have been having those discussions with Lebanon and Israel.

And — but to your point, it is up to the parties to respond.

Now we put out the statement — the joint statement last night.  Conversations continue, discussions continue in New York, and so we’re going to continue to move that way.  But we have to do something, right?  We have to continue to act.  And diplomacy is the way to deal with what we have been seeing. 

Q    I understand.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right.

Q    But does the White House have leverage over either party so we don’t go to a wider war? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re trying to prevent a wider war.  That is what we’ve been working towards for some time, and we have had these discussions with both Israel, with Lebanon, with our — our partners, and we felt comfortable enough to release this statement.  We believe that diplomatic resolution is key here, and we — we can’t stop.  We got to continue to try, right?

But it is up to our partners to respond.  It truly is. 

But just because we released the statement, it doesn’t stop there.  It doesn’t.  So, we’re going to have diplomatic discussions as it’s happening in New York.  It doesn’t stop from last night — releasing this joint statement.  And we’ll see where we get.  We’ll see where we get to.

Q    One — one last question.

Q    Karine —

Q    The number would be in — the people who are being killed in Lebanon is over 600 now, 2,000 wounded.  Do you believe that these are legitimate target, including that the — the number of the dead also are women and children?  And do you believe that Israel still operate within international law?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I can say.  We want to see the tensions end.  We want to see a ceasefire.  That is what we’re — it is — it is not — it’s — what we’re seeing right now — and this is in our statement — it is intolerable, what’s going on right now.  It cannot continue, and it’s not good for either side.  It is just not.  This is why we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution here. 

And you mentioned children and women.  Nobody wants to see that.  We don’t want to see that.  And so, we’re trying to get to a diplomatic solution.  That’s why we called for — you know, we laid out a path, a call for a 21-day ceasefire, and that’s why we’re continuing to have these diplomatic solutions — right? — diplomatic conversations. 

We have to do this.  We have to.  That is the way out of this.

And I know we have to wrap pretty soon.  Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  In response to a criminal complaint filed against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana, in a social media post, described Haitians as, quote, “gangsters” and Haiti as, quote, the “nastiest country in the western hemisphere.”  He has since deleted that post.  CBC Chairman Steven Horsford tried to censure him in the House yesterday.  It was blocked by Republicans.  But what is the White House’s reaction to Higgins’ post and the failed effort to hold him accountable?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I’m not going to speak to House actions and how they go about their business.  That is for them to decide how they’re going to deal with individual congressional members. 

What I will say more broadly — and we have been very clear from here, the president has been clear, the vice president has been clear — I think what we are seeing right now, what we have heard from national leaders about what is going on in Springfield, Ohio — the baseless, baseless lies and conspiracy theories — it’s dangerous and it is false.  And to go after immigrants in that way who have — who are — who are there legally, helping a community economically, who are welcomed in that community, and saying these baseless lies is dangerous. 

And so, what this president and this vice president believes is that we cannot pull apart our communities.  They want to bring together our communities.  That is what you have been seeing over the last three and a half years. 

And conspiracy theories like this are harmful.  And we have seen this already, how dangerous this is, how dangerous this is to go after, in this particulars instance, Haitian migrants who were welcomed in that community.  And it has not just been denounced from us — denounced from the governor of Ohio, denounced by the police department — local police department, the city manager of Springfield.  I mean, on and on, by Republicans, who have denounced this. 

And so, it’s unfortunate that we have national leaders who are playing political stunts and political games.  And so, that is what we’re going to continue to speak to.  We are about bringing our communities together, not tearing them apart. 

Q    Just one more question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Death row inmate Marcellus Williams was executed in Missouri on Tuesday, despite concerns about evidence and jury selection process in his 1998 case.  Despite the St. Louis County prosecutor and the victim’s family requesting that he live, Missouri’s governor, attorney general, and the Supreme Court ultimately failed to intervene. 

Considering this and the president’s stance against the death penalty, what does he personally think of Williams’ execution?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, I can’t speak to this case spe- — specifically.  I can’t do that from here. 

But the president has long talked about his serious concerns about the death penalty as currently implemented and whether it is consistent with the values fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness.  He supports the at- — the attorney general’s decision to issue a moratorium on federal executions while the Department of Justice conducts a comprehensive review of policies and procedures governing the federal death penalty. 

And so, I’ll leave it there. 

I know I got to go.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow up again on the Lebanon.  Is the administration meeting at all with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s in the U.S.?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any meetings to preview.

What I can tell you, as I’ve said multiple times, our teams in New York are meeting.  And so, I will just leave it there.  And — and they’re in regular conversation as it re- — as it relates to the Israeli government.  Our teams here are in regular conversations on a daily — practically daily basis.  And so, the teams are in New York having — having meetings about this particular ceasefire call that we put forward. 

Q    And you mentioned that the efforts doesn’t stop with the announcement last night. 

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

Q    You mentioned that the diplomatic efforts —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it hasn’t.

Q    — has not stopped.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it’s happening right now in New York.

Q    Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    My question is: In order to make it different than, you know, the announcement that obviously President Biden was comfortable in announcing a few months ago on the Gaza ceasefire — in order to make that different than the announcement he made last night with other leaders, would he consider conditioning aid to Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to — to lay out beyond the statement that you saw from not just us, the G- — the G7 leaders and also key Middle East partners as well.  Don’t have anything beyond that. 

That has that — we have not changed, obviously, our position on that.  We want to have a diplomatic resolution.  That is what we have been saying for some time now, and this is one of the ways that we want to go — move forward on this.

Q    Just very briefly also on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — on Afghanistan.  The Taliban have formally sought to join the upcoming BRICS Summit.  What is the administration’s stance on the Taliban’s bid to join BRICS?  And how do you assess the geopolitical implications of Taliban’s growing ties with China and Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves here.  But we have been very clear that we judge the Taliban by what they do, not by what they say.  We’ve been very consistent about that. 

The Taliban want international legitimacy, to be removed from sanction lists, and foreign financing to restart the Afghan economy.  These aspirations require the Taliban to live up to their commitments.  At minimum, Afghanistan cannot strengthen its economy unless women are able to participate in all aspect of society without limitations. 

So, we will continue to engage with the Taliban on matters of our interest, for example, on respect for the rights of women and girls and the return of wrongfully detained U.S. citizens.  And that’s how we’re going to move forward with them. 

All right.  We got to go?

AIDE:  Yeah.  

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.

1:37 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:33 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good evening, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining, especially on such short notice.  As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials.  The contents of this call are embargoed until the completion of the call.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official]. 

We have limited time, so I’ll turn it over to [senior administration officials] for a few words at the top and then take as many questions as we can.

[Senior administration officials], I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Eduardo.  Thanks, all, for joining.  And again, I know it’s a late evening and short notice, so appreciate it. 

Over the last 48 hours or so, the President and senior advisors have been engaging with the parties in the conflict along the Israel-Lebanon Blue Line and with partners around the world — both partners in the Gulf and the Middle East, as well as with partners in Europe and Asia — to reach a consensus for a call for a ceasefire that you have seen that we are issuing tonight. 

The ceasefire will be for 21 days, along the Blue Line.  During those 21 days, the parties — we will negotiate towards a potential resolution of the conflict that has been ongoing since Hezbollah launched the attack on October 8th, and to reach a comprehensive agreement along the Blue Line that allows for residents to return to their homes in both Lebanon and Israel. 

This has been an all-out effort by the administration to reach this moment.  We are grateful to both the Israelis and Lebanese government in working tirelessly to get to this moment. 

This is a call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.  During those 21 days, while we’re negotiating in Lebanon and Israel, we will also work with our partners on seeing what we have done over the last several months consistently.  And I’ll let [senior administration official] talk about the negotiations in Gaza. 

But the 21-day ceasefire, I want to stress, is for a ceasefire in Lebanon and across the Blue Line only.  The discussions towards a potential full agreement along the Blue Line will be accompanied also by negotiations in Gaza. 

And I’ll turn it over to [senior administration official] for comment on that. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, thank you.  Just briefly to reemphasize, I think this is a very important statement joined by — together with the G7 and together with three of our very close Arab partners with important interests in Lebanon.

As you will see, there is a reference in the joint statement to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2735, which relates to Gaza.  That resolution, just for awareness and reminder, is the three-phase hostage deal that the President laid out in May.  That is what that Security Council resolution emphasized. 

And of course we recognize, and the statement says explicitly, that opening up diplomatic space for these 21 days to pursue the agreement in Lebanon, of course we hope that it might also open up diplomatic space as well to galvanize efforts on the very important primary effort we have to bring the hostages home. 

So that references the three-phase deal that we’ve been working on.  But this is an important breakthrough on the Lebanon side, given all that has gone on there, particularly over the last few weeks.  But, you know, we will try to use the space that it provides wisely on all fronts.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  With that, we have time for a couple of questions.  First up, we’ll go to Zeke Miller. 

Q    Thanks so much.  You just called this a breakthrough.  What assurances do you have from the Israelis and from the Lebanese government and Hezbollah that they will actually accept this temporary ceasefire and that you can actually get a sustainable period of calm, that you can have that diplomatic space that you say you need?  I mean, are you prematurely declaring victory here?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the parties are going to respond for themselves to the call, but I can share that we have had this conversation with the parties and felt this was the right moment to issue the call based on our discussions.  They are familiar with the text.  And again, we’ll let them speak to their actions of accepting the deal in the coming hours.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of MJ Lee.

Q    Hi.  Can you talk to us a little bit about why 21 days?  And also, when you were saying before, “We will negotiate towards” a comprehensive agreement, do you expect that the U.S. will be —

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Can you speak up a little bit?  It’s hard to hear you — if you don’t mind. 

Q    Yeah.  When you say “We will negotiate towards” a comprehensive agreement, do you expect that the U.S. is going to be as heavily engaged as you all have been for the duration of those three weeks as you have been in the last couple of days?

And my first question was if you could explain how you got to 21 days for the duration of this recommended ceasefire.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  We — 21 days, really, is we were looking for a period of time that would be a sustained space that was long enough to allow for negotiations in a realistic basis to be able to reach a complicated agreement during that period of time.  So that’s why 21 days.  There’s no real magic formula to it.  It was something that we felt was long enough to sustain it and one that the parties could agree to. 

Second, on the negotiations: Look, over the last several months, since October 8th, we have been engaging consistently with the parties in Lebanon and in Israel to see what we can do to articulate an outline, an agreement that would enable returning to calm and security along that line.  And it was always going to have to be more than just a ceasefire, because it would be unacceptable for Israeli residents to return to their homes in the north if there weren’t security arrangements on the Lebanese side that prevented Hezbollah from sitting on the border and ensuring that they were secure from a October 7th-like attack in the future. 

So, we have had those discussions for quite some time.  We expect to build on those — on the premise of the conversation we’ve had over the last few months, and to turn that into a comprehensive agreement. 

Again, that is the space that we’re creating with this ceasefire.  And then, no guarantees, but we’re hopeful that this will give us the time necessary to achieve it. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just emphasize: The objective is an agreement, along the lines that we’ve been working on, that would give citizens and civilians the confidence, the security arrangements to return to their homes.  That’s an objective we very much share with the Israelis.  We want to see civilians return on both sides of the border.  And the objective is to conclude that agreement within this 21-day period.

MODERATOR:  We have time for two more questions.  Next up, we’ll go to Alex Ward.

Q    Yeah, very quickly, are you now (inaudible) that Israel’s strategy of escalate to deescalate worked because it led to this moment?  And I’ll leave it that.  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, we have been clear for a long time that we want to identify moments of opportunity to be able to reach a resolution here.  We have consistently said that, ultimately, a solution to bringing the residents home safely and having the security for a long period of time would only be achievable through a diplomatic solution. 

We believe, regardless of what has happened on the battlefield over the last several days, weeks, the moment we feel is now to achieve that diplomatic resolution to get there.  Military means on their own will not be able to achieve that.  That has been our publicly stated policy, and I think both sides agree with that notion, which is why we are, today, at the moment that we’re in.

MODERATOR:  Our last question will go to David Sanger.

Q    Thanks very much.  I’m trying to understand who you think is going to agree to the 21-day ceasefire.  Do we believe the Hezbollah leadership and Nasrallah is behind this?  Or do we believe, in the end, that he would not sign up for it?  And who would then — what are you hearing from the Israeli government specifically on this? 

What I’m trying to get at is how strongly we should all suggest in our stories that this is going to come to pass and why you think, if it does, it builds you some momentum for Gaza.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, I’ll let [senior administration official] answer the last piece on Gaza. 

But, look, we negotiate consistently.  We negotiate and we deal with the sovereign state of Lebanon, with its leadership.  We have been doing that for months.  For the last 48 hours, we have been doing that non-stop, all day and night. 

They are responsible in speaking for the state of Lebanon and for everything that happens on that side of the border.  Who they negotiate with and deal with as far as the non-state actors in Lebanon, that is — I think they’re aware of the responsibility that they have to speak on behalf of the country, for the state. 

So I think you know how this works.  So our expectation is when the government of Lebanon and when the government of Israel both accept this, this will carry and — to be implemented as a ceasefire on both sides of the Blue Line for the period of the 21 days. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say, David, on — again, this is a deal about Lebanon, so how could it poss- — might it impact the hostage talks?  I don’t want to speculate too much.  I will say a couple things. 

I mean, Sinwar, we know he’s a decision-maker for Hamas.  Obviously, we’ve seen throughout the hostage talks, everything has to go into him.  He also wants a regional war.  That’s something he has basically said in a statement two weeks ago, praising the Houthi ballistic missile attack.  He talked about a long-term war of attrition.  I think he’s been hoping that there’d be a broader, kind of regional conflict and all these other groups would join in.  And frankly, we’ve done an awful lot — an awful lot over the last 11 months to ensure that actually does not happen.  We’ve done that through military means, through diplomatic means, through back-channels and everything else. 

And I think buying some time and space in Lebanon, and particularly if we can conclude this very important agreement — which would benefit the people on both sides of the border, and I think we have a lot of that worked out — it would buy us some time and space to try to pursue an arrangement in Gaza along the lines of the hostage deal we’ve been discussing. 

And if Sinwar understands there is not going to be a broader regional conflict, there really is a choice here: You do the deal, release the hostages, and you get an awful lot of calm in Gaza.  That deal is on the table.  It means that the war stops in Gaza.  It means massive humanitarian relief.  Everything we talked about, that’s very much on the table, kind of ready to go, if we can work out some of the arrangements on the release of hostages and exchange of prisoners. 

So, I mean, we’ll have to see.  But I think this does — it does shake things up, and we’ll try to use the time and space — and that’s why the statement talks about diplomatic space — wisely, again, focused primarily on Lebanon, but we’ll see if it opens up some possibilities on the Gaza side, because we do need to bring the hostages home, and we remain very focused on that. 

I’d say the President, throughout the week here in New York, was focused on this constantly in almost every conversation he had with world leaders.  We had a very important pull-aside this afternoon with President Macron of France, where the President — the two presidents and our teams were able to work out some of the arrangements that we were discussing here throughout the day. 

And of course, President Biden and President Macron issued a joint statement tonight, commensurate with the broader statement by the G7, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. 

So, a lot going on.  Of course, the President remains deeply engaged in this as the days continue, including as we continue the week here in New York.  The President is back in Washington; we’re all here with Tony Blinken, the whole team, to continue to work.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  That’s all the time we have for today.  We’re glad to take your follow-up questions as they come.

As a reminder, this call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and the embargo is now lifted.  Thanks so much for joining.

9:48 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on the Situation on the Border Between Israel and Lebanon appeared first on The White House.

3:44 P.M. EDT
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hey, guys.  Sorry —
 
Q    Hey!
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — for the delay.  How’s everybody doing?
 
Q    How are you?
 
Q    Good.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  As you all know, we’re on our way to New York City and tomorrow President Biden will attend the 79th meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. 
 
When President Biden came to office nearly four years ago, he pledged to restore American leadership on the world stage. 
 
The president’s engagements at UNGA this week will reflect his vision for the world, where countries come together to solve big problems.  And it will be an opportunity for him to reaffirm how this approach has pro- — produced results for the American people and for the world. 
 
Tomorrow morning, the president will deliver an address to the U.N. General Assembly outlining his vision for how the world should come together to resolve these big problems and defend fundamental principles, such as the U.N. Charter. 
 
Throughout his engagements in New York, the president will rally global action to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges, including climate change; the opioid epidemic; mobilizing resources for developing countries; managing the risk and benefits of artificial intelligence; and helping end the brutal wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan; among many others — on the many other critical — critically important issues.
 
With that, Aamer?
 
Q    So, what — what kind of, sort of, I guess, work on the Hezbollah aspect of ending the war in the Middle East has been going on in addressing the speech? 
 
And then, I think, just also largely, 270 people, I think, at least, died today in Lebanon.  Huge swaths of the south are being told to move.  Is this an all-out war now?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as it relates to just the escalation that we’re seeing currently in the Middle East, look, we’re concerned.  You heard that from the president yesterday when he talked to some of your colleagues when asked the question. 
 
The risk of escalation is real.  And so, we continue to believe a diplomatic resolution is both achievable and urgent.  Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad and unwavering against all Iran-backed threats, including Hezbollah. 
 
The conflict along the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah has gone on for long enough.  It’s in — it’s in — it’s in everyone’s interest to resolve it quickly and diplomatically, and that’s where we’ve been.  That’s what we continue to say.  We need to see a diplomatic resolution.  That’s what the president is going to continue to call for. 
 
That’s why we’ve been working around the clock on the ceasefire deal, the — that hostage deal — yes, get hostages home; yes, get that increase of — of aid into Gaza; and to stop the war. 
 
But we believe that by doing that, it would certainly help with the tensions in the region.  And so, a diplomatic resolution — that’s what we’re going to continue to work towards. 
 
Q    The address itself, are we going to see a huge sort of focus on the Blue Line?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, look, I’m not going to get ahead of the president.  I kind of laid out a little bit of broad strokes of what the president is going to focus on, but I’m going to let him obviously speak to this. 
 
I talked about the importance of working together to end the wars that we’re seeing.  Right?  I talked about Gaza.  I talked about Ukraine and also Sudan. 
 
And so, obviously, the president will lay out his vision, his — his thinking, and I — it will be an important moment.  So, as I like to say: Stay tuned. 
 
Q    What — what will he say about Ukraine in terms of, you know, the — the increasing support for Ukraine?  You’ve got Zelenskyy coming, who’s going to present a peace plan.  The president is going to meet with him Thursday. 
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.
 
Q    What will he — how — what — talk about that piece.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as far as it relates to Thursday, the president certainly is looking forward to sitting down, having that bilat with President Zelenskyy when he comes to the White House.  I expect the leaders will discuss the state of the war and the latest development on the battlefield and the United States’ strong support for Ukraine and its defense against Russia aggression — Russian aggression. 
 
So, we have been particularly focused over the last two months on helping Ukraine strengthen their air defenses and protect its energy grid against Russian strikes.  The president is also looking forward to hearing from President Zelenskyy about the strategic planning for the months ahead. 
 
The president and the vice p- — and the vice president have been clear that their commitment to stand with Ukraine until it prevails in the war is unshakable.  And so, I expect you’ll hear more of that on Thursday. 
 
And so, I think that — that’ll certainly be the focus: our continued engagement, our continued support for Ukraine and their, kind of, thinking as well as it relates to the peace plan.
 
So, look, we’ve al- — we’ve been very clear when it comes to that particular issue.  We support Ukraine’s pursuit of a just, lasting, and c- — comprehensive peace to this war.  And the president is committed to providing the Ukrainian military with the equipment they need to strengthen their position. 
 
And so, we — you know, on that particular subject, though, the — we have not been fully briefed on that, and so — on President Zelenskyy’s victory plan, to be specific.  And so, I don’t want to get ahead of that. 
 
So, our understanding is President Ze- — Zelenskyy intends to share further details about the plan with us soon.  And so, we’re — we look forward to — to having those discussions. 
 
Q    And — and just one more thing.  This is his last time to — to appear before this — the body as president.  Is he going to have a lot of pull-asides with different world leaders?  What — what are you expecting there?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, you know, at these types of — of gatherings, summits, there tends to be some pull-asides.  So, we’ll certainly read that out if tho- — if they do happen.  You know, those kind of happen on the ground, spontaneously.  So, you know, we’ll see what happens. 
 
I would say NSC is going to be giving a — a backgrounder later — later this afternoon, I believe, around 5:30.  So, they’ll certainly share more of what you all can expect the president’s — kind of what the president is going to be doing, what we’re going to be doing more broadly for UNGA this week.  But —
 
Q    Given the rising tensions — or what’s going on in the Middle East, specifically Lebanon, I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu will be giving remarks at the U.N. as well.  Can we expect any sort of — maybe a phone call with President Biden, meeting, just given the — what’s going on in Lebanon?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is that, as you know, the president and the — the prime minister have a long-standing — decades — long-standing relationship.  They are able to — because of that decades-long relationship, they’re able to have those really direct conversations.  And so, I — and they have spoken, gosh, more than a dozen times easily — and I might be undercounting that — over the past — almost a year now since — certainly, after what we saw happen on October 7th last year. 
 
I don’t have anything right now to share about any — any conversation, any calls.  But certainly, our team — our team here at the White House are in regular conversations, regular discussions on a daily basis — regular basis with the Israeli government. 
 
Q    President Trump earlier, like right before we took off, said that China is not living up to the Phase One agreement.  I was just wondering if the White House has any comment to —
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to comment on —
 
Q    Okay.
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — on what he’s saying as a candidate.
 
Q    On engagements, the Iranian delegation is in town.  Are there going to be any conversations between them and American officials and on what? 
 
And then, secondly, President Biden has supported U.N. Security Council enlargement to include two African countries but does not want to give them veto power.  And they’re asking: How is that fair?  Can I ask you to explain that?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, you just said what the president has supported.  And so, I’ll just leave it there.  I talked at the top about his — the continuing support for the U.N., obviously, Security Council.  I — I’m not going to get ahead of that. 
 
I will say, though, as I stated, NSC is going to have — is going to be holding a press call later this afternoon.  They’ll certainly share more about your first part of your question.  I just don’t have anything to share as to any other engagements right now at this time, but NSC will certainly share more.
 
Q    And, Karine, more generally about this — UNGA.  A
lot — you know, part of the legacy of the — the president, in terms of foreign relations, would be at risk if Donald Trump is elected president.  And we hear concerns by foreign leaders about the election.  So, is the president going to address these concerns?  And what will he tell those foreign leaders who are worried about what happens in November?
 
MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m — it’s a — this is a campaign-related question, so I’m not going to certainly dive into that.
 
But I will say — and obviously, the — each country can speak to — for themselves.  But as it relates to the president’s legacy, I mean, this is a president who has been able to accomplish — as we talk about, maybe, the last administration — right? — reaffirm American leadership at the U.N. and restore America’s standing on the world stage.  That’s the — something he’s been able to do for almost four years. 
 
And if you think about reinvigorating and strengthening NATO, that’s something that th- — this president did with his leadership.  Forge historic partnerships in Indo-Pacific.  Built a global coalition in support of Ukraine.  Invested at home to outcompete China.  And he looks forward to building on that progress this week.
 
And so, I’m just not going to dive in- — into the politics of November. 
 
3:53 P.M. EDT

The post Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre En Route Queens, NY appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

5:33 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  This is Michael Feldman with the NSC press team.  Just as a reminder for today’s call, it is on background and attributable to senior administration officials.  The call is also under embargo until 5:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time tomorrow morning.

For awareness and not for attribution, on today’s call we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].  I will now turn the call over to [senior administration official] to give some opening remarks.  Over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Excellent.  Thank you.  And good evening, everybody.  We’re very excited for the President’s trip to this year’s U.N. General Assembly, the last one of his presidency. 

So, at meetings at the U.N. this week, we’re going to get a lot of business done for the American people.  The President, the Secretary of State, other Cabinet officials, and even some members of Congress are here in New York to advocate for our country’s interests and values. 

At the General Assembly, the President will do what he has done throughout his presidency: rally global action to tackle some of our world’s biggest challenges.  So, for example, he’ll be talking this week about the climate crisis and the environment.  We’ll be talking about the need to strengthen our systems for providing humanitarian assistance; to end brutal wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan; and we’ll also be talking about the implications of new technologies such as artificial intelligence. 

When President Biden came to office nearly four years ago, he pledged to restore American leadership on the world stage.  And given that this is the President’s last General Assembly, it’s a chance for him to talk about how this approach has produced results, real achievements for the American people and for the world. 

The President’s engagements this week reflect his vision for a world where countries come together to solve big problems.  This stands in contrast to some of our competitors, who have a more cynical and transactional worldview, one where countries interpret their self-interest very narrowly and don’t work together for the common good. 

An overarching theme at this year’s General Assembly will be the need to reform and strengthen our global institutions, including the U.N., to make them more effective and inclusive.  And that’s been a big theme of the U.N. Secretary-General’s Summit for the Future, the marquee event at high-level week this year. 

Last week, President Biden released a video message ahead of the summit.  I encourage you all watch it.  You can find it on the Web.  In the video, the President spoke about using this moment to reaffirm our commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  And he talked about pushing for a stronger, more effective United Nations and a reformed and expanded Security Council.  And he also talked about our efforts, investing billions in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and building on the global consensus that we achieved last spring in the United Nations General Assembly on principles for the use of artificial intelligence. 

We’re going into a General Assembly this year with the world facing many steep challenges, problems so big no one country can solve them on their own, but that’s why the President feels so strongly the world needs strong and effective global institutions, including an adapted United Nations.  This is his vision of countries working together.  It has been a theme of his presidency and an important part of his legacy. 

Let me just briefly note the President’s key engagements, and then I’ll turn over to my colleague to discuss the major event that he’s hosting on the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats. 

On Tuesday morning, tomorrow, he will deliver and address to the U.N. General Assembly.  It will have many of the themes that I’ve mentioned here and talk about — again, some of the achievements of his approach to the United Nations and global cooperation. 

The President will also meet tomorrow with U.N. Secretary-General Guterres to talk about how the United States and the United Nations are working together to advance peace, safeguard human rights, and help countries develop. 

On Tuesday afternoon, the President will host a summit of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, and I’ll turn over to my colleague in a second to talk about that. 

The President is also giving a major address later that afternoon on the urgent need to combat climate change. 

On Wednesday, the President will meet with the President of Vietnam, To Lam.  The President of Vietnam just came into office four months ago, and this meeting will be an important opportunity for the two leaders to talk about our shared interest in stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia. 

The President will also attend, that afternoon, a meeting focused on Ukraine reconstruction with other world leaders. 

And then on Wednesday evening, at the Met, the President will host world leaders and senior U.N. officials for a reception. 

This is just a small slice of all the diplomacy and business that we’re doing here at the U.N. General Assembly.  There’ll be high-level meetings on the future of multilateral cooperation, sea level rise, antimicrobial resistance.  Really, every big, major challenge will be addressed here, and we’ll have senior U.S. representatives at all of these main events on issues such as the impact of emerging technology and specific meetings on global crises such as the difficult situation in Haiti, Sudan, Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria, and the Rohingya refugee crisis. 

Other U.S.-hosted and U.S.-attended side events will focus on climate; scaling clean energy for Africa; a major core group meeting of countries committed to LGBTQ rights that was attended by the First Lady; and partnering for a lead-free future. 

So, again, this is just a small slice of everything that is going on, plus the countless private sector and civil society events focusing on the great challenges of the 21st century. 

So, as I mentioned, we’re going to use this high-level week, the President’s last U.N. General Assembly, to get as much done for the American people in the coming days.

I’d like to now turn over to my colleague who will discuss the President’s summit on the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks so much, and thanks to all of you for joining this call. 

I wanted to share with you the exciting news that, on Tuesday, President Biden will, as [senior administration official] already said, host a summit of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.  This is a coalition that President Biden launched in June 2023 to mobilize international action to tackle the synthetic drug crisis. 

In just over one year, this global coalition has grown to include 158 countries and 15 international organizations working together to prevent the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs, to detect emerging drug threats, and to promote effective public health interventions. 

With the summit as a motivating force, we now have 11 core coalition countries that will be joining the President tomorrow, and they will be announcing new initiatives that will continue to advance the work of the coalition, including work to prevent, detect, and disrupt the supply chain of synthetic drugs. 

It’s important to emphasize that these international efforts complement intensive work that’s already been done and is being done domestically, including an increased focus on coordinated disruption of drug trafficking networks and concerted efforts to make the opioid overdose reversal medication, naloxone, widely available over the counter. 

These are just some of a wide array of actions that the Biden-Harris administration has taken to tackle the synthetic drug threats. 

And as a result of these efforts, we’re starting to see the largest drop in overdose deaths in recorded history.  When President Biden and Vice President Harris came into office, the number of drug overdose deaths was increasing by more than 30 percent year over year.  Now we have the latest provisional data released from the Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, showing an unprecedented decline in overdose deaths of roughly 10 percent from April 2023 to April 2024.

But there’s a lot more to be done, and the Global Coalition’s work recognizes that we need a global solution to a global problem. 

We are thrilled that we have so many countries coming together tomorrow to celebrate the work of the coalition, and we also will be announcing a new pledge that all of the core coalition members will be announcing — will be signing on to tomorrow, and we will be working over the coming months to ensure that all coalition members sign on to this pledge. 

And we truly think that this is a reflection of President Biden’s commitment to work both domestically and globally on the most important challenges that we face, recognizing that we need both domestic action and global action working together. 

And with that, I’ll turn it back to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Michael.  I’ll turn it back to you. 

MODERATOR:  All right.  Thank you, [senior administration officials].  All right, with that, we will take some questions. 

The first question is going to go to Zeke Miller.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    Thanks so much for doing this.  You mentioned this is the President’s last U.N. of his presidency.  He’s going to deliver remarks to the General Assembly tomorrow.  Can you give us a preview, potentially, of what his message will be?  And will it be different from his prior remarks, in the sense — you know, obviously, world events have changed, but, you know, with an eye towards his legacy?  Or is there some message he’s trying to give on the world stage before he leaves office in January?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You know, the themes I — thanks, Zeke.  The themes I previewed at the beginning will be really central to the President.  So, again, he came into office four years ago with a vision of America returning to the world stage, having a new way of interacting with other countries, bringing countries together to solve some of these big challenges.  This will be a good opportunity for him to look at the results that have been achieved. 

We live in a world with many problems, with many divisions, but we have a story to tell about what we’ve done to rally the world to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty, uphold principles of the U.N. Charter; what we’ve done to manage responsibly our competition with other countries including China; and also what we’re doing to deal with the ongoing and serious conflicts in our world in places like Gaza, where the President has worked tirelessly to get a hostage ceasefire deal, and conflicts like Sudan, where you have absolutely unprecedented displacement and a really serious crisis that we think needs to get more attention. 

So I think that will be the frame, and I’ll leave the details for the President’s speech tomorrow.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you very much.  Our next question is going to go to Asma Khalid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Yes.  Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  Similarly, sort of on the speech, could I get a sort of broad, I guess, framework or tone that you all are thinking about?  I know you say that the President came into office talking about building international coalitions, wanting to rebuild the United States stature on the world, but this is a really different moment than when the President even gave the speech last year, before October 7th.  He is now leaving office, and there are multiple sort of intractable problems right now in the world.  And can you just kind of give us any sense of tone in how the President is thinking about that and the very limited time he has left to solve them?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Asma.  Look, I think it’s a good question.  The world has changed.  The world has gotten more difficult in many ways, as you noted. 

But, you know, as I said, the President came into office with a vision of how countries need to work together, how they need to work through institutions, how they need to partner to solve big global challenges.  And the fact that we do have these challenges, the fact that we do have Gaza, the fact that we do have Ukraine and Sudan, still serious issues in our world, just underscores the need for that kind of cooperation.  And I think you’ll hear that in his speech. 

Yes, he’ll talk about the significant accomplishments, achievements of his approach, but also talk about how we need the spirit, we need to continue working together to solve these big challenges, whether it is the wars you mentioned or other challenges such as the climate crisis or managing the implications of some of the new technologies. 

So I think this will be an important moment to say: Where do we go and what are the principles in which we’re going to solve these problems?  Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Our next question is going to go to Paris Huang.  You should be able to unmute yourself. 

Q    All right.  Hi.  Thank you, Michael.  Thank you, [senior administration official].  Two-parts question.  So, kind of follow up on the questions from Zeke and Asma.  So, of course, we know China and Russia have been heavily influencing the U.N. for years.  You know, we see all those voting records.  And President Biden have been doing a lot of reform during the four years.  Does he believe that those changes will sustain after he leaves the White House?

And second question: In last year’s UNGA remarks, President Biden talked about the peace and stability of Taiwan Strait, which was the first time a U.S. president actually talked about Taiwan at the UNGA.  So, will he include Taiwan again in his remarks this year?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  And I appreciate the question.  I think it’s a good question in terms of, you know, have we left the United Nations as an institution better off.  I think we do have results, and the President will talk about that.  You know, it’s a time of great divisions, and the U.N. has already been — has always been a reflection of the world as it is. 

That said, when you look at what we’ve done, including through the United Nations, to, for example, rally the world to defend the U.N. Charter after the Ukrainian invasion, we secured a U.N. General Assembly resolution in which 141 countries stood up and said, “We condemn this, and we stand in favor of the U.N. Charter.”

You’ve also seen a more progressive and forward-leaning position on institutional reform.  For example, two years ago, the President announced a shift and a more forward-leaning position in reforming and expanding the United Nations Security Council.  And that’s definitely a piece of this well as well. 

I won’t get into the details on, you know, specifically what he’ll mention on individual issues, but I will say that an important part of the President’s legacy has been thinking about how we responsibly manage our competition with China, and that includes many facets, economic security, and those will be addressed in the speech.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Our next question is going to go to Sheryl Gay Stolberg.  You should be able to unmute yourself, Sheryl.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for doing this call.  You know, this is not a political speech, but it does occur in the context of an election in which one of the candidates has an isolationist vision that is far apart, diametrically opposed to that of the President.  And I’m wondering, to what extent can the President use this speech to ensure that his own vision of global alliances survives?  Is he concerned that that vision will unravel?

And will this speech be in any way directed to the American people, as much as to world leaders, as a reminder of the importance of America’s place in the world?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, as you said, this is not a political speech, but the President, again, he has a vision.  He came into a vision — into office.  That vision has produced results.  And there are many opponents and critics of that vision, not just internationally but at home.  It has been the President’s view that he needs to explain why this vision of working together with countries to solve these big challenges actually produces results, and that’s actually how we’re going to be measured. 

And when I say “produces results,” that means internationally, in terms of ending war, in terms of tackling challenges like sustainable development, the debt crisis, climate, but it also means that he needs to explain how his vision has produced results for the American people.  And that’s where I think there’s a very strong record, and some of it is very, very tangible. 

For example, the summit on the coalition on synthetic drugs, that is him bringing together countries, all of whom share a challenge — dealing with synthetic drugs — but convening them here, talking about deliverables, talking about how we’re going to work together.  And this is something that directly affects the situation of the American public, as my colleague briefed earlier, in terms of the overall record on issues like fentanyl. 

So I think he’ll lay that out tomorrow, and I think it will stand as representing that vision and what it’s achieved.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  We will go to Danny Kemp.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thanks very much for doing this.  I just wanted to ask about the current situation in the Middle East.  I mean, you know, the speech tomorrow is really going to be a bit overshadowed by the events in Lebanon, where we’ve seen nearly 500 people killed in the space of a day.  How’s he going to address that?  And more particularly, how will the President be seeking to — will he be talking to other leaders about that?  What’s he actually going to be doing at the UNGA more generally to try and get this thing sorted out?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is one of the advantages of the U.N. General Assembly: You literally have the whole world here.  So when you do have crises of the day, they’ll be addressed.  And I have no doubt that the situation in the Middle East will be an important theme in a lot of the meetings, not just that the President has, but other senior U.S. officials who will be convening to talk about various aspects of the crisis and what we can do to stabilize the situation. 

He will address the Middle East, especially this very, very difficult year that we have all gone through.  And again, I think it’s an opportunity to talk about what we have achieved and what we still need to do, given a situation that is just heartbreaking where hostages have not been returned, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and, as you know, just such a sensitive issue, such a delicate and dangerous situation between Israel and Lebanon right now.

Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  And unfortunately, that is all the time we have today.  Thank you all for joining this call.  Thank you to our speakers.  And feel free to follow up with our team at the NSC press team with any questions. 

And again, this call is under embargo until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow.  Thank you all again, and hope you have a great rest of your evening.

5:53 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call on President Biden’s Engagements at UNGA appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

9:47 A.M. EDT

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Hi.  Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today’s press call to preview President Biden’s speech at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum tomorrow and on the pre- — and on the Biden-Harris administration’s historic efforts to combat climate change.

As a reminder, this call will be on the record and embargoed until today at 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

The call will begin with on-the-record remarks from Senior Adviser to the President and White House Director of Communications Ben LaBolt, White House National Climate Adviser Ali Zaidi, and Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta.

Afterwards, we will have an — a question-and-answer period.

With that, I will turn it over to Ben.

MR. LABOLT:  Thanks, Angelo, and good morning, everybody.

President Biden is fresh off his Quad Summit, where he showcased his continued leadership on the world stage by bringing our allies together to cooperate on — on major cross-border issues.  He just delivered a major speech last Thursday on the economic progress we’ve seen under — under this administration.  And later today, he’s heading to New York to the U.N. General Assembly.

He’s got a busy schedule in New York, and you’ll see him lay out his vision for continued U.S. leadership on the world stage, including renewed cooperation to address shared global challenges such as confronting the climate crisis.

And as the president continues to sprint to the finish line, tomorrow, as part of Climate Week, he’ll deliver remarks highlighting his and Vice President Harris’ leadership to tackle the climate crisis.

His speech tomorrow at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum will showcase just how transformational this administration has been in helping to meet all of our climate, conservation, and clean energy goals — from reducing emissions and moving in the long term to a net-zero economy, to mobilizing private-sector investments in domestic manufacturing, to protecting our lands and waters, and so much more.

And of course, through each of those important goals, also making significant in pro- — progress along the way to lower families’ energy costs; create good-paying union job; and ultimately leave for our children and grandchildren a stronger, healthier planet.

Ali and John will share a bit more about the president’s domestic and international climate legacy in just a moment, but I want to take a moment to highlight how important the stakes are and why the president’s efforts have been essential in making sure we stay on track for our climate goals.

If, as the science demands, we are going to meet the president’s goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050 and of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, then we’ve got to keep the pedal to the metal on our climate efforts.  We cannot afford to delay or to go back. 

We’re seeing the impacts the climate crisis is having on our communities every day.  Yet as cities are flooding or on fire or under extreme heat watches or trapped in a cloud of smog, many congressional Republicans continue to deny the very existence of climate change.

And it’s not just talk.  Congressional Republicans are taking action right now that would roll back investments in climate, clean energy, and public health.

In this session alone, congressional Republicans’ efforts to gut climate protections are being pushed through a variety of avenues, including appropriations bills, Congressional Review Act resolutions, and other legislative actions, which would have a devastating impact on families, the economy, and the environment. 

From undermining clean vehicle tax credits to attacking cost-saving efficiency standards, they continue to side with special interests to keep consumer energy prices high.

During this session, congressional Republicans have advanced legislation to repeal new programs from President Biden’s Investing in America agenda that are helping families save hundreds of dollars each year on energy costs, including attacking new rebate programs for energy-efficient home upgrades and programs that support residential solar projects in low-income communities.

After the president’s historic work to enhance public health protections and strengthen pollution standards, congressional Republicans are working to weaken those protections, which would harm their constituents’ lives and livelihoods.

They’ve introduced resolutions that would roll back the administration’s rules that protect communities from coal plants’ water pollution, air pollution, and waste disposal.  They’re working to overturn lifesaving rules under the Clean Air Act that reduce pollution from power plants, cars, trucks, and indus- — and industrial sources.  And they’re failing to protect the health of mine workers, including by trying to block new rules that protect coal and other miners from toxic exposures.

With more than 42 million acres already conserved, President Biden is on track to conserve more lands and waters than any modern president has in four years.  But congressional Republicans are attempting to roll back protections for our nation’s outdoor treasures and open up our lands and waters to increased irresponsible development.

They’re trying to eliminate presidential authority to establish national monuments altogether.  They’re also trying to dismantle President Biden’s America the Beautiful initiative, which is supporting locally led conservation efforts across the country, and to overturn the administration’s Public Lands Rule that will help conserve wildlife habitat, restore places impacted by wildfire and drought, expand outdoor recreation, and guide thoughtful and balanced development.

They’re supporting legislation and other appropriations vehicles that would undo protections for 13 million acres of special areas in the Western Arctic and dismantle efforts to protect the U.S. Arctic Ocean and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from new oil and gas leasing.

The Biden-Harris administration successfully finalized the first updates in decades to hold oil and gas companies accountable and ensure they provide fair returns to taxpayers, but congressional Republicans are seeking to overturn these overdue reforms.

And just to put a finer point on it: Since President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, congressional Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal all or parts of the largest and most impactful climate legislation in history.

Yet even though most Republicans are in lock- — lockstep in this approach, some are starting to change their tune.  Last month, 18 House Republicans sent a letter to Speaker Johnson asking him not to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act.

Perhaps it’s because President’s Biden’s policies are leading to more than 330,000 new clean energy jobs already created, more than half of which are in Republican-held districts.

It also might be because they’re starting to realize that jacking up families’ energy prices, weakening pollution protections, and slowing our clean energy transition are unpopular back home.

Whatever the reason, it’s obvious that the contrast between President Biden and Kamala Harris’ policies with those of congressional Republicans couldn’t be clearer.

This coming Climate Week and for every week thereafter, this president and his team will continue to work on behalf of the American people to protect our planet, lower energy costs, create good-paying jobs, and do what’s needed to ensure that our grandchildren can experience a planet with clean air and drinkable water.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to the president’s national climate adviser, Ali Zaidi.

MR. ZAIDI:  Thanks so much to everybody for joining.

We are five years into what the UNFCCC declared as the “decisive decade for climate action.”  Tomorrow, President Biden will deliver the decisive decade halftime report.  And what he will show is how the United States has changed the playbook fundamentally — not focused on the doom and gloom, focused instead on the massive economic opportunity, a chance to build U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure, and a chance to build the American middle class.

The president will talk about what we’re seeing on the scoreboard.  Since the start of the administration, 100 gigawatts of clean energy built in the United States — 25 million homes’ worth of power.  You see off our coast an offshore industry, where before there was none. 

In rural America, the largest investment in clean energy electrification since FDR — one in five rural Americans seeing the benefits of that clean energy. 

A nuclear industry revitalized — plants that were slated to be shut down put back into use; plants retired coming back to meet surging demand.

In transportation, electric vehicles now quadrupled in sales, chargers doubled on our roads and highways, the postal service going fully electric, and all of that being made in America — batteries being made in America; anodes, cathodes, the very critical minerals necessary for tackling climate change being sourced here in the United States of America.

And, of course, we’re seeing this translate into benefits for consumers.  The standards the president has finalized or more efficient appliances saving a trillion dollars for consumers over the next several decades.

And just last year, millions of Americans taking advantage of the Biden-Harris clean energy tax credits to retrofit their homes, put in upgrades that will save them money, lower utility bills and costs. 

He’s done all of this while protecting the environment.  As Ben noted, 42 million acres conserved by tackling the scrooge [scourge] of environmental injustice, meeting pollution where it is in fence-line communities, and delivering solutions that take effect right away.

He’s made sure that we are leaning into the manufacturing opportunity in all of this.  He’s going to talk about how we invented a lot of these technologies, but over the last several years, we’ve now started to actually make these technologies — $900 billion in manufacturing.

So, you see because of these historic efforts under President Biden, Vice President Harris, capital coming off the sidelines, jobs coming back, and America leading on climate.  And, you know, core to that — core to that is the president delivering on his fundamental conviction.

When he was running for office, the president often said, “When I see climate, I see jobs.”  Since the beginning of his administration, he’s made that a focal point in climate.  It’s what’s helped us put all these points on the board.  Even today, governors will come together to announce a goal to train another million folks into registered apprenticeships that deliver on the climate workforce that we need to build this clean energy future.

Tomorrow is an opportunity to deliver that decisive decade halftime report to show the progress we’ve made, the points we put on the board, and the path ahead.  And President Biden will do that eloquently and in a way, I think, that will hopefully activate and animate accelerated action not just here but around the world.

And for that, let me hand it over to my partner in all of this, the president’s international climate adviser, John Podesta.

MR. PODESTA:  Thanks, Ali.  And — and thanks to everyone for joining at the beginning of this action-packed Climate Week.  And if you’re actually in New York, the traffic-packed Climate Week.

Over the past four years, President Biden and Vice President Harris have pursued the most ambitious and successful climate agenda in history, both domestically and internationally.

We know that the climate crisis is a global problem and that no one country alone can solve it but that U.S. leadership on this issue is critical for bringing the world together.

That’s why President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement on day — day one.  It’s why he set a bold goal to cut U.S. emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and backed that goal up with action through the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in climate and clean energy in the world, as Ali just went through.  And it’s why he convened three leaders summits on climate, ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Mo- — Montreal Protocol to phase down super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons.

Over the past four years, this resurgence of U.S. leadership on global climate action has yielded real results.

We’ve raised ambition from countries and companies around the world through the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions 30 percent by 2030, with now 158 countries and the EU signing on.

At COP28 in Dubai in December 2023, the United States successfully galvanized the world to commit, for the first time, to transition away from unabated fossil fuels; to stop building new unabated coal capacity globally; to triple renewable energy globally by 2030, to double the level of efficiency by 2030, and to triple nuclear energy by 2050.

We’ve remained focused on climate finance, which is the biggest topic of discussion at this year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan.

President Biden pledged to work with Congress to quadruple U.S. international public climate finance to over $11 billion per year by 2024.  And we’re on track to deliver on that commitment.  That includes over $3 billion per year for adaptation under the president’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience, or the so-called PREPARE program, which will help a half a billion people worldwide adapt to and manage climate impacts, including sea level rise, storms, droughts, and food insecurity. 

The next few months are crucial for our international climate agenda — from COP16 on biodiversity in Cali to the G20 in Rio to COP29 in Baku, and, of course, this week in New York.

This week and throughout this fall, we’ll continue to work with our allies and partners around the world to raise ambitions; unlock additional climate finance from the private sector, multilateral development banks, and public sources; accelerate the deployment of clean energy by driving innovation and lowering costs; reversing and finally ending deforestation; and help more vulnerable countries and communities adapt to a changing climate.

Here’s the bottom line: Thanks to President Biden and Vice President Harris, we’re on the right path here in the U.S. and around the world.  We have to accelerate our progress toward our collective climate goals, and I think the president will be calling on other leaders of the world, as he did over the weekend in the new announcements on clean cooling and the clean energy industrial fellowship we entered into with India, to get that job done.

Thank you.  And I’ll turn it back over to Angelo.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, John.  And we will move to the question-and-answer portion.  Please use the “raise hand” function on Zoom, and we will call on you.  As you are called on, please identify yourself and your outlet.

Okay, we will begin with Lisa.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thank you so much for doing this this morning.

John, you mentioned that the president will be calling on — on other leaders.  You know, this is a very international audience this week.  Already, countries have seen the United States leave and join and leave and join global efforts to fight climate change.  What will the president’s message be to world leaders who are worried about what a Trump administration would bring on climate and maybe don’t know whether the U.S. can be trusted to be a long-term partner?

I guess, related, do you expect President Biden to — to speak directly about former President Trump?

MR. PODESTA:  Lisa, you know, in my current role, I can’t talk about politics.  (Laughs.)  But I think it’s clear that the track record from the previous administration vers- — which pulled out of Paris, abandoned the — the partnership that we had around the globe, reversed a number of actions that President Obama had taken on climate change versus the record that we just laid out is clearly of concern and interest to people around the world.

All I can tell you is the president has demonstrated that you can produce strong economic growth, create good-paying jobs, reach all areas of the country in this — in this task of decarbonizing our economy. 

And that’s the message I think he’s sending to global re- — leaders: This is doable.  We can invest in the — these new technologies.  We can put people to work doing the work that needs to be done, and it’s going to be good for your publics.

So, I think that in — in his speech to — to UNGA, he will, I think, reflect on that record, and I’m sure the — the alternatives will be implicit.

MR. ZAIDI:  Look, what I’d add to that — this is Ali — is you’ve seen the politics of climate inaction deteriorate in Congress.  House Republicans have put up nearly 50 votes to roll back President Biden and Vice President Harris’ historic climate efforts.  They failed.  They failed even within their own caucus: Now a dozen and a half members calling on their own leadership to wrap up these efforts, to go in a U-turn direction, because they see the economic case for climate action.

Part of the reason the president has been successful — and as he speaks to this tomorrow, he will point out — is this new formula on climate action, which is focused on driving investment in U.S. manufacturing and U.S. infrastructure, and that has resulted in unprecedented and successful job creation all across the country in blue districts and in red.

So, the politics of inaction are deteriorating.  The case for a U-turn is weak and fragile and falling apart.  But the haste to go bold and accelerate climate action, we’re seeing the results from that; that’s strengthening.

And, you know, Lisa, you mentioned, there are a lot of leaders from around the world here in New York.  There are also a lot of leaders from industry and big investors here in New York, and they’re paying attention to one thing and one thing only, and that is: In the United States, the case for investing in clean energy has never been stronger.  The economics for climate action are irresistible here in the United States.  And that’s going to cascade around the world as we accelerate progress in this decisive decade.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, Ali.  We will go to Kemi next.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hello.  Can you guys hear me?  Hello?

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Yes.

Q    Okay.  Thank you.  Sorry.  En route to New York. 

I wanted to ask if you can talk about the multilateral (inaudible) boosting climate financing for developing countries as well as how the U.S., the administration will work with China, the number one polluters in the world.  As — and your initiative also working with African nations. 

Thank you.

MR. PODESTA:  Well, thanks — thanks for the question.  I — at the bilateral level, I laid out a — at the front end of my remarks, the president’s commitment to increasing climate finance across the board and reach communities across the globe. 

We’ve succeeded in — in meeting the targets that the president did at — in his UNGA speech in 2021.  I want to underscore that.  That’s where he said we will quadruple our climate finance from the historically high level that President Obama produced.  It was actually substantially more than that if you compare it to the last years under President Trump.  And we’re on track to do that.

Where I’m engaged in events here to try to track additional private-sector investment into the adaptation space, noting — I noted the PREPARE program that the president has put forward, which is going to provide a — help and service to half a billion people across the globe. 

We’re engaged, I think, with the — the i- — the discussion right now to increase the national cumulative qualified goal that’s, as I noted, part of what’s most important on the agenda in Baku.  Those conversations are continuing, but we’ve seen a substantial increase in climate finance coming through the multilateral development banks and other sources. 

It’s going to take the effort of all of us to go from the billions of dollars of — hundreds of billions of dollars of public support that we’ve seen to, really, the trillion dollars of need that are necessary to build sustainable energy systems across the globe. 

And so, I think, again, in his conversations with — with global leaders, he hosted President Ruto of Kenya earlier this year, created a commitment to a bilateral partnership with the government of Kenya to build out supply chains there.  We’re working with India and Tanzania to do the same thing across new supply chains in Africa. 

So, I think the president is r- — is quite focused on this and will get a chance to speak to it both in the meetings that he’s holding on the side as well as in his main UNGA speech.

Q    Okay.  If I can just quickly follow up on that.  A lot of these developing countries are looking into carbon market.  What is your response?  What is your view regarding that? 

MR. PODESTA:  You know, earlier this summer, we issued a joint statement from the U.S. government on our views on the fact that those high-integrity carbon markets are a potentially strong source of finance for countries both to decarbonize the power sector.  Secretary Kerry did a tremendous work on creating a new instrument, if you will, in that space as well as in — in agriculture and forestry. 

But as we noted in that statement, there’s — there needs to be high integrity both on behalf of the sellers of carbon credits as well as on behalf of buyers in order to make these — these markets work and — and see those — that ability for carbon finance to flow through that channel.  Without that, I think the market and — and I think we saw this in the last couple of years — it begins to lose faith that those — that the emissions reductions are real.  In which case, I think people back off from making the commitments. 

So, I think it’s really critical to make sure that these markets are — have strong integrity, and we laid out the principles to make that happen. 

MR. ZAIDI:  I just want to add a little bit on how domestic action is, I think, enabling more ambition around the world.

First, there has been analysis, including from the Boston Consulting Group, on the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act in terms of technology cost reduction that actually improve the odds of scale-up around the world — everything from battery technology to clean hydrogen production through electrolyzers. 

That technology is being de-risked as a result of the generational investment that President Biden has marshaled to take on the climate crisis here in the United States. 

That’s going to have very significant implications around the world.  One modeling projection done by the Rhodium Group shows that for every ton reduced here, we will see two or three reduced around the world, again, as the result of that technology de-risking. 

The second is the platform de-risking.  John talked about the voluntary carbon markets and the principles we laid out earlier this summer to help high-integrity scale-up of that platform. 

The investment the United States is making, for example, through the Department of Agriculture in measurement, monitoring, and verification regimes, or through the EPA and the Department of Energy in the utilization of satellite data to track methane leaks from industrial sources — those investments in satellite, in harnessing machine learning and artificial intelligence to take on climate change — those platform investments will de-risk those platforms for the rest of the world and I think help bring additional resources to the Global South. 

And then there’s the role of the capital markets more broadly.  In the United States, we are building muscle memory around new asset classes, and that’s going to accrue benefits to capital formation and project development all around the world. 

So, look, there is the — there is the effort, I think, underway by G20 countries.  The*28:59 — when the president was out at the last G20, he said, “I passed an Inflation Reduction Act.  You should copycat that.”  So, there are a lot of countries that are downloading the U.S. playlist on how to jam out on climate. 

But there’s a second piece of it, which is the actions we’re taking here in the United States are de-risking technologies, they’re de-risking platforms, and they’re building the muscle memory to accelerate capital formation project development around the world. 

Obviously, that all complements the very important development finance and multilateral work — work John talked about, but I do think this work domestically is going to echo around the world.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, Ali. 

And our final question will come from Robin.  You should be unmuted now.

Q    Hi.  Can you hear me?

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Yes. 

Q    Thanks so much for taking my call.  I wondered if you could tell us — I know the president told his Cabinet to “sprint to the finish.”  I wonder if you can tell us what that’s going to mean on climate, if there’s anything else we can expect — big announcements on climate before the end of the term, and also how he’s thinking about climate when he’s approaching his legacy?

MR. ZAIDI:  Robin, I think the president is thinking about climate the same way he has been from day one.  When he thinks climate, he thinks jobs.  And I know that sounds simple, but I think that’s been the driver of the political economy and the investment case around the country, and that continues to be the case. 

You know, you’ll — you’ll see from the administration what you’ve seen from day one: a concerted focus on a sector-by-sector basis, each part of the economy.

In terms of developing new standards and rules that provide certainty to business and improve the investment climate around clean energy technologies, you will continue to see robust implementation from our agencies on the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.  On the broader investment agenda, making sure that those investments are turning in to impacts on the ground.

And you’ll see us do the important work of blocking and tackling to make sure our projects are getting built.  Permitting, citing execution has been a focal point for the Biden-Harris administration from day one. 

You know, this Cabinet meeting, the president talked about sprinting through the finish line, making sure that we’re building an irreversible momentum behind climate action.  But I remember the last Cabinet meeting when he reminded the Cabinet that these laws, these standards, these investments were only as good as the impact they were making on the ground.  So, he continues to be relentlessly focused on implementation, on execution, on getting things built. 

And that goes to the point I made at the top.  This is no longer a theoretical playbook.  You could see it as points on the scoreboard today: A hundred gigawatts of clean energy built in the United States under the Biden-Harris administration.  That’s going to be our focus.  That’s where we continue to spend our time.

MR. FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ:  Thanks, Ali. 

And that is all the time we have today.  Thank you, again, to our speakers and to all of you for joining.

As a reminder, this call and the materials you all received over email or will receive over email will be embargoed until 1:00 P.M. Eastern today.

Thanks again for joining us. 

10:20 A.M. EDT

The post White House Press Call by Senior Adviser to the President and Director of Communications Ben LaBolt, National Climate Adviser Ali Zaidi, and Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta Previewing Climate Week Speech appeared first on The White House.

8:50 A.M. EDT
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, guys, for being here.  Today, we have the fourth Quad Leaders Summit, fourth in-person Quad Leaders Summit, and the first time that President Biden has actually hosted leaders in his hometown and, literally, at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. 
 
You guys have heard the President say many times that all politics is personal, all diplomacy is personal.  And developing personal relationships has been core to his approach to foreign policy as President.
 
So, opening his home to the leaders of India, Japan, and Australia is a way of him showing, not just saying, that these leaders matter to him, that the Quad matters to him as a significant foreign policy priority.  And institutionalizing and deepening and elevating the Quad has been one of the things that he’s going to be very proud of when he leaves office and passes the baton to the next President of the United States.
 
When President Biden came in, within the early months, he held a Quad — a virtual summit, and it was the first time the leaders of the Quad had actually met in any format.  And what the President wanted to do was not just have this be something where leaders convened occasionally, but actually a vehicle for driving deepening cooperation and integration across the region. 
 
And so, if you look at the last three and a half years, whether it’s on the response to COVID-19 or humanitarian response across the region, or issues like cyber and cyber capacity-building across the region, there’s a range of significant achievements the Quad has already had.  And today, the Quad leaders will announce a number of further steps forward. 
 
There’ll be the announcement of the Quad Cancer Moonshot, which we’re very excited about, with all four countries coming to the table with resources and capacities to help drive towards the cures to deadly cancers.  And there’ll be more to say on that later today.
 
There’s the expansion of the Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness Initiative, which is a mouthful, but is really about integrating new technologies and new capabilities, not just for Quad members, but for countries in Southeast Asia and the rest of the region, for them to understand their maritime domains so they can better manage and regulate them and ensure their security and also ensure that they are delivering economic benefits to the people of the relevant countries. 
 
There will be — we’ll have an announcement of the expansion of the Quad fellows, which will now not just be fellows from the four countries, but fellows from Southeast Asia as well.
 
We’ll announce the pre-positioning of relief supplies across the region and the ability for Quad countries to react more rapidly in the case of humanitarian crises and natural disasters.
 
And the Quad will announce its first-ever coast guard mission together as well, which will show the joint capabilities of the four countries in terms of their ability — in terms of their coast guards. 
 
So, there’s a number of other things that you’ll see in the fact sheet as well, but this just shows the breadth and range of ways in which the Quad is becoming a feature of the architecture of the Indo-Pacific.  And we hope and expect that that will deepen in the years ahead. 
 
And the reason I think we can have some confidence in that is there’s genuine bipartisan support for the Quad.  It’s something that really transcends party lines.  And, in fact, over the last 24 hours, we’ve had the announcement of a bipartisan, bicameral Quad Caucus, something I never quite thought I would see, but Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate actually standing up a caucus to support this, this platform, because of the importance that Congress places on it and what it can deliver. 
 
The last thing I would say is that when you look at the Quad and AUKUS and the Camp David trilateral and our engagement with the Pacific Islands in ASEAN, one thing that has been a hallmark of the President’s foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific has been to move from the traditional hub-and-spoke model, rooted largely in bilateral alliances and bilateral partnerships, to a latticework approach with multiple institutions, overlapping partnerships, different configurations that all add up to genuinely new architecture for the Indo-Pacific, and the Quad is a critical part of that. 
 
And I think it leaves the United States in a stronger position, with a more dense and capable and dynamic set of partnerships, and with relationships not just between us and our partners, but among our partners, that allow us to deliver greater results and achieve more stability and security and drive towards the ultimate objective, which is a free and open Indo-Pacific. 
 
So let me stop there, and happy to take your questions. 
 
Q    Jake, just (inaudible), you didn’t mention China directly in the joint leaders’ statement.  What sort of language should we expect directed at the PRC?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  The Quad isn’t really about any other country.  It’s not directed at another country.  It’s directed at problem solving and standing up for a set of common principles and a common vision for the region. 
 
So, I don’t think you should expect to see a focus on any particular country, including the PRC, in the Quad leaders’ statement.  That’s been the pattern since the beginning, because the nature and purpose of this institution is really about the kinds of things I just described.  It’s about delivering vaccines, delivering cyber capacity, delivering coast guard capacity, delivering humanitarian assistance, delivering science and technology progress.  So that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on, and that’s what you’ll see in the fact sheet — the joint leaders’ statement. 
 
Q    But, Jake, as you add more security features to this partnership, you know, is there a risk, a possibility that China, which has already expressed concerns about encirclement related to the Quad, begins to have objections to this cooperation?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, I’ll let the PRC speak for itself, and obviously it does speak for itself about a number of different initiatives the United States has taken in the Indo-Pacific.  We’re just going to prove year on year everything that I just said, which is really that the thrust and purpose of the institution writ large and the security features of it are about a positive agenda to enhance security, not just for Quad countries but for other regional partners. 
 
So, it’s hard for me to see how and why the PRC should object to the four countries, for example, doing a coast guard mission together, or doing cyber trainings for Southeast Asia together, or taking steps with respect to maritime domain awareness.  These do not, to me, indicate any form of aggression or assertive behavior.  They’re fundamentally constructive and positive, and that’s where we’re going to continue to position the Quad. 
 
Q    Can you speak a little bit to the President’s meeting with Prime Minister Modi and what, if anything, he’ll say about what he wants to do vis-à-vis China and Russia (inaudible)?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I won’t go too deep into the details of what he will say on those issues, which are obviously sensitive and will obviously be critical priorities in the bilateral meeting. 
 
I will just say this: that the United States has been clear about our view that Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine flouted every norm and principle of international law, that countries like India should step up and support the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that every country everywhere should refrain from supplying inputs to Russia’s war machine for it to be able to continue to prosecute this brutal war.  So they will talk about that. 
 
The President will also hear from Prime Minister Modi about his trip to Ukraine, which was an important and indeed historic trip, and it will be the opportunity for the two of them to talk about their respective views of the way forward.
 
And then, with respect to China, you know, they will talk about how they see China’s actions in the region, where China is headed.  And that’s not just true in the security domain, but the economic and technology domain as well.  And we’ll work to try to coordinate approaches to the extent that that makes sense for both countries.
 
Q    In the past month or so, there’s been a lot of (inaudible) China (inaudible).  There’s been lots of (inaudible) still in the offing.  Can you speak to, like, how the President himself is reviewing the culmination, I guess, of the administration’s China strategy leading up to this?  And should we consider this Quad sort of part of that puzzle, (inaudible)?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think you should consider this Quad and all of our other actions part of an effort to strengthen the capacity of the United States to defend our interests, support our allies and partners, advance problem solving on critical common challenges, and generally put ourself in a more robust, competitive position writ large.
 
But I don’t think you should see it again as being directed at China.  And I think this is American foreign policy, in a way at its historic best, which innovation partnerships designed to enhance stability, designed to deliver results, and connected to other partnerships that are going the same thing.
 
And I think, kind of, over-cranking the emphasis on any one country is missing what I think the central thrust and purpose of these kinds of institutions, including the Quad, are all about.
 
Q    You mentioned at the top the personal nature of this visit.  And the White House is using the terminology “personal meeting” rather than the usual “bilateral meeting.”  Can you give us a sense of how these meetings are different, what we might expect?  For example, Prime Minister Albanese yesterday, did he get a tour of the house?  See the Corvette?  Were there family members present?  Can you can you give us a flavor of that?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  He did get a bit of a tour of the house.  I don’t think he saw the Corvette, though.  I can’t confirm that for sure, because the two of them sort of went off by themselves for a bit, and I haven’t had a chance to speak to the President about what exactly the Prime Minister saw. 
 
There weren’t other family members there.  It was really a sort of one-on-one opportunity for President Biden and the Prime Minister to sit and talk.  And then, a few of us joined them, obviously, for part of the meeting when it turned to substance. 
 
It was just — honestly, the vibe of it was sort of two guys, one at the other guy’s home, talking in broad strokes about where they see the state of the world, about — you know, swapping some stories from their respective political careers, you know, talking about the history of the U.S.-Australia alliance. 
 
It just kind of had a feeling like if you had someone come over for a cup of coffee or a meal.  You know, that kind of feeling was much more present than, like, a stiff bilateral.  And the President told everybody, “Take off your jackets.  Get comfortable,” which we all obliged. 
 
So, yeah, I’m very bad at answering questions like that, but that’s my best shot at it. 
 
Q    Well, if I may, on Sudan, a United Nations panel of experts has accused the United Arab Emirates of supplying arms to the RSF in breach of the weapons embargo on Darfur.  MBZ, I guess, is coming to the White House this week.  Will the President raise those allegations directly with the leader of the United Arab Emirates?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I’ll let the President talk to Sheikh Mohamed privately about Sudan.  I think it would be more effective to do that. 
 
What I will say is we are concerned about a number of countries and the steps they are taking to perpetuate rather than resolve the conflict.  And I will also say that Sudan will certainly be on the agenda, and the President will be as direct and candid with Sheikh Mohamed as he is with every leader.  And then, after the fact, we’ll share what we feel we can.
 
And the reason why I’m not, sort of, laying it out all in public right now is: Our ultimate objective is to get the entire conflict in Sudan on a different track than the tragic and horrific track it is on right now.  And I think that requires some intense but sensitive diplomatic conversations with a number of players.  That’s what the President is intending to do writ large.  And as I said, Sudan will certainly be part of the agenda with the UAE President on Monday.
 
Q    Jake, so (inaudible) President will Japan Prime Minister Kishida.  Do you expect him to talk about that deal between U.S. Steel and Japan Nippon Steel?  And does (inaudible) oppose that deal and try to stop it?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I cannot say yet whether that particular deal will come up in the conversation today.  There are obviously huge priorities in terms of current events and geopolitical trends and economic and technology cooperation.  So, I’m not sure that it will come up.  And the President has spoken to this issue before, but the matter really is, at the moment, in a official process while the transaction is studied by the relevant authorities and the relevant agencies, the U.S. government. 
 
And so, you know, the President will obviously allow that process to run its course because that’s what’s required under the law.  And then we will see what happens.
 
Q    Prime Minister Kishida will step down soon.  You going to talk about his contribution, achievement, but what do you expect from the new Japanese prime minister?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  One thing that I do expect, whoever the new Japanese prime minister is, is continued investment in and support for the U.S.-Japan alliance as the cornerstone peace of security in the Indo-Pacific.  And I expect that because the overwhelming majority of the Japanese people support that and because this alliance is bigger than any one leader on either side, in Japan or the United States. 
 
So I have confidence that the strong bond and partnership between our two countries will continue no matter who takes the helm, although I will say Prime Minister Kishida should be saluted, and President Biden will salute him, as a very significant contributor to the high-water mark we’ve reached in the U.S.-Japan alliance at this point and in Japan’s global leadership role. 
 
So, it will obviously be different because Prime Minister Kishida is a unique individual, but one thing that we think will remain the same is the strong alliance between the United States and Japan.
 
Q    Just on the Nippon deal, very quickly: Some proponents of that deal are interpreting last week’s extension as a sign that the President is having second thoughts.  What would you say to them?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t speak to that because I think nobody should overread what happened last week as a substantive expression of views, rather as a matter of process to ensure that the transaction gets the full review that’s appropriate in a case like this, as I said, from the relevant authorities and agencies.  And the President really does want to let that play out. 
 
Q    You mentioned that it’s not about one country, but of course, China comes to mind over time.  As just recently, they announced sanctions against American companies.  They’re selling weapons to Taiwan.  Taiwan is getting money from the United States to be able to defend themselves.  And the incidents in the past few weeks in (inaudible) has been escalating, not only with Taiwan with China, but also Philippines.
 
During this meeting, is that top of mind, or is this something that you want to address?  Because, I mean, you mentioned the coast guard event shouldn’t be questioned by the Chinese; it’s just an event that they’re going to do as a group.  But from their point of view, they’re talking about it and condemning these types of actions.  Should we worry about China moving forward or being more aggressive as the world is focused on Lebanon, the Middle East, Ukraine?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, first of all, it’s true that the front pages of newspapers are filled with stories about the Middle East rather than the Indo-Pacific right now.  But the United States of America is focused in both places.  And there’s probably no better proof point than the fact that we’re sitting here right now, on a Quad Summit day, meeting with leaders of the Indo-Pacific, even as we continue to closely monitor events in the Middle East.
 
So, if you look at the work that we have done over the last four years, the intense engagement with allies and partners, the work on — this latticework that I described, the efforts to strengthen our own industrial and innovation base, the measures we’ve taken to protect our sensitive technologies, we feel like we are in a very strong position to stand up for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.  And obviously, we are concerned about actions that China has taken, and we speak out about those actions quite directly and candidly. 
 
But we are also putting the United States and our allies and partners in a position to effectively defend our interests and to defend the rules of the road that have kept the peace in the Indo-Pacific for a long time.  We’re going to continue to do that. 
 
The other thing I would say is that each of the four members of the Quad has their own approach to the PRC.  There’s not going to be some “Quad approach” to the PRC.  But of course, in the course of the conversation today, the four leaders will have the opportunity to talk about all of the developments in the Indo-Pacific, and obviously the PRC is part of that. 
 
So, it will be one of the issues or one of the topics that come up among many.
 
Q    If I may, on Venezuela — because Venezuela is close to China right now, and it’s one of the allies, but also Russia and Iran.  So we know four Americans are detained in the past few days.  The situation is getting just harder and harder to get to an agreement.  We are expecting a meeting at the United Nations to talk about Venezuela, led by Uruguay and other countries.  Do you see any possibility of moving forward in this subject?  We understand the U.S. have supported the talks.  Is it a possibility to go back to Qatar?  Is Qatar in the table again?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  We continue to talk to Qatar, who wants to play a constructive role in engaging the Maduro regime, the opposition, the United States, other players.  At the moment, there’s not much traction on talks, and what we’re instead continuing to see are negative steps by the Maduro regime in the aftermath of an election where we have been very clear our judgment is that Edmundo Gonzalez received the most votes. 
 
So, we’ll continue to work, particularly with countries in the region, to try to develop a common approach forward to support democracy and a democratic transition in Venezuela.  But I will say that at the moment there is not a substantial diplomatic opportunity to make progress, and we’re going to
have to keep looking for one.
 
Q    Jake, on the Middle East, the Lebanese are saying at least 31 were killed in that bombing of a building that apparently targeted at least one Hezbollah commander.  Has the U.S. figured out who exactly was targeted and killed?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  The Israelis have announced, and I believe Hezbollah itself has confirmed, some of the people who were killed in that strike.  And I will let Israel and Hezbollah speak to it, because obviously we don’t have an independent capacity at this point to confirm.  But I believe a fair amount of that is out in the public domain at this point.
 
Q    If at least one of those was one of those responsible for organizing the barracks bombing back in the ‘80s, how significant would that be that he’s now dead?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  That individual has American blood on his hands and has a Rewards for Justice price on his head.  And he is somebody who the United States promised long ago we would do everything we could to see brought to justice. 
 
And anytime a terrorist who has murdered Americans is brought to justice, we believe that that is a good outcome.  But again, I’m not in a position this morning, until I have the opportunity to talk again to my Israeli counterparts today, to formally confirm anything; just to say, you know, 1983 seems like a long time ago, but for a lot of families, a lot of people, it was — they’re still living with it every day.
 
Q    One other.  Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich have been in Washington in recent days, mostly to visit with lawmakers.  Is there any plan for them to meet with the President?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I guess not.  The President met with both of them, obviously, when they came back to the States.  So there wasn’t — we didn’t have a plan for them to sit down this past week or this coming week in Washington.  But, you know, I’m sure he would be happy to see them again at some point. 
 
Q    There’s a report that I got (inaudible) disagree with about U.S. officials conceding that there won’t be a deal during the President’s term.  What is your assessment of that?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think that’s crazy.  I mean —
 
Q    So, it was correct that you’d (inaudible).  (Laughter.)  (Inaudible) disagree with it, that yes —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  This is not me sitting here saying, “Hey, there will be a deal.”  One can’t know.  And I’ve — you’ve heard me repeatedly use this George Mitchell line of “700 days of failure, one day of success.”  But this is diplomacy.  Every day, you get up and you try to drive towards a deal that brings about a ceasefire, the return of hostages, surge of humanitarian assistance, and ultimately the end of the war.  We’re doing that today.  We’re going to do that tomorrow.  We’re going to do that every day. 
 
And I do still believe there is a path to get there.  It has been a winding path, a frustrating path, but we are still on that path, and we hope to reach the destination.  But we’re also mindful of the fact and very clear-eyed about the fact that there’s still obstacles in the way; we’re going to do our best to clear them.  And I can’t make any predictions about what’s going to happen, but what I can certainly say is we are not conceding that, period.
 
Q    But we’ve been waiting a while in terms of a new bridging proposal.  Is that right?  So when is — when do you expect to put that on the table?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I can’t tell you that because we’re not at a point right now where I can — where we’re prepared to put something on the table.  We’re continuing to work with Qatar and Egypt.  They’re talking to Hamas.  We’re talking to Israel.  The Qataris and Egyptians are talking to Israel.  And when we feel ready to take another step, we’ll take another step. 
 
Q    What’s the holdup?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, at the moment, we don’t feel like we’re in a position, if we put something down today, to get both sides to say yes to it.  Could that change over the course of the coming days?  It could.  You know — yeah, I’ll leave it at that for now.
 
Q    Jake, in terms of the events of last week in Lebanon, do you have any assessments what that has done to the operational capabilities of Hezbollah?  And what is your current level of concern that what you’ve been trying to prevent the last, you know, 11-plus months could start off as (inaudible)?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  It stands to reason that Lebanese Hezbollah’s capabilities have taken a hit.  How significant a hit, how that translates to their ability to represent a threat to Israel, I think we still need some more assessment to reach more guidance on.
 
The risk of escalation is real; it has been since October 7th.  There are moments where it is more acute than others.  I think we are in one of those moments where it is more acute. 
 
But I would take a step back and make an observation that I don’t think gets sufficient attention in the reporting on this dynamic, which is that Hezbollah started this whole thing.  Hamas attacks on October 7th, this vicious massacre.  And then, as Nasrallah just said in his speech this week, the way he put it, Nasrallah opened the Northern Front. 
 
Israel didn’t start just randomly attacking into Lebanon.  Hezbollah and its allies in — its terrorist allies in Lebanon started attacking Israel.  And tens of thousands of Israeli citizens had to leave their homes.  That led to an exchange of fire, and then Lebanese citizens had to leave their homes.  And we’ve been in that dynamic ever since. 
 
So, that’s an important structural factor that I think, kind of, gets set aside in the commentary and the coverage of the current circumstance.
 
That being said, the United States’ position is we would like to see calm on the northern border and a durable solution that allows the people on both sides of that border to return to their homes.  We are driving at that.  Amos Hochstein was recently back in the region to work towards that.  I’ve spoken with my Israeli counterparts just in the last couple of days to see how we find a way forward on that. 
 
And so, while the risk of escalation is real, we actually believe there is also a distinct avenue to getting to a cessation of hostilities and a durable solution that makes people on both sides of the border feel secure, and we’re going to do everything that we can to bring that about. 
 
Q    And can I just (inaudible) — when you say the risk of escalation is real, are you saying the IDF flattening tower blocks in Beirut is not an escalation?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I think the question he was asking — the heart of his question was: could we get into a wider war that we have been trying to avoid for the last 11 months.  I think that’s what the question was.
 
Q    Then I’ll ask the question.
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I was answering (inaudible).
 
Q    I’ll ask the question then: Was the IDF strike an escalation, in your view?
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, when I talk about escalation, I mean where does this take us from the point of view of, “Are we going to end up in a wider war.”  We’re not there yet.  I hope we do not get there. 
 
When you pose a question, “Was this strike escalation?  Was that strike escalation?” the United States is not going to score-keep like that.  There’s a number of different ways to look at this strike.  The chief way I personally look at it goes back to the discussion we were having before, which is it was a strike against a senior terrorist who has both Israeli and American lives on his hands. 
 
So we could pick any moment, any set of rockets launched by Hezbollah, any set of strikes by Israel, and say, “Is this an escalation?  Is that an escalation?” and so forth.  I think it’s not a particularly useful exercise.  For us, the most useful exercise is to try to drive both parties to a place where we get an agreed and durable outcome that can end the cycle and keep us from ending up in the larger war that, as we were just talking about, we’ve worked so hard to (inaudible).
 
Q    Is there any announcement that we should expect next week about Haiti?  (Inaudible) report that says that even though we have now the Kenya team there and the security forces, 80 percent of Port-au-Prince is run by gangs.  Things are not getting better for the people.  Violence keep growing.  And of course, we don’t have elections or plan of a government soon. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, things are not where we would like them to be in Haiti, but I think it is not correct to say that things have not gotten better from a low point when flights were shut down, the port was shut down, it looked like the entire government was going to be run out of the country.
 
We have improved the situation from that low point, but the progress we have made has been slower and more uneven than we’d like it to be.  Our goal is to continue to enhance the Multilateral Security Support Mission and ultimately work with the United Nations to make sure that it gets institutionalized. 
 
But I don’t know that we have any particular announcements next week.  Rather, our goal is to use the U.N. General Assembly to get more resources, more contributions, and a common vision around building step by step on what we’ve put in place so that we can improve the situation beyond where it is right now.
 
MODERATOR:  We have time for about two more questions.
 
Q    Just a follow-up.  And how can that happen?  I know Colombia wanted to help, but, like, it’s not an actual mission like (inaudible) it was the U.N. (inaudible) — is this a security group, and the U.S. is leading the efforts.  So how the countries will get involved, and how can they operate?  Like, Mexico cannot (inaudible) officers —
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, a number of countries have pledged contributions, including police units, former police units.  And so, the first thing that can happen is we can turn those pledges into reality, and then we can work bilaterally with countries like Mexico and Colombia on their legal requirements to try to satisfy them so that they could, in fact, (inaudible).
 
Q    To put a pin, though, you know, the discussion about China, you know, before, in the lead-up to this, administration officials at the podium were telegraphing that there could be talk about aggressive PRC military action on fair trade practices, tensions over the Taiwan Strait.  You know, preview that there’s going to be discussion of North Korea.  I know you said that the Quad is not about one country, but to China and to many people, it looks like it’s focusing on China.  So I’m curious to what your response to me, to folks that say you’re trying to have it both ways on China. 
 
MR. SULLIVAN:  I guess what I would say, and I think I said this before, is the leaders are going to talk about all of the significant developments and dynamics in the Indo-Pacific.  Everything you just mentioned fits into that category.  So we don’t take issues off the table to discuss or speak about. 
 
But my point is that the purpose of the Quad is not to come together around China or any other country.  It’s to come together around how to construct a free and open Indo-Pacific.  And actions and policies that disrupt or undermine that are certainly not just of interest, but are going to be a matter of discussion for Quad members. 
 
But the way I square the circle is to say these issues are on the agenda because they relate to a free and open Indo-Pacific, but China is not the focus of the Quad, and the Quad is not about one country.  It is about a larger vision that we’re (inaudible).
 
MODERATOR:  All right, thanks, everyone.
 
9:26 A.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle APNSA Jake Sullivan at the Quad Leaders Summit appeared first on The White House.

10:08 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, good morning, everyone.  Sorry for starting a little bit late.  I’m going to turn it over to John Kirby for a topper, and then we’ll take your questions. 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, guys.  Not much to talk about today.  Just a reminder that the President will be heading up to Wilmington this afternoon to kick off a weekend with the leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad.  That’s Prime Minister Kishida of Japan, Prime Minister Albanese of Australia, and Prime Minister Modi of India. 

The first individual meeting will be this evening with Prime Minister Albanese.  We’ll provide a readout of that, of course.

Tomorrow morning, he will meet individually with Prime Minister Kishida and then early in the afternoon meet with Prime Minister Modi.  Again, we’ll provide readouts of those discussions. 

The plenary session begins in the afternoon at four o’clock, where they’ll talk about a range of issues of interest to all four of our nations, particularly when it comes to fostering a free and open Indo-Pacific region. 

And then, after the plenary session, they will gather together for the Cancer Moonshot event later in the evening, and then that will be followed by a dinner. 

So, a busy weekend up in Wilmington.  The President is very much looking forward to it, excited about it.  Great way to head into next week, which will be, of course, the U.N. General Assembly up in New York.  I’ve already previewed that, so I won’t belabor that with you this morning. 

I’m happy to take some questions. 

MODERATOR:  First up, we’ll go to Aamer Madhani.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, John and Eduardo.  Was the White House given a heads up by the Israelis about today’s strikes that happened near Beirut?

MODERATOR:  Aamer, so sorry, could you repeat the question? We had some (inaudible).

Q    Sure.  Hopefully you can hear me now.  Was the White House given any heads up by the Israelis about today’s strikes on Beirut?

MR. KIRBY:  Aamer, we’ll let the IDF speak to their operations.  I am certainly not aware of any pre-notification of those strikes.  And that, of course, as you know, is not atypical.

Q    Has the President or any senior aides in the administration had contact with Netanyahu or senior Israeli officials this week about the electronic device explosions?  And if so, have any concerns been conveyed to the Israelis about these incidents?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m simply not going to comment any more on those incidents than I already have, Aamer.  All I can assert to you is that there was no U.S. involvement, and that’s really as far as I’m going to go. 

Q    So at this point, has the President and administration’s influence on Israel’s approach to Hezbollah reached its limit?

MR. KIRBY:  Aamer, we continue to speak every day with our Israeli counterparts about what’s going on in Gaza and certainly about the increased tensions along the Blue Line; that’s the border between Israel and Lebanon.

You know, as you know, Amos was just there recently.  So, our intensive diplomacy efforts continue.  We believe — continue to believe that a diplomatic solution is the best way forward vice escalating any of the military conflict.  I’ll leave it there. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Danny Kemp.

Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, Admiral.  Sad not to be spending the weekend in Wilmington, but what can you do.

Just a couple of things, if I may.  Firstly, there are apparently some Democratic lawmakers pushing a bill to restore funding to UNRWA, which was suspended after allegations by Israel that some members were involved in the October the 7th attack.  Is that something that the White House would support, or anything you know about that?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I think our position has been very consistent since we paused funding to UNRWA earlier this year.  And of course, as you know, that pause was following allegations that a number of their employees were involved in the October 7th Hamas attack.

In light of the fact that there is still an ongoing crisis in Gaza and the central role that UNRWA does play in the distribution of lifesaving assistance, we continue, as we have said before, continue to support funding for UNRWA, of course with appropriate safeguards, with transparency measures built in, and obviously with accountability also baked into that.

We believe that all of those efforts should include, for example, a requirement that the executive branch certify to Congress that UNRWA has implemented the proper policies and procedures to include the vetting of their personnel and any plans that they have for investigating credible reports of violations of those policies and procedures.

I would remind that we did support a provision back in March of — I’m sorry — we supported a provision in the March 2024 Appropriations Act, to that effect, but it was not included in what became law. 

So, bottom line: Been consistent.  Continue to support the essential role that UNRWA plays, and therefore support funding for UNRWA — but again, I want to stress, with the appropriate safeguards, with transparency measures built in, and certainly with a provision for accountability.  And we’re going to look forward to working with other partners — Japan, UK, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Canada, others — to ensure that those appropriate safeguards are adequate to the task and to help secure appropriate funding levels for UNRWA’s humanitarian mission. 

Q    Okay, thanks.  And on a similar note, or similar topic, do you have any comment on the Wall Street Journal report that the administration has effectively given up hope of getting a ceasefire by the end of President Biden’s term?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, man — I mean, I talked about this the other day at the podium.  Nobody is giving up hope.  Nobody is going to stop working towards this.

As we’ve said so many times, we believe the best chance at getting the hostages home is through the ceasefire deal.  We’d be the first ones to recognize, as I did the other day, that it’s hard, it’s daunting, and that we are not closer to achieving that than we were even a week or so ago. 

But ain’t nobody giving up.  We’re still going to keep the shoulders to the wheel.  We’re still going to keep trying on this.  The President has directed his team to continue to try to find a way to see if we can get a proposal that both sides will agree to so that the fighting can stop, we can get the hostages home, and we can start to really work towards a surge of humanitarian assistance in Gaza for the people that are suffering and in such dire need of it.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Haley Bull.

Q    Hey, thank you.  Curious if there is any consideration of updating guidance for Americans in Lebanon, or if you’re sending any specific instructions to Americans who may be there in light of the escalating tensions on the Blue Line.  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Haley — I’m not aware, Haley, of any additional guidance.  I think the State Department has already spoken to this and issued travel warnings and advisories with respect to being in Lebanon.  I’m not aware of anything additional.

I do want — and so I would refer you to the State Department, but I’m simply not — I’m not tracking anything new.  But I do think it is — this provides an important reminder that Americans should not travel to Lebanon.  It is at “Level 4: Do Not Travel.”  And so, we strongly urge all American citizens not to go there, and if they are there, to think about leaving seriously.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Nadia Charters.

Q    Thank you.  A couple of questions.  In addition to what happened with the pagers yesterday in Lebanon, today Israel’s attack on Dahiyeh has killed a senior Hezbollah military leader.  How can you not see this but an escalation?

I know you keep saying that you wanted — you prefer a diplomatic solution, but at this stage, when Israel said there’s no red lines, do you believe that the diplomatic solutions has failed and the military solutions is taking place on the ground? 

And I have another question.

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No.  No, we don’t.  Amos was just there.  We still believe that there is time and space for a diplomatic solution.  We think that that is the best way forward.  War is not inevitable up there at the Blue Line, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to try to prevent it.

Q    Okay.  Second is: Israel Channel 12 has obtained material that have not been seen before, and they’re basically saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu has played a role to sabotage a hostage deal.  Do you believe that Netanyahu has been obstructing the hostage deal?  Hamas aside, do you believe that he’s responsible for that too?

MR. KIRBY:  Nadia, I haven’t seen this report.  I haven’t seen this alleged video.  So, obviously, I can’t comment on any of that.  All I can comment on is how diligently we continue to try to get this ceasefire deal in place.  And as I have said numerous times, in order to get there, you got to be able to compromise and you got to have some leadership, and that means on all sides of the equation here.  You need compromise and leadership on all sides. 

I will also finish this answer by repeating again what I have said before: that Mr. Sinwar remains the main obstacle to pushing this forward.  And I’d leave it at that.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Nick Schifrin.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks very much.  First, a very easy one, I think, and then a question that you can answer.  Just making sure: None of these attacks that either Israel is claiming credit for, or not, in Lebanon, has anything — any involvement of U.S. intelligence, is that right?

MR. KIRBY:  There is no U.S. involvement in these incidents. 

Q    Okay, great.  All right. 

And then, I know you can’t say very much on the strike in Beirut just over the last hour, but it is the 40th anniversary today of the attack on the embassy annex that killed 24.  The deputy leader of Hezbollah, who has been targeted by Israel today, participated in that embassy attack.  What does the United States say in general, even if you can’t say any specifics on this, on what happened?  What would the U.S. say if that person was targeted and, in fact, killed?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  Nick, you’re just — you’re not going to be happy with me on this one, but there’s really just not a lot I can say about these reports today.  They just came in before we started the gaggle.  I’m in no position to confirm any of the details of them.  I certainly would point you to the IDF to speak to their operations. 

I’m not trying to dodge you.  I promise you that.  It’s just I don’t have enough information or context to comment here in this particular gaggle right now.  I mean, it just — we just got the reports, and so I think it would be foolish for me to weigh in with any level of specificity.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Asma Khalid.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, John, for doing this.  I have a quick question about the pager/walkie-talkie attacks.  I know you’ve said you can’t really speak broadly to it beyond the fact that there was no U.S. involvement, but I want to ask sort of more of a broader, big picture, strategic question about what the U.S. position is about this tactic as a mechanism of war.  And do you have concerns at all for it being used, in terms of other mechanisms and ways, in countries in the supply chain that the U.S. relies on for many of its own technologies?

MR. KIRBY:  I do appreciate the question, Asma.  I’m afraid I’m just not going to have anything more to say about this.  The United States was not involved in these incidents at all, and I’m going to leave it there. 

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Lalit.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

All right, we’ll move on to the line of Michael Hernandez.

Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, John.  I do have two quick questions.  First, I wanted to see if NSC has any reaction to videos purporting to show Israeli forces throwing the bodies of potentially dead Palestinians off of buildings near Jenin. 

And then, separately, I wanted to just follow up on Nadia and Aamer’s questions and just kind of ask very explicitly if this strike in Beirut, which the IDF has publicly claimed credit for, is in keeping with your appeals to reduce tensions in the region and avoid escalation.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your second question, again, I’m going to refer you to the IDF to speak to their operations.  I don’t need to tell you that there have been strikes back and forth across the Blue Line now for many months.  And from the very beginning, we have sought to try to prevent an escalation of this conflict, certainly to the north, and we are involved in intense diplomacy to that end. 

As I’ve said earlier in this gaggle, we believe that there’s still time and space for diplomacy to work, and we’re going to continue to give it a shot, and that’s where we are. 

But as for this particular strike, again, just heard the reports ourselves.  Refer you to the IDF. 

But I do want to stress: We don’t want to see escalation.  We don’t want to see a second war — a second front in this war opened up at the border with Lebanon.  And everything we’re doing is going to be involved in trying to prevent that outcome. 

As I also said earlier, there is no reason for an expanded military conflict in Lebanon to be inevitable.  We don’t believe it.  We’re going to keep working to that end.

On your first question, yes, we’ve seen that video, and we found it deeply disturbing.  If it’s proven to be authentic, it clearly would depict abhorrent and egregious behavior by professional soldiers.  And we reached out immediately to our Israeli counterparts about it, and we pressed them for more details.  They have assured us that they’re going to investigate this and that there will be proper accountability if it’s warranted.  We’re going to be very eager to see what the IDF investigation finds, and as always, we expect that investigation be done thoroughly and transparently.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of James Rosen.  James, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey.  Can you all hear me, I hope?

MODERATOR:  Yes.

Q    Thank you both.  Admiral, two questions on the Middle East, if you would.

One, you have now, as the war approaches its first-year anniversary, the benefit of enough experience to look back on last November, when you were able, with your partners in the region, to finalize a ceasefire for a hostages deal that went into effect for some time and produced tangible results, and the subsequent failure over many, many months of different iterations of proposals and negotiations. 

So I wonder if you could, with the benefit of that hindsight, say for us what conditions were present, do you think, in November that made a breakthrough possible at that time that apparently are no longer present.  Or how do you account for the fact that you were able to do it once and just have not been able to do it again?  What are the conditions that have created that disparity?

MR. KIRBY:  James, it’s a really thoughtful question, and I would say, first, we’re not sitting down and doing that exact analysis.  We’re focused on the deal at hand and the one before us and trying to find a way to get it across the finish line. 

The only thing I would add in terms of context to your question is that war evolves over time.  Conditions change on the ground over time.  Operations have an effect.

And you were right: Early on in this, we were able to have some success in terms of at least getting a temporary ceasefire in place so we could get a small number of hostages out.  Well, actually, not all that small.  It was not insignificant, the number that we were able to get out.  But that was early on.  And over time, you know, the war evolved in many different ways, and conditions on the ground changed in many different ways, and the outlooks and the perspectives of the two sides changed as the conflict and the violence wore on.

And all of that — all of that context affects the decision-making process of leaders involved.  That’s the best I can do in answering your question.

But I do want to come back to where I started.  I mean, we’re not looking a lot in the rearview mirror here.  We’re really looking ahead and trying to find a way forward that has proven difficult — as I said the other day, daunting, in fact.  But it doesn’t diminish the energy that we’re applying to the problem set.  And quite frankly, it doesn’t — though we’re looking at this pragmatically and certainly with no rose-colored glasses — I mean, we know what’s before us; we know how hard this is going to be — it doesn’t diminish our hope that we can actually get there.  And so, that work continues.

MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to Lucas Thompson.

Q    John, Secretary Blinken, when he was in the region, did not visit Israel.  And now, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is not visiting Israel next week.  What message is the administration sending to Israel? 

MR. KIRBY:  There’s no message being sent to Israel.  First of all, I don’t believe the Defense Department announced any kind of a trip for Secretary Austin. 

This isn’t about message-sending to Israel.  I think Israel knows pretty darn well where President Biden and this administration comes down in terms of supporting their efforts to defend themselves.  And we’ve been nothing but clear and candid with them about the challenges of improving humanitarian assistance in Gaza and the need to be discriminate and precise in how they’re going about defending themselves so as to pay more heat to civilian casualties.  All of those conversations continue.  I would not read anything into visits or no visits to Israel.

MODERATOR:  Our last question will go to the line of Hiba Nasr.

Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  Hi, John.  John, I know that you’ve been asked this question many times, but I would try again.  I mean, what does a broadened war would look like for you?  I mean, except for the thing of a ground military operation.  I know you said you don’t have enough information about the strike today. 

And my second question: I appreciate if you get back to me on this, because you said you don’t have information.  Does the strike tonight, today in Beirut — do you consider it as a targeted strike?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know that I’m going to promise you that I’m going to get back to you on that one.  We have been scrupulous in not defining every single military event over there, and I think it’s best to have the IDF speak to their operations. 

And so, I don’t want to get into the habit and I don’t want to start with your question in terms of having us characterize every single event.  You should really talk to the IDF about it, about their operations.

And, look, as for an escalation of the conflict or a new front, I think we all know what we mean when we talk about a new front of warfare and what that means in terms of the resources, the logistics, the sustainment, the operational maneuver, the number of forces involved in moving the conflict to a different front and what that would look like.

Again, I don’t think it’s useful for me to get into an order of battle discussion here with you guys.  I think we all know what we’re talking about when it comes to the potential for escalating the conflict, and we’re doing everything we can, and we still believe that there is things that can be done on the diplomatic front to prevent that. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, all.  That’s all the time we have for today.  We’ll talk to you soon.

10:32 A.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Around the world today, our people and economies are increasingly impacted by the severe consequences of the climate crisis.  Coastal communities and military bases are threatened by storms and flooding. Extreme heat, now a regular phenomenon with each passing summer, costs lives, reduces productivity, and damages critical infrastructure.  Vital breadbaskets face historic droughts, and are no longer able to regularly deliver on the food security needs of their regions.  Record-breaking fires ravage forests, spill into communities, and pollute the air.

The U.S. national security community has long understood climate change to be a “threat multiplier,” intensifying existing security threats and vulnerabilities, and decreasing resilience.  But today, the devastating impacts of the climate crisis increasingly are themselves the new direct threats from which we must protect our communities.  We are witnessing cycles of cascading climate impacts and increasing instability, at home and across the globe.

U.S. national security requires addressing the growing impacts of the climate crisis.

As described in our recent U.S. National Climate Assessment, growing climate vulnerabilities have profound impacts for U.S. national security, economic, and strategic interests.  As our military is increasingly called upon to respond to disasters, we risk stretching defense resources.  At the same time, our critical infrastructure—including relatively new infrastructure resulting from the increased investments in the clean-energy transition—risks being degraded more rapidly by the changing environment.  Around the world, changing temperature, precipitation, ecosystems, and ocean conditions threaten supply chains, increase prices, affect the affordability and availability of insurance, and strain public coffers, forcing all levels of government to shift funds away from other priorities.  And alongside these strains, we are witnessing vicious cycles of fragility, where communities may have limited capacity to recover from one disaster to the next.  Simply put, climate hazards are threatening the long-term stability of our governments, our economies, and our global security.

The United States has prioritized the need to both mitigate and build resilience to these strategic threats.  This new U.S. Framework for Climate Resilience and Security prescribes three actions for turning this prioritization into implementation.

1. Assess Climate-Related Threats and Opportunities: Without assessment of the impacts of climate change on our security and defense, it is difficult for our leaders to adapt to a rapidly changing environment or to plan strong responses.  The United States has state-of-the-art scientific capabilities, and thanks to this strategic edge, we are able to predict where climate impacts will exacerbate threats–and act effectively in advance.
   
2. Partner for an Integrated Approach: Each federal department and agency has unique capabilities and comparative advantages in our response to climate hazards, but coordination is critical to efficiently and effectively meet the needs of our communities.  Similar partnerships must also extend to partners overseas at the national, regional, and local levels, civil society, the private sector, philanthropies, and international organizations, to enable the effective use of resources and information, and to incorporate and respond to the needs of those who are impacted most.
   
3. Invest in Collective Resilience: Increasing the resilience of our own investments—including those in our supply chains, physical installations, or the provision of emergency assistance when challenges arise—advances national security objectives and yields economic results.  As our deployment of mitigation resources intensifies through the clean energy transition, we must protect them with commensurate consideration for and investment in resilience that can not only protect lives, and livelihoods, but avoid or lessen future humanitarian and economic assistance needs.

Ultimately, these are the investments for which Americans across the country, and our partners across the world, are asking.  These are not just about the rising threats of the climate crisis, but ultimately they are critical ingredients for ensuring  economic security.  Realizing these goals will protect lives and property, prepare first responders and defense forces, and improve livelihoods globally.

We will bring to bear the leadership of the United States to confront these threats, and bring our cutting-edge analysis, partnership, and investment to partners globally.  In doing so, we will be able to turn many of these growing vulnerabilities into strategic opportunities.  Through these efforts, we will build a more resilient and sustainable global security—one that asserts that projecting and withstanding climate shocks and disruptions is better done through partnership and investment.

Signed,

John Podesta
Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy

Jake Sullivan
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

The full U.S. Framework for Climate Resilience and Security can be found here.

The post A U.S. Framework for Climate Resilience and Security appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:42 P.M. EDT

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

Q Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, next Thursday, President Biden and Vice President Harris will separately meet with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine at the White House. They will discuss U.S. support for Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression and Ukraine’s strategic planning.

The president and the vice president will also emphasize their unshakable commitment to stand with Ukraine until it prevails in this war.

Earlier today, the president addressed the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., where he discussed the important moment our country has reached. Inflation and interest rates are falling, and the economy remains strong.

As the president made clear in his remarks, this is good news for the overall economy because lower borrowing costs will support economic growth.

The president knows there is still more to do to lower costs and protect the progress American workers have made.

With that, I will turn it over to Jared Bernstein, who is back, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to further discuss the progress our economy has made under the Biden-Harris administration.

All right, Jared. Welcome back.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me back. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Thanks to Karine and her team for helping accommodate my visit and to the CEA staff, who always help me be well-prepared.

Earlier today, as you just heard, the president talked about the progress we’ve made in helping to build a more prosperous and equitable economy on behalf of the American people. He described that progress in terms of sustained low unemployment, job and real wage gains, solid real GDP growth driven by strong consumer spending and investment.

He talked about the optimism embedded in the record 19 million people who have filed to start small businesses; the unsnarling of supply chains; the record energy production; the investment in key sectors of domestic production, like clean energy and chips, to ensure America’s position in the global economy.

And he marked this moment in our pro- — in our economic progress by citing the actions taken by the Federal Reserve yesterday to lower the benchmark interest rate they control, an action that will help lower the borrowing cost for homes, cars, credit cards, and borrowing to start or build a business.

Th- — the Fed’s action also underscores the historically unusual fact that all of the progress I just described occurred during a period of significant and critically important disinflation. Though these words, thankfully, did not appear in the president’s remarks today, in CEA language, he was talking about the very low sacrifice ratio that has characterized this economic expansion.

This ratio derives from the historically negative relationship between unemployment and inflation. It describes how many percentage points of unemployment, for example, we would have to accept to get inflation back down to its target.

That concept is why, not that long ago, we saw prominent headlines and commentary assuring us that it would take much slower growth — one headline proclaimed 100 [percent] chance of recession ne- — last year to achieve the disinflation that has occurred.

And yet, here we are with 6.5 percentage points of CPI disinflation and the solid economic conditions I described above.

Quoting Chair Powell from yesterday, quote, “I don’t see anything in the economy now that suggests the likelihood of a downturn is elevated. The U.S. economy is in a good place. More specifically, the economy is growing at a solid pace, with inflation coming down closer to our 2 percent objective over time, and the labor market is in solid shape.”

Now we underscore these dynamics in CEA’s most recent blog post — if I can get figure one — thank you.

So, this is a blog post that you can get from the CEA website. What this shows is, in fact, inflation over the period where it went up and disinflated against a set of forecasts that were made by the Blue Chip forecasters, by CBO, by the Fed’s FOMC SEP committee.

And you see that the inflation forecasts were — were quite — quite good, quite accurate. They pretty much follow the dark line, which is the actual line.

Next slide. That gets very different when you look at the unemployment rate. In fact, the title of our blog is “How the Economy Defied the Forecast.” Here we have the forecast predicting unemployment would have been very high in order to achieve that much disinflation.

And, in fact, what we have here in this shaded area is the most optimistic and the most pessimistic estimations of where the unemployment would be — unemployment rate would be by the Blue Chip forecasters. These are the most optimistic because they’re the lowest. We beat the most optimistic forecast when it came to unemployment.

If — next slide, please — if, in fact, the forecasts were correct, this is how much more unemployment we would have had, how much more unemployment households and American workers would have been stuck with if we hadn’t beaten even the most optimistic forecasts on unemployment.

And you can see those numbers range from 1 to north of 5 million unemployed persons whose fate was avoided by the trends I’ve showed you thus far.

And finally, Figure 4 shows the same dynamic for GDP, again, beating the most optimistic forecast of the Blue Chip, which in this case would be the upper part of the shaded area.

I’ll close with another important reference to the president’s speech today: the part about — and you heard this from Karine — “our work is not done.” As he put it, “I am not here to take a victory lap. I’m not here to say the job is done. I’m not here to say ‘we don’t have more work to do’.” Of course we do.

Our cost cutting agenda, in particular, is as urgent today as it was before the Fed acted. But that fact should not prevent anyone from recognizing the progress we’ve made, the expectation-defying, ongoing expansion, and the work, productivity, and grit of the American people to get us where we are today.

And with that, I’ll take your questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thank you. You’re, you know, one of the people that the president would call if he has any questions about the American economy. I was curious to ask you: What would you say is an economic iss- — issue that the president these days is asking the most sort of probing questions —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Yeah.

Q — to you about — whether it’s a data point or a phenomenon or something that he’s seeing in the economy?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I’ve been talking with the president a lot in the last few days, as I’ve met many other members of the team in preparation for the speech he gave today. So, I am ready with a very timely answer to that question.

It’s — it’s — it’s the same — it’s a similar dynamic, similar conversation I’ve had with Joe Biden since I was his chief economist when he was the vice president. He wants to know how these economic developments, how the progress I’ve talked about today that he spoke about affects working families, like the one he grew up in. And right now, that relates a lot to the interest rate cut. How does a cut in interest rate ripple through to the economic lives of working American families?

And the answer that I shared with him and I’ll share with you is lower costs of lending; lower cost of a mortgage; lower cost if you wanted to take a loan to improve your home; lower cost of auto loans, credit cards, if you want to start or expand a small business. Lower interest rates are really meaningful to people.

It’s one of the — it’s really one of the key economic variables in — in a lot of people’s lives through that channel of — of borrowing costs. And that’s certainly, I think, a timely example of — of things we’ve discussed lately.

Q And how did you prepare him for the possibility of the Fed making the kind of cut that it did yesterday?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Having conversations much like the one we discussed. I mean, we’re very careful, as you know, to respect the independence of the Fed, but, of course, we’re always going to talk about any important dynamic or variable in the economy. And so, this is a conversation we’ve had, and it — you know, it — it goes right to the impact of the — the — ri- — it goes right to the impact on the economic lives of the families we discussed.

I think, also, part of this discussion has been about the trajectory of inflation. And here, I want to underscore something I said in my — in my topper but also the president leaned in today. Very important to him. We’ve had a lot of discussions about this — a direct answer your question.

He’s been very interested in these predictions that said, “Sorry, you can’t get this much disinflation — six and a half points on the CPI — without accepting a much worse unemployment rate or much slower GDP growth.” That is the more kind of traditional within those shaded areas in the figures I showed.

And the president felt strongly that we were not going to achieve disinflation on the backs of working people. We needed to get there through improvements in the economy supply side, through energy production, through cost reductions in the areas where we’ve tried to do more of that.

So, maintaining the strong economy on behalf of working families while getting to lower inflation has been essential for rising real wages and incomes, and that’s what we’ve seen.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.

Q Thanks. Hey, Jared. Thanks for being here. You know, one of the issues that has still proven to be very difficult is — is getting housing prices down. Can you walk us through — do you have any kind of numbers to put on housing prices and the — the importance they play within the CPI bundle, in terms of, you know, now that we’ve had the interest rate cut, how much more is — is it — you know, are housing prices going to come down?

And then, I asked this question yesterday, but I want to ask you again. With the escalating tensions in the Middle East and the possibility of a broader regional war growing, how do you assess the impact on prices, both in terms of oil and other factors?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Okay. So, on housing prices, you’re very — you’re very much correct that the CPI, as well — well, the CPI in particular, but the index I was showing earlier, which is the PCE, a different index — they have heavy weights for housing. CPI, in particular.

In the CPI, the housing weight is, I think, around 35 percent. It’s the si- — shelter is the single largest weight, I believe, in the CPI. And so, it’s very impactful.

And one of the ways we di- — showed that in a recent blog that we did — which I think, you know, I — I commend to you, because we really dive into your question on the CEA website — is we pointed out that if you look at core inflation over the past year in the CPI — that’s inflation without energy and food — 3.2 percent. Core inflation CPI without shelter, half of that: 1.6 percent. So, it really gives you a flavor of how heavy that weight is.

Now, there are two things going on with housing prices in the CPI. One is cyclical or mechanical, and the other is — or maybe call it, you know, something — well, one is — is cyclical or mechanical, and the other is structural.

So, the mechanical part is that as rental inflation has rolled over — and it really has. I mean, the inflation of rents was highly elevated. It’s now back to levels that we saw pre-pandemic — and this is rental inflation now, not rental — not the price level but the inflation. As that has rolled over, most CPI analysts have expected that to filter into the index by now. We haven’t seen that. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher.

I think Powell talked about it yesterday. He referenced that the other part of shelter costs — owner-equivalent rent, which I won’t get into the details — that’s been coming in stronger than expected.

So — but — but simply based on the mechanics of the lags and the rollover in rental inflation, we still expect that to show up as easing in the — in — in the CPI’s housing component.

But where we — much more important, from our perspective and from the Biden administration — I’d say the Biden-Harris administration, because Vice President Harris has ambitious plans — is to deal with the structural problem. We have a 15-year-in-the-making shortage of affordable housing in this country. Fifteen years in the making. Millions of units shortfall.

And this is a market failure. And when there’s a market failure, even the most classically oriented economists believe that there is important space for government intervention. And Vice President Harris and President Biden have, I think, very important and some, in — in many cases, tried and true policy measures that would help reduce that shortfall: expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit; subsidizing developing and building in — in ways that would make those deals — that make those developments pencil out in a way that they don’t right now.

We could spend a lot more time talking about housing policy, but you can — you can find it out there. I think addressing that shortfall is absolutely critical. I’d call it one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business we have. But we can’t do it by ourselves. Congress needs to work with us, and there is zero reason why this should be a red or a blue or a D or an R issue. This shortage is pervasive in states across the nation.

Q Wait, the Middle East.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: On the Middle East. So, when it comes to geopolitical conflict, there are other people who can stand up here and talk about that with more authority. What I’ll say is, from an economic perspective, of course, we monitor that very closely. But I think it’s instructive, important. And in — in the context of my discussion to you today about how working families are doing, the breathing room that folks have been getting from low gas prices at the pump, relative to where we were a year ago, is really remarkable, especially when you consider the extent of geopolitical conflict in an area where a lot of — in an area of the world where — where energy is often produced and — and shipped.

And, you know, this morning, the gas price was $3.22
a gallon. I believe that’s 68 cents per gallon down from where it was a year ago. That’s real breathing room. It’s one of the reasons why year-over-year CPI — it’s 2.5 percent in the last read, close to where it was pre-pandemic. And we think that’s, you know, an important piece of breathing room.

We would also argue that the president’s fingerprints have been on that both, whether it’s a matter of the release of the Strategic Reserve, but also record energy production from all sources.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Jared. The president, in his remarks about an hour ago, said that he had never spoken with the Fed chairman since he’s been in the White House. That’s obviously not true. They met in the Oval Office in 2022. Could you clarify the president’s remarks there and why did he say that?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Sure. The president was saying that he has not spoken to Chair Powell about interest rates. He did not pressure Powell and has never done so. And, in fact, in the speech today that was in the section about Fed independence and about the importance of respecting and — and honoring that independence. It’s obviously a stark contrast with our predecessor.

Never has the president spoken to Chair Powell about interest rates as president, never has he pressured him. And, you know, the reason for that — and I speak to you now as an economic historian — is that countries where that independence have been compromised, economies where that independence have been compromised have been brought to their knees by inflationary pressures time and time again.

So, by respecting the Fed’s independence, the president has done a very important service and has made a real contribution to where we are today.

Q But he misspoke an hour ago, is what you’re saying?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: The president was saying he’s not spoken to Chair Powell about —

Q (Inaudible.)

CHAIR BERSTEIN: — interest rates as president. That’s what he — that’s certainly what he meant, and he certainly didn’t pressure him in that discussion that occurred in May of ‘22.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.

Q Thanks, Jared. So, this rate cut is colliding with presidential politics. At what point do you think Americans will start to feel the broad economic improvements that come at this rate cut? Would it happen before the election?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, let me start with the political reference. I’d like to quote from you — from a Wall Street Journal lead editorial a couple of days ago. Quote, “We don’t agree with those who say a cut in rates this week is political or intended to help Kamala Harris.” Now I don’t think the Ed Board of the Wall Street Journal is associated much with Democrats or liberals, so I take that as a statement that I very much agree with.

On the non-politial- — non-politilization — politicalza- — I don’t know how to say that word. (Laughter.) On the — on — on the fact that what Chair Powell was doing was monetary policy, not politics.

Now your more, you know, relevant question is — is about when these interests — when people start to feel these interest rate cuts, right? That was the other thing you asked.

Interestingly, the first part of that answer is: already. Because of the priced-in dynamics — that is the mortgage rate — we talked about housing a minute ago — you go back a few months, it was 7.5 percent. As of this morning, it was 6.1 I believe — 6.15, if I’m remembering correctly.

That’s a big step down, and that occurred before any Fed rate cuts took place, in large part due to the expectation — market expectations that those rate cuts were going to occur. So, that’s a priced-in effect

Now, then there’s the dynamics in home loan, in — in auto loans, in credit card loans, in business lending. And that can take anywhere from weeks to months to quarters. I think — again, I think Powell talked about yesterday — talked about it “rippling through.” So, that — that occurs with more of a lag, but — but some of it’s already priced in.

Q And do you think the Fed waited too long to cut rates?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I’m not going to comment on Federal Reserve monetary policy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Way in the back, go ahead.

Q Yeah, thanks. Jared, the previous president — no matter what the state of the economy, no matter what was going on — every single good thing that happened, he personally took credit for it immediately, saying this is the best economy ever, we’ve had more jobs ever than anywhere in the universe, et cetera.

Should this president have done the same thing in order to cheerlead more and get people a better — more excited about the state of things?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I’m an economic adviser, and I try to stay in my lane. So, you know, I have, over the course of my long relationship with President Biden, tried to give him a little political advice. And, you know, frankly, he doesn’t want to hear it from me, and I respect that. (Laughter.)

I — but let me say the following, what your question makes me think. I think that — where I go with that is what measures has President Biden taken wherein those policies helped to lower inflation, helped to tackle some of its causes, helped to get us where we are today? Because I think that’s actually an important part of this explanation.

One of them we already talked about. By respecting the independence of the Federal Reserve after his predecestor — predecessor repeatedly criticized the Fed and undermined its independence — simply by respecting that independence, that helped give them the space to do the monetary policy they believed to be needed to get us here.

As I mentioned, again, and he cited this in his speech today, he unleashed record energy production to lower gas prices.

He brought together — this is one of my personal favorites. He brought together business and labor to fix our supply chains. This is the unsnarling of supply chains that was so important to the disinflation.

And one of the charts that we highlight a lot at CEA is if you look at measures of supply-side snarling, supply-side constraints and you plot them against the commodities or the good components within the CPI, they track each other very closely.

In fact, I’ll make sure to put that up on my Twitter feed, EconJared46 — (laughter) — give me a follow — later today to show and that — (laughter) — that — that is something that — that comes directly from the Supply Side Disruption Task Force, of which I and my colleagues here were card-carrying members. And now he’s rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in the manufacturing sector to strengthen these chains.

He took on Big Pharma to lower prescription drug costs.

So, these are concrete measures that we’ve taken to help get us to where we are. And I would argue the president and vice president’s fingerprints are on these results.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

Q Thanks for being here. Vice President Harris has, you know — her housing plan to build — what is it? — 3 million units should she become president and should that legislation — gets passed. How important would you say was the rate cut should her plan see — see the — the light of day? How important was it for the Fed to start lowering those rates?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think the — when — when — and I — I — without getting into, again, the Fed — the Fed’s monetary policy or where they’re going with interest rates, my initial comments about how important lower interest rates are to consumers certainly applies to people with a mortgage, looking for a mortgage, thinking about refinancing. I actually think it’s a pretty different bucket relative to the housing supply policies.

I’ll say a more — more about the 3 million units. I’ll say more about that in a second.

But one thing that I think and hope will happen is that there are a lot of people — and, actually, Powell talked about this as well, but we’ve been talking about this for a while — there are a lot of people locked into their current mortgages. Okay? They want to move — you know, I’ve heard stories about divorced couples that want to move, but they’re stuck in their house together because they have a 3 percent mortgage, and what’s out there in the market has been a lot higher.

One of the things I think we see when mortgage rates start coming down — and I’ve talked to a lot of experts to try to figure out what that number might be — is the unlocking of that lock-in effect.

Now that doesn’t necessarily lead to a lot more housing supply the way her or the president’s policies would, but it does create more churn. And people who are stuck in a starter home, they move to a different house, and that starter home becomes open, and that’s the first rung on the ladder for families trying to get into — trying to, you know, build their — their wealth through homeownership.

So, that churn is actually — I think, would be quite helpful. And as mortgage rates come down, we expect to see that.

When it comes to building 3 million affordable units — again, I won’t go through the policy description I did a minute ago, but I will talk about one: on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, of which expansion is a big part of both her and the president’s agenda. Expanding LIHTC, which is a tried-and-true program for building affordable multifamily households — so this is on the rental side of the equation — is a policy that the banks like because they buy the credits from the developers, the developers like it because it makes the buildings pencil out, and housing advocates for low-income renters like it. That’s a pretty rare triumvirate.

So, expanding LIHTC is a great idea, as is — I mentioned earlier — a set of subsidies and tax credits to make building affordable housing pencil out in a way that it does not do so now.

We also have some measures that help ease some land-use restrictions. I won’t go into them now in the interest of time. But we have a — I think we have a — a powerful agenda in that space.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Naomi, in the back.

Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Jared.

Last night, the former president proposed a temporary cap — cap on credit card interest rates at around 10 percent. Is that something that the Biden-Harris administration thinks is a good idea?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think that happened today. Or when did — what did you say?

Q I thought it happened last night.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Okay, maybe it happened last night. So, you know, I haven’t had a lot of conversations about that yet with my colleagues, and I would wait before that — I will — let — but I will say the following.

I think you have to be careful with things that people throw out there without a lot of thought or consideration. You have to think about what kind of impact that might have. There’s risk factors that go into that kind of a policy that might make it harder for a lot of people who need credit to be able to get it, because companies won’t sell it to them. So, I think you have to be careful about unintended consequences.

What I will say is that this administration has taken a very forward-looking and very, I think, you know, a pretty deep run at many of these issues — helping to lower credit card fees; helping to make for one of the, I think, most effective Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus — something that the Trump administration consistently tried to shut down and gut.

So, when it comes to protecting consumers, this administration, I think, has a track record that isn’t just about, you know, throwing off ideas that may or may not be effective.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Jared, you have the last question.

Q Thanks. Two quick questions. One, the president, in his speech today, said that he expects interest rates to continue to fall. What gives him that confidence?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think what the president said was a reference to the SEP, the Survey of Economic Projections, that comes out with the Fed report yesterday, where they put where they — where members of the Federal Open Market Committee put where they think interest rates are going. So, he was simply referring to the published SEP.

Q And the Congress is going to have to, before they leave, pass a short-term spending bill of some kind. That — there seems to be talks between three months and six months. Does the council have a — a preference for kind of how that’s worked out, how long it lasts?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think the way we would put it from the council, and probably from the administration writ large, is that — well, let me — actually, let me tell you where we would put it from the council.

So, we are at a — an economic moment that I hope I’ve conveyed to you today is unique, is strong, is leading to real wage and income gains, disinflation amidst strong growth, lower inflation, lower interest rates, wages and incomes growing.

This is a — this is a solid economy. You heard my quotes from Chair Powell yesterday. And it’s an economy that is getting back to the kinds of conditions that we’ve wanted to see for a long time.

Making an own-goal kick in that economy is not only a bad idea, it’s — it’s malpractice. It doesn’t — you know, se- — it’s not like these — it’s not like government shutdowns, you know, send the economy off a cliff, but they are a negative. They do lead to losses.

Now sometimes those losses are made up on the other side of the shutdown, but there is no reason for us to go through that. There’s never a good time for that own-goal kick, and it’s particularly bad now.

The only path forward is through bipartisanship. House Republicans should stop wasting time and work across the aisle to pass a short-term bill to keep the government open and provide emergency funding for disasters.

Congress knows how to do this. It’s not complicated. They’ve done it on a bipartisan basis many times.

Given the economic conditions I’ve been touting here today, given what we saw yesterday, given the information in the president’s speech, this is no time to be playing those kinds
of games.

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

Q Jared, any update on the Farm Bill, sir? The Farm bill?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Jared, thank you. Thank you so much.

Q Farmers and ranchers want to know. Jared, the Farm Bill?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right.

Q Farmers and ranchers would like to know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Give Jared a follow on X. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. (Laughter.)

CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I actually don’t have anything else. Go ahead, Zeke.

Q Thanks, Karine. First for you, escalating tensions along the Israel-Lebanese border, even this morning, right now potentially, ongoing bombing and shelling across the border. Has the president tried to contain that front since October 7th? The administration held that out in the days after as a success. Has — has he reached the limits of his influence there, in terms of keeping a lid on what had been a (inaudible) conflict from growing into a larger conflagration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you said, we’ve spoken about this and our concerns, and so we’ve been very clear about this. Our commitment, obviously, to — to Israel’s security is ironclad. We are unwavering — unwavering against all Iran-backed threats, including Hezbollah.

And what we have said, and — and I think this is kind of the question that you asked to me — is that the diplomatic resolution is achievable. That’s what we still believe. It is urgent, obviously. The conflict along the Blue Line has gone on for way too long — far too long, and it needs to get to a resolution quickly.

And so, we’re going to continue to do that, continue to have those diplomatic conversations. We continue to work on a ceasefire deal. We believe that is — that is the way forward in — in calming and lowering the temperature there, and that’s why we’ve been working around the clock to get that done.

But we still believe a diplomatic resolution is the way forward here. We still believe that it is — it is possible. And, obviously, the urgency continues to be — continue to be that.

Q And then the president’s top representative was in the region —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — a day before those pagers all started exploding. You know, it seems that U.S. influence, the president’s influence seems to not — not really be working or is not having an effect.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I wouldn’t — I — I don’t agree. I mean, you — you started off saying that we — you know, we did have some — some — (laughs) — some influence there in the beginning.

Q (Inaudible) was there over the weekend and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know, but —

Q — then they started exploding the day after.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — you — you did — you did say that we — we — it did — it was working in your question to me or — moments ago — seconds ago.

Look, it doesn’t — it doesn’t stop from the fact that the president wants to see a diplomatic resolution. He believes it’s achievable. Obviously, it’s urgent to get there. And that is going to continue.

We are working around the clock. As you said, we’ve had representative — the president’s White House officials have been in the region, continuing to have conversations about getting to a ceasefire deal.

We’re continuing to work with Egypt and Qatar and, obviously, also Israel to get there. It is important that we get to that — to — to a deal where we can get hostages home, where we can end — end this war. That’s what the president wants to see. He has said that himself. And also get that much-needed — continuing to get that much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.

And so, it’s not going to stop us. It’s not going to stop us from having continuous conversations — those diplomatic conversations, as I’ve been stating.

And so, we’re going to stay steadfast. We’re going to be very focused on her- — with this. And so, we are going to continue to work on these alternative diplomatic solutions so that we can create conditions there that — for displaced Lebanese civilians to go home in — in the south, and also for Israeli civilians to go home in their — in their — in the north. And I’m talking about the — the Blue Line, obviously.

Q And then on a different topic. The president is hosting the Quad Summit in Wilmington, Delaware. We also understand that he’s hosting bilateral meetings with those — some of those — with those world leaders at his private home. And what we currently understand is that the press will not be allowed into that bilateral meeting. Can you explain why that — this is the administration that held itself out as the most transparent in history, and that is not transparency.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. Okay. Let’s talk about the other things that are happening over the course of the Quad Summit.

Look, we have stated: One of the reasons we talked about having — having the Quad Summit in Wilmington is because the president believes how powerful it is to have that personal relationships. And he wants to — certainly, he has — has developed personal relationships with members of the Quad, and he wants to do — do — he took it a step further, obviously, by having them in his hometown.

And so, diplomacy, he sees, is personal. Politics is personal. Foreign policy is personal.

But we do believe there is going to be plenty of opportunities for press to have access. And I’ll just — just to walk through a couple of things that we are going to be — going to be providing and the availability that you all will have.

The Quad will have extensive press access and will be covered by all four countries’ pools. There will be three individual leader greets at Arch- — Archmere Academy, where the president attended school. There will be a Quad family photo. There will be two major events, including a leaders’ level meeting of the Quad at a newsy Cancer Moonshot event. And press will also see all of the leaders depart on Saturday evening after their intimate leaders’ dinner.

In addition to these coverage opportunities, there’s going to be — we’re going to be arranging briefings — two briefings that NSC is going to be providing to the press pool. It’s going to be NSC folks who — who are focused on the subject matter who will be available to all of you and answer some questions. And so, I think that’s going to be really important.

Look, this is — this is a private dinner. This is continuing the — the personal relationships that he has, fostering those personal relationships that he has with the leaders of the Quad. But there’s going to be many other opportunities for — for the press to see exactly what’s happening, to see —

Q Except we’re —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — some handshakes.

Q — we’re not going to see the private dinners. We’re not going to see those bilateral meetings at this house. I mean, when President Bush hosted foreign leaders in Crawford, the pool was invited. When President Trump —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I just went —

Q — hosted a lot of leaders in Mar-a-Lago, the press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q And youalso didn’t mention a press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. And there’s — and for this particular Quad Summit, we’re not going to have a press conference. We don’t have a press conference for every — every leader eve- — leader summit or event that we have.

In this particular scenario, when it comes to these private meetings, there won’t be — that’s going to be at — obviously, at his home, we’re not going to have access there.

But there are many — plenty of other opportunities where we believe that will be very fruitful for the press. They’re going to see some — some opportunities to see the president engage with the Quad leaders. And I think that’s important too.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies said that Iranian hackers sent stolen information from the Tram camp- — Trump campaign to individuals associated with the Biden campaign. This is before President Biden left the race. So, was the president made aware of this at the time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is that we learned about the statement yesterday, and — and the president has been made aware of it now. But we learned about the statement yesterday.

Look, this is something that the FBI, ODNI, and CISA have to speak to. It is — they put out their statement. So I would refer you to them specifically.

But more broadly, what I can say about this is that no foreign government[s] like Iran or Russia are actively seeking to influence in our elections. And so, we have said that. We know that. And that’s why we have seen — we have seen — you’ve seen us take actions to hold accountable those who tee- — who seek to undermine confidence in our democracy, and we will continue to do so.

And so, that has been something that we’ve said from here. The ODNI has shared with the American people what we know about the foreign influence, including by making public the hack of the Trump campaign on August 19th. In early September, the Department of Justice brought criminal charges against those involved in covert influence operations on behalf of RT.

And so, this is something that, obviously, law enforcement is — and our intelligence — intelligence community is — is focused on. And so, they’re better to — to certainly speak to it directly.

Q Can you share what information was in those emails and if the president has been made aware —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something —

Q — of the information in those emails?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That is something that they could speak to. The president has [been] made aware. We — we saw the statement yesterday. That’s when we were — we learned about it. The president obviously is aware of it now, but I would have to refer you to FBI.

Q So, the president didn’t receive any advance briefing before that statement went out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We were made aware —

Q He —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We were made aware of the state- — of when the statement came out yesterday. Now the president is aware himself.

I would have to refer you to FBI, CISA, and ODNI.

Q And just shifting gears a little bit. In general, what is the White House’s view about the attacks in Lebanon? We’re talking about exploding walkie-talkies and pagers in crowded civilian areas, children dead, including thousands injured.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I will say is my NSC colleague was here yesterday. You all asked him multiple questions about — about what occurred. I don’t have anything else to share beyond that. I’ve taken questions on this. I don’t have any more information to share on this. And so, I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q But is that a tactic that the U.S. would use?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q Not asking for specifics.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I’m not going to speak to this at this time. I’m just not.

Go ahead.

Q Karine, during the president’s remarks, he also spoke about the negotiations that you conducted to lower drug prices and seemed to suggest that you would be doing that on weight-loss drugs. It was kind of an incomplete sentence. He said, “Watch,” you know, doing this on wei- — or — so, can you just give us a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to go beyond what the pr- — he said, “Watch.” I don’t have anything else to share. I don’t have an announcement to make.

Q But did he miss a few words or —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to — I don’t have anything else to add.

As you know, one of the things that came out of the — the Inflation Reduction Act is to make sure that we did everything that we can to lower — lower health care drugs, pre- — prescription drugs. And that’s what you see. You saw the president was able to beat Big Pharma.

And so, that is important to the American people, lowering those really critical drugs that they need just to survive. You’ve heard stories about — whether folks are dealing with cancer or diabetes and how much it ch- — they get charged by big pharmaceuticals. And now we’re in a position where we can lower those drugs.

I don’t have anything to — to say or to add beyond what the president shared today.

Q And — and just to — to go back to the Middle East for a moment. So, you know, I think — would you — would you agree that there has been a change or an escalation in the tensions in the region? And are you concerned about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q And what — what are you doing to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We —

Q — sort of tamp down on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We have said we are concerned about the es- — the tension and afraid and concerned about potential escalation — we have said that — in the Middle East. We’ve been very clear. And we’ve also said that the way to move forward is dip- — diplomatic resolution. We think it is achievable. Obviously, it is urgent.

And so, that’s what we’re going to continue to do: having those diplomatic conversation. Diplomacy is key here when we talk about a potential escalation, which we do not want to see. We do not want to see. And so, we’re going to continue to work towards that.

Q But, Karine, why not use the levers that you have? You know, the U.S. is sending weapon shipments to Israel. Why not — in other cases involving other countries, you have curtailed weapon shipments. In the case of Israel, you’ve put — you know, stopped, paused the 2,000-pound weapons. Why not send a signal by pausing weapon shipments to express your concern?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, we are going to — our policy has not changed. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. That has not changed. And we have — we cannot forget what Israel is dealing with in that region. What we’re talking about — having to really fight against, you know, Iran-backed threats, including Hezbollah. This is something that we’ve been very clear about.

And so, our support has not changed. It will continue. We do not have a policy change here. We’re going to continue — our commitment to continuing to support Israel’s security continues here. We want to see a diplomatic resolution. It is important. We want to see that happen. Obviously, we believe it’s achievable, and that’s how we want to move forward here.

But we do not — we’re not going to change our policies.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q Thanks, Karine. An Israeli official told CNN that a senior adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu had presented to the Biden administration a new ceasefire proposal. Did that happen?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as I said multiple times before, and my colleagues here who have — from NSC who have been at — at the podium, we’re going to continue to have discussions with Egypt and Qatar as well as Israel on a way forward — let’s not forget — after Hamas brutally, brutally murdered six hostages.

I’m not going to get into specifics. I’m not going to — I’m not going to negotiate from here, but we are going to continue to have those discussions.

Q I’m just asking if you can confirm that there was a new proposal shared with the U.S.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just going to continue to have discussions with Qatar and Egypt. I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q Okay. The proposal appears to be for a permanent end to the war; release of all the hostages in Gaza; all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel also being released; and safe passage for Yahya Sinwar out of Gaza. Does any of this sound feasible to you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We’re in consultations with all the parties: Qatar, Egypt, Israel. I’m not going to negotiate from here. I’m not going to confirm anything from here.

But we continue to have these discussions. We believe the best way forward is to get to a ceasefire deal. That’s what we want to see. Bring home hostages, get more immediate relief into Gaza, that’s what we want to see. And get — and make sure we end this war, and that’s what we want to see.

Q And just finally, next week, the president and the prime minister are not meeting in New York City around UNGA. Why is that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to share beyond the — beyond what we’ve shared of what we’re going to see with the president. If we have more information to share on what — who the president is going to meet with, any other world leaders, we’ll certainly share that with all of you.

Q Well, we’ve reported that they’re not going to meet, so I’m just asking why that is.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else. As you know, when it comes to the prime minister of Israel, the president, he and the president have had multiple conversations over the course of almost a year now. They’ve met a couple of times. I just don’t have anything to share beyond — reasoning as to why they’re going to meet, if they’re going to meet. I’m just not — don’t have anything else to share.

Go ahead, Danny.

Q Thanks, Karine. You said that the president believes that a diplomatic solution is achievable. What — what on earth gives you the — (laughs) — you know, the — the reason to believe that? I mean, what — what evidence is there that, despite all these — you know, these —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — the pager bombings and the, you know, now, airstrikes today and Nasrallah saying it’s a declaration of war — what — you know, what is there that makes you believe that? What makes the president believe that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because the president continues to believe that we have to be optimistic and diplomatic resolution is the best way.

When you think about foreign policy and when we think about these type of relationship, having diplomacy, having those conversations is critical, is key.

And the president has been successful in doing that in the past three and a half years. So, that’s what he wants to see.

He believes that it’s still achievable. He believes that it’s still — still achievable. We are not saying that we don’t have concerns. We do not want to see escalations. We are not saying that the conflict that we have seen — it truly has — along the Blue Line has gone for too long. We are acknowledging that. We’re going to continue to have this di- — diplomacy. It is important to do so. And that’s the way we see — this president sees moving forward.

Go ahead.

Q Yeah. The first lady will be traveling to Mexico October the 1st to attend the inauguration event —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — of Claudia Sheinbaum. Vladimir Putin is also invited to the event. Is that potential encounter something that worries the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

Q Okay. And considering the relevance and influence the U.S. has in the region, in the Middle East, considering that you provide most of the arms, I — what is the — what do you think is the precise goal that Israel has in these attacks in Lebanon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I can’t speak to — to any of — I can’t speak to this. Just going to leave it where we have been in the last two days. You heard from my colleague yesterday.

Look, the — going back to the inauguration in Mexico. The first lady — I talked about this yesterday — she’s looking forward to being there. It’s a historic moment. That’s going to be her focus in supporting the president-elect and being there — being there with the de- — the U.S. delegation, where she’s very much looking forward to it.

I’m not going to speak to what President Putin is going to do or not do.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. And thank you for clarifying when the president first learned of this Iranian influence campaign or attempts to reach people associated with the campaign.

Now, what is now the Harris-Walz campaign says it was people associated with the campaign, not campaign staffers who received emails from Iranian hackers. Were any of those people associated with the campaign, as they put it, members of the Biden family?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would have to refer you to FBI, CISA, and ODNI on this. They can speak to the specifics. I would also have to refer you to the campaign.

Q And — well, that’s the thing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q He’s — he’s not a member of the campaign anymore, and apparently, these people weren’t either. That’s why we’re asking you here —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —

Q — at the White House.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And this is — this is something that the FBI, CISA, and ODNI can speak to. I cannot speak that — to that from here.

Q So, whether any of those people were White House officials who weren’t on the Wilmington payroll at the time being contacted through their personal email, you couldn’t say?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You have to speak to FBI, ODNI, and CISA on this one.

Q Regarding the Quad, is the vice president attending any of the meetings on Saturday?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: She will not be attending any of the meetings on Saturday.

Q And the decision not to allow reporters to see the bilaterals that he’ll be having Friday afternoon and Saturday, does this have something to do with the foreign press pools from India, Japan, and Australia? Is there a security concern with having them on the grounds of his home?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is, the president wants to have a personal moment with the leaders. This is a — relationships that he has had with leaders of the Quad throughout, obviously, his tenure here as president. He wanted to have a — continue to for- — foster those personal relationship. He wanted to have a private moment with them, continue to grow those relationship. That’s what this is about.

Q But not — the fact also that he’s not having a press conference around this, was that a request of any of the other governments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I can’t speak to private conversations that our folks at NSC are having with the different countries. I don’t have anything to add to that.

Q I just — it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I want to say is, it is important to him — inviting them to Wilmington, his home state, his home — his city, his home state, obviously, Delaware. It was important for him to have these personal touches. It was important to him to do something that he hadn’t done before, bring him to his home —

Q Then why not let the world —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — bring them to his home city.

Q — see him having those meetings with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But there’s going to be plenty of opportunities. It’s not like we’re — we’re not allowing all of you to see many other things that are going to develop with — throughout the day. I mean, I just went through them: a Quad family photo. He’s going to take them to the — to his high school. You all are going to be there. There’s going to be some really important — important announcement about Cancer Moonshot, and you all are going to be there. There’s going to be an opportunity to see them when they leave on Saturday as well — depart. You’ll see him saying goodbye to the leaders on Saturday. There’s going to be —

Q Can you appreciate, though, that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There’s — there’s — but — but can you also appreciate — I hear you all, but can you also appreciate that we have created other opportunities? There is this one —

Q They’re all photo ops. That’s what you’ve created. They are not a press conference, which we would prefer.

Q And what I was going to —

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

Q What I was going to suggest is: What baffles people in this room — especially for those who are watching this and wondering why on earth do we harp on these sides of things — what baffles us is this is a president who, from day one, committed to be the most transparent president possible, who has given speeches at various events saying that he stands for and — and respects the freedom of the press. And here is a great opportunity to stand with the leader of the world’s largest democracy, India, and two other key democracies who are from a region of the world that is struggling to maintain democracy. Why not face questions from reporters and a free press —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, which part —

Q — in that setting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So, which part are you asking me about? Are you asking me about going —

Q Why aren’t we being allowed to see these meetings —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) So —

Q — at the house?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, there — there —

Q And why is there no press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. S- —

Q Which I think was the crux —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. So —

Q — of the negotiations or at least the conversations —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I — no, I —

Q — that went on earlier today.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you, but there are two things that I’m being asked, so let me — not every — not every opportunity that we have, when we do have these foreign — foreign leaders here, do we have a press conference. That is not unusual. We have gone many times back and forth about —

Q Which also frustrates us. Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I totally understand. There’s been some bilats, some — there’s been some other visit where there has not been some press conferences, right? That is not unusual. I’ve — we’ve had conversation —

Q It is unusual.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Excuse me. Excuse me.

Q It is unusual.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not speaking to you. I really am not. Let me have my conversation with Ed. Let me have my conversation with Ed. Thank you.

And so, it is — it is not unusual for us to have this back and forth and talk about why it is happening or not happening.

So, that is — I’ll put that there.

The other part is, this is an opportunity for the president to have a personal moment with the leaders. We have created other opportunities for you all to see him with those leaders, standing with those leaders, shaking hands with the leaders, giving them a — giving them opportunities to see his high school — right? — places where he — that he’s very well — very much connected to that you all will see. He’s going to make a really important announcement about the Cancer Moonshot.

We believe — and I know there is a difference of agreement here — right? — is that there’s going to be plenty of opportunities for press to have access to see him with these other leaders.

And so, we have made sure — made sure — and people — I think people actually care about photo ops. Photo ops are indeed important because you — and maybe there will be questions taken during those photo ops. You never know. Right? But a formal press conference on this trip is not going to happen. With this particular event, it’s not going to happen.

We have gone back and forth on many other events. So, that’s what I’m saying is not unusual. We are — we wanted to make sure that there were plenty of press access throughout the day. And we believe we have done that. And let’s see how the day goes. Let’s see how the day goes on Saturday.

Q Would he —

Q I just wanted to be there when Modi — when Modi gets to see the Corvette. That’s all. But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Say — say that — I’m sorry. Somebody was talking over you.

Q We want to be there when Modi gets to see the Corvette. That’s all.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, the Corvette. (Laughter.)

Q On an unrelated matter.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.

Q The Republican gubernatorial candidate in North Carolina apparently is not dropping out, despite pressure from his party —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — and some pretty salacious news reports. I’m just curious if the president is tracking what’s been going on there —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —

Q — and if the White House has any other comment.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As you know, the president was making this really important economic speech. I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to him about this particular — this particular event that just occurred. I haven’t really seen the stories. I’ve seen, you know — I’ve heard from my staff about — a little bit about this.

What I can say and I want to say off the top is that, you know, antisemitism is never acceptable. It is wrong. It is wrong. And so, we have to be really clear about that. Elected leaders have to be really clear about that. They need to be responsible about calling that out.

As far as the ongoing stories and as it relates to this race, I just don’t have any comment for you, and I haven’t had a se- — a second to talk to the president since he made a really big speech.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Two questions. One related to, kind of, your topper about Ukraine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q Senator J.D. Vance said in an interview a few days ago — and I’m quoting him — “I think Washington has left Taiwan in a really crappy position because we went — we sent all our weapons to Ukraine.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Well —

Q And — so, do you agree with his assessment? Does the Biden administration believe that the U.S. can’t protect Ukraine and Taiwan at the same time?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to go into everything that someone who is in part of this 2024 election — everything that he’s saying or they are saying. Certainly would have to refer you to the campaign.

I think you have seen this president be a leader on the global stage. I think you have seen a president that has brought partners together and allies together to certainly show support for Ukraine.

It is not just the U.S. that is en- — engaging in giving that support to Ukraine. You see that from our allies, from our NATO Allies, from 50 other countries. And so, that is happening because this president has leadership and showed leadership.

And we’ve been very clear about the One China policy. That has not changed. And so, we’ll continue — certainly, we’ll continue to be there for our partners and our allies out there.

I just don’t have any — I’m not going to respond to everything that’s been said out there by — on — on the campaign trail. Not something I’m going to do from here.

Q And on Lebanon, if I might try my luck.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

Q The past two days, the administration kept the position of “We were not involved, and we did not have any knowledge about it.” So, my question is — but you’ve seen what the people in Lebanon endured. Do you think that was act of terrorism?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into it from here. Look, obviously, children being harmed, people being harmed is — is difficult to see and not something that we want to see. But as it relates to any information or anything that occurred the last two days, as relates to the pagers or the walkie-talkies, I don’t have anything else to share beyond he- — from here. You heard from my NSC colleague directly as well. I just don’t have anything else to share.

Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Karine. The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, has issued a proclamation claiming temporary emergency powers that are intended for — to mitigate public safety concerns, obviously, in the wake of the smear of Haitian migrants in that city. Separately, former President Trump says he will visit there in the next couple of weeks.

I understand you have constraints as to what you say — can say relating to a campaign. But in general, from a public order or a community-tension perspective, what do you think about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again — and we have said this multiple times. You’ve heard the president. You’ve heard the vice president. It is — and speaking about this more broadly, it is shameful to continue to spread this type of conspiracy theory. It has been debunked by the mayor of Springfield, by the governor and the city manager, the police department on the ground.

And to continue to spread this type of hateful, hateful smear is — is — it’s — it’s just quite unbelievable that we’re doing this, especially when we’re talking about leaders who are supposed to protect people, protect our communities.

And it causes harm. It causes harm to everyone and — as you can see from the actions that they have to take on the ground to protect people.

And so, look, we are going to continue to denounce this. We should not be tearing our communities apart. This is a president and vice president that believes in bringing our communities together. And that’s what we’re going to continue to see.

We have to bring down the temperature in politics. That’s what the president has said. And, you know, it is —
it is just really shameful, disgusting what is being said out there — I mean, following — going down a rabbit hole, an ugly rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. And it puts people’s lives at risk. It puts all of our lives at risk.

And so, it is unfortunate that the city of Springfield has to deal with this. And — and so, we are — we’re going to continue to call that out.

I do want to say a couple of things that we have been able to provide as security assistance support for Springfield. We tasked DOJ’s Community Relations Service to Springfield to help the community come together and enhance their ability to prevent conflict, provided four bomb-sniffing dogs to help the community ensure buildings are safe, and they can respond in- — to incoming threats. And DHS security personnel is working with Springfield and Ohio officials to support the needs of the community.

But, again, these are hateful smears. They’re conspiracy theories, as you know, but I want to make very, very clear from here.

Q Just on that front, Karine, you said, if I heard you correctly, “four bomb-sniffing dogs”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We provided four bomb-sniffing dogs to help the community ensure buildings are safe and they respond to incoming threats.

Q And were those requested by the community, do you know, or is that a proactive thing —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s —

Q — that you’re doing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s something that we’ve been in touch, obviously, with Springfield — the Spring- — the community in Springfield, and so providing the assistance and trying to give them support that they need, which is not unusual, when a situa- — when we’re — when we’re in this type of situation and environment.

All right. We’re going to start wrapping it up. Go ahead, Gabe.

Q Karine, on the subject of arms sales to Israel. Senator Bernie Sanders, an ally of the president, said he’s preparing resolutions to block $20 billion in arms sales to Israel. It’s a long-shot effort, but what’s the White House’s response to that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Our commitment continues to be — continues to be clear-eyed. We are committed to Israel’s security. That is ironclad. Our policy has not changed.

We believe Israel has the right to defend itself, especially against Iran-backed militias like — like the — like Hezbollah, and so we’re going to continue to do that. That has not changed.

And, obviously, we want to have diplomatic resolution here to the tensions that we’re seeing in the Middle East. We do not want to see an escalation. We believe that’s achievable. And, obviously it’s incredibly urgent.

All right, Naomi.

Q Thanks, Karine. Earlier this week, the White House touted August data from Customs and Border Protection. Is there any plans within the administration to roll back the part of the president’s border EO as it pertains to asylum seekers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you mentioned in — the August data came back and it showed that we — July and August saw the lowest encounters since Oct- — since September of 2020. Encounters of August 2024 were down 68 percent lower than August of 2023. Average daily encounters have decreased by 50 percent since the executive actions.

And so, we’ve taken this action because congressional Republicans refuse to act. And so, look, we’re going to continue to deal with an issue that majority of Americans care — care about — right? — which is making sure that the border is protected, dealing with the border security without the help of congressional Republicans who have gotten in the way and do not provide — want to provide more assistance, more resources.

And if they were to pass that bipartisan border deal, we would have additional resources to actually deal with this without — without the actions that the president has taken.

I don’t have any changes to — to speak to, any change of policy. But, again, this is something that we had to do because congressional Repub- — Republicans refused to take action, and so we took action, and now we’re seeing the effects of that.

Go ahead. Yeah.

Q Oh, sorry. Thanks. You mentioned, you know, that you don’t want to see an e- — an escalation in the — the Middle East. But given what’s happening in Lebanon, what does the White House view as that escalation? What are you all looking for — for, I guess, you say, “Things have really escalated. This is what we need to do. What’s going to happen.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, we — we’ve — I — well, we know there’s tension there. We do not want to see an escalation. We’re continuing to have these diplomatic conversation. This is why the ceasefire deal is — is so important.

This is why we’re continuing to — to engage with Qatar, Egypt, and Israel to get to a resolution here. We believe, if we can get to that, it will reduce the tensions along the Blue Line. So, that’s something that we’re going to continue to continue to do.

I don’t have a chart here to say what is escalation, what does escalation look like, and what’s going to trigger and what we define an escalation. But we know that the tensions exist. We do not want to see further esca- — escalation, and we’re going to continue to have these conversations — these diplomatic conversation to get to a resolution.

Q Have you heard from President Biden on what he is tracking in terms of an escalation and maybe when he might say things have, I guess, taken that turn?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Diplomatic resolution is the way to go. We believe it’s achievable. It’s urgent. We’re going to have those diplomatic resolution. We want to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal. It is important to do so. We believe it would lower the temperature, lower — reduce the tension there. And that’s going to be our focus.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you for taking my question. My colleagues at USA Today published a piece today about the status of the nation’s effort to clear the backlog of sexual assault evidence kits, something that then-Vice President Biden announced in 2015. There have been a hundre- — 100,000 kits tested, $350 million invested, and only 1,500 convictions. Is he satisfied with the results of that initiative? And what more does the president want to see done to reform [how] new and old cases are handled?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you’re right. This is something that the president is very much focused on. I have not spoken to him about that particular report and the findings of that report, so don’t want to certainly say something that I haven’t discussed with the president.

But you heard us, and you heard the president speak to VAWA, a historic legislation that he introduced more than 30 years ago. And let’s not forget, when he was senator, there was no discussion about what happens when a — when a woman is dealing with domestic violence or any type of violence.

And so, he brought that to the forefront, has fought for that for the past 30 years, has been able to make additional steps — push that — make step forwards in — under his administration.

And so, don’t have anything to say to that particular study. Would have to talk to the president and our team.

But, obviously, when it comes to the issue of domestic violence, when it comes to an issue and protecting women, this is something that the president has been fore- — on the forefront of as a senator, as a vice president, and certainly as president.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Karen.

Q Thanks, Karine. Jared Bernstein spoke at length about where you guys stand on the government shutdown at this point. But how would you describe right now the relationship and the communications between the speaker and the president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a conversation to read out. Obviously, the president is in constant communication with leaders, with congressional members on a regular basis. He gets updated by his team on what’s going on, par- — in particular, with the budget conversations.

Don’t have anything to read out on that speaker-POTUS relationship. They’ve talked a couple of times. They’ve seen each other a couple of times.

But as it relates to the CR, we think that there’s a way forward, a bipartisan way forward. We’ve seen this done before, and that’s what the president wants to see.

Q Earlier —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And that’s what the American people deserve.

Q Earlier this week, Johnson was talking about Secret Service protection of Trump, but he said this about the president. He said, “They don’t let me talk to the president very often. That may not be a big surprise to you all. We communicate through staff. It’s a pretty sad situation, and, in fact, it’s a pretty scary situation.”

Is it true that the president is just not talking to the speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s not unusual for staff to have regular conversations with congressional staff. That is not unusual. That is something that happens pretty regularly. We have an Office of Leg Affairs for that purpose. And so, when there’s an important moment for the president and the speaker to speak, obviously, the president has that conversation.

Right now, we’re talking about a short-term CR. That is not a difficult thing. It really isn’t. It is not a difficult thing to get done. It is a easy, easy thing for — action for Congress to take. It — it should be something that they can decide on in a bipartisan way, as they done many times before, and get it done. Really.

As it relates to Secret Service, that is something that Secret Service can speak to. That is something that we don’t talk about from here. It comes from Secret Service. The president has been very clear after July 13th. When we saw the attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, the president said we needed to increase — he wanted to see an increase in the protection. And we saw that.

And so, the president has always been very clear about this. He’s always been — spoken to that par- — in particular piece here. He wanted to see the highest level of protection. And Secret Service, the acting director said it — it’s happened, and so that’s important too. But that’s something that the Secret Service speaks to.

All right. Okay, everybody. Thank you.

Q Does the president believe the Farm Bill will happen? Karine, farmers and ranchers really want to know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you.

3:48 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein, September 19, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

4:19 P.M. EDT

MR. EDWARDS:  Hello.  My name is Jeremy Edwards of the White House Press Office, and thank you for joining us today.

Soon, you’re going to hear from Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard to preview the president’s remarks tomorrow at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., where he will discuss the important moment we’ve reached where inflation and interest rates are falling while the economy remains strong. 

Opening remarks from the two speakers I just mentioned will be on the record, and then we will switch to a background Q&A, during which those remarks — during the Q&A section — will be attributable to “White House officials.” 

As a reminder, this call, the remarks, and any other materials will be embargoed until tomorrow, September 19th, at 5:00 a.m.  That’s, again, this call is embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. on September 19th. 

With that, I’m going to kick it over to Chief of Staff Jeff Zients.

MR. ZIENTS:  Hey.  Hi, everybody. 

Tomorrow, as — as Jeremy said, at the Economic Club, President Biden is going to speak to a new milestone: Inflation and interest rates are falling.  At the same time, employment, wages, and GDP are rising.

I want to be really clear.  This is not meant to be a declaration of victory.  It’s meant to be a declaration of progress — significant progress.  The president believes it’s important to mark this moment for the country by laying out how far we’ve come, while also outlining the work we still have to do.

From day one of this administration, there’s been three pillars to the president’s economic playbook. 

First, the president delivered a historic response to a historic crisis.  When we came into office, we faced a once-in-a-generation pandemic and an unprecedented shutdown of the economy, and there really was no plan or path forward. 

In less than two months, the president devised and led a strategy and negotiated the most significant recovery package in decades, the American Rescue Plan, which delivered shots in arms, provided direct payments to families and businesses, prevented a wave of evictions, and revved up job creation. 

Second, the president acted quickly to address global inflation.  As inflation increased around the world, caused by the pandemic, primarily; broken supply chains; and Russia’s war against Ukraine, President Biden took on the roots of the challenge.  He worked with the private sector to untangle snarled supply chains, getting goods back on shelves again.  The president coordinated with allies and partners to address food and energy prices as a result of Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, including historic releases of oil reserves to stabilize global energy markets. 

The president has always respected the Federal Reserve’s independence to bring down inflation.  That’s in stark contrast to his predecessor.  And, you know, bottom line, this was a time that many economists predicted a recession was necessary to bring down inflation.  And I think that the approach has proved them wrong, with a record 16 million jobs created, historic job creation for Black and brown workers, and workers receiving higher paychecks now than they did pre-pan- — -pandemic. 

Third, the president has really led and written a new economic playbook for the country that invests in all of America — all parts of America, red and blue — and all Americans.  And that’s going to have an impact for decades to come.  The central piece here is to export American products, not American jobs, and to create good-paying jobs right here at home.  So, he — the president threw out the old economic playbook of exporting American jobs, importing foreign products. 

And in less than four years, the president has led — working with Congress — legislation to be passed that has resulted in the biggest bipartisan investment in infrastructure ever — investing in our roads, bridges, ports, trains, and so much else; the largest climate investment in history, creating American jobs, driving clean energy — really a clean energy revolution across the country, with America leading the world in clean energy; tens of billions of dollars to build new chip factories, reversing America’s decades-long reliance on foreign countries for chips manufacturing; and after a half century of failed attempts, negotiating with Medicare to lower prescription drug bills and capping insulin at $35 per month and prescription drug costs at $2,000 per year for seniors. 

So, in closing, I want to talk about the work ahead.  The president knows this is no time for a victory lap, which is why he will talk about the work ahead.

Every single day, the president and vice president push on what more can be done to make the economy stronger, create more jobs, and, importantly, lower costs.  The president will lay out how we build on the progress that we’ve made across these three and a half years and what’s at stake as we move into this new phase in the economy. 

As I said, the president and vice president want to lower housing costs, grocery prices, and make childcare more affordable.  So, again, focused on lowering costs. 

The president and vice president want to keep investing in all of America and all Americans in communities left behind, from Milwaukee to Scranton, from red cities and states to blue cities and states across the country. 

The president and vice president want to keep America the safest and most secure nation to invest, maintaining rule of law in our democracy.  We all know and business people know, and other leaders across the country, that our economic dynamism depends on it and makes us the envy of the world.  So, I think it’s really important, but some of us can take for advantage — take for granted, at times, that maintaining who we are, rule of law, and democracy make America the envy of the world and where people want to invest. 

So, make sure you tune in tomorrow afternoon — early afternoon to hear the president speak to this in more detail.

And with that, I will turn it over to Lael. 

Lael.

MS. BRAINARD:  Well, thank you, Jeff.  And thanks to all of you for joining us this afternoon.

The president’s speech marks an important milestone.  Today’s actions send a clear signal that inflation has come back down, interest rates are coming down, and the focus now is on sustaining the important gains on employment and income.

Inflation has fallen 95 percent of the way back to target, and it is now at the same level as the month before the pandemic began.  Now interest rates are following inflation down as well, lowering costs for American consumers. 

Americans have been through a lot, and the declines in interest rates and in inflation will provide relief by making things more affordable, from refinancing a home to buying a car.  The price of gasoline has fallen close to $3 a gallon, below $3 in many states, and is at the lowest level we’ve seen in nearly three years. 

Prices are down over the last several years for purchases like cars and appliances and electronics.  Food prices are down over the last year in areas like potatoes and chicken breasts, and grocery prices overall are barely growing. 

Wages are higher than they were before the pandemic after accounting for inflation, so working families have more purchasing power. 

Now mortgage rates are moving down.  The mortgage rate reductions we’ve already seen will save the average new home buyer $5,000 a year, and those savings will increase as mortgage rates come down further. 

In addition, refinancing applications are at their highest level in two years, which will help provide relief for existing home borrowers.  For the average new car buyer, a one percentage point decline in the interest rate will save up to nearly $1,100 on the life of the loan. 

The president will note this hard-won progress but emphasize that we must continue to work together to tackle long-standing affordability challenges for middle-class families. 

America needs more housing.  That’s why it’s critical to move forward on ambitious plans to bi- — to bring housing costs down by building millions of new, affordable homes and providing incentives for states and localities to remove outdated obstacles to building. 

It’s essential we continue to enable more workers to participate in the labor force and to make it easier and more affordable to raise a family. 

Investing in children improves both their well-being and their future employment opportunities.  And supporting childcare expands access to better employment opportunities for parents of young children.  That’s why it’s critical to move forward on expanding the Child Tax Credit and ensuring childcare is affordable and accessible. 

We have the highest employment rates for working-age people in decades and the highest on record for women.  We’ve seen continued strong growth, with our economy growing faster than our comparable countries, and it’s even higher than forecasts from before the pandemic.

The declines in inflation and interest rates are welcome, but no one is declaring victory.  The focus now has to be on sustaining the gains we’ve seen for middle-class families, workers, and small businesses, while continuing to address those long-standing affordability challenges in areas such as housing, health care, and raising children. 

Let me hand it back to Jeremy. 

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you, Lael. 

With that, we’re going to switch over to our background portion of the call for Q&A. 

Please use the “raise hand” function if you have a question.  We’re going to have about 15 minutes here, so we’ll try to move through the queue as quickly as possible. 

As a reminder, while those opening remarks from Chief of Staff Zients and NEC Director Lael Brainard were on the record, this portion will be on background attributable to “White House officials.” 

So, I’ll let the queue fill up for a second, and then we’ll call on folks, and we will get underway. 

And, again, as a reminder, the background call, including this section of the call, is going to be on embargo until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.

All right.  We will take our first question from Rob Wile at NBC News. 

Rob, you should be able to unmute yourself now. 

Q    Thanks, all.  I’m wondering if the White House can comment on what impact, if any — you know, positive, negative — the surge in immigration that we’ve been seeing over the last couple of years has had in, you know, shaping employment or unemployment, as well as inflation.  Thank you. 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL:  Look, I think a number of things have been very important in seeing the great rebound in labor participation.  What’s very important to recognize is that for American citizens, participation rates in the labor force are actually at very high levels, and the employment rate for American citizens has also gone up to near record levels. 

That said, this administration has also emphasized the importance of legal immigration and its contribution to our economy and has worked hard to improve visa processing times and generally to make sure that our legal immigration system is working as well as it possibly can. 

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you. 

Our next question will come from Courtenay Brown from Axios.  You should be able to unmute yourself now. 

Q    Hey, it’s Courtenay.  Thanks for taking our questions. 

I’m trying to understand how we should interpret the administration’s touting of lower interest rates.  I know you all have said that you have been very respectful of the Fed’s independence, but are you worried by bragging that lower interest rates are coming down you’re putting the Fed in a tough spot?

And then, just quickly, one of the reasons the Fed cut rates today is because the Fed is worried about the health of the labor market.  How are you planning or how is the president planning to address the rise in unemployment that we’ve seen in recent months?  Thank you. 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL:  So, I think the president took a very clear approach.  He said publicly that he would respect the independence of the Federal Reserve in fighting inflation.  He has kept that vow, and we continue to think that that is absolutely central to solid economic management. 

That’s a big contrast from his predecessor, who repeatedly criticized the Federal Reserve on his watch and undermined the independence of the Federal Reserve. 

What this milestone really marks is that inflation, which is associated with the pandemic and with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, is now back down to the same level that we saw the month before the pandemic began.  And that’s really the basis on which broader market interest rates have been coming down, and so it is an appropriate time to mark this milestone. 

The president took a number of very important actions throughout his administration — I think you heard about those earlier — that have contributed to that.  And it is important to mark a moment at which Americans will be getting relief from both the decline in inflation and declining interest rates at a time when the labor market remains very robust. 

With regard to the labor market, I think you heard today in the press conference references to the labor market remaining solid, and we also would just note that unemployment has remained the lowest on average of any administration in 50 years.

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you for that response.  We have time for a couple more questions.  I have seen some people join during this portion of the call, so I do just want to remind folks that we are in the background portion of the call.  Attribution for answers during this portion is “White House officials.” 

And with that, we will go over to Skylar Woodhouse from Bloomberg. 

Skylar, you should be able to unmute. 

Q    Hey.  Thanks, guys.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Just wanted to — so, this mo- — today kind of feels like a celebra- — a celebratory time for the White House and — you know, with interest rates coming down a little bit, you all saying, you know, inflation is coming down as well.  But what do you — what is the White House’s re- — comment or a reaction to those, you know, in the American public who still say, you know, that cost of living is still way too high? 

And I guess my question is, what would you all like to continue to see from — I guess, from the Fed and continuing to accomplish and how that relates to the goals that the Biden administration wants to accomplish throughout the rest of its term?  Thanks.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL:  So, I think I’ll start.  This is [White House official].  The president — Jeff said at the top of his remarks that this is not meant to be a declaration of victory; it’s meant to be a declaration of progress.  And I think that you will definitely hear that from the president tomorrow, recognizing that int- — interest rates and inflation falling is a new milestone and a important one, but costs are still too high.  And he will talk about his — his agenda to lower costs for our American families. 

MR. EDWARDS:  All right.  Thank you. 

And before we go to our last question, a reminder for folks who have just joined: This is the background portion of the call.  Attribution during this portion is to “White House officials.”  And as a reminder, both the background portion of the call and the remarks at the top are on embargo until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.

With that, we will take our final question from Andrea at Reuters. 

Andrea, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thank you so much.  Thanks for taking my question.  I wanted to ask you about two things that are different.  So, do — two different factors that could affect prices going forward. 

One is the rising concerns about a broader regional war in the Middle East, and whether you’ve done any modeling about what that could do to inflation going forward and whether that could be, you know, a setback on this road to progress that you’ve mapped out. 

Then the other thing is the persistence of high housing costs and the percentage that they, you know, account for in people’s monthly budgets, which are much higher than they used to be.  Can you just walk us through where you think you see, you know, possible improvements and how long the efforts to create more affordable housing will take?  Like, when will there be a sort of substantial decrease in housing costs?  Thanks.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that.  It’s [White House official]. 

On the first question, look, I think that where we are in the macro economy right now is a general point of labor market in balance, a strong labor market; inflation having come down significantly.  You note, kind of, the geopolitical risks that we consistently monitor, but our assessment, you know, right now, is that the economy is in a healthy place, and that the kind of range of risks, while we continue to monitor them, do not pose a significant risk to the — to the outlook.  Obviously, as you — we’re consistently monitoring energy markets, consistently monitoring a range of risks. 

On your second question about housing costs.  Look, this is a place that, you know, you’ll hear the president continue to emphasize where we need to take more action as a country to continue to bring down housing costs. 

Part of that — part of the importance of the economic milestone that we find ourselves at right now is that folks will see some relief on housing costs.  New homebuyers saving thousands of dollars a month, compared to — excuse me, thousands of dollars a year, compared to where rates were just a year ago.  Folks who bought homes in the last couple of years now able to refinance and bring down their monthly payments. 

But we very much understand and know that in order to really durably bring housing costs down and address the housing affordability challenges that folks are facing across the country, we need to build more housing in this country, and that means really a substantial investment in affordable housing.  It means incentivizing state and local governments to reduce barriers to build that we know holds supply back and raises housing costs.  So, that will continue to be an area of focus for the president and for the administration. 

MR. EDWARDS:  Thank you.  That is all we have time for today.  Thank you all for joining us on this call, and thank you to our speakers.

As a reminder, this call is embargoed until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m.  That’s September 19th at 5:00 a.m., the embargo lifts on this call and its contents.  And another reminder is that the Q&A portion was on background, attribution to “White House officials.” 

Thank you again for joining us, and please follow up with me if you have any questions.  Have a good afternoon.

4:41 P.M. EDT

The post Background Press Call by Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard, and White House Officials to Preview the President’s Remarks at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

3:14 P.M. EDT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Got a few things going on today. 

So, I’m joined today by my colleague Luisana Pérez Fernández, who will speak for a few minutes on Hispanic Heritage Month. 

Luisana, over to you.

MS. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ:  Hi, everybody.  Thank you, Karine.  Gracias, Karine. 

(Speaks Spanish.)  (No translation provided.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Gracias.  Gracias.  Gracias, Luisana.  Thank you so much for coming.

MS. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And to echo my colleague, today, we celebrate the first week of Hispanic Heritage Month, a time to recognize that diversity is one of our country’s greatest strengths.

This month, we honor the rich history, culture, and contributions to — the Hispanic community brings to our nation.

This afternoon, the president and the first lady will host leaders and members of the Latino community at a reception to celebrate their achievements and contributions in the United States.

Tomorrow, the president will attend the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Gala, where he will honor Latino excellence and the contributions of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

In his remarks, President Biden will highlight how, since day one, he and the vice president have been committed to promoting opportunities and equ- — equality for all — or equity for all, including the millions of Latinos across the country.

Since taking office, President Biden and Vice President Harris have lowered Latino unemployment to the lowest rate on record; supported Latino small businesses, which are now experiencing the fastest growth rate in 30 years; doubled the amount of SBA-backed loans for Latino entrepreneurs; Hispanic [home]ownership has climbed to about 50 percent, with over 9.5 million Hispanic households owning their own homes; lowered drug prices for 5 million Latinos with Medicare; expanded affordable and quality health care coverage to Latino families, including to DACA recipients from the Affordable Care Act; created a federal government that reflects the diversity of the United States, with our four Latino members serving in the cabinet; helped Puerto Rico’s economy by investing over $140 billion and adding more than 100,000 new jobs; vigorously defended the DACA policy, and taken steps to keep married couples together, where one spouse is a U.S. citizen and the other has been in the U.S. for 10 years or more.

This month is also an opportunity to celebrate the Latinos in the Biden-Harris administration and the White House who have worked on our administration’s priorities: canceling student debt for millions of people, expanding access to quality health care, reducing drug costs, and taking action to eliminate gun violence in our communities.

This National Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate the progress and pros- — prosperity we are continuing to create for Latino communities since President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, and we reaffirm our commitment to supporting Latino families and communities.

And let’s remember, Hispanic Heritage Month is American heritage.

Now my colleagues from — my colleague from the National Security Council, Admiral John Kirby, is here to talk to you about the president’s upcoming — upcoming Quad Summit in Delaware — in Wilmington, Delaware, to be specific — and also the U.N. — the U.N. General Assembly next week.

Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll try to do this without butchering my own English here.

But good afternoon.

We’ve got a busy few days ahead of us here on the foreign policy front.  And if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll give you an overview.

This weekend, as Karine noted, in Wilmington, Delaware, the president will host the leaders of Japan, Australia, and India for the fourth annual Quad Leaders’ Summit.

Now, over the last three-plus years, President Biden has made it a priority to invest in rebuilding our network of alliances and partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.  And in the process of doing that, he has strengthened not only existing relationships, but he has helped forge new ones altogether.  So, think about AUKUS, for instance, or the trilateral Camp David summit with Japan and South Korea, or the first-ever U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders’ summit in April, and, of course, the Indo-Pacific Quad.

Back in 2021, President Biden elevated the Quad to the leader level for precisely those reasons.  He understood that bringing four leading Indo-Pacific democracies with shared priorities, mutual security interests, and strong bonds of friendship between our two peoples — between our peoples would make for a safer and more prosperous region and, quite frankly, a safer and more prosperous United States.

Now, this particular Quad Summit will be the first time we’ve hosted foreign leaders in Wilmington, the president’s hometown.  And he is very excited about that, about showing them a place and a community that shaped so much of the public servant and the leader that he became.

It’s also a reflection of his belief that, like politics, foreign policy is also personal.  And the president is enormously proud of the personal relationships that he has with each of these four leaders — or these three leaders, sorry — Indian Prime Minister Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, and Australian Prime Minister Albanese.

The president will meet individually with each of them, and they will also gather together in a larger plenary session where they will discuss expanding cooperation across a range of critically important issues.

We believe that you’ll see coming out of this summit that the Quad is more strategically aligned and more relevant than ever before.

I think you can expect a robust agenda aimed at delivering concrete benefits to the people of the region as they all identify priorities such as health security, natural disaster response, maritime security, quality infrastructure, critical and emerging technologies, climate and clean energy, and cybersecurity.

You’ll also see some announcements that demonstrate our intention to make sure this special partnership — the Quad — endures and, in fact, thrives, over the long term.

We’ll have more details, of course, to share on the specific deliverables as we get a little closer to the weekend.

Looking ahead to next week, on Monday, the 23rd of September, President Biden will welcome the president of the United Arab Emirates, His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to the White House.

This will be the first-ever visit by a president of the UAE to Washington, so it’s a historic one.  The vice president will also meet separately with President Mohamed.

Both the president and the vice president have spoken with or met with President Mohamed at multiple points throughout the administration, and we look forward to the opportunity to have face-to-face discussions here.

In particular, the president and the vice president will discuss a number of bilateral and regional matters together with — with areas of deepening cooperation in advanced technology, clean energy, space, supply chain resiliency, and critical infrastructure investments.

The UAE has made a number of recent announcements with respect to strategic investments in climate and clean energy, all of which build on the Partnership to Accelerate Transition to Clean Energy — otherwise known as “PACE” — which we signed with the UAE two years ago.  We look forward to expanding this collaboration over the coming months and years.

UAE is also, we might add, a leading partner in the president’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investments.

Advanced technology, I think, will also be a focus of this discussion, including efforts to advance responsible artificial intelligence goals.

Now, in the region, President Biden and Vice President Harris will discuss with President Mohamed, obviously, the — the crisis in Gaza; UAE’s essential role in addressing the humanitarian crisis there; and the crisis in Sudan, where -– as the president’s statement made clear last night –- we all — all must increase efforts to open routes for humanitarian assistance and ultimately to secure a ceasefire.

The president and the vice president look forward to this important engagement with a strategic partner at a very important time. 

And then, finally, the president, as you know, will be traveling to New York City on Monday afternoon for the 79th meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

Throughout all his engagements up there in New York, he will reaffirm America’s leadership on the world stage.  He’ll rally global action to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges, including climate; the opioid epidemic; mobilizing resources for developing countries; managing the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence; and helping end the brutal wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, among many other critically important issues.

Specifically, on Tuesday morning, the president will deliver an address to the U.N. General Assembly outlining his vision for how the world should come together to solve these big problems and defend fundamental principles, such as the U.N. Charter.

The president will also meet with U.N. Secretary-General Guterres; talk about how the partnership between the United States and United Nations in advancing peace and safeguarding human rights can endure and to — prosper.

On Tuesday afternoon, the president will host a summit of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.  We established this coalition ourselves just last year to drive international action in order to disrupt the global supply chain of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.

This event will be an opportunity for leaders to drive progress on one of the most lethal global health and safety challenges of our lives.

The meeting reflects the president’s vision of countries working together to deal with problems that cross borders.  In this case, the coalition is playing a vital role helping our country deal with the fentanyl crisis here at home.

The president will also have engagements with foreign leaders on Wednesday, and we’ll have more to share on that agenda as we get a little closer.

And thank you.  I appreciate your patience.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Gabe.

Q    Admiral, what’s the White House response to the exploding walkie-talkies in Lebanon today?  I know Karine addressed the pagers yesterday.  But what’s the latest U.S. assessment?  And does the U.S. consider this a justifiable escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  What I can tell you is we were not involved in yesterday’s incidents or today’s in any way.  And I don’t have anything more to share.

Q    Did — has the U.- — has — has the Israelis let you know about these operations?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything more to share today.

Q    Can you confirm that it’s the U.S. assessment that the Israelis were behind all this?

MR. KIRBY:  Nothing more to share.

Q    The Israeli defense minister said today that this is a “new era” of the war.  What’s the White House’s response to that?  And how concerned are you that this will cause this escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  All I’ll say is that we want to see the war end.  And everything we’ve been doing since the beginning has been designed to prevent the conflict from escalating.  We still believe, for instance, that there is a diplomatic path forward that — particularly up near Lebanon.  And we still believe that while it is increasingly difficult and we are certainly no closer to finality, that we’re going — that we — that we believe a ceasefire deal and a negotiation to get the hostages out is still the best outcome, and we’re going to keep pursuing that.

Q    But how do these events move forward?  Any diplomatic solution here?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s difficult for me to stand up here, Gabe, and tell you exactly how incidents over the last couple of days are going to affect the outcomes in the next few days.  All I can tell you is we’re still putting our shoulder to the wheel to get the hostages home and get a ceasefire in place, as daunting as that is today. 

And we are still involved in intensive diplomacy to try to prevent a second front from opening up on that border with Lebanon. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Given the rhetoric and the attacks in the last few days, it seems like a full-out conflict is inevitable at this point.  Would you agree with that assessment?  And is the U.S. government preparing for an evacuation of American citizens in Lebanon and — and/or in Israel in that case?

MR. KIRBY:  I think we’ve learned th- — through experience, particularly over now what’s going on almost a year here, that nothing is inevitable when it comes to that particular part of the world and this particular conflict.  And we’re going to — as I said to Gabe, we’re going to do everything we can to see if we can’t end it and get those hostages home.

And your second question was evacuation?  I —

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything with respect to evacuation preparations to — to talk about.  I mean, that’s a better question, really, put to the State Department. 

I think you know, Laura, particularly from covering the Pentagon, we have — on the shelf, we have evacuation plans available for places all over the world.  But I wouldn’t lead that to believe that we’re in a moment now where we think we need to imminently call for that or act on that right now.

Q    What has been the impact of the latest attacks on the potential for a ceasefire deal in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think it’s too soon to know if what happened over the last couple of days is going to have any effect on where we are with a ceasefire deal. 

Sadly, we aren’t any closer to that now than we were even a week ago, so it’s difficult to see any immediate impact of these incidents, but I think it’s just too soon to know in general.

Q    Previously, officials have said you were 90 percent there.  Is that still the case?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think, in — in terms of the agreed framework and the language, that’s still the case.  The framework has been agreed to.  The major architecture of the deal had been agreed to by both sides. 

But as we said, once you get down to middling over that last 10 percent and you’re — and you’re in that kind of horse trading, it gets real hard and the details get real specific.  And that’s where we have run into — run into some resistance, and we’re just not — we’re not any closer today than — than we were a few days ago.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  CBS News, at least, has learned that the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, spoke yesterday with the Israeli defense minister two different times.  We’ve been told no specifics were given about the operation that happened yesterday.  Was there any heads-up given yesterday that there would be more attacks in Lebanon today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’d refer you to the Defense Department to speak to conversations that the secretary had with Minister Gallant.  As I said, there was no U.S. involvement in either of these incidents, and I have nothing —

Q    Involvement is one thing, though, but awareness it was coming is another.

MR. KIRBY:  I recognize the question.  I have nothing more to add.

Q    If you’re someone who owns a pager like this that’s been blown up in Lebanon in recent days, whether it was made by the Taiwanese company or the Hungarian company that may have had a licensing deal with them, should you be concerned it could blow up?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, Ed, I have nothing more to add on this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Mary.

Q    Our sources have confirmed to us — it’s been wide- — widely reported that Israel is responsible for this, but notably, you still won’t say that.  Why is that?  Is it because that’s not your assessment or because you don’t support what they’re doing here?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s because I don’t have anything more to add on this issue.  As I said, there was no U.S. involvement, and I’m not going to go beyond that today.

Q    Then let me ask this.  These kinds of tactics — blowing up pagers and walkie-talkies — is this type of warfare acceptable to the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, Mary, I appreciate the question.  I’m simply not going to be able to address these incidents over the last couple of days in any level of — of detail one way or another.

Q    Okay.  Let me try one — one other thing. 

MR. KIRBY:  Please.

Q    You know, everyone keeps urging, you know, all parties involved not to escalate this.  Isn’t this an escalation already?  I mean, isn’t this Israel doing exactly what you’ve been warning them not to do?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’m not going to speak to the details of these incidents.  I understand that’s frustrating.  I get it.  And I understand where all your questions are coming from.  They’re all valid; they’re all fair.  I’m just not going to get into this.

I will add, if I could — and restate a little bit to what I said to Gabe: We still don’t want to see an escalation of any kind.  We don’t believe that the way to solve where we’re at in this crisis is by additional military operations at all.  We still believe that the best way to prevent escalation, to prevent another front from opening up in Lebanon, is through diplomacy, which is why Mr. Hochstein was over in the region this week.  And we’re still going to pursue those kinds of outcomes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Is — if — if a state actor was involved in any way in what took place in Lebanon, is that acceptable behavior by a government?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, that’s a great hypothetical, Trevor, that I’m simply not — not going to engage.

Q    So, it’s not that that’s not the case — that it was a state actor?

MR. KIRBY:  I have nothing more to add on these incidents.  I — I understand the question.  I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals or speculate about what did or didn’t happen or — or who might be responsible.

Q    Is there any current intelligence assessment as to who was responsible?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into intelligence es- — estimates and assessments from here, either.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Secretary of State Blinken expressed frustration at the ex- — escalations and remarks earlier today, saying it threatens to slow it, to stop a ceasefire deal.  Is that the White House’s assessment as well, that it’s close to being stopped or derailed or —

MR. KIRBY:  Look, as I said earlier, I think, looking at the last couple of days, it’s just a little too soon to know what kind of impact those incidents are going to have in the region writ large, particularly when it comes to the tensions up at the — the border with Lebanon.

On the ceasefire deal and trying to get both sides back to the table, we’re still working at that.  Nothing has changed.  We’re still trying to get that done.  We understand that even before the incidents of the last couple of days, doing that was real hard, that there wasn’t a lot of momentum to be had there or inertia.  We recognize that, but we’re still working to try to see if we can get that done because we still believe the best way to get those hostages home is through a negotiated arrangement.

On the tensions with Lebanon.  Again, too soon to know what these incidents are going to mean to the already high tensions between Israel and — and Hezbollah up at that border — the Blue Line, specifically.

All I can tell you is, even as recently as a couple of days ago, Amos Hochstein, our envoy, was — was in the region having discussions to do everything we can, from a diplomatic perspective, to prevent those tensions from escalating into all-out conflict.

Q    Can I ask one more just on — on Wilmington this weekend?  Does the president intend to press Prime Minister Modi on human rights abuses while they’re talking, you know, one on one?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s not a conversation that he has with foreign leaders where he doesn’t talk about the importance of respecting human and civil rights, and that includes with Prime Minister Modi.  He did when the prime minister was here in the United States, and — and I’m sure that, as appropriate, he’ll do going forward.

I don’t have — I’m not going to get ahead of the conversation, but he never shies away from talking about our concerns over human and civil rights — anywhere in

the world.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Admiral, you said a lot of time, especially about this region, that it’s very important for this administration that the rules of war, our international humanitarian law is being followed.  So, why won’t you make an assessment whether these operations that we’re seeing in Lebanon indeed are in accordance with international humanitarian law?

MR. KIRBY:  Now, I can appreciate ho- — that you all want answers to these questions, and — and you want them now.  I get that.  We’re talking about incidents that allegedly happened today — apparently happened today, and some that happened yesterday.  I’m just not going to get into intelligence assessments one way or another about this.

And I would also add that, as we have said from the very beginning, Israel has a right to defend itself.  How they do so matters to us, and we don’t shy away from having those kinds of conversations with the Israelis as appropriate.

Q    So, you’re saying Israel did — is behind these operations?

MR. KIRBY:  I did not say that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Do you think that Israel — whoever committed this attack is undermining U.S. effort at avoiding an escalation in the region?  And if so, what is the next move to try and prevent that from happening?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re going to keep at the work of intense diplomacy to see what we can do to — to deescalate, to try to prevent this from becoming a bigger conflict than — than it already has.

Q    One more.  Over the weekend, the Palestinian ministry in Gaza submitted a report with the names, IDs, ages of 34,000 people who have been killed since October 7th, over 7,000 more whose identities have not been verified.  The first 14 pages of the report are babies under the age of 1 and two people over the age of 100.  Has the White House seen that report?  And do you have any comments beyond “Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed in this conflict”?

MR. KIRBY:  Let me take the question for you so I can get you back a good, substantive answer.  I don’t know if we’ve seen that report.  I haven’t, but that doesn’t mean that somebody here hasn’t.  So, why don’t you let me take that back and get you a better answer.

Q    Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    On U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel — the CFIUS review that’s now been, I guess, delayed or extended another 90 days. Can you explain a little bit why that process is taking so long and if it signals any sort of shift in the president’s thinking about concerns he’s expressed about this merger?

MR. KIRBY:  CFIUS runs an independent process.  As far as I know, there’s been no delay or extension.  That process is ongoing, as — as I understand that to be the case.

Look, president has said already what he believes that the future of U.S. Steel ought to be.  He’s made that clear.  But he also respects the CFIUS process.  And, again, that process is ongoing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  We’re going to wrap — start wrapping up. 

Jon.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  John, to what extent will China be a focus of the Quad meeting this weekend?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I think it will certainly be high on the agenda, Jon.  I mean, there’s not an opportunity when you get together with these particular leaders, the Indo-Pacific Quad, where you — in fact, it would be irresponsible if they didn’t talk about the — the challenges that still exist in the region caused by aggressive PRC military action, for instance; unfair trade practices; tensions over the Taiwan Strait.  I have no doubt that — that all those issues will come up.

Q    Do all four Quad countries view China as a threat to the Indo-Pacific region?

MR. KIRBY:  I think you’d have to talk to the leaders about their particular view of the PRC.  But I think we all have a common set of understanding about — a common understanding about the challenges that the PRC is — is posing.

But each of them are sovereign countries. They get to decide for themselves what their relationship is going to be with the PRC and how that looks.  Each of them has a different relationship with the PRC, including us.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, there’s been a decided shift in confidence among U.S. officials about the ability to reach a ceasefire deal in the near term.  And today, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is meeting with hostage families again, and I’m wondering what the administration’s message is to them.

MR. KIRBY:  Well, number one, that we haven’t forgotten their loved ones.  Number two, that we’re going to do everything we can to get them home where they belong, back with their families.  And number three, that even though we haven’t found purchase here with this deal, we’re not going to stop trying, that we’re still working very hard every day.

I mean, I had a chance to talk to Brett McGurk earlier today.  I can assure you: He’s still working to see what we can do to try to move this forward.

It doesn’t appear right now — and I’m — I don’t want to get ahead of Jake or speak for him, but I — I would imagine that he’ll also convey to them — and it doesn’t appear that Mr. Sinwar is serious at all about moving this forward and coming to — and coming into closure on it.  But it doesn’t mean we’re giving up on them.

Q    And then, in the events in the region more broadly, given what happened in Lebanon, in previous instances where there’s been the possibility of wider escalation, we’ve seen the U.S. move military assets, vessels, aircraft in the region.  Is there any of that going on right now?

MR. KIRBY:  We have a robust presence in the Middle East right now, and — and have sustained that, as you know, over the last few weeks when there was concern about escalation.

What I can tell you is that force posture is still there, still robust.  We look at it every single day as against the threat, and we make adjustments as — as we need to.  Not all those adjustments make headlines or do we announce them, for understandable reasons.  But the president is confident that we maintain sufficient military capability in the region to defend our interests, and, of course, our allies and partners as appropriate.

Q    And just quickly, if I may add on that.  Last year, the president’s message was largely about Ukraine and the need for more funding for Ukraine’s defenses.  October 7th happened just a couple weeks later.  How much will that figure prominently in the president’s events next week?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, without getting too far ahead of the president’s speech, I think you can expect him to talk about the modern crises that — that we’re facing right now — certainly, Ukraine and Gaza are two of the chief ones there — and how American leadership matters, how coalition-building matters and has made a difference in both conflicts, and how we have to stay at that work.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  John, next week, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine will present his victory plan to President Biden.  Has the president had a chance to review this plan?  And would you call it victorious?

MR. KIRBY:  We’ve not been fully briefed on it.

Q    Will President Biden host President Zelenskyy in New York or here at the White House?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have a meeting to announce today, but stay tuned.

Q    Ukrainians have requested a meeting, according to our sources, with Vice President Harris.  Did she accept this request?

MR. KIRBY:  I would refer you to Vice President Harris’ staff.  You know she has met with President Zelenskyy face to face on a couple of occasions, and I know she’s spoken to him on the phone.  I have little doubt that if the opportunity presents itself and — and both of them can have another conversation, they will.  But you’d have to talk to her staff on that.

Q    And getting back to Lebanon.  So, those communication devices were reportedly made in Japan and Taiwan.  Have you reached out to your Japanese and Taiwanese counterparts in that matter?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m aware of no such communication.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jonathan.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Admiral, staying on the subject of Russia.  The government of Armenia today said that they foiled a plot; Russian forces tried to stage a coup in their country.  Is the White House aware of this and have any comment?

MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get into intelligence assessments specifically, Jonathan.  I would just say writ large, and we’ve talked about this before, Russia has proven adept and certainly interested in interfering in democratic institutions around the world, certainly here at home — no question about it — but overseas as well.  And it is — it is a constant topic of conversation between us and our allies and our partners.  And we’re doing everything we can — working with them to try to disrupt the — the — that interference.

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

Q    John — can you address the famine in Sudan, John?  Can you address the famine, please.

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think if I could, just briefly, point you to the president’s statement last night that —

Q    How serious is it?  How dire is it?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s — I — I don’t know of a famine that’s not dire.

Q    Right.

MR. KIRBY:  It’s dire.

Q    That number is (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  Millions of people have been pushed out of their homes.  Hundreds of thousands of them are facing incredibly violent circumstances.  And yes, there’s real famine and real hunger.  And we a- — and that’s why we are working incredibly hard, and that’s why the president himself wanted to make that point about — last night about that town, El Fasher, and the RSF’s, basically siege, of it.

It’s got to stop.  Both sides have got to start coming together, sitting at the table, and doing what’s right by the Sudanese people.

And I’ll tell you something else.  He’s not going to stop fighting for the people of Sudan.  We’re not going to stop trying to find a way to end this conflict.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you.

Q    The president has called on the belligerents to come together.  Are they listening, John?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Thanks, Admiral.  Appreciate that.

Okay.  I just have one last thing, and then we’ll get to questions.

So, I — as we announced this morning, the first lady will lead the president’s delegation to the inauguration of Mexico’s first woman president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, on October 1st.  The full list of the delegation members will be announced at a later date.

President Biden and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador have built a strong and constructive partnership, and we look forward to building on this partnership under the president-elect to advance our economic, migration, and regional security cooperation.

And with that, Will.

Q    Thank you.  I know that we’re going to have the Economic Club interview tomorrow with the president.  I’m wondering if we’re going to hear from him on the — the rate cut that the Fed has announced.  And is there any chance that he’ll speak to possible political influence this close to the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just give you a little bit of — of flavor, if you will, on tomorrow.  As you just stated, the president is going to speak at the D.C. Ec- — Economic Club. 

So, he’s going to deliver remarks on the important moment we’ve reached.  Inflation, interest rates are falling, and the economy remains strong, which many critics thought was impossible.

I’m sure you all remember claims that we’d need a rec- — we’d — we’d need a recession to lower inflation, with some going so far as saying that there was a 100 percent chance of a recession.

So, the president will discuss what falling inflation and interest rates mean for American consumers and workers and businesses.  The cost of buying a home, a car, and so much more will go down.  Starting a family or a new business will be easier. 

The president will discuss how he will continue to lower costs by building millions of homes, making childcare more affordable, capping prescription drug costs for all, and cutting taxes for families.

He’ll contrast that approach with what we’re seeing from congressional Republicans — their plan to — to raise costs by nearly $4,000 for middle-class families with a national sales tax while blowing up the debt with more tax cuts for the very wealthy and never seeing that actually trickle down.

And so, that’s what you’re going to hear from this president. 

As far as your question about politics, the political si- — polital- — the political pieces of this, look, we’re going to let the Fed speak for themselves.  As you know — and we’ve been always very clear about this and very respectful of the independence of the Federal Reserve — unlike other administrations, we’ve been, I think, pretty — pretty steadfast about that and have been continuous in our — in — in making that clear.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Was there any surprise here at the White House by the size of the rate cut?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m not going to g- — get into — I’m not going to get into private conversations or discussions. 

Look, I think what’s important here is that it’s a moment of progress.  I think that’s how we see this.  And — and also a recognition of how far we have come.  And so, I think that is what we are — we think is important here.  And I just mentioned at the top, or in that question that I was asked by Will, how this is important for families, businesses.

Now prices are going to go down, if you think about being able to buy a home.  And these are important, important items for the American people.  And so, that’s how we see this.  We see this as a moment of progress.

Q    A few other quick things.  The former president is now under what the Secret Service says is a pretty substantial —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — security footprint —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — pretty much on par with what the sitting president gets.  Is President Biden satisfied that he’s now getting — that President Trump is now getting the protection he needs?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m just going to kind of reiterate what you heard from the director just yesterday in the aftermath — in the aftermath, what you heard from the director.  But also, in the aftermath after J- — July 13th, the president was very clear.  He wanted to make sure that the former president should have the highest level of protection.  That’s what he offered by the Secret Service.  That’s what he wanted to see th- — President Biden wanted to see that. 

And he has also repeated over and over again that the Secret Service needs to make sure th- — we need to make sure that they have the resources, the capabilities.  What their mission is is incredibly — it’s — it’s critical, what they’re trying to do. 

And so, since July 13th, the Secret Service has greatly enhanced that security for the former president.  And so, the only — honestly, they are the only ones who can speak to the specifics on what that looks like. 

But, again, the Acting — the Acting Director Rowe spoke to this yesterday.  I think you also heard from Secretary Mayorkas on this as well.  And so, I certainly would — would leave it to them.

Q    One other —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry, not Secretary Mayorkas.  D- — Department of Justice secretary but — yeah, Secretary Mayorkas.  I’m so sorry.  Secretary Mayorkas, that’s who you heard from yesterday. 

Q    One other —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going back and forth on that.

Q    I could have asked the admiral, but I’ll ask you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The fact that this summit is being held in Wilmington, as opposed to New York or here or Camp David, what should the world — what should we read into the fact that he’s taking them to his hometown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think that what — people should look at this as politics, whether it’s foreign or domestic, is indeed personal, right?  It is very much local.  It is very much personal. 

And if you think about this, is that the president has developed over three and a half years and — and more, the president has developed a relationship with — with these leaders.  And so, he wanted to continue on that — on that diplomacy, if you will, by — by bringing him to — by bringing them to Wilmington. 

And I think it’s important — I think it’s important show of how — how that relationship — those relationship has grown.  It’s important to show how much the president really focuses on foreign policy.  And I think that’s what you should see from that. 

It’s politics, not just domestic but also foreign — foreign policies is very much local.

Q    Is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I think that’s what you’re going to see from this president.

Q    Is holding it in Wilmington something he’d considered — or hosting any world leader in Wilmington something he’d considered previous to now or that he would have done more of had there been a second term?  I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I mean, I —

Q    — this is a city that has gotten used to him and the footprint being there every weekend — or every other weekend? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Look, it’s —

Q    So, why now, I guess?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It is indeed — Wilmington, Delaware, is his home.  It is a place that he talks about often, as you stated, that — you know, he — he went back every weekend, as you know — every day, as you know, when he was a senator, raising his boys.  And so, you know, this is what you see from this president when he goes to Wilmington.

And I think — look, I — I’m not going to go into what the president was thinking before — before he decided to — to not run for reelection.  I’m not going to go into that. 

What I’m going to go into is that he thinks it’s important in the relationship that he has built with these leaders to bring them to his hometown. 

And, again, you know, pol- — not just politics, but domestic policy, foreign policy as well, as it relates to the American people, is indeed very local.  And so, he’s looking forward to bringing them to his hometown.  I think it will be — I think they will enjoy Wilmington as much as you all do when you go to Wilmington with the president.  (Laughter.)

Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Can neither confirm nor deny. (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t know, I think — I think you love it.  I think you love it, Ed.

Q    Hey, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Sorry.

Q    Is the White House concerned at all that the Fed is predicting that the unemployment rate is going to rise by the end of the year?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m going to — I’m going to let the — certainly, the Fed speak for — for itself, as they have. 

I’ll say this, as their statement said today, the “economic activity has continued to expand and a sa- — at a solid pace” and the unemployment rate “remains low.”  And as Chair Powell just said moments ago, “The labor market is actually in sol- — solid condition.” 

It is clear that our economy remains strong.  You know, as we’re talking about foreign policy, we have the strongest economy — leading the str- — strongest economy in the world. 

Unemployment is still low, at 4.2 percent, with the lowest average of unemployment of any administration in 50 years; 142,000 jobs created last month; nearly 16 million jobs created under the B- — Biden-Harris administration.  Wages are growing faster than — than prices are and — than prices are.  So, I think these are important data and points to — to also lift up as well. 

But, again, the Fed also spoke for themselves in — in speaking to the strength of the economy and the economic activity as well. 

Q    And I know you can’t speak to politics, but the Teamsters today decided not to endorse any candidate in the election.  Can you just speak to the administration’s relationship with the Teamsters?  Obviously, you guys have done a lot with them: $36 billion in aid.  Is the president surprised at all by that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into endorsements from any organization — including today, the Teamsters.  That is certainly something that the campaign could speak to. 

As you know, this is a president and — and a vice president that has fought hard for unions throughout their administration.  This administration, in the past three and a half years, he has been called the most pro-union president ever.  The president fin- — is very proud to — to have that — to have that title, if you will. 

And let’s not forget, he’s brought American manufacturing back home, creating close to 800,000 manufacturing jobs, and by creating the first “Made in America” office.  And so, these are things that he’s incredibly proud of. 

And — and he believes if, you know, the — you know, the union labor built the middle class.  You hear him say that all the time. 

And so, can’t speak to any sort of endorsements.  That’s for the campaign to speak to directly.  But this is a president who has bas- — really has — has put — when it comes to union and bringing — bringing jobs back to — back to America, he has put that front and center of his economy — his economic policy.

Go ahead.

Q    You’ve described the Fed’s announcement today as a moment of progress.  But just to put a finer point on it, does the president agree with the assessment of many that this cut essentially declares that the battle on inflation is won? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, all we have to do is — I don’t even have to look at or speak to what the Fed has done.  I mean, the data shows — right? — the — the fact is that we have seen inflation coming down.  That is something that we have seen in the data that I continuously talk about, speak about from here, whether it’s from me or my colleagues who join us — who join me — join us in this room. 

And so, it is obvious.  It is obvious that — that we have seen interest rates have fallen, that inflation have fallen. 

And so, you know, I’m going to let the Fed, obviously, speak to more specifics about their decision — their monetary decision, but we have seen inflation going down.  I think that’s important.  That’s important to the American people.  That’s important for families, for businesses.

And so, I think the progress you — the progress being made at this time is — is critical.  And we have said this was coming.  I — I sta- — I stated earlier that there was a time where folks were saying that we needed a — a recession, and this has proven, through the president’s economic policy and what he’s been able to do, that we didn’t need to do that.  Right?  We needed to make sure that we — we really focused on the needs of the American people. 

Q    And can I just get your reaction and the president’s reaction to the Senate’s move yesterday, failing to advance a bill to protect IVF?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I mean, the president — we put out a statement on that.  I talked about it at the top just yesterday.  It’s shameful.  It’s shameful that the — that, I think, more than 40 Republican senators decided not to pro- — give protections to IVF. 

And the reason that bill is even put on the floor for a vote is because of what Republicans did, the former president did in — in undoing Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision.  And the Dobbs decision, while it took away a — a constitutional right that was around for almost 50 years, which is Roe v. Wade, it led to, now, pe- — you know, families, people who want to start a family not have that ability to do so.  And that’s what it led to. 

And, you know, they can pon- — pontificate and talk about how some of them may want to protect IVF, but they certainly didn’t vote that way.  And it’s unfortunate.  It’s unfortunate that now families are being taken away — their rights are being taken away.  Their decisions to start a family is being taken away because, you know, Republicans are blocking it — are getting in the way. 

And so, this is something when you think about — when you think about abortion rights, when you think about reproductive health care, when it comes to the Biden-Harris administration, we are going to continue to fight for those freedoms.  We believe that it is important to do so.  And so, we’re going to do everything that we can to continue to — to make that progress. 

Q    Follow-up on that, please, Karine.  A follow-up —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Yeah.

Q    (Inaudible)_follow-ups.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Do you have any thoughts about the increasing prospects of a strike with the UAW and the Jeep manufacturers? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And so, as I told — as I started off moments ago about how this president has certainly led in the efforts of making sure that — as we talk about the middle class, the union built the middle class.  So, a strike authorization vote, as it relates to this particular question, does not mean that union will strike.  It often precedes continued negotiation between employers and unions. 

But I will say that President Biden respects the right to strike.  You’ve heard me say that many times.  He has said that.  President Biden is proud to have stood on the picket lines with UAW workers, and he believes they deserve a fair deal.  He also believes in collective bargaining and will continue to encourage the parties to stay at the table and negotiate, to do it in good faith. 

And so, we are certainly in touch with UAW and — and the — and the company, as we are often.  And so, certainly, I would direct to — I will direct you to the parties involved here.  But collective bargaining is something that the president believes in, just as long they do it — they come to the table and they do it in good faith. 

And so, the president is always going to make sure he has the back of union workers. 

Q    And then one more on the Fed.  They — they said in their statement today that the economic outlook is uncertain and that they’re attuned to kind of both sides of the coin there, in terms of positive surprises and negative.  You’ve kind of emphasized the — the positive trajectory that you see. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Are you also attuned to the possibility that — that we are witnessing a weakening labor market, a weakening growth trajectory?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And, look — and I — as you heard me lay out some of the positive things that they have said about the economy and about the — certainly, the unemployment remaining low, which is incredibly important, the labor market is cont- — continues to be in a solid condition.  I think that’s important, too, to note.

Look, we see this as a moment of progress.  We really do.  We see this as inflation going down, interest rates going down.  I’m going to let the — certainly, the Fed speak for itself.  But the economy does remain strong.  That is still the case.  It remains strong.  And that is because of the work that we’ve been able to do — this administration has been able to do in the past three and a half years, making sure that we are addressing the issues of American families and American people across the country.

And so, this is progress.  And this shows, I think — what we saw from the Fed today shows how far we’ve come.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  Just to follow up on my colleague, the market is now interpreting the Fed’s rate cut as perhaps a sign that the economy is weakening more quickly than even the Fed thought possible a couple months ago.  So, how is the White House monitoring that economic data and the possibility for a recession?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as we’ve stated many times from here before, whether it’s one of our econ- — econ- — economists who have come to the podium or myself, the stock market is not our economy.  We got to be really mindful about that.  What we believe is the economy is resilient.  The data still shows unemployment is low at 4.2 percent.  We have a strong economy.  It continues to be strong.  And I think what we’re seeing is a moment of progress, as I’ve stated many times before. 

We’re still continuing to see jobs — more than 140,000 jobs just last month.  And so, GDP grew 3 percent just last — last quarter. 

And so, this is important.  This is important, when we look at all of the data together, that we are continuing to see a strong economy.  The stock market is mor- — up more — up more than 40 percent under this administration, but that is not our economy. 

And so, we’re continuing to see progress.  We’ve come a long way — a long way since this president and this vice president walked into this administration.  The economy was in a tailspin — a tailspin, and we’ve managed to turn that around.

Now, as you hear us say all the time, is there more work to be done?  Yes, there’s more work to be done.  We want to continue to lower costs for the American — American families and Americans across the country, and we’re going to continue to do so.  And you’re going to hear from the president tomorrow directly on this.

Q    And on Teamsters.  I know you can’t talk about the endorsement specifically, but the union also put out its internal polling that showed that there was a pretty wide margin of rank-and-file membership that supported former President Donald Trump.  To what extent is that a referendum on the work of this administration?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to speak to — to their poll.  I’m not going to speak to — to their poll.  I’m not going to speak to the rank and file.

Look, it is — we’re talking about a 2024 — obviously, an election that is just a few weeks away.  I can’t speak to that.  I can’t speak to their decision to endorse, not endorse — I guess, in this case, not endorse.

What I can speak to is what this president and this vice president has done in the last three and a half years.  This president has been called the most pro-union president ever, and I think —

Q    But in their data —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Trump outpolled President Biden when he was a candidate, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I hear you.  I hear — I mean, we’re talking about —

Q    How does that reflect on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — the administration’s work?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re also — we’re — we’re talking about one union, right?  We’re talking about the Teamsters.  We’re —

Q    1.6 million people.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I hear you.  But we’re talking — we’re still talking about one union, and I’m not going to go into their data.  I’m not going to go into their polling. 

But what I will say is many other labor unions have said — and they’ve been very clear about what this president has been able to do — thinking about manufacturing jobs, you’re thinking about building an economy that leaves nobody behind, you — thinking about what we’ve been able to do to make sure that we’re — we’re creat- — bringing back American jobs here.  “Made in America,” obviously here; we created an office to do just that.

And so, the president has certainly not just done the talk, he’s walked the walk.  And I think there are many labor unions out there who have seen that from this administration.

I’m not going to dive in or double down or get into a pa- — a particular polling that’s out there.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, following up on Mary’s question.  Back in August, I asked the president whether he thought the U.S. had beat inflation, and he responded with an emphatic “yes.”  Today, Jerome Powell was a bit more cautious, and he said, “We’re not saying ‘mission accomplished.’”

So, I want to ask you again.  Does the White House believe, does the president believe that the U.S. has beat inflation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what we believe is that we’ve seen progress.  That’s what we believe.  We believe that inflation indeed has gone down.  Right?  That is something that we have seen over the past several mo- — months.  Inflation has gone down.

We cannot forget where we were when we walked into this administration: a once-in-a-century pandemic, and the economy was in tailspin.  We did not have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the pandemic.  That’s something that the former administration did not leave us.

And so, we see that inflation is going down — not just us — it is — indeed, the data is showing that.  And now interest rate is going down.

I’m going to let the president speak for himself. He’s going to speak tomorrow at the D.C. Economic Club, and he’ll have more — a lot more to say.

Q    Right now, you’re not going as far as the president did in August, though?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  I’m going to let the president speak for himself.  That’s what I’m saying.  I’m saying I’m going to let the president speak for itself. 

And what I can say is that it is a fact that inflation and inter- — interest rate are indeed going down.  That is what we see.  And we’re just stating the obvious.  This is not talking about the monetary decisions that the Fed has made.  This is just stating the obvious and the fact.  I’m going to let the president speak for himself.

Go ahead, Michael.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Donald Trump suggested yesterday that he wants to eliminate the cap on state and local tax deductions, which he signed into law a few years ago.  Generally speaking, what is the administration’s position on this cap?  Should it be removed, and why or why not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to just let the campaign speak to that, as it is related to his priorities as a candidate.  I’m just going to let them speak to it.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, thank you.  The president has had a long career in — on the world stage as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as vice president, and, of course, as president.  And I’m wondering, going into these summits — the Quad Summit and the UNGA meeting — how much will we see him speak in a personal way about his legacy, his vision?  This will be his final talk, his final address to an UNGA group.

And also, thinking about the speech tomorrow, you said that the president will discuss how he’ll continue to lower costs by building millions of homes, making childcare more affordable, capping prescription drugs, et cetera.  How much does he think he can realistically accomplish in the waning days —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to let —

Q    — of his presidency?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Certainly, I’m going to let the president speak to that and more.  I was just giving you a little bit of a taste of what the president wants to talk about.

And, look, lowering costs has been something that has been at the center of his economic policy, a priority for him in the past three and a half years.  And so, that is something that we’re going to continue to do.

And I think, under this administration, we have been able to — to build homes for people in an affordable way, and that’s something that we’re going to continue to do. 

We’ve do- — we’ve been able to deal with childcare, especially the Child Tax Credit.  That is something that we were able to do with the American Rescue Plan, which only Democrats voted for in Congress, and that actually made a difference.

So, you’ve seen some of the approaches that the president has been able to do.  We have already beat Big Pharma, and so you have seen prescription drugs go down because of the work that this president has done with the Inflation Reduction Act.  Again, only Democrats voted for that.

And that was something that you’ve heard from elected officials for years, that they wanted to beat Big Pharma.  This president was able to do that.

So, I’ll let him speak more to that tomorrow on what that’s going to look like and lay out his plan and his thoughts.

As it relates to the world stage, the president has been a leader in the world stage — on this stage, not just throughout his Senate career; as you just stated, as VP, as president.

You think about — you think about how he’s been able to bring partners and allies together on really important moments, critical moments —

Q    Is he wistful at all —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — in the past three and a half years.

Q    — about — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m — I’m —

Q    — or how is he — you know, in a personal way —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — how does he approach this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I hear the question.  What I will say to you is I’m going to let the president speak to that and speak to his own personal views or — and a look-back, if you will, of his 50-plus-year career and what he’s been able to do on the — on the world stage and also here domestically.

And so, I’m going to let the president speak to that.  But I think he is very proud of his accomplishments and what he’s been able to do.  And — and he’ll speak more to that.

So, I’ll let that go.

Q    Karine?

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

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Again, next week, President Zelenskyy will meet with President Biden, be it in New York or in D.C.  Can you talk to me about President Biden’s expectations from this meeting, given this — that this might be their last in-person interaction before President Biden leaves the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to get into — into details or — or specifics or his thoughts — behind-the-scenes thoughts of how he’s thinking about it. 

As you know, he has a — a — he’s met President Zelenskyy many times.  And I think President Zelenskyy has appreciated his leadership, and we’ve been incredibly impressed by the bravery of the Ukrainian people as they continue to fight for their democracy, their freedom. 

And so, you have seen an unwavering support for the Ukrainian people.  And certainly, the president has led — and more than 50 countries getting behind the Ukrainian people as they fight for their sovereign territory. 

And so, certainly, that’s what you’re going to continue to see.  And I’ll just leave it there. 

Q    Is it going to be in D.C. or in New York?

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

Q    And one more, if I may.  Senator John Kennedy accused Arab American activist Maya Berry of supporting Hamas, even though she denied it.  So, the senator told her, let me quote, “You should hide your head in a bag.”  Do you have any reaction to such an intense interaction?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I do, actually.  I’m glad you asked the question. 

Look, fighting hatred of all kinds — of all kinds — including anti-Arab sentiment and Islamophobia was a core tenet to the president’s ca- — to the president’s campaign and continues to be a driving force of his time here in office, as you all ask me about his last four months.

And speaking to this specific moment that we saw, that we all witnessed, it was a — it was shameful.  It was shameful insults and abusive treatment of an — Arab American Ins- — Institute Executive Director Maya Berry at yesterday’s Senate hearing, and they were deeply troubling and demonstrate why we need to fight against hate, fight against discrimination of all kinds — of all kinds. 

It is a bigoted and dangerous and very wrong to call someone a terrorist sympathizer based upon their heritage or their religion.

And so, we have seen troubling rise in antis- — antisemitic hatred attacks since October 7th, and we’ve seen a distressing rise in hatred and attacks aimed at Arab and Muslim Americans.  And it is upon all of us, especially leaders — national leaders, in particular, in this country — to call that out and to condemn that type of hatred, that type of bigotry. 

And this is something that you’re going to continue to see from the Biden-Harris administration.  We are going to condemn that type of hateful speak.  Any forms of that type of hatred, we have to speak against it.  And it was shameful.  It was a shameful insult that we saw yesterday in that hearing.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  I’m going to start wrapping it up.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  And somebody may have asked this before, and if they did, I apologize, but I would love to get an answer anyway, which is: Back in July — late July, you said that — that the White House was recalibrating in the wake of the president’s decision. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And I’m wondering if that recalibration is done —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — and, like, have you got the — you know, a flowchart?  Like, what —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — what does this — what does this last four months want to do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Fa- — no, fair enough.  Fair enough.  Look — and I think it was fair to say that we were recalibrating, as you could imagine.  What we saw in the end — end of July was historic, had never seen before. 

And so, what I can say more broadly is that the president is focused on the American people.  He is.  Whether it’s the economy, health care, foreign policy, it is — it is — and many more other issues that Americans care about, that’s what he wants to put at the forefront.  That’s what he wants to continue: build on the successes that we have seen over the last three and a half years. 

And wants to continue to make sure — you know, you’ve heard us — you heard me just talk about the Inflation Reduction Act.  You heard me talk about the American Rescue Plan.  There’s so many other things — the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, the CHIPS and Science Act — right? — the PACT Act.  There’s so many historic pieces of legislation that we want to continue to implement and get done.  So, that is critical and important too. 

Look, the president is making sure that his teams and the different agencies are on it, are on top of it, on — on getting that done on behalf of the American people. 

And so, it is a wide range of issues that matter to him because it matters to the American people.  And you’re going to hear from him next week at UNGA.  You’re going to see — you’re going to hear from him this weekend at the Quad Summit.  And there’s going to be a lot more.  Stay tuned.  There’s going to be a lot more that you’ll hear directly from about — from this president about what else he’s doing and what else he wants to continue to do. 

But I think, if anything, we’ve been taking those actions.  We’ve been giving those speeches.  He’s been giving those speeches, whether it’s SCOTUS — you heard him talk about the reform there. 

So, look, tomorrow he’s going to talk about the economy.  He’s going to talk about lowering costs.  He’s going to talk about what else he wants to get done. 

I was just asked, you know — the little bit that I shared about with homeownership and lowering cost and, certainly, prescription drugs, how is he going to get that all accomplished.  He’ll speak to that tomorrow as well. 

AIDE:  Karine, time for one or two more.

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

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Jon.

Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  I saw some polling yesterday that caught my attention, and I wanted to get your views on this polling. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    It indicated that nearly half of Republicans say they won’t accept the results of the presidential election if their candidate loses.  Nearly a quarter of Democrats won’t accept the results of the presidential election if their candidate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — loses.  And the polling also indicated that 14 percent of Republicans would take action to overturn the election if their candidate loses.  What’s your reaction to that?  Is that concerning that there seems to be such distrust with the election system to get these types of results?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s what I will say.  And I have not seen that polling, so I don’t want to speak directly to the polling.  But more broadly — and you’ve heard this president say this — it is important and — it is important that it does — it shouldn’t matter if you win or lose.  You should ex- — you should respect the results of an election.  You’ve heard him say that directly.  And he respects our election process.  He respects free and fair elections. 

It doesn’t matter — it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you sit — you sit in or you believe in.  It is important that we respect this process.  Peaceful transfer of power is incredibly important.  Respecting the results of the election, it is imp- — incredibly important. 

And you’re going to continue to hear that from this president.  He’s going to continue to fight for our democracy.  And you heard him say that on January 6th after what we saw on the Capitol — after, you know, violence was incited, when you saw 2,000 people trying to overturn an election because of what the former president said.  And he denounced that. 

And it wasn’t just — you just didn’t hear that from a Dem- — a Democratic elect president.  You heard that from the judges who were — who more than 60 of them were Republican judges, who said it was indeed a free and fair election. 

And so, he believes, as a leader, as the president of the United States, it is important to be very clear in protecting our — our democracy and fighting for our democracy, and you’ve heard him say this.  And so, I’ll leave it there.

I’ll see you all tomorrow. 

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, everybody.

Q    That IVF bill, critics say it violates religious freedom.  Can you address that?

4:17 P.M. EDT

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Director of Coalitions Media Luisana Pérez Fernández, and National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

2:06 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, thank you.  All right.  Happy Tuesday.

Okay.  I have a — I do have a couple things at the top.  So, bear with me here.

So, on September 23rd to the 25th, the president will travel to New York City to participate in the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

In addition to addressing the General Assembly on Tuesday, the president will meet with world leaders to discuss cooperation in tackling threats to international peace and security, advancing global prosperity, and protecting human rights.

We will have more to share on the president’s engagements as UNGA — at UNGA in the upcoming days.

Yesterday, as you all know, the White House — led by the National Security Council and Office for Pandemic Preparedness and Response — hosted a convening of federal agencies, global and domestic public health partners, advocacy organizations, and community leaders to discuss the escalating mpo- — mpox outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also elsewhere.

The Biden-Harris administration is diligently working to combat the significant increase of mpox cases in the DRC and ensure our own preparedness and resilience here at home.

We’ve been closely monitoring the spread of mpox in DRC since 2023, working closely with the government of DRC as well as regional and global health partners to reduce the impact of this outbreak and safeguard public health.

Over the past few months, the United States has provided an additional $20 million to support mpox preparedness and response efforts in Central and Eastern Africa, and we are prepared to spend an additional $35 million on the response.  We have also been surging vaccines to the response, with 50,000 doses of vaccines arriving in DRC just last week.

The U.S. will continue to be a global leader in the mpox response and bolster domestic preparedness as well.

Today, on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, Senate Democrats will once again put forward a bill to safeguard access to IVF for families across the country.

As you’ll remember, Senate Republicans have blocked this bill multiple times before, refusing to protect access to fertility treatments for women who are desperately trying to get pregnant.

As President Biden has said, the disregard for a woman’s right to make these decisions for herself and her family is outrageous and unacceptable.

Republican officials have had every chance to protect reproductive freedom since the Supreme Court’s extreme decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.  And at every turn, they have refused to do so.  Instead, their — their dangerous agenda is having devasting consequences for women’s health and lives.

Repubub- — Repubu- — Republican officials think they can message their way out of their support for extreme policies that cut off access to IVF and put women’s health and lives at risk.

But no attempt to rebrand can change the fact that Republican elected officials have spent decades trying to eliminate the constitutional right to choose and undermine reproductive freedom everywhere.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned, Republican elected officials got what they wanted, and they are not going to stop there.

President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that every woman should have the right to make their own decisions and access the care they need, including fertility treatment.  And they will continue to fight alongside Democrats in Congress until the protections of Roe v. Wade are restored in federal law for all women in every state.  Senate Republicans should truly — they should truly join us.

And today is Voter Registration Day.  Without getting into politics from here, we can all recognize the importance of the right to vote and have that vote counted.

Since President Biden came into office, he has worked to protect that right by promoting nonpartisan access to voter registration and making voting more accessible for everyone who is eli- — eligible, from tuden- — students to veterans to Tribal communities.

The president and the vice president believe that to fully secure the right to vote in every state, Congress must take action and pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

We will keep working to make sure Americans can engage in the democratic process and have their voices heard.

No matter who you are or who you vote for, you have to — who you vote for, please go to Vote.gov for more information about registering to vote.

Again, this is about making it — it — this is a nonpartisan effort about making sure that people who are eligible to vote have that right to vote.  So, go — please go to Vote.org [Vote.gov].

Okay.  With that, Chris.

Q    There has been an outbreak of exploding pagers in Lebanon.  Does the White House have an understanding of whether Israel is responsible for this attack and any concerns about the escalating conflict in that region?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have not — we have seen, obviously, the reports.  I don’t have more information to — to share, and I’m not going to speculate from here.

Q    Also, the president said that he wanted to see the Secret Service get more resources.  What is the White House doing to make sure the Secret Service gets more resources?  What will those resources look like? 

And also, what is the thought on reorganizing the Secret Service to refocus on executive protection?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things you — you asked.  So, just want to — as it relates to the CR, as you know, that’s a short-term CR.  The Secret Service is working closely with Congress on their needs.  And so, there can be many avenues to get there, to get — to make sure that we — that we actually achieve that goal.  So, we’re not going to get ahead of those conversations.

As we’re talking about, more broadly, supplemental funding, just want to take a step back and walk through again what the president believes, in your — in your — in your question to me. 

The president believes that Secret Service should have every resource, capability available to them, the protective measures available to them to do a mission that is indeed critical.  And so, we want to make sure — the president wants to make sure that they have the resources for that.

And just to take a step back.  In August, as part of our responsibility to plan for a possible short-term continuing resolution, OMB provided Congress with a list of budget — of budget needs to avoid disruption to government services through the first quarter of the fiscal year. 

One of those — one of those requests submitted was for the U.S. — for the Secret Service.  It would ensure Secret Service had the ability to execute its, again, critical mission, even during a continuing resolution, including its responsibilities related to the 2024 presidential campaign.  Without that particular request in August, that anomaly, the Secret Service would have inefficient resources to sustain and enhance protective operations during the period of the CR.

Separately from that, again, the Secret Service has been in touch with Congress.  We believe there are many avenues to get that done.  And so, we’re not going to get ahead of those conversations. 

But this is something since August that we’ve been talking about.  The president has been always very clear: They need more resources — the Secret Service needs more resources.  They need more capabilities.  The mission that they are indeed doing is critical.

To your question about the change of leadership, the president has confidence in the Secret Service leadership.  He commends the Secret Service for their handling of the situation and ensuring that the former president was safe — his safety.

The Secret Service has already announced a review into the incident, into what happened. 

And so, as we have said many times, the men and women at the Secret Service have a hard job, a — a tireless, thankful job.  And — and we have to remember: They’re protecting the president, they’re protecting former presidents, and many others. 

Again, this is a mission that is critical.  The president certainly has full confidence in them. 

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Donald Trump blamed President Biden and Vice President Harris for the latest assassination attempt against him.  He claimed, without evidence, that their rhetoric is causing him to be, quote, “shot at.”  How is the White House responding to those comments?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I love that you — you added “without evidence,” because I want to be very clear here: The president and the vice president have always forcefully — forcefully condemned violence in all forms, including political violence.  And — and we certainly have never encouraged any violence in any way.  If anything, this is a president and a vice president that has been pretty forceful about that. 

And, you know, when it comes to differences in — in issues and policies, we believe that there should be a conversation.  There was a debate just last week.  Right?  We — there should be a conversation and a back-and-forth about that, a healthy conversation.  And it’s crucial that we do that. 

And the president has also said, when it comes to, you know, violent rhetoric, we got to bring the temperature down.  You heard that directly from this president.  And it is not the time to tear Americans apart — we cannot do that — or divide our country.  The president and the vice president is always going to call that out, but they have been very clear, very forceful on condemning any form of political violence. 

Q    So, do the president and vice president believe that the kind of language that Trump used in those comments I just said are contributing to the tension and divisiveness you just talked about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s — it is — look, we’re going to be really cear — clear.  We always have been.  It is important to bring down the temperature — to bring that temperature down of that political, violent rhetoric.  We’ve been very clear about that.

And we believe — this president believes — let’s not forget why he decided to run in 2020 was about that, was about making sure that we bring the country together, that we bring people together, and it was not about dividing. 

And so, we’re going to continue to be very, very clear about that.  We’re going to continue to call that out. 

And they did: January 6th.  The president and the vice president called that out.  When Paul Pelosi was attacked — was attacked because of political rhetoric, violent rhetoric, we called that out.  And when the first incident happened a couple weeks ago, at the Butler — after that aftermath, the president called that out as well. 

And so, he’s very consistent.  He thinks both sides should be very clear about that.  It’s not just — it’s not just the president or the vice president.  Every leader — national leader or any leader in this country — should be calling out political violen- — and bringing the country together, not dividing it. 

Q    Just to be clear — just to clarify.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    So, you’re saying that the president and vice president believe that former President Donald Trump should be toning down his rhetoric?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’ll say this.  President Biden has been clear-eyed about the threat that the former president represents to our democracy.  He’s been clear-eyed about that, from his role — let’s not forget, from his role of January 6th, where he refused to accept the outcomes of free and fair elections.  Look what happened on that day.  Me- — some of you were there at the Capitol.  Some of you have colleagues who were there at the Capitol, reported and saw what happened.  Two thousand angry people went there to try to overturn a free and fair election. 

And so, it’s not going to stop the president and the vice president to call out — to continue to strongly call out.  You know, when it comes to protecting our democracy, we have to be forceful about that.  We have to be very clear. 

We can resolve our differences — right? — via talk, at the ballot box.  Right?  We can have differences in policies and issues.  That is okay.  It is important that we have differences there. 

But when it comes to political violence, we have to condemn it. 

Go ahead, Jeff.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A couple follow-ups.  Is the White House — is the president concerned about additional escalation in the Middle East after this pager incident with Hezbollah and Israel?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m going to be super thoughtful about this.  I’m not going to get into speculation from here. 

Q    I wasn’t asking you to speculate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I’m just not going to go beyond the reports.  Just going to be — not going to get into hypotheticals here.

Q    Okay.  I wasn’t asking a hypothetical. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    I’m asking if the president is concerned about future escalation, which is something he has talked about a lot.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, when it comes — when it comes to the Middle East, that is something that we have spoken to before.  We are always, obviously, concerned about that. 

This particular incident, I don’t want to get into — speculate about it or get into hypotheticals about it. 

You know, when we think about the conflict along the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah, it has — it has gone on for way too long — long enough.  And so, it is in everyone’s interest to resolve it quickly and diplomatically.  So, we contin- — we continue to believe that there is going — this should be a diplomatic resolution to this. 

And — and so, I will leave it there.  And — well, actually, I’ll add: This is why the ceasefire negotiation is so important.  This is why the hostage deal is so important.  This is why the president and his administration has been working around the clock, 24 hours, to get that done.  We believe the deal would help reduce tensions along the Blue Line, and that is one of the reasons we — again, we believe diplomatic, obviously, efforts are — are critical and important at this time.

As it relet- — relate to that incident, I’m just — I — we’ve seen the reports.  I just don’t have anything to say beyond that.

Q    On the issue of political rhetoric.  Do you have any reaction to Senator Vance’s comments, in which he noted that the difference between — in his view, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that no one has tried to assassinate Vice President Harris? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, again, going to be mindful.  Obviously, he’s a candidate.  But when you are a national leader and you have a community that looks up to your leadership and you have a job where you’re supposed to make people’s lives better, where you’re supposed to do the thing that is right on behalf — not just the American people but on behalf of this country, people entrust in you to do just that — entrust in you to make decisions that’s going to move this country far- — forward to make it the great country that it is. 

And when you have that type of language out there, it’s dangerous.  It’s dangerous because people look up to that particular national leader, and they listen to you when you are a national leader.  And when you make comments like that, all it does is create — or opens an opportunity for people to listen to you and potentially take you very seriously. 

And so, it’s dangerous to have that type of rhetoric out there.  This is why this president and this vice president has been very clear on condemning any type of political violence, political rhetoric.  And that’s why, when the president called the former president, he was — was really relieved that the president was safe.

And the president has said we need to tone that down.  We need to tone it down.  And it should have no place in our politics.  It should have no place in our country.  We should not be speaking that way.  We should not be saying those things.  It is — it is already — we — we are living in a space right now where the political rhetoric is too high, the violent rhetoric is too high. 

And we saw what happened on January 6.  We saw what happened to — sadly, to Paul Pelosi.  And we saw what happened at Butler — the aftermath of Butler and over the weekend.  And we got to tone it down.  We do.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just one more on the Lebanon situation.  Just given that, you know, you and John Kirby, from this podium, have talked about so much that the one thing the U.S. would like to avoid is an escalation in the region — and we’re talking about at least nine people dead, thousands of people injured — I mean, can you give us a sense of whether there have been at least discussions here in the building about concerns that this could be the start of something new?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’ve always said, and we’ve always said, to your question, our concern of escalation in the Middle East — and we’ve talked about — I just went into how it’s important to have those diplomatic conversations and even talked about how enough is enough. 

As it relates to this particular report, obviously, we’ve seen the report.  I don’t have more information.  I don’t want to speculate from here.  But we’ve been very clear about the tensions in the Middle East and wanting it to — wanting to make sure that we do everything that we can to lessen the tension there. 

Q    And can you say whether senior officials were surprised to see this kind of coordinated, widespread —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I can say is: If you’re asking me if the U.S. was involved, no, the U.S. was not involved.  If you’re asking me if we were aware of the operation, we were not aware of this incident that hundreds of pagers, as you just mentioned, were going to explode in Lebanon ahead of time.  This is not something that we were aware of.  And I’m just not going to go beyond that. 

Q    And just —

Q    She referred to it as an “operation.” 

Q    Sorry?

Q    I’m sorry for interrupting. 

You referred to it as an “operation.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  This incident —

Q    Do you mean an Israeli operation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — in- — I don’t have anything beyond — beyond the — the reports that are out there.  I don’t have anything beyond to share. 

What I can say is that we were not aware of this incident and of the hundreds of pagers who — that were — that were going to explode in Lebanon ahead of time.  That is not something that we were aware of.  That’s what I can confirm. 

Go ahead.

Q    Just in the context of what happened on Sunday with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — the former president.  President Biden said in a radio interview this morning, quote, “Everything is frightening.”  Does he feel absolutely confident that he is safe?  Does he feel absolutely confident that the vice president is safe when they are out traveling out and about?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes, he has full confidence in the Secret Service.  He understands the difficulties of the job, the tireless work that the Secret Service — the men and women of Secret Service do every day.  And he also says they need more resources to be able to — capabilities, resources to be able to do the job that they’re doing. 

It’s not just the president.  It’s not just the vice president.  It’s also former presidents and much more.  And so, that is why we continue to work on Co- — with Congress to get that done. 

Q    So, wh- — so, when he used the word “frightening,” he was not referring to anything related to his own safety, the vice president’s safety?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you’re — I have not — I have not spoken to him specifically of what he meant.  You’re asking me about his own safety.  What I can tell you: He has full confidence in the Secret Service. 

I think if you look at the political rhetoric more broadly, which the president has said needs to be — the temperature needs to go down.  It needs to go down.  You know, you think about, you know, January 6th again; what happened to Paul Pelosi; what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania; what happened over the weekend — yeah, we need to turn it down. 

It is frightening for — for everyone, for Americans, to see that.  And so, we need to — we need to lower those types of — that temperature, lower that type of political violent.  It has no place — no place in politics and, certainly, in this country.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold — hold on one second. 

Go ahead, Nancy.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to follow up on that, because Senator Vance appeared to call out specifically one of the phrases that you used earlier, which was “threat to democracy.”  He said, “We cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist and, if he’s elected, that it’s going to be the end of American democracy.” 

Now, I recognize that Donald Trump has also used those phrases — “threat to democracy,” “danger to democracy” — but in light of what has happened and in light of the fact that there are going to be disturbed people who take words like “threat” or “danger” literally, is the president and is the vice president considering avoiding those specific terms: “threat to democracy” or “danger to democracy”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and I answered this question.  The president has always been very clear-eyed about this — about the threat of — the former president represents to our democracy.  Just think about January 6th.  January 6th.  We have to be honest with the American people when we see those types of threats, when we see that type of rhetoric that led to 2,000 people going to the Capitol.  We have to call that out.

And, look, let me step back for a second even further.  You all, as news organizations, have the obligation — right? — you are all obligated to cover events like January 6th.  As I mentioned before, some of your colleagues were there, some of you were there on January 6th, and you had to report that the way you saw it — the obligation to do that.  And we appreciate it, because I know those were dangerous tim- — that was a dangerous day to be there.

And, you know, we have to call out any type of refusal of an outcome of an election, any type of violent rhetoric.  And this administration has the responsibility to be honest to the American people. 

So, look, we are — we can, as a country — right? — we can have disagreements on issues — on policy issues.  It is okay to have that conversation.  We had a debate, just as — as I mentioned recently.  It is — it is — that is what’s beautiful about what we do — right? — to go back and forth to — about our democracy. 

But once you t- — once there’s violent rhetoric, we got to condemn that.  And, you know, the president is going to encourage all leaders from both parties to do so — all leaders from both parties to do so.  It’s not just on one — all leaders on both parties have to make sure that we do not — we do not use that type of violent political rhetoric.  Because look what happened: January 6th, Paul Pelosi, Butler, over the weekend.  We got to be mindful.

Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, you just —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I’m sorry.  I’m sorry.  I’m sorry, April — 

Q    I just — I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — I think she had more.

Q    Sorry, I just had a follow-up on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sorry.  Sorry. 

Q    — on another topic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I apologize.

Q    No problem. 

So, this is a question about the Secret Service.  And I’m wondering if the president believes that at least until

the Secret Service can — can get the resources that he says that it needs, does he believe that both presidential candidates should be avoiding unscheduled movements, particularly in open-air locations, like a golf course, that are very difficult to secure when the Secret Service and law enforcement don’t have a lot of advance notice? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that — that is for the Secret Service to speak to.  I can’t — I can’t speak to their protocol and how they do their business.  Tha- — they are the prof- — professionals.  So, that is for them to decide on. 

I will — I will speak to what the acting Secret Service director said — Rowe — he said this — said yesterday, as it relates to, basically, the former president’s protection — and I think this is important: In the aftermath of July 13th, President Biden made it clear that former President Trump should have the highest level of protection offered by the Secret Service.  And the president has repeatedly said that the Secret Service should have every resource, capability in order to do their job, which is mission cri- — critical.  And since July 13th, the Secret Service has greatly enhanced the security footprint for the former president. 

And so, that is something that they have said they have done.  That is something that the president wanted to see be to done — to be done.  And so, anything about their protocol, how they move about, how they make decisions, to your question, that is something for them to speak to.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s it?  Okay.  Sor- — I’m sorry about that answer earlier.

Q    No problem.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, April.

Q    Karine, going back to one of your — to an answer that you gave to someone about lowering the temperature when it comes to this divisive rhetoric.  It’s not just about presidential

division.  It’s also about lowering the temperature, do you think, when it comes to the Haitian community?  Because this debunked narrative from President Trump and J.D. Vance has now created a problem in Ohio.  It’s also created a problem for not just the Haitian immi- — migrants but also others. 

Could you talk to me about this?  And what is the White House planning to do, if they’re planning to do anything, to change that narrative and to quell all of this upset and this,

I guess, excitement over this? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I mean, we have been very clear.  The president has been very clear in the past couple of days, speaking to this directly himself — what we’ve seen in Springfield, Ohio — the hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories that we’ve heard from political leaders, and they’ve been pushing this over and over again. 

But I also want to say that you’ve also heard from other Republicans — like the governor of Ohio, like the mayor of Springfield — who have said — who have debunked this and have been very clear that this is not true, what we’re hearing — the hateful smears — and have called it out.  And we heard it from the local police department as well in Ohio. 

And, you know, as I — I said, the president said last week: This needs to stop.  He spoke about it yesterday when he was at the HBCU event in Philly.  And he’s going to continue to do so.  It is undignified and insulting to all of us as Americans — undignified and insulting to spread these types of filth.  It is filth.  It is dangerous.  It puts us less safe.  And, you know, it’s dangerous and it’s disruptive and it’s fearful. 

Q    So, when you say “it’s undignified” and the other words that you used — but you also said “dangerous.”  How dangerous is this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  When communities feel unsafe because these type of hateful smears, these conspiracy theor- — theories are being spread about them; when schools are being shut down, hospitals, the community in Springfield, Ohio, it puts them in danger.  It does, and we’ve seen it. 

And leaders should not be pulling us apart.  They should not be pulling communities apart.  They should be bringing them together in shared values.  That’s what the president believes. 

Q    And my next-to-last question.  We’re watching the news and seeing what’s happening to Sean “Diddy” Combs.  With that said, he has been very political in the past.  He has endorsed candidates.  He has said to vote.  He has said not to vote.  And now this: what we see last night and today. 

What does this say to the American voting public as we look to these celebrities for endorsements?  And I say that in light of one of the most — the largest endorsement that this administration has received so far from people like Taylor Swift, people in the entertainment industry.  What does this say to the American voter?  Does a celebrity have weight, that kind of weight?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I — I’m not going to get into the politics of today and what an endorsement means.  I — it — it’s not for me to do from here.  I think, as you speak of Taylor Swift and other endorsements by entertainers, that is something, I think, the campaign could speak to directly.

I did at the top talk about how — and want to do this without getting into politics, right? — about today being Voter Registration Day and the importance that this — this administration has put towards that — and also lifting up, making sure that legislation — the John Lewis legislation gets passed through in Congress.  We want to make sure that voting is more accessible for everyone that is eligible — everyone that is el- — eligible.  That’s from students to veterans and to Tribal communities.  It is important that voting is — is made eligible for — is made possible for folks who are eligible.

I’m not going to — to get into entertainers and what that means for the American public, especially as we’re in the middle of a — of an election cycle.  But vo- — voting, as you know, is a sacred right.  And I think we believe people should have to — the — the ability to exercise that right to vote, whoever they choose to vote for.

Q    So, understanding his — Diddy’s past dabbles in politics and understanding what’s happening today, if true, does this administration condemn Diddy for what he’s done?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, it’s an ongoing — ongoing situation, legal matter.  I would have to refer you to Department of Justice.  Everything, kind of, is happening today.  And so, I’m just — we just don’t comment on ongoing legal matter.  I’m not going to do that from here.  So, I’m going to leave it there. 

Go ahead, Anita.

Q    Thank you so much.  I have a quick Iran question, then a longer domestic question. 

Just starting with Iran.  Their new president said that he is willing to have talks with the United States.  He did give some conditions.  And he also said he’s willing to talk again about the nuclear program.  Is the White House willing to play ball here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have long said — and I kind of said this in the beginning — that we view d- — diplomacy as the best way to achieve an effective, long-term solution when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.  That is something that we have been pretty consistent about in the past three and a half years.  And we believe that being — having those diplomatic conversation when we talk about our relationships across the globe is so critical. 

However — however, we are far and away from anything like that right now.  And so, we will judge Iran on their actions, not their words.  Always been clear about that as well.  And if Iran wants to demonstrate seriousness or a new approach, they should stop their nuclear and regional escalations.

Q    And then, on domestic matters.  First of all, have any figures from Ohio asked the administration for any help or assistance to safeguard the — the vulnerable communities there?  Is this something you’re considering?

And then, secondly, just zooming out, looking at the world and looking at your use of the word “dangerous” so many times today.  What sort of message is the combination of these threats against the life of the candidate and all of this rhetoric — what message is this sending to American adversaries about the strength and the power of democracy?  What would you say to them about that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, two different things.  You’re asking about Springfield, Ohio.  And I — I said this last week, and I’ll repeat it here: First of all, we’ve got to condemn any type of hateful smears and conspiracy theories.  And when you do things like that, it does make people feel less safe.  It does make communities feel less safe and it’s hateful. 

And you’ve heard from the mayor of Springfield.  You’ve heard from the governor of Ohio saying this is not true.  And these are two Republicans who are saying this is not true. 

And we’ve seen — we’ve seen what that has done to the Haitian in — in this instance, the Haitian population.  And it is not right.  It is not okay. 

Q    (Inaudible) to them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Going to get to your question. 

So, since day one, the president has always wanted to make sure that communities across the country have the support they need, as we talk about migrants coming into — into their community and wanting to make sure that they have the help and the resources available to them. 

And so, over the past two years, we have provided over $130 million to help communities across Ohio hosting recently arrived migrants, including Springfield.  And since the — since this past spring, back in April, DHS has been directly engaged with the city of Springfield and local officials to make sure they have the support they need. 

But, again, this goes back to something that we talk about all the time from here, which is the bipartisan border deal.  It is — it is critical and important to continue to move forward with that.  Republicans got in the way because of what the former president said: Do not do this; do not move this forward.  They put politics over doing the right thing for the American people. 

And so, we’re — certainly want to see this move forward, but they’ve gotten in the way in getting the needed assistance, a continued assistance when it comes to migrant resources in — in these types of cities.

Q    Cool.  And then, the world is watching.  Is democracy dangerous?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, we are always going to condemn any form of political violence.  That’s something that we’ve always been very clear about, whether it’s here or abroad.  And I will quote what the president said when he was at the McCain Institute just last year: “Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence.  Regardless of party, such as violence is never, never, never acceptable in America.” 

Those are values he and the vice president have always stood for at home and in the world, opposing political violence at every turn and encourage all leaders to do the same. 

So, we’re going to be very clear about that.  We’ve been consistent.  It’s not just here, domestically.  We’re going to continue to condemn political violence abroad, as well as — as we — as here.  And that is what the president and the vice president has done for almost four years.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  A couple of questions about Brazil and then Venezuela. 

Today, the president had a briefing on the wildfires in California and Oregon.  I wonder if he’s watching what’s happening in Brazil.  Brazil is also on fire.  The Amazon is on fire.  Many parts of Brazil are having record-breaking wildfires.  Is the U.S. working with Brazil to help with the situation and help to mitigate the problem in the future?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to what we’re seeing in Brazil with the wirefi- — wildfires, and we certainly are here to — to assist.  We are in contact with the Brazilian government and are connecting experts in both governments.  So, we’re assisting in ways that we can. 

Anything further, certainly, I would refer you to the State Department and USAID.  But our hearts go out to the folks in Brazil who are directly affected by the wildfires. 

Q    On X.  Twitter has been banned in Brazil for almost 20 days now.  What is the White House view or position on this matter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that again.

Q    X, a social media.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Uh-huh.

Q    Elon Musk’s social media is banned in Brazil.  It’s 20 days now that it doesn’t work in Brazil anymore.  It was a dispute with a judge from the supreme court, and now it’s banned for 20 days.  What is the position of the — the U.S. government on this matter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think when it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that, you know, folks should have access to social media.  It’s a form of freedom — freedom of speech.  And certainly, that is something more broadly that we have always — have been very clear about.

And so, I just don’t have anything beyond that to share. 

Q    And just a — a follow-up from a colleague —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — about Venezuela.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    So, does the White House view the detention of three Americans and two Spanish — Spanish in Venezuela who are accused of attempting to assassinate Maduro as a potential retaliation for U.S. sanctions and Spain’s decision to welcome Edmundo González?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, that is categorically false.  It is not true, and U.S. involvement in a plot to overthrow Maduro is, again, categorically false. 

This is just another attempt by Maduro to distract from the July 28th election results.  The United States continue to support a democratic — a democratic way forward in Venezuela.  And so, we are closely, as we have been, monitoring the situation.  And due to privacy consideration, we have, certainly, no further comments from here.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, regarding the exploding pagers in Lebanon.  Forgive me, if I missed it.  Did you say if the president had been briefed on the incident?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not spoken to the president, so I can’t speak to that.  That is — I can go back and make sure that NSC was able to do this.  My — my guess is he’s aware and he’s been briefed, but I haven’t directly spoken to the president about that.

Q    Okay.  Regard- — regarding the phone call between President Biden and former President Trump.  How long did it last?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to go beyond what we — what we read out.  The president called the former president and was relieved that he was safe, and — and the former president certainly appreciated the call.  I just don’t have anything further beyond that. 

He expre- — he expressed his thank — his — his — he was thankful for the — President Biden to call — in calling him to check in on him.  I just don’t have any- — anything beyond that. 

Q    And down in Florida, the governor there, Ron DeSantis, said he doesn’t think it’s in the best interest of the state or the nation that the same federal agency seeking to prosecute Trump also handle the alleged assassination attempt against him.  What’s the White House view on that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say —

Q    He o- — he opened a — he wants to open a state investigation into the alleged assassination attempt, and he says that the feds should not be investiga- — or it’s not in the interest of the nation for the feds to investigate that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, the president has complete confidence in the Secret Service.  I’ve said this multiple times at this point.  There is a investigation happening.  We’re going to let that process move forward. 

And I think until that happens, I don’t think anybody should comment on that. 

Q    And finally, you said that the president is heading to UNGA.  Is the vice president going as well?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right now, the vice president is not planning to — to participate in the U.N. General Assembly-related events.  As in the past, it is possible she meets with foreign — foreign leaders here in Washington, D.C., next week.  But I don’t have anything to announce — further to announce on her.

Q    Is that a conscious decision — sort of like there’s only one president at a time type thing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No.  No.  I would- — I wouldn’t read it that way.  I wouldn’t read it that way.  Appreciate the question, though.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Staying on UNGA.  The president will be delivering his final address as president before that body next week.  Could you talk a little bit about what the message is that he wants to deliver about his leadership over the last four years, particularly with the fact that the wars in Ukraine as well as Gaza are still unresolved and his predecessor has repeatedly claimed that neither of those conflicts would have happened if he were still president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you can appreciate, Francesca, I’m not going to get ahead of the president.  He’s going to speak for himself.  He’s going to lay out what his thoughts are when we see him deliver his address to the Assembly next week.  And so, I’m going to not get ahead of the president.  And I’m just going — I’m just going to leave it there for now.

Q    And on the issue of Russia’s war against Ukraine.  The German chancellor said last week that — that talks needed to speed up and that — at the next peace conference, that Russia should be at the table.  Is it the White House’s view that the next peace talks need to take place before November?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I’ve always been clear and we’ve always been clear: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.  So, this is something, obviously, when it relate- — when — as it relates to that, certainly Ukraine has to be involved and — and be — and make sure that they’re at the table.  I cannot speak to any — anything further beyond the next peace talks. 

But I will say, as I’ve said many times before, as my colleagues have said many times before, this can end today.  The war in Ukraine that Russia started — Russia’s aggression — could end today.  It could end today.  This is Mr. Putin’s war.  He started this war, and he can stop it by moving his troops out, by ending the war on a sovereign territory, on a democracy.  He can end this.  And so, I’ll just leave it there. 

Go ahead, Danny.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just going back to Lebanon.  A few hours before these pagers exploded, Israel said that it was expanding the aims of its war against Hamas to focus on Hezbollah along the northern border with — with Lebanon.  Do you have any indications that this incident may have been a kind of prelude to some kind of major Israeli operation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to speculate from here.  Like I said, we’ve seen the reports.  I just don’t have any more information, and I’m just not goi­­ng to speculate.

Q    And very quickly.  The other day, President Biden gave the thumbs up when I asked him if he was going to be traveling to Angola, as our friends at Reuters reported. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    Do you have any more details on that?  Can you confirm any details of his travels?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you asked the questions and your friends at Reuters reported it?  Is that what you’re saying?  (Laughs.)

Q    No, I wish it was that way.  (Laughter.)

No, it was Reuters’ reporting, I do — I do have to admit, so —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have anything.  We don’t have anything at this time to share on any travel for the president.  So, I’ll just leave it there.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  It’s been only two days since somebody allegedly tried to kill Donald Trump again, and you’re here at the podium in the White House Briefing Room calling him a “threat.”  How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and the vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump other than “threat”?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Peter, if anything from this administration, I actually completely disagree with the premise of your question. 

The question that you’re asking, it is also incredibly dangerous in the way that you’re asking it, because American people are watching.  And to say that — to say that from a administration who has consistently condemned political violence; from an administration where the president called the former president and was thankful, grateful that he was okay; from an administration who has called out January 6th, called out the attack of Paul Pelosi, called out and said we need to lower the temperature after the Butler incident — and now for you to make that kind of comment in your question — because it — your question involved a comment and a statement — and, you know, it is — that is also incredibly dangerous when we have been very clear in — in condemning political violence from here.

What I have said about the president — the former president about January 6th is facts that you all have reported.  It is fact when you have a former president who basically says that the election wasn’t — the — the results of the election were not the results of the election, when dozens — dozens of — more than 60 Republican judges said that it was a free and fair election.  Six- — more than 60 said it was indeed a free and fair election. 

You had more than 2,000 people who were told to go to the Capitol.  It was one of the darkest days of our democracy.  One of the darkest days.  There were people who — law enforcement officers who died because of what happened at the Capitol.  And they were there because the former president told them to go there. 

I mean, I don’t know if that’s not — if that’s not a threat on our democracy when it was one of the darkest days of our democracy — January 6th, one of the darkest days —

Q    To your point —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And so, we — we have been very clear from here. 

Now, we can have a disagreement on policies — we can — on issues.  That is what we should do.  It is important to have those disagreements.  It is welcome to have those dica- — disagreements on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy.  But when you start bringing political rhetoric — political rhetoric — that is not okay, and that’s what you’ve heard from us too.  You’ve heard our differences on policies.

Q    But to your point, there are people watching at home who might miss the part where you say, “Let’s lower the temperature,” and they’re just — there are mentally unstable people who are attempting to kill political candidates, attempting to kill Donald Trump, and they are still hearing this White House —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have — we have —

Q    — refer to him as a threat. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have —

Q    Is there no concern that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We —

Q    — people are taking that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We have —

Q    — literally?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re using examples.  We’re not just saying that just to say it.  January 6th, Peter.  January 6th. 

Wait — January 6th — how many times do I have to — January 6th, 2021.  That is a — that is a fact, what was reported that happened on that day by some of your colleagues.

I mean — and we have, at the same time, denounced political violence over and over — political rhetoric over and over again — over and over again. 

But I know your focus has to be on this side of the house.  It can’t be on your side of the house.  I get that.  I get that.  But we also have to be careful on how you’re asking me these questions.

People are watching.  And is — what you are saying about us raising political violent rhetoric, whatever — however you just formulated it is — this is an administration that has denounced and condemned any type of political rhetoric or violence. 

It is the reason why this president decided to run in 2020.  That is why the president decided to come back.  He believed that it is important to save the soul of America, of our nation.  And he believed it was important that we f- — continue to fight for our democracy, fight for our freedom.  That’s what you see from this administration. 

I’m moving on. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Yeah, I’m going to ask you about overtime.  (Laughs.)  So, d- — does the president and vice president support no taxes on overtime for workers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a couple — a couple of things on — on that.  Look, the president and this vice president has been pretty consistent on making sure that we continue to lower costs for Americans but also, at the same time, make sure that we’re increasing wages.  And that’s what we have seen. 

Again, the question that you’re asking me is supporting overtime pay.  This is something — a proposal from — in the 2024 election, so I’m going to be really, really mindful.  But we also can’t forget what the last administration did.  They eliminated overtime protections for millions of workers.  The Biden-Harris administration restored overtime protections to 1 million workers.  And next year, we will extend protections to another 3 million workers. 

That means our administration is ensuring higher paychecks and more time with family for millions of Americans after the last administration took that away. 

And so, we cannot — we cannot forget that: what this administration has done and what — versus what the last administration has done. 

Q    So, from 20- — January 2021 to now, overall prices are up 20 percent, food at home is up 21 percent, electricity is up about 28 percent, and the list goes on.  Does the president believe that Americans are better off now than they were four years ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.  And I understand what you’re asking me.  I get it.  We — there’s still a lot more work to be done, and we’ve always said that.  That’s why the president is always — and the vice president are always continuing to try to figure out how do we lower those costs. 

And we cannot forget what happened four years ago.  We cannot forget what this president and this vice president walked into, what — what they inherited from the previous administration.  And so, it was an economy that was a free-for-all.  There was a once-in-a- — once-in-a-century pandemic.  We — there was no comprehensive plan to deal with that pandemic. 

The president and Democrats in Congress passed the American Rescue Plan: shots in arms, money in pockets.  And also, when we took over, you know, the last year of the former administration, violence, murder was at an all-time high.  And we have been able to bring down violent crime at a 50- — it’s at a 50-year low.

And so, we’re able to negotiate lower drug prices.  We are beating Big Pharma — something that former presidents, elected officials have been trying to do for some time. 

And so, while we’re — still have a lot more work to do, we do believe — four years ago there was a pandemic.  Pandemic.  People were dying.  Thousands of people were dying.  There was no plan.  Our economy was literally in a downfall.

Q    So, one — one more, if I might.  October 1st, if the dockworkers don’t get a contract, there could be a strike.  Is the president, do you know, going to invoke the federal law to avoid or to block a strike?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I’m not going to get hypotheticals from here.

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

Q    Thank you.

2:57 P.M. EDT

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

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:53 P.M. EDT

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

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Happy Friday.

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  We all feel the same way.  Although, tomorrow is another workday.

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  So, I have a couple things at the top. 

So, yesterday, a North Dakota judge struck down the state’s near-total abortion ban.  The law makes it a felony for doctors and other health care providers to provide women the care that they need.  It is extreme, dangerous, and terrifying and has left North Dakota without any abortion providers.

And that was made possible when the former president handpicked three — three Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.  As a result, more than 20 states have abortion bans currently in effect.

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

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

Next, I want to — I wanted to also quickly recognize all of the amazing Team USA athletes who participated in this year’s Paralympics in Paris that le- — that ended this past weekend.  Team USA showed incredible resilience and strength.  This year’s athletes brought home an impressive 105 — including 36 gold — medals. 

From the president on down, we have all been cheering you on here at the White House.  We are so proud of all of you.  As a president — as the first lady said — pardon me — and I quote, our athletes “carry more than just our flag.  They carry our nation’s heart and our hopes with them too.”

And finally, as you all know, the president joined a — a brunch in celebration of Black excellence on the South Lawn this afternoon.  Over the coming days, President Biden will participate in a celebratory engagement centered on the triumphs and legacy of Black Americans and the institutions they have created. 

In addition to today’s brunch in celebration of Black excellence, Presidents — President Biden will deliver remarks at the 2 — 2024 Phoenix Awards dinner on Saturday and address the National HBCU Week Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Monday.  These events will focus on speaking directly to the community about the Biden-Harris administration’s accomplishment for the Black community. 

As — as a proud Black American myself, I — I must say that I am incredibly proud to be working for a president and a vice president who have d- — who has certainly delivered for Black Americans.  His t- — his time in office is marked by significant wins for the Black community, including achieving the lowest Black unemployment rate on record, nominating Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, and investing a historic $16 billion into HBCUs.

We are looking forward to traveling to Philadelphia this coming Monday.

And with that, Darlene.

Q    Hi.  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hello.

Q    Two questions.  So, the administration had promised to use the full extent of the law to make sure that pregnant patients got emergency care after Roe v. Wade was overturned.  We — the AP is reporting today that none of the hospitals that have denied care to pregnant patients since Roe v. Wade was overturned have been fined.  Do you know why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would have to talk to the Department of Justice.  I don’t have — I’m just now learning this reporting that the Associated Press has.  So, I would have to go back to Department of Justice and also refer you to them, as well, to get a better sense of how they’re operating that particular — that particular policy.

But I would have to say, and I said this at the top, we would not be in this position if the former president did not appoint three — three Supreme Court justices with — with one of the — obviously, one of the goals that they were successful at was making sure the Dobbs decision was done, which overturned Roe v. Wade, which was a constitutional right that women had for nearly 50 years. 

And that is why the president had to step in.  That is why the president had to sign an executive order.  That is why we have been very forceful, very clear about what Dobbs decision has done.  And we don’t even have to — it doesn’t have to come from us; we could see what has happened across the states: 21, 22 states that now have abortion bans.  And now that is affecting, as we know, 27 million women who are now affected by this who — who their reproductive freedom has been taken away.  Those — that decision to make those really personal decisions for themselves has been taken away.

But as it relates to that specific question, I would have to refer you to Department of Justice.

Q    And since the — the president mentioned Springfield, Ohio, in his remarks — he did- — he didn’t actually say Springfield, but we knew what he was talking about — is the administration considering any help for Springfield?  They’ve been facing bomb threats.  Some schools were evacuated today.  Is there any —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, as it relates to that, certainly we are aware of the evacuations.  Local police are investigating what is happening on the ground, the situation.  We encourage everyone to please — please follow the — the advice and the direction of the public safety, follow their guidance.

I’m going to be mindful and not speculate on the evacuations, but I — again, to — to your point on what the president said and what we have said from here, from this podium, it is that it is extremely sad and concerning that a community is facing this type of danger and vitriol.  And as the president said today — I think very forcefully — this needs to stop, and there is absolutely no place — absolutely no place in this country, in our — certainly in our prolitical [political] discourse, for this type of vitriolic, smearing, hateful language.

And certainly, as we have done in the past three and a half years, and the president has done throughout his career and the vice president as well, we’re going to continue to call that out and condemn that type of vitriolic behavior. 

We will certainly offer any assistance, if needed, on the ground by the local — the local police.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Selina.

Q    And just to bounce off the question about Springfield, the Ohio governor said that the federal government needs to give Springfield some help to deal with the influx of migrants.  What’s the president’s reaction to that?  And does the White House have plans to provide some funding to the state?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things — and I’m glad — I’m actually glad you asked this question, because there are a couple things I do want to lay out that the administration has been able to do. 

Again, this is conspiracy theory, what we’re hearing, that has been debunked by the Ohio — the — the Ohio police department, the Springfield mayor, the city manager.  And so, we have to make sure that we put that out there — that this has been debunked.  And spreading this type of ha- — hateful conspiracy theories is indeed very dangerous.  It’s very dangerous. 

So, since day one, our priority has been ensuring communities across the country have the support they need.  So, we’ve delivered resources to Ohio, as well to cities, states, and non-for-profits across the country. 

Since the spring, DHS has been directly engaged with the city of Springfield and local officials to make sure they have the support they need.  And we want to do more.  We would like to do more. 

That’s why we did the bipartisan proposal with the Senate early — at the end of last year — obviously, early into this year.  And it was stopped.  It was stopped because the former president said that bill — that particular proposal would hurt him and help Joe Biden.  And so, Republicans in Congress stopped that.  It would have given more — it would have given more resources to cities like Springfield, Ohio. 

But I don’t want it to — to miss the point here that the administration has indeed provided more than $1.3 billion in grant funding t- — in jurisdur- — in jurisdiction around — around the country to help — to help with — with the influx and what they’re dealing with.  We want to do more, but we’ve been blocked in doing so.

Q    So, are there any new conversations that the president is trying to start right now for —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wh- —

Q    — further assistance?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We want to fix this problem — we want.  We did $1.3 billion.  That’s something that this administration has been able to do.  We want more funding. 

Republicans are getting in the way in Congress.  We were able to put forward, again, a bipartisan deal that would have been the toughest and the fairest law if the president had an opportunity to sign it.  Republicans got in the way. 

Now, if Republicans want to work with us in a good faith — they did.  They actually did, and then they turned their backs on what they wanted, on what they thought — they believed would be the right way to move forward in dealing with the immigration system and dealing with the border challenges.  And they walked away from it. 

And I — we need them to come to the table again.  We need them to actually want to move forward to deal with this issue. 

Q    And just shifting gears to Boeing.  30,000 workers are on strike for the first time in 16 years at Boeing.  And Boeing’s CFO said this is going to impact production, deliveries, operations, and will jeopardize their recovery.  So, how is the president reacting to this?  And what’s his message to those workers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re — administration officials are indeed in touch with Boeing and the machinists.  So, we encourage them to negotiate in good faith, which is something that we say when — when situations get to this level.  And we believe that they need to negotiate, yes, in good faith and work towards an agreement that gives employees benefits and that they deserve.  You know, that — and it would make the count- — and it would make the company stronger as well. 

So, we’re in touch with the parties and, again, continue to n- — to encourage them to negotiate in good faith. 

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  First, two points of clarification on Springfield.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Conspiracy theories aside, the governor says that this influx of migrants has caused a significant strain on the health care and public safety system in Springfield.  Does the administration acknowledge that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We — w- —

Q    Or — or have you talked to them about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we — and I said this in my answer prior.  We’ve been in touch with — with Springfield from — since the spring, we’ve been in touch with them.  DHS has, and we’ve been offering assistance to them.  And — and that is something that we’ve taken very seriously. 

And we have been able during — in 2023, this administration, we’ve been collaborating with states and cities across the country.  And we launched this one-stop clinic — one-stop-shop clinics to — to help eligible noncitizens get work permits and decompress their re- — respective shelter systems. 

And today, those clinics have served more than 37,000 people.  So, that shows how we’ve been working with different jurisdictions across the country.  And we’ve provided, I just mentioned, more than $1.3 billion to address the concerns that — for example, that the governor has, mayors have in — obviously, in cities and towns.

And so, we’ve done that.  We’ll — we want to continue to help, but we also need Congress to get involved.  And that’s why the president took very seriously the negotiations that were happening.  He tried to try to get the toughest, fairest border — border deal, and we were able to do that.  Republicans got in the way. 

But $1.3 billion to help cities across — cities and states across the country is nothing to — to sneeze at.

Q    So, short of a deal, are you saying that currently there is no more federal resources to give to Springfield?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We ne- — we need more federal resources.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And we have been working with Springfield, Ohio, in particular, since the spring — since the spring.  We need more funding.  We need more. 

And that is why the president and his team got together with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to come up with this border deal. 

Donald Trump, the former president, told Republicans in Congress to not move forward with it.  They voted against their own bipartisan deal.

Q    And then, turning to tariffs. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    During the debate, the vice president described Trump’s proposed tariffs as a sales tax on middle-class families.  Today, the Biden administration announced new tariffs on about $18 billion worth of Chinese goods that will go into effect in two weeks.  So, can you talk about whether these new tariffs are fundamentally different from what Trump has proposed and how?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the 301 tariff — the tariffs? 

So, look, we made an announcement this morning, as you just — that went out early this morning.  And I think the president, when he — back in May, when he was announcing that he was going to take action, he said very clearly he was going to do that to protect Americans, workers, and businesses from China’s unfair trade practices.  And that’s something — a commitment that he made and he spoke to back in — in May. 

And the comparison, as you’re asking me — the Trump administration, the last administration, their trade deal with China failed to increase — boost American manufacturing.  And what the president’s economic agenda — what we’ve been trying to do for almost four years now, and we’ve seen some results here — is nearly $1 trillion of new investments here in America, manufacturing investment has hit record highs, and factory construction has doubled to a record high. 

The annual trade deficit with China is the lowest in a decade, and that is because of the president’s economic agenda — lower than any year under the last administration. 

And so, the president is going to take — continue to take action to protect American workers and manufacturing and encourage China to eliminate its unfair practices.

As it goes to the specifics of it, obviously, USTR will have more information on that.  But the president made a commit- — he’s keeping to his commitment.  And if you can see what his economic agenda has actually done — manufacturing, businesses — and how that — how that lines up with China and what China — what it — what China has — how his — how his agenda has affected China’s behavior, and I think that matters. 

Q    I’m sorry.  I should have been more clear. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    How is it not a sales tax on all the goods that people buy every day?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, what we’re trying to do is making sure that we’re protecting American workers and businesses.  That’s what we’re doing.  USTR can certainly get into more details and specifics to your question. 

But our — you know, our commitment — and I think it shows in the president’s economic policy, as I just laid out.  And what — how — how the annual trade deficit with China is the lowest — is the lowest in a decade, lower than any year during the last administration. 

And so, what we’re trying to do is eliminate China’s unfair practices, and we’ve seen the results of that.  That was the commitment that this president made in May, and that’s the commitment that will continue. 

This is about American workers and businesses, and we’re going to certainly continue to deal with China’s unfair trade practices, and that’s what you’re seeing. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just back to the Boeing strike.  Does the White House believe that there is an immediate economic impact from the strike?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’re in touch with — with officials.  And this is something that, as I said all — as I say all the time when I get asked this question, we’re going to monitor very, very closely.  I don’t have a specific question to you on that — on — on a yes or a no, but this is something that we’re certainly going to monitor. 

What we want to see is all parties to come together in good faith and come up with a deal that helps the workers, the hard work — right? — continues to really respect the hard work that the workers do day in and day out for companies.  But I — but I don’t have any — anything specific.  We’re going to monitor.  We’re going to keep an eye on it.

Q    Not even a general assessment on the economic impact, immediate or otherwise?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is something that we’re going to monitor. 

Q    Okay.  And just staying on that topic and stepping back a little bit.  You’ve obviously gotten a number of Boeing-related questions in this job: the door that blew off the plane, a number of compliance issues, there are two astronauts who are literally stuck in space.  What do you think is going on with the company?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can’t speak for what’s going on inside of a company.  That is for them to — to certainly speak to. 

As it relates to the strike that is currently happening, we’re certainly in touch with Boeing and the machinists.  We want them to come together in good faith.

As it relates to the safety concerns that Americans should have, rightly have, obviously, the Department of Transportation has been on top of that, dealing with — dealing with ways to — to make sure there’s transparency and they deal with those safety issues.  FAA has been on top of that as well.

But I can’t speak to what’s going ins- — going on with Boeing.  That is something for them to speak to. 

Q    Okay.  Just one more on a separate topic.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Pope Francis today said about the upcoming presidential election that voters here have to choose the lesser of two evils.  He pointed to Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant positions and then the vice president’s support of abortion rights.  Do you know if the president is aware of these comments, if he has had any reaction?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, obviously the pope speaks for himself, and I don’t have any — any more comments from here.  I have not spoken to the president about the pope’s specific comments on the up- — on this coming election.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow up on Boeing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. 

Q    So — so, we understand that admin officials, including Julie Su, are in touch with both sides.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But is there someone specific, like a liaison like Gene Sperling was in the UAW talks, that the White House has appointed for this particular —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I don’t have a specific person to point to from the White House.  White House officials, including the Department of Labor, as you just mentioned, the secretary — the acting secretary has been in touch with Boeing and the machinists on this particular matter, but don’t have a poeson — a person to point out to you.  But White House officials here have — have been in touch. 

Q    And — and are the president or the vice president planning to join any of these workers on the picket line?  Have any discussions taken place?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, the president was the first president to — to go to Michigan and be with UAW workers when they were striking, and he was very proud to do that.  Has been named the — the most pro- — pro-union president ever, and so he’s proud to — to hold that title.  I don’t have — or acknowledgement.  I just don’t have anything to share on either of their schedules. 

Q    Has the president spoken to the union?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a — a call to speak to at this time. 

Q    And — and one quick one on the U.S. Steel-Nippon Steel deal.  The Washington Post was reporting that the White House may push a decision on the deal until after the election.  We did say — we did see some pushback from the White House saying that there was no timeline around this.  But is there any other — is there any clarity you can offer on what the reporting was?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we’ve been very clear.  The president has been very clear.  He wants to make sure that — and it is vital that U.S. Steel is to remain an American steel company and — that is domestically owned and, obviously, operated. 

The president told our steelworkers, as — he has their backs, and he meant that.  You remember when he was — on Labor Day, he was in Pennsylvania and said that.  The vice president said that as well — or made that very clear in her remarks as well.

And — and so, we have not received any recommendations from CFIUS.  There’s a process.  CFIUS has to make a recommendation, has to be transmitted to the president.  The president then makes a decision.  That has not occurred.  That has not happened.  CFIUS is independent, and they’re going to make those decision. 

I believe, last week, the White House provided a statement that we have not received any recommendations.  So, that continues to be the case.  And so, don’t have any- — anything.

And I — and I — and so, I just don’t have anything to share if this is imminent on — on a decision.  They are — they are independent. 

Q    Would the White House recommend that CFIUS expedite the review process?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s their process.

Q    I mean, CFIUS — CFIUS has been looking at the deal for a while now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  For some time, I know.

Q    Yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And it’s — it’s their process.  They are independent.  And the process is they make the decision, their recommendation; it’s transmitted to us; and the president, obviously, makes a decision. 

But that has not occurred, and they ha- — we have to allow them to have the space to make that decision.

Q    So, you’re saying that the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To — the process to play through. 

Q    So — so, you’re saying the proc- — saying that this — the decision, it could land only after the election?  Is that accurate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — or not?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying to you — how the process works.  We have not received any recommendations yet from CFIUS; therefore, it could not be im- — imminent if we have not received any recommendations.  That’s all I’m saying. 

Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Hey.  Thanks, Karine.  Former President Trump this afternoon said, if elected, he would do, quote, “large deportations from Springfield, Ohio,” and would send them to Venezuela.  These Haitian migrants are in Ohio legally and, of course, aren’t from Venezuela.  Does the White House have a reaction to this pledge of the former president?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — obv- — obviously, he was speaking as a candidate, and that is the upcoming elections. 

But I will say more broadly, if Republicans were serious about fixing what is happening at the border — the border challenges, which majority of Americans care about — if they were serious about it and they truly cared about this issue, they truly cared about fixing an immigration system that has been broken for decades, they would get back to the table — or they don’t even have to.  There’s a deal.  There is a border deal — a bipartisan border deal.  They can vote on it.  And we would have the toughest, fairest deal that we’ve seen in some time coming out of Congress that would become law because the president would sign it, because he was — his team was part of, certainly, deliberating on that deal. 

If they were very serious about it, they would move that deal forward and help — help us make it into law.  And it would deal with issues that cities like Springfield, Ohio, are dealing with right now. 

Q    But doesn’t the — I mean, the White House opposes any mass deportation of Haitian migrants from Springfield, right?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean —

Q    That’s what I was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Is that the question?

Q    My question is that, yeah.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  The ques- —

Q    I mean, that’s what he —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously.  Obviously, yes. 

But also, if they really wanted to deal with — I mean, I think the — the real, I think, core of the question is: Okay, there’s legislation out there.  There’s a policy.  There’s a bipartisan legislation that would deal with issues that they have concerns about at the border and actually deal with an immigration system. 

Obviously, we do not — we do not support mass deportation of a community that is not — is not part of a country that they came from.  That doesn’t make any sense.  That is not something that we would support.

But there’s a deal out there.  There’s a deal — a bipartisan deal.  They keep getting in the way.  They’re voting against their own deal.  That doesn’t make any sense.  Where’s sense — where’s the sense in that?  Where’s the sense in that?

Go ahead.

Q    The president spoke about the issue affecting Springfield today.  Why today?  And — and he did reference the former president directly.  Is his message intended for Donald Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think the — what the president said speaks for itself.  I think he was very clear.  He saw it as an opportunity.  He had 1,200 people celebrating Black excellence, and he saw it as an opportunity. 

We keep hearing from the Republicans who keep lifting this up, even though it’s been debunked — this hateful smear.  It’s been debunked by the Springfield mayor.  It’s been debunked by the city manager.  It’s been debunked by the Ohio department — police department.  And we hear Republicans — national Republicans continue to spread that hateful conspiracy theory. 

And so, the president took an opportunity to address it head on.  I think his words and what he said very powerfully — -fully landed very well, and people got the message.

Q    And in the meeting with the prime minister today, do you — how much do you think their — what will the approach be concerning threats that Putin has made about expanding his concerns to the west if weapons are made available for Ukraine to go deeper into Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  His comments about NATO and the U.S. more specifically — look, that kind of rhetoric certainly is dangerous and — but it’s not new.  It’s not new for Russia.  Matter of fact, it has been the mainstay of Russian propaganda throughout this war that they’ve had.  This is their war that they’ve had in Ukraine.  This is their aggression.  This is what they have done.  This is what Mr. Putin has done, to be more specific.  And it — and that’s how it started. 

And this war can end.  This war — the war that we’re seeing in Ura- — in Ukraine, the aggression from Russia, can — can er- — can end today — can end today.  Russia can move their troops out of Ukraine, and it can end. 

So, that type — again, that type of rhetoric is incredibly dangerous, but it’s not new.  It’s certainly not new.

Q    Should we expect any announcement about the president’s support for munitions being used inside Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t expect any big announcement today.  Look, the president certainly is looking forward to meeting with the prime minister.  It is — he believes it’s an important conversation that they’re going to have and a varied conversation, a wide range of conversation about Indo-Pacific; Ukraine, obviously; the Middle East.  And so, I would just leave it for there — there.  And our policy certainly hasn’t changed.

Go ahead, Jacqui.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  What is the holdup on a decision allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles inside Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to go — I — I got this question yesterday.  I’m not going to deliberate here.  I’m not going to get into specifics from here.

I — as I said to Kelly O, I would not expect there to be any announcements on this coming out of this meeting.  That’s not something that I would expect.  There’s been no policy change.  But I — what I can continue to make sure that you all know and you see it for yourself is that the president is committed to make sure that Ukraine has what its needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression, to defend — to defend and fight for their democracy. 

Q    One —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get in- — I’m not going to deliberate from here.

Q    One of the bigger criticisms of this administration has been that on everything that’s ultimately given to Ukraine, the answer was first a no — on ATACMS, on HIMARS, on Patriots, on fighter jets — and that if this had just been given to them on day one, maybe there wouldn’t be the funding fatigue that Congress now has to grapple with the next time they need help, and that the aid that you guys promote has been slow-walked in the form of a decision to use it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Let me just — let’s step back for a second.  This president — what this president has been able to do in the past two years — really, in his whole — his entire administration — is fix the reputation of this country that was — that was tainted by the last president.  We have to remember how we started, where we started, and what this president has been able to do. 

People thought NATO was going to be weaker.  The president made NATO stronger.  We have two more — two more countries that are now members of NATO.  That’s because of this president’s — this president’s leadership. 

We have 50-plus countries who are now backing Ukraine and continue to do so because of this president’s leadership.  Ukraine is fighting for their sovereignty; they’re fighting for their freedom and against Mr. Putin, who decided that he wanted to invade.  The president has been very clear how important it is — how important it is — is to stand with Ukraine in this time.

We’re talking about democracy.  We’re talking about freedom.  And if anything, this president’s actions and what he’s been able to do has shown just that, because it’s not just about, you know, Ukraine and NATO and Europe; it’s also about our national security as well.  It’s all connected.  And the president is always going to do what is important for the — for the American people.  And I think that is what you’ve seen, and that is what the president is going to focus on and continue to do. 

Q    I just remember sitting here, you know, a couple of years ago, splitting hairs with Jen Psaki over whether drones are offensive or defensive weapons.  I mean, this has been a struggle of this administration that has been a topic of criticism. 

And now, you know — for instance, this week, in the debate, the vice president was promoting what this administration has done in terms of giving Ukraine what it needs, but the — there’s plenty of criticism outside of that to say that it’s also effectively blocking a victory by slow-walking these decisions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think if you were to ask those 50 nations, if you were to ask NATO leaders, if you were to ask President Zelenskyy itself — himself their thoughts on the president’s leadership, I don’t think they would have the words that you just said to me.  I think they would say that the president has been a leader during this time and has had their backs.  And I think that’s what the president has shown.

As it relates to what Ukraine needs to continue to defend themselves, we are in regular touch.  My colleagues here at NSC, at State, at Department of Defense are in regular touch with the Ukrainians on their needs and what they — what they need to continue to fight against this aggression.  So, I’ll leave it there. 

Go ahead.

Q    Can I just circle back to the U.S. Steel thing that Nandita raised?  Putting aside the timing piece of it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a lot of the question right now is essentially whether the president is reconsidering his position or not –right? — separate from the timing of what his decision will be.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    He said in the past that U.S. Steel should be U.S.-run and U.S.-owned. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, and I said it at the top —

Q    Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — earlier —

Q    Right.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — moments ago.

Q    And, quote, “guaranteed.”  So, I guess, my — the core question is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And he said he has their backs.  He said that on — on Labor Day.

Q    But does he still plan on killing this deal?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — we have to see the recommendation from CFIUS.  That is the process.  The president is waiting to see what CFIUS recommends.  That hasn’t happened.  There is a process.  They’re going through their process.  I know that it has been some time, but they’re independent.  They’re going to go as slow as — as fast as they choose. 

And so, we’re going to let that process happen.  We are — the president is not going to say any more than what he has said until CFIUS transmits their recommendation, and it hasn’t happened yet.  And so, not going to get ahead of that. 

And what I will say — and this is — I know you didn’t ask me about the timeline, but we put a statement last week saying that it happened — it hasn’t happened yet; so, therefore, it cannot be imminent. 

Q    Well, we’ve reported that the existing CFIUS ta- — timeline is September 23rd.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    So, that’s not too far away from now. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, and I — I’m just not going to — I’m not going to get into it from here about a timeline, their deadline.  We’re — I’m just saying to you: We have not received their recommendation.  And so —

Q    Does —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Joe Biden’s previous statements on this U.S. Steel remaining domestically owned and run guaranteed still stand?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Still stand.  I literally mentioned it in a question that I received from one of your colleagues, and I said his position continues.  It is vital.  It is vital for U.S. Steel to remain American steel company that is domestically and — and certainly owned and operated.  That stands. 

He said that on Labor Day, which was not too long ago, when he was in Pennsylvania.  He said to the steelworkers, he has that — their back, and that stands. 

As far as — as far as CFIUS, they have — they haven’t made their recommendation.  It has not transmitted over yet, so the president — I can’t say anything until that happens.

Q    And very quickly with respect to the meeting this afternoon.  We’ve reported that the Europe — or European countries believe that Iran has begun providing ballistic missiles to Russia to be used in attacks on Ukraine.  Can you speak to whether the U.S. also believes that those shipments have begun, or is it unclear?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I would refer you to NSC.  I believe they did a — a gaggle earlier today.  So, I refer you to their — those comments. 

Q    All right.  Thank you. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Thank you. 

Go ahead.

Q    I just want to go back to the long-range missile.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    Just one more.  It’s just that, I mean, considering the tone of the Russian president, the fact that you would take this as a direct participation of NATO members, and considering Article 5 of NATO charter, how — what type of — of conversation has the president had with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — his colleagues — Canadian prime minister, for instance, one of them —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — just to — to have everybody ready for a potential attack on a NATO country?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m — I’m not going to get ahead of any conversations.  What I can say, our — certainly, our policy has not changed.  I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals here.  I just am not going to go into “What if this happens, then what?”  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. 

What I can say: This is incredibly dangerous type of rhetoric that we’re hearing from — from Russia.  Not unusual.  This is the — this is the type of propaganda that we’ve heard from Russia throughout this war.  But — and when asked, we’re going to be very clear about that. 

And then, when also asked, we’re going to also be very clear that this war can end.  Mr. Putin can end his aggression that we have seen in Ukraine.  It is his war that he started.  He can end it, pull the troops out — pull his troops out.  He could end it. 

Yeah.

Q    No new conversations with leaders — NATO leaders —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any —

Q    — on —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t —

Q    — the gravity of the comments? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any new conversations to — to share.  As I’ve said, this is not new for Russia.  We have seen this throughout the war, making this type of dangerous comments, dangerous rhetoric.  Not new.  And there is a way to fix this.  This is for Russia to end its war. 

Q    A personal question, actually, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. 

Q    Because I was listening to you this morning — well, at noon — and you refer to yourself as a proud Haitian American. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  That’s not — that’s not new.

Q    That’s not new, no.  But do you — do you take this personally when a com- — the community is a target of attack, as it is at the moment in Spr- — Springfield?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I take it personally when any community, any vulnerable community, is attacked — not just — not just a community that I belong to, and proudly belong to, but any community — any vulnerable community that is attacked wrongfully so in a hateful way. 

I — one of the things that I’m proud about in being part of this administration is that we condemn that type of stuff.  We condemn that type of hateful language.  That’s what I’m — that’s what I’m going to continue to do, and I get to do that on behalf of President Biden, who also condemns that type of hateful rhetoric, as you have heard him today and many times before when a vulnerable community is attacked. 

That’s not what national leaders should be.  Political leaders should not be attacking vulnerable communities.  That’s not who we should be.  And if they’re going to fall for conspiracy theories online, maybe they shouldn’t be our leaders.  Maybe they shouldn’t be.

But it is on all of us.  It doesn’t matter if you’re a Haitian American.  It doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish American.  It doesn’t matter if you’re M- — it doesn’t — Muslim American.  All of us should come together.  When we hear that type of hateful rhetoric, we should come together and have each other’s backs and call it out, because it’s not okay.  It is dangerous.  It is dangerous.  It puts people’s lives at risk,

and this president is going to continue to stand up and speak against it.

Q    Are there any invulnerable communities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Patsy.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  One last try on the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — it’s not funny.  I — I know you want to make —

Q    I’m just asking a question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — e- —

Q    You’re talking about “vulnerable communities.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait — wait a minute.  Hold on.

Q    You’re making a distinction.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.  Wait.  Hold on.

It’s not funny.

Q    I didn’t make a joke.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait — no, y- — it is not —

Q    I asked a question.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait.  I’m answering.  Let me answer.  If you stop —

Q    Are there any invulnerable communities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Not everybody wants to hear the sound of your voice, sir.  Give me a second, and I will tell you my answer. 

It’s not funny. 

Patsy.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Following up on — one last try on the long-range —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, sure.

Q    — weapons.  Can you just give us a sense of what might be the president’s biggest concern at this point?  Is it the risk of escalation with a nuclear power?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals here.  We’re going to call it out.  W- — oh, you mean, like, with — with —

Q    With Russia.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — with Russia making the comments about NATO and U.S.?

Q    I mean, we’ve been trying to get you to give us more details on what’s the holdup on providing long-range missiles —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, I see.

Q    — missiles to Ukraine. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I see.  I — I don’t have anything else to share.  Our policy has not changed.  We are going to be in regular touch with the Ukrainian people as they continue to fight this — a fight against this aggression from Russia.  No change in policy.  I just don’t have anything to add. 

The president has been a leader when it comes to giving Ukraine the support that they need.  Fifty-plus countries, that is important to note.  Making NATO stronger, that is important to note.  And that is because of this president’s leadership.

I just don’t have anything else to share behind that. 

Q    And can we stay on Russia, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    The — the State Department just announced new sanctions on Russian state media RT laying out its disinformation campaign operations to destabilize various governments, including the government in Argentina; creating tensions between neighboring countries.  Does the administration have a specific strategy to try to stop RT’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere or other places in the world?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to let, certainly, the State Department and the Department of Justice speak to their announcement.  You heard from the State Department today.  You heard from the Department of Justice last week.  We are taking this very seriously.  They are taking it very seriously.  I’m not going to get into what’s next.  Certainly, they will make announcements on their own if they feel that there’s more to share. 

Q    Can I just indulge with a response that RT has given out on social media saying RT “lives rent free in the State Department’s head.”  “We’re running out of popcorn, but we’ll be here live, laughing hard.”  I mean, kind of mocking the administration’s steps on sanctioning them at this point.  Do you have a response?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, let’s not forget, last week, the Department of Justice — and I just mentioned the Tr- — the Treasur- — the Treasury and State — they took some actions to disrupt Russia’s covert information operations to undermine our democratic institution in the homeland.  We do not laugh at that.  That is very serious, and we take that very seriously. 

And State’s announcement today make it clear that the U.S. — and want to be clear — is not only targeting RT’s covert operations.  We learned that, in fact — in fact, RT covert influence efforts extended to places like Europe and Africa.  That’s what we learned. 

Anything more than that, I would have to refer you to the State Department and the Treasury to speak to that, as they made that announcement t- — today.  Just don’t have anything else, but we take this very seriously.

AIDE:  Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Trinity?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — I told — I was told you were going to be in the briefing room today.  Howard University?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi.  Nice to see you. 

Q    Nice to see you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Want to say a little bit about yourself?

Q    Yeah.  Hi, everyone.  I’m Trinity Webster-Bass.  I’m a senior honors broadcast journalism major, Afro-American studies minor attending Howard University.  And I had the pleasure of meeting Karine at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, from which I won a scholarship.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Congratulations again.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you. 

I just wanted to go back to the event held today on the South Lawn.  Why was it important for the Biden administration to hold this event today?  And are future events coming of the same nature?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I — I want to start off by quoting what the president said — and I think it’s important

today — when he was addressing the crowd on the South Lawn: “We recognize that this nation would not exist without the blood, sweat, and tears, without the determination, dreams, and contributions of Black Americans.”  And he felt that it was fitting to do this on the same week of the Congressional Black Caucus week.  It was a really special event.  I think you felt that out there if you participated. 

And so, he wanted to host this brunch for a couple of reasons: to show his personal gratitude to the community and celebrate their progress — the progress we’ve made under the Biden-Harris administration — you heard him talk about that in his remarks — and — and wanted to make sure that we didn’t forget, that we continue to speak to why Afri- — Black Americans and African American history is really part of American history.  And that is something that we cannot forget.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to take one last one.  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Big political news earlier this week when Taylor Swift endorsed the vice president.  (Laughter.)  I’m not going to ask you about the endorsement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)

Q    — because you’re not going to answer that.  But the voting registration site that she drove people to from her post, in that first 24 hours, there were more than 400,000 visitors from that link. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Is the president aware of that traffic and — and the interest in the registration?  And does he think that that kind of influence can make a difference in driving turnout, getting people to get more engaged in elections?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s important for people to exercise their sacred right to vote.  And that is something that the pers- — the president finds it incredibly important to continue to do and to protect that right to vote. 

I do want to say — as it relates to Taylor Swift, what I can say is there are a lot of Swifties here in the White House.  And so, I can say that.  I hear that a lot.  (Laughs.)

But, look, one of the things that he did is, very early on in his administration, he signed an executive order to do everything that we can from the feder- — federal level to make it easier for Americans to vote.  And so, that is what you saw. 

The link that you mentioned, obviously, is a way to make it easier for Americans to register, certainly, to vote. 

It is a sacred right.  Many people have fought for that right to vote, and it is certainly our — part of our democracy.  And so, it’s incredibly important. 

I have not spoken to the president beyond — beyond an en- — the endorsement that occurred.  I have not asked him about — specific about the — the link and — and the amount of people have — who have gone on it to — to register.  I think that’s great. 

It’s important — outside of this election, I think it’s important for people to be able to register and vote.  That’s why this administration has done everything that we can to give people that opportunity and protect that right.

All right.  Thanks, everybody. 

(Cross-talk.)

Thanks, everyone. 

3:37 P.M. EDT 

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, September 13, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

11:39 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone, for joining the gaggle and for your patience and flexibility with us as we work through today’s glitch.

Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can. 

MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  As you know, later today, the President is going to be hosting Prime Minister Starmer here at the White House for a discussion about a range of foreign policy issues, which will no doubt include Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, events in the Middle East, a series of challenges across the Indo-Pacific, our deepening economic ties with the United Kingdom, and other areas of shared interest between our two countries. 

The second bilateral conversation between President Biden and the Prime Minister.  I think you all remember they had a chance to speak during the NATO Summit back in July.  And the President, of course, looks forward to continuing to strengthen our close ties to this very important ally and partner. 

We will, of course, provide a readout at the end of the meeting, which you’ll get as soon as we can get cleared for you.

And with that, we can take some questions.

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

Q    Hi.  Thanks for doing this.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yes, we can.  Yep.

Q    Excellent.  So, there’s been a lot of reporting that the coalition, the Western coalition, is going to lift a ban on Ukraine using long-range weapons in Ukraine [sic].  I’m wondering if you can give us a little bit of context of why this is now being seriously considered.

MR. KIRBY:  I would not expect there to be any announcements on this coming out of the meeting today.  There’s been no change to our policy, Lara, with respect to the long-range strike capability inside Russia, and I’d leave it at that.

(Technical difficulties.)

Q    Hello?  Hello?

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

(Technical difficulties.)

Hey, everyone.  Sorry about that, but we’re back. 

Josh, we no longer see you.  Apologies.  But if you hop back on, we’ll try to get back to you. 

So our next question will go to Danny with AFP.

Q    Hi there.  Sorry, there were some audio difficulties there.  I didn’t really hear the answer to the first question, but my question was basically the same.  You know, what do you really expect to come out of this?  Are you looking at — will the President be looking at approving just the use of British and French missiles with U.S. technology or navigational aid?  Or is there a decision possible for the use of U.S. missiles in the future?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was — look, I can’t speak for the British or the French one way or another.  What I said was I wouldn’t be looking for an announcement today about long-range strike capabilities inside Russia, certainly anything — certainly by the United States. 

(Background noise.)

I can’t — somebody — okay.

So, there’s no change to our policy with respect to that.  And again, I wouldn’t expect to see a change to that policy today.

MODERATOR:  Danny, we muted you just so you know, but can you confirm to us if you were able to hear the topper?

Okay, we can’t hear you, so going to Josh, who we missed in the beginning.

Josh, you should be able to unmute yourself.  And also, can you confirm that you were able to hear the topper?

Q    I could hear the topper, but at some point during the first question, we couldn’t hear. 

Thanks again so much for doing this.  On the pictures of the North Korean uranium facility, how long has the federal government known about that facility?  And how worried are you about it?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not really able to get into an intelligence analysis one way or the other here.  I would simply say that we continue to monitor North Korean progression in their — both in their nuclear ambitions as well as their ballistic missile technology and program.  And that is exactly why — or one of the reasons why President Biden has worked so hard to revitalize our network of alliances and partnerships in the region. 

It is also why he has devoted more, in particular, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets, prioritizing those for the area around — on and around the Korean Peninsula. 

And it is why we continue, in a diplomatic sense, to make clear to Pyongyang that we are willing to sit down without preconditions and talk about the denuclearization of the Peninsula.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with the New York Times.

Q    Hey, guys.  Thank you for doing this, as always.  John, I wonder if I could push you a little bit on the issue of the long-range strike capabilities with, kind of, two questions.

One, while you don’t — while I’m not asking you to speak for the French or the British, they have clearly indicated their increased willingness to allow that to happen.  And I wonder if, from the U.S.’s perspective, the U.S. needs to give, either because of legal or political reasons, their blessing for that, or is that something that they can proceed with on their own, without the U.S.? 

And then secondly, back earlier this week, when the President was asked a couple of questions as he got on Marine One, he was asked, you know, will you lift restrictions on the use of long-range weapons by Ukraine, and his answer was, “We’re working that out right now,” which definitely suggests at least a shift in the discussions.  And I wonder if you could talk about what the — you know, kind of what the, you know, place — where those discussions are now, and if, in your view, they are closer to some sort of resolution than they have been.

MR. KIRBY:  We are in constant contact with our allies and partners, and particularly the Brits and the French, as you indicate, about all manner of ways in which we can continue to support Ukraine.  Of course, these are sovereign countries, and they have to decide what that support looks like in ways that they find amenable to them and to their population, and we respect that. 

But there are constant conversations between us about what they’re doing, what we’re doing, what together we’re willing to do to support Ukraine.  And I have no doubt that today’s discussion will include exactly that — about, you know, supporting Ukraine. 

And I — all I can do to answer your second question is to go back to how I answered it before: There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside Russia, and I wouldn’t expect any sort of major announcement in that regard coming out of the discussions, certainly not from our side.  I also leave it to the Prime Minister to decide what he wants to talk about. 

But there’s just no change to our policy right now with respect to that capability, for all the reasons that we said we weren’t in support of it before.

Q    And just one last thing, John.  On the first question, some people have suggested to me that there are perhaps, in the British and French missiles, that there are American components or that the missiles use American capabilities.  So, from a legal perspective, do they need the U.S.’s permission to allow those to be used, given the current — where the U.S. currently stands?  Or can they make that decision without the U.S.’s permission?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just say that we continue to talk with both those countries and other allied countries about the kinds of capabilities that are being provided to Ukraine.  And I’m going to leave it at that.

Q    Okay, thank you. 

MR. KIRBY:  Yep.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Felicia with the Financial Times.

Q    Thanks, John.  Two questions.  One, should we expect you to at any point say publicly whether you would change — or that you’ve changed the policy?  Because I know there are other moments where you’ve changed the policy first and then acknowledged it later.  You said no major announcements today, but would you announce it at some point if you do make a change? That’s one.

And then, separate — secondly, do you consider it to be a separate discussion, granting permission to the Brits and the French to use SCALP and Storm Shadow, as opposed to the U.S. granting permission on ATACMS?  Or is it all one decision?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to get into a hypothetical one way or another about what we will or won’t say at any given moment.  We haven’t — I just don’t think it’s helpful to get into hypotheticals about that. 

On your second question, I go back to what I said to Michael.  We have and will continue to have meaningful conversations with our allies — in the context of the Ramstein group and, in cases like today, bilaterally — about what we’re all doing to support Ukraine, about what can be done, what should be done, the pros and the cons.  And that will be a part of today’s discussion.

Because we have never — not since the beginning of this war have we ever looked at the support to Ukraine as some sort of unilateral effort or in the sense that what we’re doing, what the United States is doing — and, yes, we’re leading the world in supporting Ukraine — is somehow divorced from the efforts that other countries are doing.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s quite the opposite.  I mean, in many cases, there’s capabilities that exist in other countries that either we don’t have our ability to get our hands on or they simply can — some of the things are just more valuable to the Ukrainians at any given moment. 

And our allies and our partners sometimes have complementary capabilities, such as anti-tank missile systems.  The Brits have an excellent anti-tank missile that has proven very, very effective on the battlefield. 

So, it’s all part of an integrated discussion that we have had since the beginning of this war, and that will continue.  It will continue today in the context of a bilateral discussion with the British.

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

Q    Hey, can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  We can, yep.

Q    Thanks.  So, Putin publicly said that Western weapons striking deeper into Russia would, quote, “change the very essence of the conflict.”  So my question is — and I realize there’s no announcement today, so no need to repeat that — but is this prospect of long-range strike weapons, in your view, the red line that Russia has said — that you actually believe constitutes a red line in Russia’s eyes? 

Do you take Putin at his words that strikes into Russian territory by U.S.- or British- or French-made missiles would actually expand the war?

MR. KIRBY:  It’s hard to take anything coming out of Putin’s face at his word.  But this is not rhetoric that we haven’t heard from him before, so there’s really not a lot new there.

Q    So, in other words, you know, in the deliberations about this long-range strike, threats from Putin are not a big factor for you guys in your deliberations on this?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, you didn’t let me finish the answer, so let me try —

Q    Okay.

MR. KIRBY:  I never said, nor have I — would we ever say that we don’t take Mr. Putin’s threats seriously.  When he starts brandishing the nuclear sword, for instance, yeah, we take that seriously, and we constantly monitor that kind of activity.  He obviously has proven capable of aggression.  He has obviously proven capable of escalation over the last, now, going on three years. 

So, yeah, we take these comments seriously, but it is not something that we haven’t heard before.  So, we take note of it.  Got it.  We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not.  And I think I’d leave it there.

I would only offer one more thought, and that is: If Mr. Putin is so concerned about the safety and security of Russian sites and cities, the easiest way to alleviate those concerns is to get his troops the hell out of Ukraine and the war.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  There’s reports that U.S. officials are worried about the rhetoric coming from Israeli officials that they might go to war in Lebanon.  Can you tell us more about Mr. Hochstein’s visit to Israel?  And is this in the same light that it could be an escalation between the two countries? 

And I have another question.  I don’t know if you have an answer for it, but there’s some reports indicating that South Africa has actually informed the Biden administration that it will sue them over what they call the support for genocide.  Is this any confirmation that you received this message?  And are you legally protected from anything that’s similar to this in the future, from South Africa or any other country?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll take your question on South Africa, and we’ll get back to you.

On your first question, Amos’s travels are very much a continuation of the diplomacy that he’s been conducting now for many months to try to prevent a second front from opening up in the north there, all part and parcel of this administration and this team’s efforts to prevent an escalation and a widening of this conflict.

Q    That’s it?  Any more details?

MR. KIRBY:  Nope. 

Q    Okay.

MODERATOR:  Sorry, Nadia, cut you off there.  You should be able to unmute yourself again. 

Q    That’s okay.  I accepted his answer, but since there’s no more details, that’s fine.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Great.  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Channel 13 Israel.

Q    Hi, Sam.  Hi, Kirby.  Thank you so much for doing this again.  I was wondering if you have any news about the hostages deal.  I do understand that Hamas sent the response, and that might change and shift a little bit the way the U.S. administration sees the entire situation, and they might have new conversations next week to talk about the deal.  Can you elaborate on that?

MR. KIRBY:  I would argue that we’re still in discussions with Qatar, Egypt, and, of course, the Israelis about trying to find a way through here to get some final text that everybody can agree to.  

I don’t have additional or more formal discussions, such as next week, to speak to.  But I can assure you that we’ve been actively having discussions, obviously remotely, this week, throughout the whole week, to see if we can’t find a way forward.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Fraser with France 24.

Q    Thanks, Sam.  And thank you, Admiral.  British sources tell me that they asked this meeting with the President because they think there’s progress to be made on a host of issues whilst Biden is still in office.  Why did the President think it was important to have these discussions with the UK this late into his tenure?

MR. KIRBY:  There’s always time and space to have meaningful discussions, particularly about key foreign policy issues, with your allies and partners.  This has nothing to do with the amount of time the President is in office and everything to do with a range of issues that are so important to the two of us.  I mentioned a bunch of them at the top.  I won’t repeat the list for you, but there’s an awful lot on the agenda to speak to. 

This is a new British government.  They are a key ally and a partner, and so it just seems to follow logic that the two leaders would want to have another opportunity to have a discussion. 

So, we welcome this chance to have a longer and more substantive discussion with the Prime Minister and his team today, specifically on foreign policy issues.  And it’s a perfect follow-up to the briefer meeting that they had back in July.

Q    Is the President also — does the President also have (inaudible) legacy as well, however, with this meeting?

MR. KIRBY:  President Biden is not worrying right now about his legacy.  He’s worrying about protecting the national security interests of the United States. 

Q    Thank you, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And we have time for one more question.  We’ll go to Celia with Voice of America.

Q    Thank you so much for doing this.  I want to go to Venezuela.  We know that the sanctions were announced.  What is the next step after the sanctions were announced?  The government of Maduro, of course, condemned them.  Is there possibility or is in the works to go back to the Qatar talks?

And how you see the relationship between Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, as well as China, in the middle of this crisis?  Do you believe that Maduro will get closer to them as sanctions get stronger against his government?  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Mr. Maduro has got choices and decisions that only he can make.  We’ve made it very clear to Mr. Maduro that the first decision he needs to make is to release all the election data and the results so that the whole world can see how that election unfolded and how and to what degree the Venezuelan people’s will was actually met here and seriously considered and reflected in those votes. 

We issued sanctions.  We’re not going to take anything else off the table going forward.  Again, there’s — the first decision before Mr. Maduro and, quite frankly, the most important decision right now for him is whether or not he’s going to do the right thing by the Venezuelan people.  He has to make that choice, and if he doesn’t, we’ll have to make some additional choices of our own.

As for who he’s cozying up to and trying to partner with, I mean, he can speak to that.  We’re focused on making sure that the Venezuelan people’s aspirations are met.  We’re making sure that democratic institutions and democracies is upholded to the best that it possibly can be.  And obviously, when it comes to this or any other hemisphere, we’re focused on making sure we can meet our security commitments and preserve our national security interests, and that certainly includes in the Western Hemisphere.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Again, that is all the time we have today.  Thank you all for your patience and getting on the Zoom and then our little glitch here at the beginning.  We’ll be sure to send an Otter around so folks have the earlier audio.

If we weren’t able to get to get to you, as always, reach out to our press distro.  If not, have a great weekend.  Thanks.

12:01 P.M. EDT

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.